SUMMARY:President Trump announced Friday that he had struck a deal with Mexico both to stem the flow of immigrants from Mexico into the U.S. and to avoid levying tariffs on Mexican imports. Nick Schifrin talks to the NewsHour’s Amna Nawaz, reporting from El Paso, and James Frederick, a journalist based in Mexico City, about the details of the agreement and the outlook for meaningful change.
SUMMARY:Some of the nation's top teachers recently gathered in El Paso, Texas, to speak out against the government’s practice of detaining children who cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Dismissing the notion that they shouldn't get involved in political advocacy, teachers said they see some U.S. policy and procedures as "abusive." Special correspondent Kavitha Cardoza of Education Week reports.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including whether Republicans are on the defensive, normal negotiations vs “towers of ego,” Michael Cohen’s upcoming congressional testimony and the news that Paul Manafort may have shared polling data with a Russian associate.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And to the analysis now of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
Twenty-first day, Mark, of the shutdown, it is. You could say we're right where we were a week or two ago, but the difference is that the President went to the border, the President had an Oval Office address, where he made his case. He was — the Democrats responded to him.
Are we hearing arguments from either side that would give them the upper hand, or are we just stuck in this stalemate forever?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Well, I hope we're not stuck here forever, Judy.
But I would say that there's not an upper hand, but the lower hand is held by the President, I mean, not that the Democrats are celebrating or spiking the ball in the end zone, or they have any reason to, but the President — you mentioned the speech he gave, in which he acknowledged to press people on a background check basis before the speech that he was doing it reluctantly, under duress from his communications director and Kellyanne Conway, going to the border reluctantly.
And the speech came across as somebody who was just going through the motions. It was done with no conviction, no passion, no intensity, and I think very little persuasiveness to it.
The difference in the relationship right now is that Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is no longer speaker. Nancy Pelosi of California is. And the difference, I think, is that he's being called out on facts, which didn't happen in the first two years of his presidency.
When he says there's a flood of people coming across, it's the lowest it's been in 46 years. She calls him out on that. And I think that's a changed relationship.
But I don't think this is the greatest tiff for the Democrats, and especially the rebuttal of Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. I mean, it was staged by somebody from runaway road edition of the American Gothic. And they looked uncomfortably close together. And I didn't think it particularly worked.
But I would say that the Republicans and Donald Trump are very much on the defensive and remaining there.
Judy Woodruff: David, do you see either side making a better argument?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, I hear like the strange two-track phenomenon that's going on.
Apparently, at the under level, they're actually having normal negotiations. The Republicans are asking for $5.7 billion for the wall. They know they're not going to get that. They're like thinking maybe, we can get three. The Democrats are thinking 1.3, and may wish go up to two — the Republicans are hoping they get up to two.
And so it's a normal negotiation, like you're buying a house. And that sounds like a normal negotiation. And if it was that, they could get two, and Trump could walk away with money for the wall, it wouldn't be that much, and that would — we would just be done with this.
And it's crazy that they're arguing — that they're shutting the government over several hundred million dollars.
At the ego level, which is the Pelosi-Trump level, you have an entirely different set of situations, where it's not a normal negotiation over money. It's an absolutist ego position, my way or zero.
And one sees the under-level negotiations happening, but then constantly being crushed by the ego level. So, for example, this week, a bunch of Republican senators, with Lindsey Graham's involvement, tried to propose another solution that Trump could accept, that we talked about last week, which would be DACA, a path to citizenship for some money for the wall.
Judy Woodruff: Children of…
David Brooks: And White House apparently signaled to them, no, we're not going for that deal.
So the Republicans didn't want to get in front of their own White House, so they never proposed the deal. Similarly, a lot of moderate Democrats would love a deal, but they don't want to get out in front of Nancy Pelosi.
So we have right now got two towers of ego who can't give, and a lot of other people trying to do something in the middle, with not much effect.
Mark Shields: I take exception to the two towers of ego.
I mean, let's get very blunt. I mean, if the Republicans cared about the wall, they had total control of the federal government for two years. And what did they do in those two years? They repealed, but didn't replace preexisting condition for health care. They repealed the Affordable Care Act, tried mightily to do so. They passed a tax cut, which will — that has actually reduced federal revenues, we just learned this week, in spite of the fact that the economy has grown by 3 percent.
The last time the economy grew by almost 3 percent, tax revenues were up 7 percent. But because of the structuring of it by this administration and what it cares about — and for some reason Donald Trump and his advisers thought, well, it'll be easier to deal with Nancy Pelosi than it would — the Democratic majority in the Congress than it was with Paul Ryan.
Now, where did this come from? Where did they ever get that idea? So I — mean, to me, the fault is on the Republican side. What they cared about was the tax cut. What they cared about was repealing the Affordable Care Act.
I mean, that was — those were their priorities.
