SUMMARY: One of the goals of this year’s Democratic National Convention is to unite a divided party. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders was former Vice President Joe Biden’s biggest challenger during the Democratic primaries, and some of his supporters have vowed not to support Biden. Sanders joins Judy Woodruff to discuss working with Biden on policy proposals and progressive representation at the DNC.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest political news, including a week of dramatic shifts in the 2020 Democratic Presidential race, what’s next for the campaigns of Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s disappointing finish and how President Trump is handling the novel coronavirus outbreak.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now, to help make sense of a turning point week in the race for the Democratic nomination, here are Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Judy.
Judy Woodruff: So, the Earth shifted on its axis, or at least the Democratic Party, the Democratic primary did, David. We had South Carolina, we had Super Tuesday, we had four presidential candidates drop out, or maybe more than that.
What happened?
David Brooks, New York Times: Oh, I have never seen anything like it.
It was — in the 48 hours after South Carolina, the polls were moving so fast, some pollsters were saying that polls that were 12 hours old were obsolete. And it was a spontaneous move by millions of people all around the country in different demographics, turning as one, and reaching the same conclusion, that it's got to be Joe Biden.
And why they didn't do that six weeks ago or four weeks ago, I think, first, Super Tuesday forced a decision on a lot of voters all at once. Second, you had an amazing political act of selflessness.
Amy Klobuchar could have won Minnesota, and it would have been a nice feather in her bonnet, and she said, no, that would be selfish. And Pete Buttigieg did the same.
And so you had a party establishment, frankly, doing the right thing. But more important was the rank-and-file voters who just — they looked at reality. And like a community — a community is more than just a bunch of individuals. A community, people have common values. They sense each other's movements.
And I don't — really see the Democratic Party acting like a community, moving all in one moment.
Judy Woodruff: What did it look like to you?
Mark Shields: Boy, that was good, David.
(LAUGHTER)
Mark Shields: African-American voters are the most strategic voters in the Democratic Party. They are not much given to empty gestures. And they want to retire Donald Trump more than any group in the electorate.
And they saw, in Joe Biden, a means of doing that, and the instrument, and they saw in Bernie Sanders an obstacle to that. And they saved the Democratic Party.
Judy Woodruff: In South Carolina, you mean.
Mark Shields: In South Carolina. They redeemed it.
And I don't disagree with the points that David made. They're good. But I think Donald Trump is the key to this. Donald Trump inspired, organized, galvanized Democrats. The idea of beating him became more than just a concern or an interest. It's an overriding passion.
You can see it. Late-deciding voters, as David was talking about, those polls changing, 40 percent of the people in North Carolina who decided late went to Joe Biden. Forty percent decided, they went overwhelmingly to Joe Biden.
Same thing in Virginia, across the board. It was a very practical position. There's a difference between an ideologue and a pragmatist in politics. An ideologue believes what is right works. A pragmatist believe what works is right.
And the Democrats were pragmatists in those elections.
Judy Woodruff: When we were here at this table a week ago at this table, Democratic voters were still struggling, David, with the right thing to do. They were almost paralyzed with indecision. Something changed.
David Brooks: Yes.
I think it was — well, partly, it was South Carolina, that he looked so strong, but, really, I think it was Super Tuesday. I think I had thought the Democrats had made a big mistake by putting all these states so early in the process.
But, as it turned out, they just speeded up people's decision-making. And so the fact that you had 38 percent of the delegates selected by this point meant that they couldn't wait. And they had to make a decision.
And what had been going on earlier for the previous month was, they were floating around. And so you had people — Warren was up for a little while. Buttigieg did well in Iowa. And they were just sort of trying people out. And then they said, OK, make a call.
And so I'm thinking — I mean, the Bernie Sanders people hope that there's another twist in this story. I personally think that's unlikely, in part because we're going into some states where Biden's lead, like Florida, is massive, in part — even in Michigan, where he — Sanders won last time, he's not doing as well this time with working-class voters as he did last time.
And so much Michigan — even Michigan becomes a harder state for him.
Judy Woodruff: I want to get Michigan in just a second.
But, Mark, in the meantime, we have had not just Buttigieg and Klobuchar drop out. Michael Bloomberg, who spent, as we have all said, a half-a-billion dollars in this race, dropped out, and then, as we know, Elizabeth Warren yesterday.
