SENSITIVE DOCUMENTS - The Documents Scandals

NOTE:  Trump has never WILLINGLY turned over the sensitive documents in his position and still contends he had the right to have them.

"How a new chief of staff will affect the Biden White House amid documents scandal" PBS NewsHour 1/23/2023

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As President Biden enters his third year in office, there's a change coming at the top of his leadership team.  White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain will leave his post in the coming weeks.  It comes as the President prepares for the State of the Union Address and deals with questions about his handling of classified material.  White House Correspondent Laura Barrón-López reports.

 

 

"Pence latest to face scrutiny after classified documents found in his Indiana home" PBS NewsHour 1/24/2023

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Aides to former Vice President Mike Pence said they discovered a number of classified documents at his Indiana home during a search conducted last week.  Pence's attorney said the documents were "inadvertently boxed and transported" at the end of the Trump administration without his knowledge.  Larry Pfeiffer of the Hayden Center joined Laura Barrón-López to discuss the latest.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 6/11/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Biden at the G-7 summit, the Justice Department under Trump" PBS NewsHour 6/11/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Biden at the G-7 summit, the Justice Department under the Trump administration, and how redistricting will impact the nation's political makeup.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

And they are in person here with me.

David Brooks, New York Times:  We're here.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  I can touch you.  Actually, you're in the studio.  This is exciting.  I have got to figure out how I'm going to get through this conversation.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  It's so weird to be doing it while wearing shoes.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Unusual.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Exactly, instead of our house slippers.

So much to talk about.

And, Jonathan, let's just quickly pick up with where Dan Bush left off.

Texas, really important decision for them to make about these new districts.  They have got to figure out how to draw those lines.  What is at stake?  With the Congress so evenly divided, what's at stake here?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  What's at stake is the majority for the Congress, whether the — excuse me — whether the Democrats will maintain their very slim majority or, as a result of redistricting, not just in Texas, but around the country, whether the lines will be drawn in such a way that gives an advantage to Republicans going into the 2022 midterms before a vote has even been cast.

And, you know, with Texas, the influx of people, the population growing, a lot of them in the urban centers that went for Democratic candidates, and yet the way the districts can be drawn, that voting power very well might end up resulting in districts that would be drawn for Republicans to do better in.

Judy Woodruff:  So, what — how can Democrats counter this, David?  How do you see this shaking out, given what's going on in…

David Brooks:  Yes, I think prayer would help.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  You know, I think the Democrats I talk to want to maintain the House.  They don't expect to.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.

David Brooks:  As I would — they would — somebody said, it would take a miracle.

Miracles could happen.  And it could happen.  But in midterm elections, when one party controls both houses of Congress and the White House, then their records in these first midterms tends to be terrible.

And then there's the population shift, which we have been hearing about.  That, by itself, is probably enough to get the Republicans four or five, six, seven seats.  And then there's the redrawing of the lines.  And Republicans just control a lot more state legislatures.

Now, I should say, I'm more focused on population shifts than on gerrymandering, because, while I think these lines, these — the legislatures draw our gross and unwieldy, and it's the politicians selecting the voters, I don't think the effect is that big.

In the middle of the 20th century, you had a big effect where Democrats had a natural advantage, because of the way they drew the lines.  Then, in the early 20th century, the Republicans had a pretty big effect, maybe 20 more seats than you would think from their vote totals.

But, recently, it's been a pretty small effect.  It's been in the single digits.  So — and that's in part because half the states, it's not partisanly drawn.  And so…

Judy Woodruff:  For different reasons.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, what we have happening here is, it's not just redistricting.  We have what I call a perfect storm brewing.

You have got redistricting, on top of voter laws that have been voted into Georgia, Florida.  Texas, Democrats did a dramatic move to keep their law from going into effect, but a special session will be called, and those laws might well go through.  Iowa.  Arizona.

And so those laws being put in place.  Democrats call them voter suppression laws.  They will keep people, primarily Black and brown people, the young, from getting out to vote.  Not every — not every eligible voter will be able to vote and not — every legally cast vote might not be counted.  And that's what's at danger — in danger as well.

Judy Woodruff:  And all this getting more attention.  Usually, we're waiting for census data, waiting to see what each state does, certainly in the spotlight.

Let's turn, David, to our lead tonight.  And that is President Biden in Europe meeting with the British prime minister, meeting with his counterparts in the so-called G7.

What is — why does this trip matter for him?  What does he need to do?

David Brooks:  Well, he needs to show that America is back.  And he — and back and cooperating with people.  And I have traveled on delegations he's made to Munich to the Security Conference they have there.  And what you see is, he's on first-name basis with everybody, like, with the world leaders, with the doormen in the hotel.  He's been doing it for so long.  And so I think there's a little of that personal diplomacy.

And I think they're proud of the fact they got this vaccine thing done.  I spoke to a White House official today.  And they said the last four weeks have really been a sprint to get this, so we could offer half-a-billion vaccines and get our allies to another…

Judy Woodruff:  Huge number.

David Brooks:  ....  another half-a-billion.

And that will all be done by the middle of the next year.  And so they are surprised they could get to this.  They thought we would not be in a state where we had so many vaccines, we would have enough to buy and then share with the world.  And I think they want to show that we're in the generosity business again, and that America can be a generous nation in the world, a little Marshall Plan.

And I think they'd love to get to a spot where it's not a nation-by-nation fight against COVID.  It's a little more of an interdependent global fight against COVID.  And so they're pleased with that.

They are under no illusions that American-European relations are going to go back to the way they used to be in the Cold War.  That's not going to happen.  But they're very pleased, and I think legitimately so.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see the way — what is at stake for Biden and his agenda here and globally?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I think, to your point, the President knows all of these people.  He was a senator for 36 years, Vice President for eight years.

Yes, he is on a first-name basis.  His mantra is, America is back.  But there's a piece in, I think it was The Times of London asking the question, OK, but do the words match the deeds?

And I do think that there's some skepticism in Europe about whether the President's focus on China, whether that's taking attention away from them, whether the President, President Biden, is continuing former President Trump's policies vis-a-vis China.  Think of tariffs.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

Jonathan Capehart:  And then other things that Vice President Biden is doing that former President Trump talked about, withdrawing from Afghanistan.

So I think what we're seeing, yes, it's not going to go back to the way it was.  And I do think that the world now is, like, they're happy the United States is back in the fold, but I think they have figured out over the last four years, we can't really depend on the United States, especially when it comes to — President Biden's mantra is also democracy.  We have to show that democracy works.

But those world leaders are watching what we're doing here, the last conversation we had about voting rights.  How can you have a democracy if voting rights are at risk?

Judy Woodruff:  So, it's — David, it's the pandemic that has shifted the landscape, of course, but it's also the Trump — the four years of Donald Trump.