Judy Woodruff: What about…
David Brooks: Well, don't ask me to give a linear description of Donald Trump's brain, what it's thinking at any moment.
But he should have fought this fight, obviously, when the Republicans were there. If he really cared about the wall, he should have cared about the wall. I think he was prompted by what he sees as a crisis on the border by all the families, which we saw earlier in the show, coming across the border. And so suddenly he got hyped up about all this.
But, given where we are, you know, he won an election running on the wall. And Nancy Pelosi won an election running on DACA. So this, to me, is not that complicated. You come — both those sides come together and offer that proposal. And Nancy Pelosi doesn't give him $5 billion on the wall, but she gives him $2 billion. And we can have an actual government.
And, to me, that's a deal that just seems so obvious. But Trump is not going there. And whatever one thinks of the merits of Pelosi's position — and I'm not a fan of the wall — but let's get this done with, and you have got two parties. Come to an agreement.
Judy Woodruff: And you have got 800,000 federal employees who are not getting paid and an increasing ripple effect on the American people.
Mark Shields: No, you do.
And let's be very blunt. The late Bob Teeter, who was a Republican pollster and a strategist and a very admirable human being, once said, the American people are philosophically conservative, but they're operationally liberal.
And by that, he simply meant, you ask people how they feel about the federal government, it's a pain in the neck, too much red tape, get them off my back, out of my life.
However, when told a single can of tuna fish has been discovered in Pocatello, Idaho, with a trace of botulism in it, there's a universal American reaction, is, where the hell was the federal government? And I want to know. I want a report in my office in 24 hours.
We want this energetic, small, efficient federal government working on our side 24 hours a day, cheap. And the fact is that, right now, I mean, we're looking at 40 million Americans who depend on food stamps to put food on the table for their family.
We're talking about children who go to school who need the expanded health care and school lunch program. And we're talking about women's and infant care. I mean, we're heading toward, and, quite conceivably — the Food and Drug administration being undefended — we could have some sort of a breakout of disease or infection.
I mean, so…
Judy Woodruff: And airline safety, which we were talking about tonight.
Mark Shields: And airline safety as well.
So, I mean, I just — I really think that this is pretty serious stuff, and which I don't think has been accepted and acknowledged by the President.
Judy Woodruff: But, if that's the case, David, why — where are rational minds in all this? I mean, it's just — it's a spectacle.
David Brooks: Well, I think the leaders are both seeing all the people who are upset by this, and they know they're paying a price, but they're more afraid of…
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: On both sides?
David Brooks: I think on both sides. Donald Trump probably has more conviction, but…
Mark Shields: More conviction than…
David Brooks:Well he, has more — he believes in his own propaganda, probably, a little more than Nancy…
Mark Shields: Do you really…
David Brooks: Yes.
Mark Shields: Wow. OK. All right.
(CROSSTALK)
Mark Shields: No, I accept your sincerity on it. I just — it's your perception.
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: I think he fervently thinks he's serving — he thinks there is some threat and he believes in the position.
But I think they're also afraid — they have walked themselves up to a spot where it's hard for them to actually make a deal, because they have both been so absolutist. Nancy Pelosi said the wall was immoral. Trump says we're under threat from the whole world coming to get us.
And so they have built these barriers of absolutism around their position. I look at this whole thing, and I think we're the country that defeated fascism. Like, we fought in World War II. That was sort of a complicated thing we had to pull off.
You go back to the '60s, all the Great Society legislation. I was even looking. In the '70s today, Ted Kennedy and the Republicans got together to deregulate airlines.
Judy Woodruff: That's right.
David Brooks:We just have a history of taking for granted a level of professional craftsmanship in our legislators. And we don't have anything like that now.
And that's been a long process over many decades that just the level of skill of crafting legislation has been in slow, gradual decline. And now we're at a nadir.
Mark Shields: Well, Donald Trump may believe it, but he's wrong.
And I just — I don't fault the Democrats for correcting him. When he says that there's — drugs are flooding across the southern border, 90 percent of illegal drugs that come into this country come in through legal…
Judy Woodruff: Legal.
Mark Shields:… legal ports, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States.
Judy Woodruff: But that hasn't stopped the administration from making that argument.
Mark Shields: That's what I mean.
So, sincerity is one thing. Stupidity is another, or woeful ignorance.
David Brooks: Let me just say, like, I agree with you. But this is not a debating society. This is politics. In politics, they win an election on a position, you got to have — and they have some power. You have some power. You reach agreement.
You can't just say, you're wrong. That's not a real good negotiation strategy.
Mark Shields: No.
I mean, he just lost an election, 40 House seats, on the caravan, all right? The caravan turned out to be not the great threat, not the marauding invasion there was. There is no caravan now, and he's still trying to sell the same bill of goods.
At some point, you got to say, hey, pal, maybe we could work it out.