How do you size up those decisions that they made?
Mark Shields: Well, I mean, obviously, it's the toughest decision. It's a tough decision for anybody to run for President, knowing that virtually everybody who runs loses.
But it's an even tougher decision to end a campaign. I mean, that's saying publicly, I have lost. I have been defeated.
Michael Bloomberg made it almost in an analytical fashion, it seemed. There was no road forward. There was no avenue. He had a premise, which was the cratering and collapse of Joe Biden. And that stopped.
And if that had continued, he would have been seemingly an alternative.
The other problem with Bloomberg, quite frankly, was that he didn't match his campaign. His campaign was far more compelling and interesting than he was.
And the second…
Judy Woodruff: You mean his ads. You were saying his ads, right, right.
Mark Shields: His ads — than he was person. He was just a — he was a very uninspiring and uninspired candidate, when you did see him on that stage.
The other mistake he made — and he didn't think it at the time — was on August 5, 2012, when he hosted his Upper East townhouse a fund-raiser for a Republican senator from Massachusetts named Scott Brown.
Scott Brown was being run against by — opposed by Elizabeth Warren. There's an old saying in Massachusetts, don't get mad, get even. She got both. She got mad and she got even. She kneecapped him. He never recovered.
That was — Elizabeth Warren is another case. But go ahead. Let David — but I would be happy to discuss.
Judy Woodruff: Yes.
Mark Shields: I just think she's a mystery to me. I mean, she — I thought she was a phenomenal candidate. I really did. I mean, she had great energy.
Judy Woodruff: And she was leading last October.
Mark Shields: She was leading.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields: She could have — she made a mistake. She was honest. She made a mistake, I think, by endorsing Medicare for all.
But then she was honest about paying for it. And that — if you're Medicare for all, you got to be a purist, and you don't get into — like Bernie doesn't get into how it's paid for. Once she got into the weeds on that, she lost her purity and she also, I think, stumbled.
Judy Woodruff: How do you see Elizabeth Warren?
David Brooks: Well, a few different candidates here.
One, Biden, I want to mention one thing, that he's a legislator, so he's able to build coalitions. And that's what being President is. And with these other candidates, or even with Jim Clyburn, he was going to reach out and say, would you support me?
And Bernie Sanders never made those calls or didn't have the set of relationships that Joe Biden has. So that's important in a President.
On Bloomberg, I started this thinking, you can't buy your way in — votes in a presidential election. There's too much free media. Good ads don't do it. And I think there's a lot of political science evidence to this, that advertising, especially in a high-profile campaign, just doesn't work.
And Biden — I mean, Bloomberg didn't help himself in the debate, but I don't think ads are enough to get you votes.
And then finally, on Warren, I think the demographics are clear. She didn't have a huge gender gap. She had a huge education gap. And the people who support her were college-educated people who saw this very smart person with a lot of plans who taught at Harvard Law School.
And she never — she wasn't — she grew up in Arkansas — or in Oklahoma. And that side of her didn't get out. Genuinely, when you meet her, she does seem like a very smart Harvard law professor. And a lot of people just didn't relate.
Judy Woodruff: So, talking about — just quickly pivoting, Mark, to the challenges now that Biden and Sanders face, Michigan coming up next Tuesday. David just raised it.
What are the challenges that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden have right now?
Mark Shields: Well, Joe Biden's, first of all, is, Judy — and it's a challenge for anybody that is running for President — and that is to sit down and tell the American people in two minutes, without mentioning your opponents' name, without mentioning Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, why I should be President of the United States.
Joe Biden has told us that he's not Donald Trump, and that he's not Bernie Sanders. But I'm not sure that anybody really has an understanding about what a Biden presidency would be, other than not Donald Trump.
And we saw the limits of a 'not Donald Trump' campaign in 2016. So I think that's the first thing. There has to be — whether it's the lift of a driving dream, or two things that he wants to get down in his first four years and how he's doing it, I think that's necessary.
Judy Woodruff: Let me interrupt you.
Has Joe Biden done that?
David Brooks: I agree with Mark. He's got to say to the Trump people, the people who support Trump and the people who support Sanders, do it for a reason. Something's not working for them. But I have got an answer for you.
He's basically got to say that with a set of specific policies.
