OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/30/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Mueller developments and congressional dynamics" PBS NewsHour 11/30/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including recent developments in the special counsel’s investigations, party dynamics after the midterm elections and the “impressive” strength shown by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) in her quest to become House Speaker.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  It has been a momentous week in the Mueller investigation.

To help us better understand the broader implications, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, as we just heard in Lisa's conversation, we have been watching the story all week, Mark, a lot of the information out there, a lot of it from Mr. Mueller himself, a lot more reported in the media, not confirmed yet.

What does it all add up to right now, to you?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I think it adds up to gravity.  I think it adds up to anxiety.  I think it adds up to nervousness on the part of the administration, and particularly the White House.

I think, Judy, what we saw is that the President's personal attorney testifying in court, with Mr.Mueller's own ratification of his testimony, that all the way through the nominating process in 2016, right up to the eve of the convention, by the time Donald Trump had sewed up the nomination, that they were actively — he, Mr.Cohen and others were actively seeking to establish a signature property in Moscow, an ambition, as we just heard in the previous segment, of Donald Trump for more than 30 years, and in spite of Donald Trump's denials to this effect, that he said there was no such thing going on.

And I think is — I think it becomes serious that he lied to the American people throughout the campaign of 2016, now becomes, I think, a matter of at least public debate, if not presumption.

Judy Woodruff:  But, David, the President is saying, but no deal developed, there was no hotel built.  So is there really anything here to see?

David Brooks, New York Times:  There's got to be something.

One of the things that strikes me about this investigation is that it's like a million pieces out there.  There's like the Julian Assange piece, the Moscow deal piece, the tax piece, the Roger Stone, whatever he was doing, piece, paying off strippers.  There's just a million pieces in this investigation.  And we don't which will open on any given day.

And so that tells me that this is going to occupy the Trump presidency for a long time and probably dominate the Trump presidency for the next little while.

The second thing I think what we're learning from the Cohen — what we have learned from Michael Cohen is that Trump was probably more involved in a lot of these things than we knew before, that it wasn't just some minions off somewhere.  Trump seems to have been involved in these calls and things like that.

The thing that — the crucial thing that I don't know is, when he's accused of something, he just shifts the goalposts, which is to say, he re-norms.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  So, you say, oh, you were lying during the campaign?  And he said, yes, yes, I was doing that.  Fine.

You might have been compromised in Moscow to get a business deal.  Yes, well, you know, that's business.  That's what I was doing.

So every time he does something that any past administration would have thought, this is shocking and appalling, I'm ashamed of myself, he's completely unashamed of himself.

And so the question to me becomes — Richard Nixon was forced to reside, sort of over obstruction of justice .  Suppose there's an obstruction of justice case here.  Have our norms so changed that is no longer a political death sentence?  And that may have happened.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  Yes, I think David raises a good point.

I think our — I hope and believe our norms have been changed.  There's no question that Donald Trump is a mutant.  I mean, he has no embarrassment gene.  There's no way in the world…

Judy Woodruff:  Did you say mutant?

Mark Shields:  A mutant.  He really is.

I mean, he's aberrational.  I mean, he's not embarrassed.  I mean, Richard Nixon, on tape, said, we could do this, but it was wrong, it would be wrong, and we know what's wrong.

That doesn't — that's not a construction, a sentence that would pass Donald Trump's lips.  I mean, that is — it isn't the question.  It's transactional?  Is it to my advantage?  Is it to my disadvantage?  That's — that's how he sees — that is his morality.  Does it enhance him?  Does it in any way diminish him, which, of course, is the original and most grievous of all sins?

So I do think that our norms, I hope, have not been hopelessly impaired or damaged.  And don't forget that it was, in fact, the — David is right — obstruction of justice in both the cases of Bill Clinton's impeachment, attempting to influence witnesses and how they testify, and Richard Nixon's.

So, I mean, these are serious offenses.  And there are precedents for pursuing that.