David Brooks:  Yes, PTSD, they have got, whatever, post-traumatic Trump is.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  They wonder if this four years is an interregnum, and that Trump will be back.  They wonder if a Trump-like figure will be back.

And so they — there's some sense America's fundamentally less stable.  And then we are more America first.  I mean, Biden is not as America first as Trump was, but you look at our purchasing decisions as a government, it's America first.  And we're just living in a world where multilateral cooperation is less emphasized, frankly, from a lot of countries all at once.

And that has just been a trend of the last 25 years, as nationalism has become a stronger force in the world and across the West and in Asia.  And, somehow, there's just been a deterioration in our willingness to cooperate on a whole range of fronts.

Judy Woodruff:  Harder, in other words.

Jonathan, I hear you saying this is harder than one might have expected coming out of Trump and — President Trump and assuming everything's going to be easier for President Biden globally.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, harder.

But I think, from President Biden's perspective, for someone who knows all of these people, I think he's counting on and banking on the fact that those relationships will help smooth over some of the harder things that they have to deal with.

And you know what?  If I were President Biden, I would think that my chances, my odds were good, not great, but good.

David Brooks:  We have been on a lot of calls with Biden administration officials, and they're weirdly normal.  It's like democracy is in crisis, the world's falling apart.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  But they're like as if it's like 1955.  It's like, no, no, no, everything — we will cooperate, we will compromise, we will have these civil discussions.

And I don't know if they're just putting that face on that we live in a normal world anymore, but they're very normal.

Jonathan Capehart:  I think they would probably say — yes, they are very normal.

But I what I take from that is, you know what?  These are people who are competent.  They have been in these jobs before.  They know what the pitfalls are.  And they also know that everything is on fire, but at least they know the terrain.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, speaking of everything being on fire, David, in the last few days, we have learned that the Trump administration was trying in a number of ways that we find now surprising to seize data from not just journalists — and that's been in the news — but Democratic members of Congress, going after their cell phone records, the data, and their family members, even children.

We have now got an investigation under way.  What does this tell us about what was going on under President Trump?

David Brooks:  Yes, the Trump Justice Department keeps looking worse and worse, even more — worse than it was when it was in office.

When there's a leak of confidential information, there's going to be an investigation.  We understand that.  But they tried an investigation.  They didn't dig up anything on the people they wanted to get, Adam Schiff and people like that.

And so they relaunched another investigation using extremely aggressive means.  And prosecutors or investigators have some discretion over how aggressive they're going to be.  And I would say they got so aggressive, not only so aggressive, that it's super invasive to those of us in the media and people in Congress.

But it just looks like a political witch-hunt.  And Donald Trump is out there in public saying Adam Schiff should be investigated.  And, lo and behold, the people in the Justice Department take political orders.  And that's not what they're supposed to do.  The Justice Department, it's never pure, but it's always supposed to be a step removed from politics, so we have some sense of justice.

Judy Woodruff:  Is this something, Jonathan, that President Trump can be held accountable for, ultimately?  I mean…

Jonathan Capehart:  I mean, that, I don't know.  I mean, I really don't know.  I can't see — as much as everyone — and I shouldn't say everyone — a lot of Democrats and people who had a lot of problems with Donald Trump, they would love to be able to say, oh, this is what's going to take them down, meaning send him to jail, hold him accountable.

I'm not sure.  But, again, I'm not surprised.  It's sort of like you're shocked, but you're not shocked, because we watched this in real time.  The one thing about Donald Trump, he allowed our imaginations to go wild, because, if you let them go wild, you actually kind of know what's happening.

And this story, to my mind, is that situation of, when you're imagining — when reality catches up with your imagination.

Judy Woodruff:  He was publicly going after Adam Schiff.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  He was speaking about him, tweeting about him.  Eric Swalwell.  Well, I mean, these are — but to be using your Justice Department, the Justice Department that belongs to the American people, this way…

Jonathan Capehart:  Look, I would hope, I would hope, if proof is found that he directly ordered the Attorney General to do these things, then, absolutely, he should be held accountable.

But I don't see — I just don't see it happening at this point right now, given what we know.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, one thing's for sure.  We are thrilled that the two of you are here in the studio.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  And I know everybody watching is too.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  It's good to be with you, Judy.

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you both.  Really good to see you both.  Thank you.

OPINION - Brooks and Marcus 1/1/2021

"Brooks and Marcus on American politics in 2020 and its impact on Democracy" PBS NewsHour 1/1/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus join Judy Woodruff to discuss the year in politics, including the failure of institutions, the long-awaited COVID relief bill, Georgia’s Senate runoffs, and the frailty of Democracy.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now, to help us break down the week in politics, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Marcus.  That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus.

Hello to both of you.

Not a lot of joy on this New Year's Day, but we are really, really glad to see both of you.  Thank you for being here.

Let's start, David, by looking back at — I'm sorry — at 2020 and lessons learned.  I think we all agree it's been a terrible year, thanks to the pandemic.  But what do you — what are you taking away from it?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, I wish I could come up with something good, but this was a year we sort of lost faith in ourselves.

We were failed by our institutions, including the CDC and the FDA, big time.  We were — failed each other.  I mean, de Tocqueville said, Americans may be individualistic, but they can act as what he called the social body, when, in a crisis, they can come together and really solve a problem.

And we more or less failed to do that.  We never shut down the way other countries did.  And we certainly are not doing it now.  And so we sort of let each other down.

And I never can permanently believe that America is a nation in decline, sliding, but it was certainly a year where decline seemed to be very much in the air.

Judy Woodruff:  Ruth, what are you thinking as we close the door on 2020?

Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:  Well, I'm thinking I'm usually the pessimist and David's usually the optimist.  So, I — maybe we're switching roles in 2021 or something.

But I actually take away two things from 2020.  One is a more hopeful vision of the pandemic lessons, which is that good government, responsible leadership, capable management could have worked.  We could have, with a better President, who had assembled a better administration, and had taken this more seriously from the start, and had not failed at almost every step along the way — the one bright spot is the vaccine development, but now we're botching the rollout of it.

We could have done better.  We could have had — that 20 million figure is just appalling.  We would have had a lot of damage and tragedy and economic distress, but not on the scale that we are having, with a better government.

And we have a President [Biden] coming in who is going to inherit this mess, which is a lot harder to clean up than it is — was to — is to ameliorate from the beginning.  But government can perform better than our government performed for us.

The part that, for me, is unsettling is the lessons on democracy.  Democracy in — at the end of 2020 looked to me a lot more fragile than I understood it to be at the start of the year, especially the aftermath of the election, where we saw what everybody had assumed was a really unassailable democratic norm, that you would accept, even if — a President as irresponsible and self-involved and unpatriotic as Donald Trump would accept the — in the end, however, grudgingly and ungraciously, the results of a democratic election.