Judy Woodruff: And Sanders.
Mark Shields: And Bernie's problem, I think, is a constitutional problem, personally. Bernie doesn't look for allies. He doesn't look to enlarge.
He looks — have to pass a litmus test. I mean, it's the Bernie bros. I mean, if you're not 110 percent on board — and I just think that's — he's not a coalition-builder. He's a lone eagle. He's a lone wolf.
That's his strength, and it's also his greatest liability.
Judy Woodruff: That's your point about is not reaching — reaching…
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: Right.
And I do think this race really only turns if Biden really looks frail in a debate, really gets crushed in a debate. I think that's the — if it's going to change, it will be because of that, oh, he's too old for it.
Judy Woodruff: We will see. Again, Michigan coming up next week. Bernie won that pretty big last time, 2016.
We will see.
Mark Shields: Bernie's doing less well in every state this year than he did four years ago.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest political news, including how the Las Vegas debate changed the 2020 Democratic race, new reports of Russian election interference and President Trump’s response to them, the sentencing of Trump ally Roger Stone and the outcry over Trump’s flurry of pardons and commutations.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Judy Woodruff: Well, speaking of Bernie Sanders and the Russians, today, David, late today, we learned that — first a news report and then Sanders confirmed it — that his campaign has been — he's been briefed by intelligence officials about the Russians trying to help his campaign.
So, now we know it's not just President Trump. It's one of the Democrats.
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
It happens to be a fact that the two campaigns the Russian are trying to help are the two campaigns that are — might end up with the nominations.
I remain a little skeptical of how effective the Russians are at getting people to — persuading people to change their mind on a certain candidate. There is no magic formula for that. We try here every week, and it doesn't work.
(LAUGHTER)
And so — and so I'm not sure the Russians are really effectively changing a lot of votes.
I really wish the intelligence agencies would tell us explicitly what they're doing. Like, they say they're undermining institutions, undermining trust, spreading conspiracy theories.
I'd love to be able to know, as a consumer of social media and all the rest, what do I look out for? What do I do? How can I tell? I think they haven't — they have been too vague about what actually is happening and what countermeasures we, as individuals, can take.
Judy Woodruff: Yes, they talk about taking disinformation and repeating it and repeating it through social media.
So that's one of the things.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: One of the things we could do as a people is just pass what the House has passed, which is simply that any campaign that is approached by a foreign power, foreign source to help it, to be involved in any way, has to report it. There's a responsibility.
That's died in the Republican Senate. That's been killed by Mitch McConnell.
But, no, I really — I really think that, Judy, it's unthinkable, if you really just take the sense of, the President of the United States is told that a foreign country is interfering and trying to change the most — the sacrament of democracy, which is our public voting, the secret ballot, and they are trying to tamper with it and tamper with the results.
And what is his reaction? Fury at the foreign power? Anger? Let's get them?
No. Who divulged this? An admiral, a decorated admiral, who took this, as a public servant, and an honored his constitutional and statutory responsibility to inform the Congress of the United States.
I mean, that's just unthinkable, what's going on.
Judy Woodruff: You're contrasting the President's reaction to this to Bernie Sanders, who announced today and rejected…
Mark Shields: Yes.
Bernie Sanders, to his credit, I mean, having honeymooned in Moscow in 1988…
(LAUGHTER)
I mean, you got to explain that someday, Bernie — the trip to Nicaragua in '85.
But, I mean, he's — he came and said, no way. I mean, you stay out, Putin. And if I'm President, I will make absolutely sure. I don't want your help and you shouldn't be involved or whatever.
That was a strong statement, the kind you would expect from any political leader in this country of either party, and that the President United States refuses to give.
David Brooks: Yes, and then appoint somebody as head of the — or acting head of the national intelligence — or intelligence service, someone with no experience, who is politicizing that relationship even more.
So…
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: Well, the other thing — many things to ask you about, but one thing I do want to touch on is, this was the week the President's longtime friend Roger Stone was sentenced to prison by a federal judge here in Washington, more than three years.
Remains to be seen whether the President's going to pardon his sentence. But what the President did do this week was pardon or commute the sentences of 11 individuals who seem to all have some connection, David, with the Trump White House.
What do we make of this? I mean, this is — the President's within his power, his rights to do this, but what do you make of it?