David Brooks:  But it seems to me this is the hardest thing for the Mueller team, is that there's a lot of prosecutorial discretion involved in these things.

At what point do we go out and say, this is enough to really challenge the President in some fundamental, existential way?  And do — at what point do they think we have enough to really go out in this aggressive way?  And what point do they think, no, this will just turn into a political circus?

And so the political — the norms of the culture are going to affect how Mueller is going to make that decision.

Judy Woodruff:  So you really — you believe the President is changing, may be changing the norm, the cultural moral norms of this country?

David Brooks:  He's being doing it since he walked on the stage.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  I mean, that first Republican debate, he was talking about things no President ever talked about, insulting other people's looks.

And so it's just been a continual process of that.  And, at some point, the norm runs into law.  But, again, the law has this area of discretion that Mueller is going to have to make that case.

The thing — the thing that's hanging out there is, there's just so much.  And then Mueller has — I mean, it's not really even about collusion with the Russians anymore.  There's just so much out there that this person has been involved in for the past 20 years.  And we just don't know what's going to spring up tomorrow.

THE DEMOCRATIC HOUSE - New Leadership?

"For some House Democrats, leadership choice is ‘establishment vs. change’" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  One of the largest groups of congressional freshmen in recent memory has begun orientation on Capitol Hill.  Will party leadership reflect the new representatives or rely on established legislators?  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) is confident she’ll become Speaker of the House, but not all of her Democratic colleagues agree.  Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff to discuss the details.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Another Rat Abandons a Sinking Ship

"House Speaker Paul Ryan decides to leave on his own terms, adding pressure for GOP" PBS NewsHour 4/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The man who is third in line of succession to the Presidency, the most powerful Republican in Congress, is calling it a career and will not seek re-election.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's decision today rippled up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, and beyond.  Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff to discuss how other Republicans are reacting and the race to fill his role.

"Where does Paul Ryan’s departure leave the GOP?" PBS NewsHour 4/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What does Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's retirement mean for the Republican Party?  Judy Woodruff talks gets reaction from Chris Buskirk of American Greatness, and Charlie Sykes of The Weekly Standard.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/3/2016

"Shields and Brooks on persistent violence at Trump rallies, Clinton’s new line of attack" PBS NewsHour 6/3/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week in politics, including the continued violence at Donald Trump’s rallies, how the Obama administration could have approached the recession differently, House Speaker Paul Ryan’s conflicted presidential endorsement, and Hillary Clinton’s new line of attack against Trump.

Trump!

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/11/2015

"Shields and Brooks on the GOP’s Trump problem, Paul Ryan’s speaker leadership" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's comments on banning Muslims from entering the U.S., a campaign surge for Sen. Ted Cruz, plus assessing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s first month on the job.

POLITICS - Speaker Ryan and GOP Agenda

"How Speaker Ryan is retooling the GOP agenda" PBS NewsHour 12/11/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his first four working weeks, new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan presided over passage of a $600 billion defense bill, a bill to tighten screening of Syrian refugees and a five-year highway bill.  Political director Lisa Desjardins offers a closer look at Ryan’s agenda, then joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the funding deadline.

REP. PAUL RYAN, Speaker of the House:  What’s next?

LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):  Paul Ryan is on a roll. In his first four working weeks, the new speaker presided over passage of a $600 billion defense bill, a plan to tighten screening of Syrian refugees, and a five-year highway bill, the types of big controversial bills that had been stuck in Capitol gridlock sometimes for years.

REP. PAUL RYAN:  I became speaker just over a month ago, and I would like to think we have hit the ground running.  We are dealing with everything from highways, to ISIS, to funding the government.

LISA DESJARDINS:  This wasn’t the plan for the 45-year-old from Wisconsin.  He’d just started his dream job as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.  But the father of three young children agreed to become speaker, thanks to two chaotic weeks when sharply divided Republicans could not agree on anyone else.

REP. PAUL RYAN:  Thursday was a great day.  Thursday was a day where we came together as a conference and unified, and agreed to proceed together with a vision.