And, instead, we see the spectacle that is continuing and is going to continue through next week on January 6, when Congress assembles.

I am very nervous about the consequences of that, not for Joe Biden, who will be sworn in as president on January 20, but for how it just shakes our norms going forward and makes the unimaginable more imaginable.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, what about going forward?  I mean, how much difference do you believe Joe Biden can make as President in what we face as a country?

David Brooks:  Yes, I think significant.

I mean, as Ruth says, having an actual professional staff will make a big difference in ways we haven't been able to appreciate.  We just have had messing up at every single level.

And I remain a Biden optimist, a Biden optimist in terms of how much he can actually get done.  I do think there are a lot of people in Congress who I talk to who really want to pass legislation.  There are a lot of moderates who realize this is their moment, this is the moment they can stop the party leaders who want to get super partisan.

This is the moment they — Susan Collins has the power to stop a lot of stuff if she wants to.  And so a lot of people, especially in the Senate, want to have votes.  They haven't had the chance to have votes on things, because Mitch McConnell only really cares about judicial confirmations.

And so there's a lot of pent-up demand to pass legislation.  And there are a lot of issues on which that legislation can be passed, not everything.  But there are certain issues where you can get pretty bipartisan support.

And so I remain much more hopeful about the legislative process next year than maybe most.

Ruth Marcus:  Judy, can I…

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  And what about you, Ruth?  Go ahead.  Sure.

Ruth Marcus:  Now we're going back to our usual corners, because I am a sort of "glasses three-quarters empty and not one-quarter full" person when it comes to the capacity of President Biden to get things through this Senate, certainly if Mitch McConnell and Republicans retain control of the Senate.

The Susan Collinses and others of the world notwithstanding, this is a body and a political system, more broadly, that rewards obstructionism, and through the primary process is only going to reward obstructionism.  That was true before Donald Trump came on the scene, and it remains true after he leaves.

And while there is a capacity to come together through the desire to spend money — that's what Congress is really good at doing — it's not really good at getting a lot of other things done.  So, I see way fewer possibilities there.

I think the possibilities for success in a Biden presidency rest within what's within his control in the executive branch, undoing some of the terrible damage that Trump has done, undoing regulations, passing new regulations, enacting executive orders, to the extent that he has the authority to do that.

But I really hope that David's right and I'm wrong on this one, because there is a lot of legislative need.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, what about right now?  I mean, this dispute over the $2,000 check to people.  The President's [Trump] pushing for it.  Mitch McConnell says no.

What about that — those arguments?  And what about the political fallout from it, if any?

David Brooks:  Well, first, I note the bipartisan sort of agreement on this between Josh Hawley on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left.  I do think there are more of those coalitions to be had.

Now, having said that, I don't — I don't support it.  I think Mitch McConnell and John Thune, who we saw earlier in the program, are essentially right.  I think it would be a very wise idea to give people who make under $60,000 those $2,000 checks.  I see no reason why we should give people earning more than that those checks.  It's just not a good use of federal funds.

Larry Summers, the — Barack Obama and Bill Clinton's economist, says there's some danger of overheating the economy if we do that.  And so I think McConnell's mostly right on the merits.  But it is odd how the populist Presidency that Trump could have had, if he'd really done populist things, is sort of on the floor of the Senate today.

He sort of passed that up and went for sort of a populist-in-language, corporate-in-talk presidency — or corporate in action.

Judy Woodruff:  And Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, Ruth, stopping it dead in its tracks.

Any consequences from this, or are we just going to forget about it and move on to the next thing in a few weeks?

Ruth Marcus:  Well, we will talk about Georgia in a bit, I hope.  So, there could be consequences there.

But I think that Mitch McConnell has a point about the — and others — about the size of the checks, along with David and Larry Summers.  He is not in — he has zero standing to raise this point, because, unless I have missed something, I don't see him taking the Brooksian approach of limiting it to people who earn a certain amount or doing other things that would be more targeted, like extending unemployment benefits.

He just wants to stop it in his tracks.  That's what he's good at.

Are there consequences for that?  I see the President was railing against Senator Thune and earlier and urging challenges to him.  So, there may be consequences, I guess, from Donald Trump as he continues to thunder.

Judy Woodruff:  And speaking of — one of you mentioned Josh Hawley.

I think it was you, David.

He's not only sided with the President on this.  He's siding with the President — he's spoken up and said he's going to be the senator — so far, the only one — who has said he's going to object to the electors being counted for Joe Biden next week.

What do you make of what Josh Hawley is up to?  Where does this leave him and the Republican Party?

David Brooks:  I think it leaves the Republican Party as divorced from reality intact even in a post-Trump era.

Josh Hawley, it should be said, went to Yale Law School, arguably the finest law school in the country.

Sorry, Ruth.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  [Hawley] Went to — he clerked for John — Justice Roberts.  He wrote a very fine book on Alexander Hamilton.  He's no intellectual slouch.

And yet he's pretending that something is true that he has to know is not true because it plays to his base.  And so it means, going forward, the Republicans are going to do a lot of performative display of Trumpian unreality.

And so it's very bad news for the country, because truth is one of the things we have lost this year.  But it's bad news for Republican Parties going forward.  And I'd love to know what's in the head of normal, rational Republicans like John Thune, who we keep mentioning.  Like, what's going on in that guy's head as he sees Hawley do this?

Some Republicans have really stood up, like Ben Sasse from Nebraska, but is the rest of the party really going to follow him?  There are some reports that, in the House, you could get over more than 100 House members siding with the Hawley side.

It's a complete denial of reality.  And it's bad news for the future.

Judy Woodruff:  Ruth?

Ruth Marcus:  It's bad news for the future in the way that I was talking about earlier, in terms of just erasing norms of behavior and allowing just dangerous arguments to go forward.

But I see a strange upside in the Hawley stunt, which is this.  Too often, during the four long years of the Trump presidency, Republican lawmakers, especially in the Senate, have been able to avoid taking a stand on some of the outrageous things that he's [Trump] doing.

And if Hawley makes his colleagues take this to a vote, at least we will finally know, who are the Republican senators who are just so dedicated to the cult of Trump that they will go along with the Hawleys of the Senate, and who are the ones who are respecting the Constitution?

And so the other way to look at it is, any vote that Mitch McConnell fervently wants to avoid is a vote that, in some way, I'm happy to have.  So, I guess we're going to have it.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, just in the little bit of time we have left, that's the big thing we're watching this week, along with those Georgia Senate run-offs, David.

We had a Georgia reporter yesterday saying the Democrats look to be in strong shape.  What are your sources, what's your reporting telling you?

David Brooks:  Well, the polls have ticked up for both Democrats.  The early voting in kind was more in support of the Democratic side.