David Brooks: Yes.
I mean, the naked politicization of this is — again is the — Trump is, as some have predicted, really is unleashed by impeachment. His behavior has really shifted in the last month in all sorts of ways, much more attack on the institutions of our society.
I happen to — the only person I know — and I don't know him at all well — is Michael Milken among those who've been pardoned. And I thought the pardon was legitimate in that case. This is a guy who had his Wall Street problems in the '80s, prosecuted by Rudy Giuliani.
But as far as I can see, the Milken Institute is out in California. He's really dedicated last 20 or 30 years to serving the public, running a think tank, trying to spread ideas.
And so in the case of somebody like that, who really spends decades in public service after whatever he did years ago, a pardon doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.
Judy Woodruff: How do you see this?
Mark Shields: Well, I think we owe a certain tribute to Joni Ernst and to Rob Portman and Susan Collins, who told us that the President would be chastened and changed by that simmering experience of going through the impeachment.
He is. He's unbridled. He's unfettered. He has only around him enablers now. There is nobody to hold him back. There's no Kelly or Mattis or anybody else there to say, no, Mr. President, argue another point of view.
And what they have in common, I guess, white-collar crime, fraud, tax deception, and ability to give money to Republican causes. I mean, it's — there is almost a self-identification with many of these cases, because the President has not gone uncharged on some of these actions or similar actions.
And so it's — I really think that it's not a question of — I don't know Michael Milken. But he certainly did change American finance while he was there.
Judy Woodruff: The junk — they called him the junk bond king.
David Brooks: It should be said, I mean, just to get back to Roger Stone, we're all made in the image of God, but it's hard to think of somebody whose public career has shown fewer redeeming qualities.
And the President has surrounded himself with reasonably shady characters. And Roger Stone is almost apically shady.
Judy Woodruff: And this is the third individual who was considered close to the President who — sent off to prison, at a time when — there's a lot of focus on what the President can do.
Again, he has the power to commute sentences, to pardon people. And we remember, at the end of the Bill Clinton administration, there was a flurry of pardons.
(CROSSTALK)
Mark Shields: Usually, it's on the way out, Judy.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields: There's just one thing about the Democrats that I just want to — that kind of fits in here.
And that is, the Democrats, I think, after that debate, are in danger of fragmenting and fracturing themselves. And I think there's a page in American history, the Revolutionary War. The revolutionists sought the active alliance with Charles XVI of — the king of France — Louis XVI and Charles III in Spain, monarchies, to help them.
I mean, but one — they had a single objective, and that was to defeat the king of England, to get independence.
Judy Woodruff: The monarch.
Mark Shields: The monarch.
The Democrats better say — they better come together in a hell of a hurry, because their sole purpose in 2020 is to defeat the monarch, to defeat Donald Trump.
And I just — I think the danger of fracturing is severe.
Judy Woodruff: We hear you.
Mark Shields: OK.
Judy Woodruff: Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you.
Mark Shields: Thank you.
SUMMARY: Multiple news outlets report that U.S. intelligence officials told House lawmakers recently that Russia is actively trying to help President Trump be reelected. In response, Trump has lashed out at Democrats, saying they are starting a “rumor” about Russian election interference. Yamiche Alcindor talks to Laura Rosenberger of the Alliance for Securing Democracy about what’s at stake.
HUDSON, New Hampshire—At the loading dock behind a supermarket, around the corner from a martial arts studio, Bernie Sanders stood to address his latest throng of supporters.
It was Monday, the day before the New Hampshire primary, and this was already the senator’s third event. An overcast sky gave off the hint of a coming snow, but the pavement below was all brown sludge and puddles.
Dressed in a heavy winter coat and blue slacks, the senator stood in front of a campaign sign. His famous white hair seemed to blend in, ever so slightly, with the light beige painted brick walls that made up the back of the shopping center lot where this campaign office stood. There were no bells or whistles beyond that. Sanders was underneath a canopy so rusted that parts of it looked like they would soon fall. Behind his crowd was a tree line. Behind that tree line was the St. Patrick Cemetery.
No one said that campaigns were glamorous. But this particular spot truly drove that home.
His supporters didn’t mind any of that, of course. Nor did they seem to notice that they were standing in a mix of snow and water. Sanders was there to greet the crew that had been helping him get out the vote. His presence was their reward.