LISA DESJARDINS:  And his vision is about ideas.  Ryan is a student of political philosophy, influenced by his mentor, the late conservative Jack Kemp, who saw free markets and tax cuts as the best antidotes to poverty, and Ayn Rand, the divisive author who stressed individualism.

Ryan is an admirer, but has been careful to say he doesn’t fully embrace her philosophy.  He is a bootstraps conservative, setting out to retool not just the Republican House, but the Republican agenda itself.

IMHO it's still more for the rich and much less for the rest of us.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/4/2015

"Shields and Brooks on the San Bernardino shooting, Trump’s poll appeal" PBS NewsHour 12/4/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss domestic terrorism in the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting, the continuing political debate over gun control, as well as the shape of the GOP presidential contest.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Back in the U.S., it has been a full week of news.  The San Bernardino shooting once again sparked a political debate on guns and terror, while Paul Ryan ended his first month as speaker of the House of Representatives with a major policy speech.

That brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, another week, another shooting.  Now we are learning from the FBI that they are considering this a terrorist incident.  They’re going to focus on it that way.

And we’re already hearing, Mark and David, comments for different kinds of solutions from different sides of the political aisle, David.

Republicans are saying too much focus on guns, the administration isn’t doing enough to fight terrorism.  Do you see any kind of consensus coming together?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Well, I don’t see why it’s an either/or thing.  It’s additive, not alternative.

The guns, you know, I don’t see why people need to be carrying these kinds of guns, the guns that were used in this kind of attack.  And so it seems to me some sensible legislation, I don’t know if it will help prevent this.  As I have said all along, there are 250 million guns in this country.  It’s hard to control gun usage.  Nonetheless, it couldn’t hurt.

But what’s unique about this is that it was sort of ISIS-inspired, not ISIS-run, but sort of ISIS-inspired.  And that leads to two conclusions.  First, ISIS has charisma.  If you are a certain sort of person with some sort of mentality, suddenly, you want to latch on and swear allegiance to ISIS, apparently, and then go out and kill people.

And so giving — taking away some of ISIS’ charisma by handing them some defeat on the battlefield, the way we did to al-Qaida in Iraq, seems to me an important task.

The second thing is, this is religious.  We are going to have many more religious attacks than we have had in the past, because there are going to be more religious people in the world and attacks.  And that doesn’t mean they are motivated by religion.  They are motivated by a politicized form of religion.

It’s not a real faith, but it’s a politicized form.  You say, you go to my group, and then there are all those evil people in another group.  And I’m going to go shoot up some of those evil people in the other group.

And so to me, when you have that kind of religious, political fanaticism, it’s going to take religious voices to combat it and say, we love our people in our group, but we have to treat other people outside our group with the theology of the other, with justice.  And so we have to win the battle of ideas.  And that has been true since 9/11 and it’s still true today.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Do you see a consensus coming around, either one of these ideas, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  I don’t.  I endorse David’s assessment, especially on religion.

Judy, after Newtown, the last deadliest mass killing in this country since — of the dimensions that we had in San Bernardino this week, there was a sense of personal tragedy in the United States, the loss of — the slaughter of the innocence, the murder children and educators, but there wasn’t a sense of terror, there wasn’t a sense of widespread fear.

Since Paris, I think it’s fair to say, politically, the Democrats have been tone-deaf.  They have not responded, in a sense.  And it’s interesting, because Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most credentialed of the national candidates in this whole area, she did respond by calling this an act of terrorism even before the FBI did.

But the response — and I agree totally on guns.  It’s an outrage.  It’s indefensible, the vote in the Senate yesterday, to tell how far we have come from Newtown, there was not a single vote that changed.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 10/30/2015

"Shields and Brooks on shifting strategy in Syria, Paul Ryan’s speaker ascension" PBS NewsHour 10/30/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the Obama administration’s announcement that it is putting boots on the ground in Syria, newly elected Speaker Paul Ryan’s goals for the House and takeaways from the GOP debate in Boulder.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  But, first, there is a new speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the political landscape may be shifting in the Republican race for the White House.