I'm just thinking that we have undercounted Trump and the Republican supporters pretty often in the last several years, and so I wouldn't get too confident if I was a Democrat.

Judy Woodruff:  Ruth, about 20 seconds.

Ruth Marcus:  I wouldn't get too confident.

But it seems like Donald Trump and his supporters have been doing everything they can to make life harder for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue and — in their argument that the Georgia election was rigged, so you can't trust the system, and their argument that you need to reelect these Republican senators, so they can go to Washington, back to Washington, and continue to block your $2,000 checks.

That doesn't seem like a winning argument to me.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, there's a lot — it's a lot that we're looking for this first week in January, that and, as we said, the electors' vote that's coming up on Wednesday.

We thank you both on this New Year's Day for joining us.

David Brooks, Ruth Marcus, thank you.

Ruth Marcus:  Happy new year.

David Brooks:  You too.

Judy Woodruff:  And to you.

COVID-19 - Wednesday 12/30/2020

"Senate remains at a standstill over increased COVID relief checks" PBS NewsHour 12/30/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The struggle to provide additional COVID relief continues in the U.S. Senate.  The passage of $2,000 relief checks is stalled despite President Trump's repeated demands for larger direct payments.  Anna Palmer, senior Washington correspondent for POLITICO, joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

 

 

"Arizona health care workers face ‘catastrophic’ conditions amid surge in COVID cases" PBS NewsHour 12/30/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With the number of COVID cases and hospitalizations surging in many parts of the country, health care systems and their staff are becoming further strained, including many areas in Arizona.  In Phoenix, six hospitals are now diverting incoming emergency patients to other facilities.  Dr. Quinn Snyder, an emergency physician in Mesa, Arizona, joins Amna Nawaz to discuss his view from the frontline.

 

 

"U.S. struggles to distribute vaccinations, falling far short of projections" PBS NewsHour 12/30/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the first two weeks of America's vaccination campaign, just 2 million people have received the first of the two required doses for their vaccinations -- far short of the Trump administration's projections of 20 million vaccinations by the end of this year.  William Brangham spoke to Dr. Carlos del Rio, a professor of global health at Emory University School of Medicine, to discuss.

 

 

"COVID-19 cases drop in rural Missouri, but vaccinations are still weeks away" PBS NewsHour 12/30/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As the pandemic continues spiraling out of control in much of the U.S., the number of infections have declined in recent weeks in Scotland County, Missouri.  But despite that good news, medical professionals there may not receive any doses of the coronavirus vaccine until the end of January, and they fear their community could soon have another surge.  Special correspondent James Fox reports.

COVID-19 - Monday 12/28/2020

"‘We didn’t choose this.’ Unemployed man shares frustrations on COVID relief fight" PBS NewsHour 12/28/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Millions of unemployed Americans watched the weekend fight over COVID relief play out with a sense of exasperation over feeling like pawns in a game of political football, said Michael West, 60, an Uber driver who has been out of work since the spring.  He talks to Amna Nawaz about the realities of pandemic job loss and what he thinks Americans like him need from Congress in the coming months.

 

 

"3 tragic mistakes that made the 2020 pandemic worse" PBS NewsHour 12/28/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  At key moments over the last year leaders around the globe made critical mistakes that worsened the pandemic and led to more deaths.  That’s the argument put forth by the New Yorker’s Lawrence Wright in “The Plague Year,” an article that fills the magazine’s entire January issue.  Wright explains what went wrong in an interview with Senior National Correspondent Amna Nawaz.

 

 

"Why it could be years before Africans have access to coronavirus vaccines" PBS NewsHour 12/28/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The development of COVID-19 vaccines is raising questions about their rollout across the world.

As the richest nations buy up the lion's share of doses, how and when will developing countries be able to vaccinate their populations?

Countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo are now wrestling with that reality in a nation that's already endured recent epidemics.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/26/2020

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s poll numbers, health care in a pandemic" PBS NewsHour 6/26/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including polling on President Trump’s job performance, the federal response to a surging coronavirus pandemic, the administration’s effort to strike down the Affordable Care Act, congressional divergence on police reform and whether Washington, D.C., will become a state.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So good to see both of you.  Thank you for being here this Friday.

So, let's start with some interesting poll numbers.  They show not only President Trump running somewhere between eight, 12, even 14 points behind Joe Biden, but the President's disapproval ratings are at record highs.

This is from the new Marist poll the "NewsHour" does with NPR and Marist, 58 percent disapproval for President Trump, the highest it has ever been.  And then you see on this second graph his ratings, disapproval ratings higher than President Obama at his — at this stage of his presidency or President Bush 43 at this point in their first term in office.

David, how significant is this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Oh, pretty significant.

The numbers are devastating for the President.  But, you know, big things have happened.  We're looking at possible really serious and long economic recession or depression.  We're losing the battle against COVID.  We're having a racial reckoning.

And a lot of white Americans are learning what daily life is like for African Americans.  These are just gigantic things that are happening in the country.  And on each one of them, Donald Trump is considered an inadequate leader by a lot of people.  So he's losing college-educated women.  He's losing some high school-educated white men, just across the board.

In our New York Times poll this week, Biden was winning by 14 percentage points.  These are — there's no way, other than to say that some seismic shift is happening in the electorate right now, and a lot of people want to fire Donald Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, what do you see in these numbers, and how significant do you think they are?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, I think they're encouraging for the Democrats.

But, at the same time, Judy, for those who want to put the champagne on ice, I would remind them of the wisdom of Ann Richards, the late governor of Texas, who said, July results do not make a November election.

And, you know, this is not the first time that Democrats have had a large lead in the summer, and not managed to win in November.

But I think for Donald — I think David's absolutely right about Donald Trump.  He — right now, this election is a referendum on him.  And he is failing that test on virtually every major ground.

There's only two times it's good to be a United States President, one, when things are going so swimmingly, prosperity, and there's peace in the world, and you get to that — bask in that warmth of the era of good feeling.

The second time is, strangely enough, when there's a catastrophe not of your making, an earthquake or a pandemic, as we're having now.  And that's when a President can console and lead and comfort a nation and be really a figure who brings everybody together.  Donald Trump has failed that, and failed it miserably, and I don't see a recovery.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, the President, though, is having his first rallies.  He was out in Tulsa last weekend.  He was in Arizona a few days ago getting thousands of people to show up, in Tulsa, what is it, 6,000.

He's dismissing, if you will, the COVID virus, though.  I mean, he's saying that, if more testing — if there were more testing done, there wouldn't be a virus.  He is trying play to his base.

David Brooks:  To some part of his base.

There's some of the base that likes him.  They like the showmanship of the rallies.  They like the jokes.  They like him spending 20 minutes talking about walking down a ramp, which he did in Tulsa.