The event had all the feel of a labor rally—the union leader calling his members to action in the shadow of their workplace. “The fundamental problem in this country,” declared the senator, “is the power of the billionaire class.” And more than a few of those in attendance would later refer to the senator as a “man of the people.”
But Sanders isn’t a man of the people in the literal sense. Among those running for the Democratic nomination, he has among the least interaction with the public—eschewing the photo lines and voter interactions that mark his competitors’ rallies.
Rather, the senator is a blunt political force. And he has put together a campaign operation unmatched in its reach—one that can compel hundreds of volunteers to stand in snow puddles across from a cemetery; and one that seems likely to catapult him to a win on Tuesday, and, from there, to the Democratic nomination.
Consider just the data. There are more than 150 Sanders campaign staffers in New Hampshire along with 17 state offices. On Saturday alone, the campaign had about 1,000 out-of-state volunteers helping with get-out-the-vote operations on top of the 14,000 regular, active volunteers in the state. The number of households that the campaign visited just that day was 150,000. The state only has about 640,000 household units, according to Census data.
The apparatus that Sanders and his team have built in New Hampshire is hard to miss, if for no other reason than they don’t want you to miss it. His canvassers are visible in their Bernie Blues and his yard signs dot even the most remote of roads. At the state Democratic Party dinner on Saturday night, they drowned out almost every other section. They were also the only ones to viciously boo another candidate (in this case, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, with taunts of “Wall Street Pete”).
And yet, Sanders’ supporters shudder to think of him as an actual politician. In interviews on Monday, several scoffed at the word, calling it pejorative and dismissive of the work he is doing.
“That word to me has a negative connotation,” said Kathleen Flury, who had traveled from out of state to hear Sanders at Franklin Pierce University on Monday morning. “Trump is a politician. Bernie is a movement.”
The reality, of course, is that Sanders’ life has been all about politics. He has served in elected office for decades, first as a mayor, then as a congressman, and finally as a senator. But even as he ascended the ranks, few saw him actually ending up at the doorstep of winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, not least because he doesn’t even identify as a Democrat. When the senator launched his first presidential run in 2016, it was in a makeshift press conference right outside the United States Senate.
That bid was heavy on inspiration and motivation. And the current one has those, too. But there is a more business-like feel this go-around. The crowds in New Hampshire all know Sanders' stump speech by heart (perhaps because he never deviates from it) so much that they eagerly complete his favorite lines.
“How much did Amazon pay in federal income taxes last year?”
“ZEEEEEROOOO!!!”
And the subtext of the last presidential run—mainly, that he was doing it not to win but to reset the contours of the political conservation—is now part of the public selling point.
“He has taken the far left of the Democratic Party and put it dead center,” actress Cynthia Nixon said on Monday, introducing Sanders.
Whether a more ruthless, cunning and business-like operation translates into more votes seems unlikely. Sanders scored 60 percent of the New Hampshire primary vote in 2016. He’d be having a good night if he got half of that on Tuesday.
But 30 percent could be enough for a win, which would mark two popular vote victories in as many nominating contests. And then, a whole number of states await where Sanders may be even better positioned. Analilia Mejia, Sanders’ political director, said that the campaign has a political operation in every Super Tuesday state. They also have the backing of 37 political interest groups and 23 labor entities—all of which can pick up the organizational slack. More than 1.5 million people have donated to the campaign for an average donation of just over $18. He won’t compete with Michael Bloomberg on the money front. But without the help of an infinite bank account, he has created arguably the most impressive money machine in the history of Democratic politics.
Constructing that has been an historic feat. And while some Sanders supporters may view it as something bigger, others see it as, indeed, a political masterstroke.
“Is he a politician? Yes, he is,” said Rene, who, per instructions of the campaign, declined to reveal his last name. He had come up from New Jersey to stand behind the grocery store, to hear Sanders speak before going out and knocking on doors. “He’s a great one. A lot of them suck.”
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including how Congress is reacting to President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over immigration, the 2020 candidacy of Bernie Sanders and whether democratic socialism is becoming mainstream.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): From that to what we reported earlier in the show, House Democrats gearing up to fight President Trump on his emergency declaration.
It's time now for analysis on this and more from Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Judy.