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

Welcome to you, gentlemen.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Friday before Halloween.  Thank you for being here.

So, let’s talk about the lead story tonight, Mark, and that is the decision by the administration to send less than 50 special operations troops into Syria.  They say, it’s not a change, there won’t be — they won’t be involved in combat.

But does this make it any clearer what the administration’s strategy is in Syria?

MARK SHIELDS:  No.

And it’s — well, taking them at their word that they won’t be involved in combat, Judy, obviously, they are now in harm’s way.  And it increases the risk or exposure of capture and all that that could mean.

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Yes.  My view is, you can leave the Middle East, but it won’t leave you.  And so the President’s tried to withdraw from the Middle East and withdraw separately from Afghanistan, and, as a result, there has been a void and a chaos and the destruction of these two countries, of Syria and Iraq, as we formerly knew them, a continued crisis in Afghanistan.

And so he’s begun to look around and seeing the situation deteriorating, and he’s trying to adjust.  And, to his credit, he’s trying to adjust in a way that’s politically embarrassing, because he made these statements, we will not put combat — we will not put boots on the ground.  He said it bluntly in Syria.

But he’s doing the right thing.  The question is, is there a strategy?  And I still don’t see what the strategy is.  Are we willing to tolerate Assad?  Are we just trying to get ISIS?  Are we trying to get Assad?  Who are we actually trying to get?

And then it’s — the steps are so small.  And so it looks like the classic case of mission creep.  And what happens if one of these guys gets captured?  What happens if a Russian bomb lands on them?  You can imagine the world the day after that.

And so one would feel more comfortable if there was some plausible road forward, rather than what you get this feeling is, of a series of tactical mission creeps.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 10/23/2015

"Shields and Brooks on Clinton’s Benghazi testimony, Paul Ryan’s speaker potential" PBS NewsHour 10/23/2015

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Hillary Clinton’s testimony on Benghazi, Vice President Joe Biden’s decision not to run in 2016, Rep. Paul Ryan stepping into the race for Speaker of the House, and new higher poll numbers for Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson in Iowa.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  So, Benghazi hearings, David, they went — I don’t know that it was 11, but it was eight or nine hours of testimony.

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Right.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  What have we learned?  What was accomplished at this hearing?

DAVID BROOKS:  Nothing was learned.

We learned that the Republicans can’t stump Hillary Clinton.  She was composed, gave a lot of the same testimony she’s given before.  This thing has been going on forever.  And so nothing happened, really.  And so that’s good news for her.

She — her composure was excellent. Congressmen do what congressmen do.  And so it was a big nothing burger.  And why the Republicans remain obsessed with this, at a time when the nation of Iraq has ceased to exist, Syria barely exists, there’s turmoil spreading throughout the Middle East — if you want to attack Hillary Clinton, it seems to me she was secretary of state at a time of deterioration in actual substantive grounds.  Maybe that would be a good subject.

But there is a certain psychosis that goes through people’s minds, especially about scandals, but Clinton scandals, where they — where something smells, and they think there must be something big, and they imagine there is about to be some big revelation that will destroy their careers.  But, since 1991, that has never happened, and the critics have always overshot the mark and ended up helping the candidate.  And that’s what happened.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  They have survived some challenges in the past, the Clintons, but, Mark, nothing burger, is that what it adds up to?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  I would feel better if it were just the Clintons with the Republicans. I think this has been — for the past seven years of the Obama administration, it has been an obsession that — to prove not simply that the administration is not capable or efficient or effective, but that somehow it’s evil, maybe even criminal.

And that’s what was driving this Benghazi hearing, that somehow that there was some evil plot or evil scheme or diabolical whatever.  The emphasis on Sid Blumenthal, who was a…

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Her longtime friend.