But there's a part of his base — and these are people who have supported him in the past — who hate all that stuff.  They vote for him for judges or for some other issue, or because they think he's decent on the economy.  But now he's not decent on the economy.

And they really don't like the idea of voting for a President who seems racist.  And so they might be with him on other issues, but — so you're seeing him — people flake away from him for really serious issues, for really serious reasons, not for some temporary tweet.

And so I agree with Mark.  This is not the time to celebrate.  But we have had such a stable set of polls over the last three years, where Trump has just hung basically solid vis-a-vis other people.  And now things look different.  And they look different because big things are happening.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, I mean, could his arguments about the virus appeal to enough people to somehow persuade them that he's got the right argument going here?

Mark Shields:  I doubt it, Judy.

He [Trump] has not been a national leader on this issue.  I mean, in fact, he's been a sniper on the sidelines too much, criticizing governors in Michigan and Minnesota and Virginia for taking measures to — in their states to lead to a lockdown, in hopes of curtailing it.

Somehow, there seems to have emerged a choice between public health and a strong economy.  And Donald Trump says, well, I'm for a strong economy.  Open up that economy.

But the reality is, we will not have a strong economy without restored public health.  I mean, that's the route and the road to it.  And I just think that he's going down a dead end.  And it shows terrible indifference to the people who are his most loyal supporters.

Those 3,000 kids in Arizona without masks, without any social distancing, that's a — that's a terrible prospect of illness forthcoming.

Judy Woodruff:  And that's the image that the administration's projecting, David.

The vice President today defending those rallies, saying there's a First Amendment right to assembly, people have a right to go out and support the candidate of their choice.

David Brooks:  Well, I sort of have some sympathy for that.

If we're going to have the George Floyd protests, which I think we should have had, you can't say to one group of people, you can protest, but, to another, you can't, obviously, once that precedent was set.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

David Brooks:  Though, you know, the more I think about this whole administration, there was a crucial moment, when the President basically chose Jared Kushner over Steve Bannon.

And what's interesting about the Bannon populist wing is, they were very quick on this COVID situation.  They were saying, this is a major crisis way back in February.  They were: Let's take this seriously.  Let's be the side of order.  Let's be the side of the health hawks, if you want to put them that way.

And Trump went the other way early in his administration, away from the populists, and toward more Wall Street people.  And he said:  No, it's nothing, because I don't want to hurt the market.

And that shift in the administration, looking back on it, was one of the pivotal shifts in the administration.  And I hate to be a praiser of Steve Bannon, but I think, frankly, the President would be a — in better shape, both substantively and politically, if he had listened to people on that wing.

Judy Woodruff:  Interesting.  We have forgotten about that.

And, Mark, on top — to top it all off, it's what we talked about early in the program, the administration going to the Supreme Court to try to yet again do away with the Affordable Care Act.

Is this something that's likely to win him friends and admirers at this stage of his reelection effort?

Mark Shields:  No, Judy.

John Boehner, the former Republican Speaker of the House, was very candid on this subject, said, 25 years as a Republican in the House, not once, never once did Republicans ever agree on a health care plan.  And he was absolutely right.

There's never been a Republican health care plan.  They're trying to repeal, replace the — the Affordable Care Act, but at a time when 20 million people are turning to it, having lost their jobs, and at a time when it is more popular than it ever was when Barack Obama was President, and with every health care group of any significance and hospitals and doctors and — except the American Nurses Association — opposing the administration this.

What happens if they win and there is no Affordable Care Act, and there is no preexisting condition coverage?  And I just — it's an absolute political folly.

Judy Woodruff:  I want to ask you about that, David.  And then — and then I have got two or three other things I want to ask.

So, go ahead, if you want to comment — comment for us on the Affordable Care Act and the administration trying to — yet again to get rid of it.

David Brooks:  Well, just quickly, if you're a Republican Senate candidate in Arizona or Georgia or wherever these close races are, suddenly, you have got to defend the idea of taking away this insurance for preexisting conditions, at a moment when having had COVID-19 could become a preexisting condition.

It's political poison for any Republican Senate candidate in a close race.

Judy Woodruff:  David, I'm going to stay with you.

Police reform.  After all these rallies around the country, it's clear there's a lot of sentiment for looking at ways to improve policing in this country, the House and the Senate completely — Republicans and Democrats completely at odds over this.  What's going on?

David Brooks:  On this one, I blame the Democrats, frankly.

I think Tom (sic) Scott, the Republican from South Carolina, who was the Republican sponsor, put together a good-faith bill.  It had not everything the Democrats wanted, obviously, but it had some stuff.  It had the — making lynching a federal hate crime.  It had — against choke holds, more transparency for police misconduct.

And then Scott said, we're going to let you vote on amendments.  And so maybe — and he said that maybe I'd support some of these amendments.

And so he had a pretty open process.  I'm a big believer, if you can take half a cake, take half a cake.  And then, if Democrats win November, they can get the whole cake.  I think they should have compromised on this and accepted half a cake.  It would have been a step forward to a better police force.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, should the Democrats have tried to sit down with Tim Scott or any of the other Republicans?

Mark Shields:  Well, I think Tim Scott (R-S.C.)— I think Tim Scott, who is an authentic figure on this and absolutely a man of reality, talked about his own personal experience of being stopped seven times by Capitol Hill Police, he, a United States senator, and being asked for identification and papers.

And so he showed a sensitivity to it.  But I think there was a skepticism about how much he could deliver.

But I did honestly think there was a chance.  I thought that — for legislative compromise on this.  I'm less confident of that today than I was last week.  It's an election year.  The Senate is about to take two weeks off.  The closer we get to election, the less chance there is.

And I'm sad about it.

AMERICAN MILITARY - U.S. Force Reduction in Germany

"Trump pushes plan to reduce forces in Germany despite bipartisan opposition" PBS NewsHour 6/24/2020

aka 'Trump Makes Boyfriend Putin Very Happy by Abandoning Germany'

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump met with Polish President Andrzej Duda at the White House Wednesday -- the first time he has hosted a foreign leader since the pandemic began.  Trump reiterated his administration’s plan to base 2,000 American troops in Poland after relocating them from Germany.  The move is controversial and has roiled both members of Congress and U.S. allies in Europe.  Nick Schifrin reports.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/5/2020

"Shields and Brooks on race in America, Trump’s response" PBS NewsHour 6/5/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest news, including public opinion of the nationwide protests over police treatment of black Americans, President Trump’s response and use of force to dispel protesters and the reaction of prominent military leaders to his handling of the situation.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  To help us make sense of a week that brought protesters to the — into the streets in more than 700 American cities and towns, the analysis of Shields and Brooks.

That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, hello to both of you.