Judy Woodruff: So, let's talk about — Mark, what the Democrats announced today.
They said that they were going to do this, but they officially put word out today that they are going to vote on Tuesday basically to just negate, cancel what the President is trying to do, declare a national emergency to find money to pay for a wall on the southern border.
Is this a smart move?
Mark Shields: Is it the smart move? Well, it will pass the House. There are 226 co-sponsors right now.
And if Nancy Pelosi does something well — she does lot of things well, but she knows how to count. And the question is how many Republicans. There's one at this point, Justin Amash of Michigan, but others who will come over.
Judy Woodruff: Only one at this point?
Mark Shields: At this point, that's right.
So, then it moves to the Senate. I mean, it's a — I think it's a moment of some truth, reality for Republicans. I think Susan Collins of Maine has already indicated her own opposition to the President's position. I think Cory Gardner of Colorado, who is up in a tough race next year, may be another. There may be others as well.
So, I think our system works best when there's a vitality and an energy in all branches. And I don't think there is any question that this is protecting the institution. I mean, when the President goes ahead and appropriates money that was denied by both the Democrats and the Republicans in the conference most recently, you know, I think it's a question of prerogative and responsibility and authority.
Judy Woodruff: So, David, do the Democrats have a real shot at blocking what the President wants to do?
David Brooks, New York Times: No, no, because they would have to get a veto-proof majority. Even if they get it out of the Congress, Donald Trump will veto it.
I think it may also pass the Senate. I forget. There were six or seven who — at least when he declared the emergency, six or seven Republicans said, I don't really think it's a good idea. And I think they may wind up voting against it.
If you're going to vote against Donald Trump about anything, this is the easiest, because you can say, well, it's not really about ideology. It's not about the wall. It's just about Congress. And it's about the way we — it's about the Constitution.
They all took an oath to swear allegiance to the Constitution. And the Constitution says that Congress originates, has the power of the purse. And if the President can just spend money on what he wants, that's really not our constitutional system.
Why don't more do it? If it was an anonymous vote, it would get 90 votes. They all think that. But there's a weird — you know, you bug them about this, there's a level of supine passivity, like a learned helplessness, where they don't even — it doesn't even cross the mental barrier that, well, maybe I should buck the President on this one.
I don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: You're talking about the Republicans.
David Brooks: Yes. You would have to do studies on maltreated pets or something, like, why don't they get up and do something?
But it's not even in their brain register. It's just, I'm used to — I go along right now. I just go along. And it's not even a conscious choice anymore.
Judy Woodruff: Doesn't have anything to do with reelection or anything like that?
David Brooks: Well, of course it does. But that's the animal instinct at play.
But I think the voters of Ohio or wherever else would understand an occasional vote against the President. It doesn't doom your career. There is not, frankly, an issue on which a lot of people are going to be voting on. It's a procedural issue. But it's a defense of the Constitution.
Judy Woodruff: But, Mark, no chance if the President were — he says he's going to veto. No chance that they could override the veto?
Mark Shields: No, it would be the first veto of the President's administration.
But I don't see the two-thirds being there. There may be a reach in the — possibility in the House, if enough Republicans do screw up the courage to do so.
But I just think the Mark Sanford experience, Judy, just haunts Republicans, it terrifies them. They look over their shoulder, they see shadows on the wall in the sunshine. Mark Sanford, the former Republican governor and congressman from South Carolina, whom the President just absolutely kind of trashed and endorsed his then — up to then previously unknown opponent in the Republican primary, and Mark Sanford went down to defeat.
David Brooks: I there's one other little element, the reason they don't leap, is that they have no power now.
Mark Shields: OK.
David Brooks: They have already given away their power. They gave away their power to their leadership, to Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
And so that they gave that away long ago, so the idea they could seize power is a big mental leap for them. And so they're doubly bound into this learned helplessness.
SUMMARY: The vote on the Senate Republican health care bill has been delayed, but the behind-the-scenes battle continues. What key questions could help decide the bill's fate? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania and Avik Roy of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity join Judy Woodruff to debate different aspects of the proposed legislation.
SUMMARY: With the latest push by Senate Republicans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act coming to an anticlimactic end, party leaders have shifted their focus to simply focus on “repeal.” Sen. Mitch McConnell proposed delaying the effective date of repeal for two years, while Democrats flexed their opposition. Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest.