MARK SHIELDS:  Yes, longtime friend, controversial, a conspiracy buff, an apparatchik, whatever else he is, but, I mean, hardly somebody of Rasputin dimensions that they wanted to elevate him to.

And in doing so, they were forced to go public with this hearing, which they didn’t want to do.  They looked bad.  They had…

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Meaning the Republicans.

MARK SHIELDS:  The Republicans looked bad.

Hillary Clinton looked disciplined.  She showed remarkable stamina.  She showed thorough preparation.  And she never went for the bait.  The bait was to get her to do what she had done in the previous hearing, to show exasperation, to display temper.

And she just — she came off it, to use an adjective, presidential.  And I just think — I just think that the Republicans ought to drop this and move on, but I think it is — I think it is symptomatic of a party that is incapable of accepting its governing responsibility.
-----
MARK SHIELDS:  Well, I was surprised (Joe Biden not running), because I didn’t know.

Everybody who said they knew who was talking didn’t know, and everybody who apparently knew wasn’t talking.  But I didn’t know that he wasn’t going to run.

I will say this about Joe Biden.  His absence means that the happy warrior will be missing from the Democratic battle this year.  That’s what Joe — Joe Biden has personally at least 35 percent of the world’s known reserve of authenticity.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS:  And we’re looking for the authentic.

Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, who is himself a presidential candidate and an active partisan, said of Joe Biden, if you don’t like Joe Biden, you ought take a serious look at yourself, because there is something wrong with you.

He is the nicest person I have ever met.  God never made a better man than Joe Biden.  This was before Joe Biden pulled out.  This was just in an interview in Iowa a couple — a month or so ago.  So I just think it takes a lot of courage to run.  It takes a lot more courage to pull out.  And I just — I will miss him and his presence in this race.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 10/9/2015

"Shields and Brooks on the GOP speaker struggle, Clinton’s trade deal dismissal" PBS NewsHour 10/9/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the Republican search for a new Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton’s coming out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

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

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, please explain what is going on.

Mark?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  Sure, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS:  Turmoil, chaos, toxic upheaval.  And those are the friendly sources that are describing what’s going on in the House Republican Caucus.

What you basically have is a group of Republicans, one-sixth of the House Republicans, who view their election as a mandate to stand up and oppose the Democratic President and his overreach, by their judgment, in power, to frustrate him, to oppose him, and to repeal what — the Obama thing, and do not accept the concomitant responsibility of the governing party, of which they’re a member, to govern.

They’re the majority party, and so they’re essentially holding the entire caucus hostage.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  But they’re holding the Congress, I mean, the House of Representatives…

MARK SHIELDS:  They’re holding the House.  But it means that the majority cannot operate the House.

Speaker Boehner after four years, said, I have had enough, leaving.  Kevin McCarthy, his heir apparent, could not get to the 218.  You have to get a majority of your own caucus.  There’s 247 House Republicans.  You have to get 218 of them in order to get elected speaker.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Right.

MARK SHIELDS:  So, I guess that’s it, pretty simply.  And so there is paralysis, quite honestly.  And the party is in turmoil.  And it has an implication nationally in the presidential election, because this is supposed to be the governing example of the Republicans.

OPINION - Brooks and Dionne 10/2/2015

"Brooks and Dionne on mass shooting frustration, Kevin McCarthy’s Benghazi comments" PBS NewsHour 10/2/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the national reaction to a mass shooting in Oregon, a speaking gaffe by the potential next Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy and impressive fundraising by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  President Obama expresses frustration and anger in the wake of yesterday’s mass shooting in Oregon.  But is there anything he or anyone can do?  Will there be a battle among House Republicans to replace Speaker Boehner?  And what does Russia’s involvement in Syria mean for the U.S.?

We turn to the analysis of New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.

Mark Shields is away tonight.

And welcome, gentlemen.

E.J. DIONNE, Washington Post:  Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So here we are yet again, another mass shooting.  They seem to be happening every few weeks.