What about these protesters, Mark?  I have just been talking with Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles about it, but, as we said, 700 cities and towns across the country, thousands and thousands of people in the streets.  It started out about George Floyd.  It's become, I think it's fair to say, something much bigger than that.

What do you make of it?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Judy, it's quite unlike anything I have ever seen.

The — most protests here in Washington involve the usual suspects on both sides.  Those are committed partisans, in some cases, zealots, who show up regularly.

This is remarkable in its composition.  It's people who are not protesters, who are not political activists.  At the same time, even though it's spawned by, inspired by the tragic death of George Floyd, it is not specifically racial.  There's a very large white composition in it.

And that, to me, is rather remarkable, the reach of it.  It's reached not only the major cities, but small towns worldwide.  I think this is of enormous significance.  And it can't be of little consolation to George Floyd's family and loved ones, but his death is having — his murder is having an enormous impact on this country.  And it will not be just transitory.  I think it will be permanent.

Judy Woodruff:  You think it will — David, do you think this is a different moment?  We have seen moments of protest.  We have seen police-involved killings of black men.

What's different this time?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I would say it's a combination of things.

I sort of think of it as a hurricane that's happening in an earthquake.  The earthquake started in 2014 with Ferguson, with a lot of terrorist killings, then with the election of Donald Trump.  And we saw ravines open up in our society.  We saw divides in politics.  We saw racial divides, economic divides, obviously.

And into this comes first a pandemic, just pouring water and exposing all the divides, and then this killing, this murder, which exposes them more.  And then you get this generational turnover.  You have had a generation of people under 35 who've seen the financial crisis, who've seen a bit of the war in Iraq maybe, but who've seen nothing on global warming.

And so this is a generation that is fed up.  And, frankly, a lot of people in the African-American community are fed up.  The word I keep hearing is exhausted.

And so I do think, when you calculate the depth of the ravines that are being exposed, with a generational change, with a sense of America finally turning to race as maybe the central storyline in our history or our story right now, these are just big, epic shifts.

And I do think it's like one of those big shifts that happen periodically in American history, '68 or 1890 or 1830.  And I think we're in the middle of something — I agree with Mark.  I think it's not just a moment.  It's a climactic shift.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, a shift.

Will it lead to something distinctly different, though, from what we have today?  Because these protesters, as we have just been discussing, they want police departments defunded, or they want budgets cut.  They want real change.  They want more African-Americans elected to office, and many, many other demands about — around education, around housing, around communities.

Are those things really going to change?

Mark Shields:  Well, Judy, I think there's demands, and there's demands.

I think Mayor Garcetti made a good point that both the African-American community and the police need each other.  They truly do.  I mean, African-Americans disproportionately live in high-crime areas.  And they do want an engaged, principled and activist work — police force working to preserve peace and order in their community.

But I think we're far beyond the prayers and thoughts, reaction.  I think there's an awakening in this country to the fact that African-Americans, people of color have been treated — and it's irrefutable — been treated differently in law enforcement, and unfairly.

I don't think there's any question about that.

I do find it encouraging that two institutions that have been sort of sidelined, it seems, in our country that were so much involved in the American civil rights movement and were — played principle roles this week.

I thought Bishop Budde of the Episcopal Church here in Washington spoke up so forcefully about the photo-op using and abusing her church.  Archbishop Wilton Gregory, the African-American Catholic archbishop of Washington, D.C., spoke out strenuously, emphatically against using religious places and symbols to exploit political advantage, especially when the message isn't one of inclusiveness or justice.

So — and the United States military — it's no accident that the United States military, the most integrated institution in our society, that the words of people like General Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike McMullen — Mike Mullen, to add to Mike Hayden, Stanley McChrystal, and Admiral McRaven, as well as, of course, General Mattis, you know, and the reaction of the military, I think, was encouraging.

And so I'm hopeful.

Judy Woodruff:  David, I do want to ask you both about the President and bring in the use of the military.

But, just quickly, do you think there will be real change coming out of what we're seeing?

David Brooks:  Yes, I look at the polls.

And we never used to get polls where it was 50 — where it was above 55 percent for anything.  We were completely an evenly divided country.  And now we had a poll, PBS/Marist poll, 67 percent disapproving of the way Donald Trump is reacting to this moment, 67 percent reaction to the lockdown.

We had 67, 77 percent.  Again and over the course of the last three months, we have had polls in the 60s and 70s.  It looks to me like we're a less divided country than they were, Joe Biden opening up now an eight-point lead on the average polls.

So, I mean, the dumb thing to say is, we're moving left.  And the pandemic and this event have just underlined the inequalities in America.  And whether you like it or not, I just think that's the reality, if you look at the evidence.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, let's — let me turn you to what Mark brought up.  And that is the President invoking the military, I mean, having the military, armed people out in the streets, troops clearing the streets forcefully to make way, so that he could walk across the area, the — Lafayette Square, to hold the Bible in front of St.  John's Church.

A lot of pushback, as Mark reminded us, from former military officials.  Even — we're even seeing current military leaders pull back.

Is this a moment of turn for this President, do you think?

David Brooks:  I do.  I mentioned the polling.

But, listen, he's [Trump] been a bully for a long time, but he was a bully over Twitter, and maybe he was a bully to the press.  But now he's using U.S. troops to be a bully.

I think what set General Mattis off was just watching the military, which is a fine, unprofessional and unpoliticized — I mean, professional, but unpoliticized organization, suddenly turned into a prop in a campaign video.  And I think that turned his stomach, as it should turn all our stomachs.

But I think what mystifies me — and it goes back to what you were talking about with Mayor Garcetti — is, you have a President who's taken this authoritarian line of domination, be dominant, unleash vicious dogs and dangerous weapons.

And that's not only just talk anymore.  And it swings through the Republican Party and Senator Tom Cotton's tweets about no quarter given.  We're going to dominate our fellow citizens, as if they are enemy.

And then I think it bleeds down to the police and the videos we have already seen tonight.  It's a theme that is coming from the top, from the White House, a theme of brutalism, of mental brutalism.  And it affects people.

And what we have seen coming out of the White House has been a more dangerous contagion than even with all the outrages of the past.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, David raised the — it's term, and the President used it again today.  We need to dominate, he said, even as they are now announcing they're going to pull uniformed military out of the streets of Washington.

But the orders are there.  I mean, we know what happened this week.  We know that the President talked about calling out the National Guard.  He urged governors to use the National Guard.  He said they were weak, would look like fools if they didn't.

And we're left with the reminders of this.

Mark Shields:  This is the world of Donald Trump, to be very blunt about it.

Admiral Mattis may have put it best at the Al Smith Dinner in New York last fall, which I'm sure didn't escape the President's attention, when he said, I earned my spurs.  'I, General Mattis, earned my spurs in battle, and Donald Trump earned his spurs in a doctor's letter.'