SUMMARY: Will Democrats have a seat at the table now that the Republican push on health care has collapsed? Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what went wrong and the possible path ahead on health care reform.
SUMMARY: In the first of a series of conversations centered on the future of the Democratic party, Judy Woodruff speaks with Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill) about what Democrats need to be doing and saying to rebuild.
SUMMARY: Out of power in the House, Senate and White House, what can the Democrats do to gain seats in 2018 and 2020? Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and Tamara Keith of NPR join Judy Woodruff to discuss the future of the Democratic party, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ health care rally in Kentucky, and Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer in June 2016.
AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: And this goes to the challenge, Judy, which is, when you’re a party that has been successful, as Republicans were successful in the last few years, by being basically the party of no, right, they were against everything that Democrats and President Obama stood for, that was successful to get them a governing — or a political majority, but not a governing majority.
 |
| As of 2009, 58 countries have legislation mandating universal health care and have actually reached >90% health insurance coverage and >90% skilled birth attendance. |
SUMMARY: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the chances of avoiding a government shutdown, rethinking American trade policy and the introduction of legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15, what Democrats need to do to build a grassroots movement and 50-state party.
SUMMARY: In “Our Revolution,” Bernie Sanders discusses this year's election and what he sees as the future of American politics. Jeffrey Brown sat down with Sen. Bernie Sanders at the National Book Festival in Miami to discuss the election of Donald Trump and building a progressive movement in the U.S.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): This weekend, Jeffrey Brown sat down with Senator Bernie Sanders at the Miami Book Fair to talk about his new book, “Our Revolution,” to discuss the presidential election, and to get his take on the future of American politics.
Jeff began by asking the senator why he thought Donald Trump's message attracted so many voters.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Va.): I think he understood that there are many millions of people in this country, the working middle class, who are really hurting. They are in pain.
They are working longer hours for lower wages, can't afford child care, scared to death of retirement because they have no money in the bank. They have seen decent-paying jobs leave their community, go to China and Mexico.
And he said: I, Donald Trump, yes, I am going to take on the entire establishment. I'm going to take on the political establishment. I am going to take on the economic establishment. I'm going to take on the media establishment.
And I think a lot of people responded positively to that message.
JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour): I was telling you I was in Iowa, North Carolina seeing a lot of the things that I think you were seeing of people around the country and the desperate shape that they were in.
But why then would Donald Trump become that champion?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Now, how many hours do we have to discuss that issue? That's the question that needs a lot of discussion.
And I think it speaks to a large degree to the failure of the Democratic Party.
JEFFREY BROWN: The failure?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes, which is something I'm trying to deal with right now.
The Democratic Party has been very strong in a lot of areas, in fighting to make our country a less discriminatory country. And that is enormously important. And, by the way, on that issue, there cannot be any compromise. Trump's language has been atrocious, his behavior toward women.
We cannot go back to a racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic type of society.
But, on economic issues, I think there are many people in the working class who say, you know what? Yes, maybe we are better off than we were eight years ago, but I am still working two or three jobs, my kid can't afford to go to college, I can't afford child care, my real wages have been going down for 40 years. The middle class is shrinking. Who's standing up for me?
The Democratic Party there for me? Are they going to take on Wall Street? Are they going to take on the drug companies that rip me off? And the perception was, no, they will not.
JEFFREY BROWN: But when you look at the election, and you think about those issues as drivers in the election, did you feel — do you feel that you could have won if it was you against Donald Trump?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I have been asked that question about 48 million times.
JEFFREY BROWN: I know, so make it 48 million, plus one.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: There you go.
And the answer is, who knows? I mean, I think what we can say is that the polling when I was running against Secretary Clinton during the process, primary process, had me doing better against Trump. And some recent polls suggest that I would have won.
But, you know, you don't know what a three- or four-month campaign is about. But I will say, I would very much have loved the opportunity.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including what the NRA's endorsement of Donald Trump means for GOP unity, whether Democrat Bernie Sanders still poses a serious threat to Hillary Clinton's nomination and what will happen to his supporters if she wins it.