David, the President said yesterday at his news conference that he thinks the country’s grown numb, that these are happening so often.  Is he right?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  I actually don’t think so.

The reaction certainly among the people I have spoken to is one of impatience and growing frustration.  And so I don’t think we have grown numb to them.  I don’t think we have taken a practical and a pragmatic approach to trying to prevent them.

Obviously, as we heard earlier, they’re phenomenally hard to prevent.  I’m for gun control laws, as I have said so many times.  We have gone through a ritual on this program.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  We have.

DAVID BROOKS:  And I don’t think they will do much good.  They might do a little good, just because there are 250 million guns in this country.  I think it’s just very hard to control the ones, but they might erect a barrier.

There’s obviously problematics with getting a list of people who have had mental health issues to run against a registry.  That’s obviously a problematic thing to do.  I have emphasized the make-believe function, that the profile of these guys who do it is very similar, and it is in this case, alienated young guy with loneliness issues and self-worth issues.

And if we looked around for young men like that in our society, maybe we could do something there.  I guess I would invite people to de-ideologize it, if that’s a word and to think pragmatically about the many steps we could do to hopefully make some dent, but it’s going to be hard to make a dent in this, I think.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  It is hard, E.J., and yet, as the president said, something has to happen, something has to happen.  What is the something to change?

E.J. DIONNE:  I must say, I loved seeing his anger about this, because I think he reflected the anger of a lot of people.

And I actually liked it when he said this is something we should politicize, because the barriers to de-ideologizing it, as David said, are political barriers.  And I was so struck by some of the responses of the Republican candidates to this.  Ben Carson, you’re not going to handle it with more gun control because gun control only works for normal — the normal law-abiding citizens.

Well, all laws only work for normal law-abiding citizens.  Only with guns do we hear these arguments.  Same with Marco Rubio, gun crime is committed by criminals.  Criminals ignore the law.  Well, yes.  But, again, that’s an argument against all law.  We have to try some things.

There are no free and democratic and wealthy countries in the world that have our rate of gun violence.  You know, David is quite right that we have to worry about loners and alienated people.  We have to do better on mental health.  But we’re not the only country in the world with loners and alienated people.

And I think we have to be willing to take some steps on guns.  And I don’t know what’s going to shake us to get there, but I think the President is saying we can’t just sit here anymore.  I think there is an anger that’s growing out there that may at some point get conservatives in particular, who ought to be in a different position than they are on this issue.

Here is the piece discussed in above article.

"Why the U.S. has done almost nothing to stop mass shootings" PBS NewsHour 10/2/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The violence in Oregon is one of nearly a thousand mass shootings to have taken place since the Newtown shooting in 2009.  For all of the discussion of what can be done to prevent future tragedies, little has changed.  What can be done to stop the violence?  Judy Woodruff talks with Todd Clear of the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice and Jeffrey Swanson of Duke University.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 9/25/2015

"Shields and Brooks on Boehner’s leadership turmoil, Pope Francis’ uplifting visit" PBS NewsHour 9/25/2015

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation and who will take his place, as well as the pope’s visit to Congress.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Capitol Hill was a historic place to be this week, with a papal visit and the surprise resignation of House Speaker Boehner.

Of course, those are the main topics for our turn to Shields and brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, Mark, surprised about Boehner?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS:  But, as Lisa reported to you from the Hill, the speaker faced what is a vote of no confidence.  He would have prevailed.  He would have survived, but it would have showed him weakened within his own caucus.  This was among the Republican members.  So, I think he made the decision to go out on his own terms.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  David, a complete shock for you?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  No, saw it coming months and months and months ago.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS:  No, obviously, since the day he walked in the door, he’s had this challenge, and it’s grown more, but I don’t think anybody saw it coming in this way.

Obviously, I think the papal visit had — on the timing, had an effect.  There is a beautiful piece by Robert Costa of The Washington Post talking about how, the night before, Costa, a reporter, was with him on the balcony, and Boehner was saying the pope stood right here, right here, and he asked me to pray for him.  And he was so moved.