And that's the toughness, that's sort of the phony toughness of Donald Trump, the swagger.  When his number and his chance came up to serve and to get tough, he, of course, ran and scurried personally.  But he's somebody who wants to bully other people.

And he does not — I guess what bothers me more than anything else — I saw him today in act that Jack Reed, the senator from Rhode Island, a very respected member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called pretty and preposterous, pulling 9,500 American troops out of Germany to — why?  Out of spite and out of pettiness, because Mrs. Merkel declined his invitation to be part of the photo-op of the G7 at Camp David next month, because — on the very legitimate grounds of coronavirus.

So, I mean this is — the President, he does not understand the military.  It's kind of a crazy swagger, John Wayne movie version of it.  Most military people — I just miss John McCain so much.  If John McCain were alive today, it would be scorching and scalding, the rhetoric he would be directing at this President of his own party.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 5/22/2020

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s call to reopen, mail-in voting" PBS NewsHour 5/22/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including President Trump’s call to reopen houses of worship despite the pandemic, controversial comments from Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, public opinion on reopening the country, the battle over mail-in voting and Trump’s firing of inspectors general.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, both joining us from their homes.

Hello to both of you.

I want to start with President Trump today ordering the nation's governors to open up houses of worship, saying, there's nothing they should do to prevent churches, synagogues and mosques from opening up.

Mark, the President told the governors that, if they don't go along with this, he's going to override them, although it's not clear he has the authority to do that.

What do you make of the President's really relentless push to get the country to open up, his leadership at this moment in this pandemic?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, Judy, the churches are an intriguing and complex problem unto themselves, that someone would order the churches to open.

And the reality is that the biggest concern has been gatherings of 10 or more people.  And churches frequently involve a lot more than 10 people in close quarters.  And they also have that problem with separation.

The President's commitment as a churchgoer brings to mind Tom Wolfe's great line about making world safe for hypocrisy.  This seems to be more political than ecclesiastical or theological on his part.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, I want to ask you to weigh in too.

And I want to bring in the fact that we are seeing, as the President pushes harder and harder for the country to open up, the support for this is breaking along partisan lines.

We had a new poll this week, "NewsHour"/NPR/Marist, showing that more Republicans are with the President, more Democrats are more cautious.

How do you look at all this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

First, the President is not subtle in his culture war fighting.  He wanted to defend Christmas against the alleged war on Christmas.  And now he is doing this.

It's a pretty naked attempt to try to appeal to evangelical voters.  Churches happen to be one of the places where we have seen a lot of super spreading.  One of the Korean churches was in — early in — was one of the worst things that happened.  And so that's — it's just foolish.

The second foolishness is that a national policy here is just not a good policy.  This is very context-specific.  This virus is very decentralized.  It hits one place, it doesn't hit another.

So, every decision that should be made, in my view, should be at the local possible-list level.  And so Trump is just — it's just politics.  It's just words out of his mouth.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, in terms of the President's overall determination to get the country to open up, is this something that, in the long run, he looks stronger as a leader for having done this?

Mark Shields:  Well, Judy, I think the President, understandably, wants to switch the subject.

It's interesting.  ABC News has measured each month people's confidence in the President's leadership and their trust of him on handling the coronavirus.  It was — it reached a high of 54 percent in March.  Then it dropped down to 44 percent.  And now in the latest, in May, it's at 39 percent.

So, the President wants to get off the — his coronavirus shepherding and get back, he hopes, to an economy, which was his calling card for reelection, and that somehow, in the next six months, he could — well, five months, I guess now in a couple of weeks — that it could get revitalized confidence and optimism in the economy, and show some progress.

That's it.  I mean, it hasn't worked for him as 'surgeon general.'  And he's got to try and do it as the economic chief.

Judy Woodruff:  And just quickly on this, David, one other thing.

A lot of people commenting when the President goes out, as he is trying to, he's not wearing a mask.  Does it matter that the President doesn't?

David Brooks:  Yes, that's exceptionally poor leadership.  You lead by example.  That's elementary school leadership.

I think the worst thing that could happen right now is that we — opening and not opening became a partisan issue.  Republicans and Democrats do differ, but not all that much.  You still get 75, 77 percent of the country supporting social distancing.

In our polarized age, you just don't get that much.  If you look at the movement in red and blue states, there's no real difference in how people are behaving.

There's a significant distance — difference in how people see the future.  Democrats, by some gigantic percentage, 80 or 90 percent, say the worst is still ahead of us.  Republicans, by some gigantic percentage, say that worst is still behind us.

But the fact is, the opening up is happening.  And it's happening in all 50 states, and it's going to happen everywhere.  And it's not a political decision.  It's a question of striking a balance between safety and economic opportunity.

And so it's not an ideological issue.  It's just the delicate balance that will be different in every single place.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 4/24/2020

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s briefings, coronavirus aid" PBS NewsHour 4/24/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Trump’s controversial medical commentary, the respective roles of federal and state governments in the crisis, American public opinion on pandemic restrictions, congressional pandemic relief and how they’re handling social distancing.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, all three of us are at our homes.  It's great to see both you, Mark, and you, David, staying safe.

Let's start with President Trump's decision to turn over to the governors the decision about whether and when to open up.

Mark, we have seen the state of Georgia, other states moving quickly to reverse the stay-at-home orders.  There are questions being raised about whether it's too early.  The President himself at point — backing down on his support for this.

How do you read all this?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  It's — you have to watch it closely, Judy.

I mean, last — just last weekend, the President was in bold type tweeting out, liberate Minnesota, liberate Michigan, liberate Virginia, to put pressure on Democratic governors there to lift the bans and lift the quarantine.

So Kemp, the governor of Georgia, who was the last in the country to impose stay-at-home rules, wants to be the first to lift them, and thought he had a green light from the President, I guess.

But the President doesn't forget the fact that, while he is a loyal supporter of Mr. Kemp's, it's an off-and-on thing, because Kemp, if you will recall, just at a petty political point, instead of appointing to Johnny Isakson's vacancy in the United States Senate Doug Collins, the congressman from Georgia who had been so close to the President, he appointed Kelly Loeffler.

And, all of a sudden, Donald Trump, the President, was told, according to reports from CNN, by — both by Anthony Fauci, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that he could not support and wouldn't defend the lifting of the quarantine in Georgia, so he backed off.

And it appears to be a cynical political ploy, with the following formula: For anything that improves the economy, the President gets credit.  For any increase in the pandemic, in incidents of disease and death, that has been the decision of the governor.

Judy Woodruff:  And so, David, I mean, the President, by doing this, is passing on responsibility to the governors, for better or worse.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, and I'm happy about it.  I don't want life-or-death decisions made by a guy who thinks this can be solved by drinking disinfectant.  So, if you can get it out of the White House, we're getting it into safer and better hands.