The American people must make a fundamental decision. Do we continue the 40-year decline of our middle class and the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else, or do we fight for a progressive economic agenda that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment and provides health care for all? Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class, or do we continue to slide into economic and political oligarchy? These are the most important questions of our time, and how we answer them will determine the future of our country.
The long-term deterioration of the middle class, accelerated by the Wall Street crash of 2008, has not been pretty. Today, we have more wealth and income inequality than any major country on earth. We have one of the highest childhood poverty rates and we are the only country in the industrialized world which does not guarantee health care for all. We once led the world in terms of the percentage of our people who graduated college, but we are now in 12th place. Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, is collapsing.
Real unemployment today is not 5.8 percent, it is 11.5 percent if we include those who have given up looking for work or who are working part time when they want to work full time. Youth unemployment is 18.6 percent and African-American youth unemployment is 32.6 percent.
Today, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the median male worker earned $783 less last year than he made 41 years ago. The median woman worker made $1,337 less last year than she earned in 2007. Since 1999, the median middle-class family has seen its income go down by almost $5,000 after adjusting for inflation, now earning less than it did 25 years ago.
The American people must demand that Congress and the White House start protecting the interests of working families, not just wealthy campaign contributors. We need federal legislation to put the unemployed back to work, to raise wages and make certain that all Americans have the health care and education they need for healthy and productive lives.
As Vermont's senator, here are 12 initiatives that I will be fighting for which can restore America's middle class.
1. We need a major investment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure; roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads, and schools. It has been estimated that the cost of the Bush-Cheney Iraq War, a war we should never have waged, will total $3 trillion by the time the last veteran receives needed care. A $1 trillion investment in infrastructure could create 13 million decent paying jobs and make this country more efficient and productive. We need to invest in infrastructure, not more war.
2. The United States must lead the world in reversing climate change and make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren. We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient and we need to greatly accelerate the progress we are already seeing in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other forms of sustainable energy. Transforming our energy system will not only protect the environment, it will create good paying jobs.
3. We need to develop new economic models to increase job creation and productivity. Instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations which ship our jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we need to provide assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives. Study after study shows that when workers have an ownership stake in the businesses they work for, productivity goes up, absenteeism goes down and employees are much more satisfied with their jobs.
4. Union workers who are able to collectively bargain for higher wages and benefits earn substantially more than non-union workers. Today, corporate opposition to union organizing makes it extremely difficult for workers to join a union. We need legislation which makes it clear that when a majority of workers sign cards in support of a union, they can form a union.
5. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. No one in this country who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty.
6. Women workers today earn 78 percent of what their male counterparts make. We need pay equity in our country -- equal pay for equal work.
7. Since 2001 we have lost more than 60,000 factories in this country, and more than 4.9 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs. We must end our disastrous trade policies (NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, etc.) which enable corporate America to shut down plants in this country and move to China and other low-wage countries. We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad.
8. In today's highly competitive global economy, millions of Americans are unable to afford the higher education they need in order to get good-paying jobs. Further, with both parents now often at work, most working-class families can't locate the high-quality and affordable child care they need for their kids. Quality education in America, from child care to higher education, must be affordable for all. Without a high-quality and affordable educational system, we will be unable to compete globally and our standard of living will continue to decline.
9. The function of banking is to facilitate the flow of capital into productive and job-creating activities. Financial institutions cannot be an island unto themselves, standing as huge profit centers outside of the real economy. Today, six huge Wall Street financial institutions have assets equivalent to 61 percent of our gross domestic product - over $9.8 trillion. These institutions underwrite more than half the mortgages in this country and more than two-thirds of the credit cards. The greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of major Wall Street firms plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. They are too powerful to be reformed. They must be broken up.
10. The United States must join the rest of the industrialized world and recognize that health care is a right of all, and not a privilege. Despite the fact that more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation. We need to establish a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.
11. Millions of seniors live in poverty and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. We must strengthen the social safety net, not weaken it. Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and nutrition programs, we should be expanding these programs.
12. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we need a progressive tax system in this country which is based on ability to pay. It is not acceptable that major profitable corporations have paid nothing in federal income taxes, and that corporate CEOs in this country often enjoy an effective tax rate which is lower than their secretaries. It is absurd that we lose over $100 billion a year in revenue because corporations and the wealthy stash their cash in offshore tax havens around the world. The time is long overdue for real tax reform.