And so there’s an element of uplift, and might as well do the right thing.  And this specific act was the right thing.  Paul Ryan called it a selfless act.  And I think it really is a selfless act.  It spares us from a potential government shutdown.  It helps the institution.  It helps his party from the fallout from a government shutdown.

And so I think it’s a beautiful act.  Now, over the long term, the downside of Boehner was that he wasn’t that imaginative and the Republicans weren’t that aggressive in putting together a lot of policies, an alternative to Obamacare, a health care, a tax plan, whatever.

But he did know reality.  He could see reality around him.  He knew the craft of politics and how you craft a deal, especially these budget deals.  Some of his critics don’t seem to see that reality, that they don’t control the White House or the supermajority in the Senate.  And they don’t seem to respect the craft of politics.  And if they ever get in actual power, they are going to be introduced it to rudely.
-----
DAVID BROOKS:  I think both parties are ideologically polarized.  The Republican — some of the Republican Party doesn’t believe in politics.  I think most of the Democratic Party does believe in politics.  They’re the party of government.  They believe in government.

And, so, in some sense, the Republican Party can get a little more extreme over tactics, but I think it will be hard for speakers in the future to control people, just because, if you have got a super PAC, if you got some independent expenditures, it’s hard to impose discipline anymore on the body.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Mark, does more get done, does less get done?  How do you see it?

MARK SHIELDS:  Less gets done, Judy, I believe.

And could I be rude and just say that there are probably four dozen members of the House Republican Caucus who do not believe in government?  And they are not — they have never accepted the responsibility of the governing party.

I mean, John Boehner accepted the fact that the Republicans are the majority party in the House and the Senate.  Therefore, we have a responsibility to keep government operating, not to close it down, to fund it, to compromise, to get the votes necessary to pass the legislation required.  And there are four dozen who say, hell no, if it does close down, great, that’s good, that’s what we’re here about.

IMHO:  Boehner is paying for the Republican Party allowing the Tea Party to join with them.  The Tea Party should be an separate party.  The Republican Party WAS a party of governance, now the Tea Party members have warped the Republican Part into the party of NON-governance.

What worst, we as a nation are also paying for allowing the no-governance politicians power.

POLITICS - Boner is Out!

(opps, Boehner is Out)

"Under fire from House GOP, Boehner drops resignation bombshell" PBS NewsHour 9/25/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he would be leaving office and giving up his leadership position, sending shockwaves across Capitol Hill.  Political director Lisa Desjardins reports on what led to Boehner's decision and how lawmakers are reacting.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  On this day, when a pope and two presidents were already making headlines, a surprise resignation came along to stun Washington (DC).

We begin with the announcement that the speaker of the United States House of Representatives is stepping down.

NewsHour political director Lisa Desjardins reports.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), Speaker of the House (singing):  Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, my, oh, my, what a wonderful day.

LISA DESJARDINS (NewsHour):  With his decision, House Speaker John Boehner, the happy warrior, projected a kind of personal relief and institutional sacrifice.

REP. JOHN BOEHNER:  It’s become clear to me that this prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable harm to the institution.  So, this morning, I informed my colleagues that I would resign from the speakership and resign from Congress at the end of October.  Now, as you have often heard me say, this isn’t about me.

LISA DESJARDINS:  In fact, it had become about him, at least in part.  Boehner was again under fire from Tea Party Republicans pushing to defund Planned Parenthood, even if it means closing the government.  They’d threatened a floor vote to try to strip him of the speakership.

"Is Boehner’s departure a win for conservatives?" PBS NewsHour 9/25/2015

IMHO:  Today's Republican conservatives are America's new neo-Nazis

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  How do House Republicans see the resignation of Speaker John Boehner?  Judy Woodruff gets perspective from Rep. Reid Ribble, R-Wisc., with more analysis from political director Lisa Desjardins.