There's like division of powers here.  The federal government is there to dole out money and to organize some of the testing and things like that.  And so far, it's doing a reasonably good job of doling out a lot of money.

But the states are there to make the decisions about their own states.  If you had people in Wyoming deciding — thinking that Washington was going to determine their life or death, they'd rebel against Washington.  If you had a lot of progressive areas thinking that Donald Trump was going to determine life-or-death decisions, they would rebel against Donald Trump.

So, I think it's just much better to be doing this on the local level.

The one final thing I will say, we tend to gin up conflict.  But, in this, I think we're overstating how much conflict there is in America.  Americans, considered how polarized, we're amazingly united right now; 98 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans support the social distancing; 90 percent of Americans, complete bipartisan consensus, believe that, if we loosened too much, there'd be a second wave; 76 percent of Americans say, even if their governor did loosen, they wouldn't go out.

And so, to me, the big story here is that we're sort of hanging together through this.

Judy Woodruff:  Evidently so, if you believe those polls.

But, Mark, going back to what David mentioned a moment ago, and that is the President's statement yesterday about injecting ultraviolet light or disinfectant into ourselves, I mean, today, the White House was saying that was just a joke, they didn't mean it.

But there have been other statements that he's made about endorsing this anti-malaria drug that the experts are saying cannot be relied on.

What are the American people to make of all this?

Mark Shields:  Well, Judy, I think maybe the most unreported story of the week was Piers Morgan, the British television journalist, who is a friend of the President, one of the 47 people on Twitter the President has access to — he has given three interviews to British television all his presidency, all three to Piers Morgan.

And Piers Morgan went public and said what an awful lot of Trump supporters and critics have been saying.  And that is, Mr. President, you're really hurting yourself in these television talk — daily conferences, that you're coming across as self-aggrandizing, as self-interested, as really not a leader, concerned more, basically, about your own reelection than you are about the health and well-being of the people who elected you.

And I really think that crystallized the criticism.  A number of Republicans have followed.  And I think you will see the President backing off.

Yesterday's performance was the worst.  I mean, to say Lysol is a possibility for inhalation sarcastically, he's not Will Rogers.  He's not Jerry Seinfeld.  He's not a man known for his sense of humor.

It wasn't sarcasm.  It was just Donald Trump being absolutely reckless and irresponsible.  And I think the quick — they have seen his numbers drop, and I think the daily press conference has been the principal contributing factor to it.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, just in the last hour, the White House has let it be known that they are now going to be cutting short these daily briefings, some of which have gone on for two hours and longer.

So I mean, how much, in the end, does it matter what the President is saying at a time like this?  Are the American people — how much do they need to hear from their political leader, and how much do they need to hear from medical experts?

David Brooks:  They need medical experts.

It's a morale destroyer.  It's tough on morale.  It's a drain on all of us.  And even the Trump supporters feel drained by his foolery.

But I don't think it's really damaged the way people act.  A funny thing has happened, I noticed, in my local grocery store.  Like a month ago, maybe 5 percent of the people were wearing masks.  Then it was 30 percent.  And then it suddenly flipped, and it was 70 percent.

And starting two weeks ago, if you weren't wearing a mask, even before the law came down, people spoke to you and said, you need to get a mask.

And so what that shows to me is a community setting new norms, setting new moral standards, having new expectations of how we should protect one another.

And when I see a community acting as one, like in the grocery store, and we all see it, then you see a community that's basically healthy, that — where people are — understand the obligations they have to each other.  And that was not automatic going into this.

Most plagues, that's not how people behave.  So, I think it hurts our morale, what Trump does.  But I wouldn't say it's destroyed it.

Judy Woodruff:  Interesting, what you say about, you see people at the grocery store.  We're seeing much this the same thing.

David — I mean, Mark, I want to quickly come to what Congress was able to do this week.  And that is in passing legislation to provide more support for small businesses, some of it for hospitals and others.

How much difference is this aid going to make?  How much more is going to be needed?  We're already seeing worry about the size of the deficit, of the debt the country is going to owe when all this is over.

Where does the argument land there?

Mark Shields:  I don't know how much difference it's going to make.

I will say this, Judy.  The immortal Dante, as FDR referred to him, weighs the sins of the cold-hearted and the sins of the warm-hearted on a different scale.  In other words, this is reaching out to people who had not — who had been left out of the first aid to minorities, to women, to small — really small businesses, not publicly traded companies, which hundreds of millions of dollars of small business aid went to, to hospitals, the people who are on the front line and dealing with this terrible tragedy every day.

And, you know, to me, it showed an awareness and an understanding.  I don't think anybody understands the gravity economically.  It's going to be — it is enormous.  It will be enormous.

But, right now, what we have seen is sort of a bait and switch on the part of Republicans, who said, oh, you can do the aid to local cities and states in the next one, said Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House leader.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Mark Shields:  And now Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says there will be no next one.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

So, David, just in a few words, how much is the worry about the debt, the deficit, going to be part of this going forward, as people are hurting?

David Brooks:  Yes, I don't think it should be.

In wartime, even fiscal conservatives believe in spending.  They have done a good thing.  This paycheck protection act for small businesses, it's impressive how much money they have gotten out the door.

There's somebody in the Small Business Administration who is probably working 18-hour days.  A lot of people are probably working days to get that much money.

I have sort of been impressed by how much they have gotten out the door, the money for testing.  They're bickering, but they did something good this week.  They spent hundreds of billions of dollars.  And they passed a very complicated piece of legislation on a bipartisan basis.

It's funny to me that the members of Congress, even when they do something good, they can't take a victory lap.  They're so used to just bickering and bickering and bickering.

Judy Woodruff:  In just about 45 seconds we have left, I want to ask each of you how you're doing, staying at home all the time, or almost all the time.

Mark, how is it going?

Mark Shields:  Well, Judy, I'm rereading Tolstoy for the third time.

And — no, I'm not.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  I have rearranged my sock drawer.

And I'm doing fine.  I have got a wonderful roommate.  And I have had the same one for half-a-century.  And I'm just finding new and wonderful things about her every day.

Judy Woodruff:  Pretty great roommate.  We know Anne Shields.

David, what about you?  How are you holding up?  How are you doing?

David Brooks:  Yes, I'm blessed.

I have got a good, fine group of people here in my little forged family.  And I'm playing my son in ping-pong ferociously, and I'm hoping to develop a backhand by the end of this.

So there are little blessings amid the great worry that we're all going through.  But there are little blessings, even in these days, with family.

Judy Woodruff:  I feel the same way.  So much more to be grateful for than the other way around.

Well, we're grateful to the two of you.

David Brooks, Mark Shields, thank you, and please stay safe.

Mark Shields:  Thank you, Judy.