They did have a compromise, David, as you know, before Christmas, until Ann and Rush intervened and said, Donny, you're not being tough enough.
Judy Woodruff: The conservative talk show — talk show hosts.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnists Mark Shields and Mona Charen join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the historic summit between the leaders of North Korea and South Korea, French President Emmanuel Macron’s state visit, Dr. Ronny Jackson’s decision to withdraw as the Veterans Affairs nominee, and controversy surrounding Mick Mulvaney’s comments about lobbyists.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): This week in Washington has been consumed by talks of deals, a possible peace deal for the Korean Peninsula, and discussions with European leaders about the Iran nuclear deal.
That brings us to the analysis of Shields and Charen. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and syndicated columnist Mona Charen. David Brooks is away.
And we welcome both of you here on this Friday.
So, we have had this backdrop of a cliffhanger of a relationship between the United States and North Korea. Mark, a lot of tough language shared. But then, this week, we see this remarkable yesterday coming together — early this morning, coming together at the border, the North and South Korean leader.
How do you read this, and how do you see President Trump’s role in it?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: I read it quite superficially, because, unlike our earlier scholars and analysts, I’m not an authority on Korean politics.
But just looking at it politically, it’s a dramatic improvement. Just a few months ago, we were talking about the possibility of a million people being killed on the Korean Peninsula in a war which people feared in some cases was only weeks away.
And here we are talking about blood relatives reaching across the 38th Parallel, reconnecting, reconciliation between North and South, ending formally 65 years of war between the two.
And so you ask about President Trump. You know, I think you have to say that, while his unorthodoxy, his inflammatory rhetoric, his unpredictability has been in many cases an impediment to thoughtful and positive relations, actually, here it may have worked. It may be working.
This is a positive development, an encouraging development. It’s not the resolution, but I think this is one case where Donald Trump’s style may have worked for positive results.
Judy Woodruff: And we will see what happens, Mona, but at this point, what do you see?
Mona Charen, syndicated columnist: Well, the optics, as we would put it in Washington, were terrific, stepping across the barrier, both of them and so forth, and making a lot of promises.
But I think skepticism, deep skepticism is in order. Look, what does Kim Jong-un want? He wants to remain in power. Nuclear weapons are the key to — they’re his insurance policy. And he has devoted tremendous effort and tremendous expense to obtain them.
The idea that he would now wake up one morning and say, you know, forget all that, I actually want to live in peace and I want to denuclearize. And, by the way, as your previous guests said, a lot of dispute about what that means to the two different parties.
But we have seen over the years the North Koreans. The Kim family has made promises, has made overtures, have promised even to give up their quest for nuclear weapons. And they have never done it. They constantly renege.
So, I’m deeply skeptical that anything has really changed, except the optics.
Judy Woodruff: And so meantime, Mark, the nuclear deal that exists now between Iran and several other countries, including the U.S., President Trump keeps saying that he doesn’t like it, and there is every indication he’s going to pull out.
He’s met this week with the leader of — President of France, Emmanuel Macron, then just today with Chancellor Merkel of Germany. Does it look like the President is going to go through with this deal, and how do you see the President as diplomat this week?
Mark Shields:Well, just to respond to Mona’s point, all of that is true, the history of relations between North Korea and the rest of the world, the six-nation parlance, under four different American Presidents.
This is different. This raising the stakes by the part of the President himself.
Judy Woodruff: In Korea?
Mark Shields: In Korea.
And the reality — the reality is, Judy, that the per capita income in North Korea is $1,800. And it’s $33,200 in South Korea. And I think there is pressure there. I’m not saying that he’s the avenging angel of piece.
As far as keeping the word, and being trust and verify and skeptical, all of a sudden, the shoe is on the other foot. Are we — is our word reliable?
Judy Woodruff: With regard to the Iran…
(CROSSTALK)
Mark Shields: Iran. Are we going to keep our promise made just three short years ago? Are we going to pull out?
And right now, I think you would have to say the betting is that that’s what the President is going to do. As far as President Macron’s visit this week, I think, besides the heavy necking and the light petting that we saw in public between these two grown and married men in our liberalized area here, I don’t think there’s any question that he absolutely dazzled, and for home consumption and playing to positive reviews in Paris before the Congress.
And his message was unalloyed and direct and candid to the President about isolationism and its costs.
Judy Woodruff: A direct message to the Congress from Emmanuel Macron, Mona, but it doesn’t appear to have changed the President’s mind when it comes to this Iran nuclear deal.
Mona Charen: Yes.
It’s hard to understand the position that we should tear up the Iran deal. As somebody who was deeply opposed to the original deal, it just strikes me that once you have given away all the money, which is what we did — we gave them back their $100 million — we have lost all of our negotiating leverage.
How is it that we are going to get the Iranians to give up something more, when we have already given them what they were after? It seems to me that we don’t have the leverage we think we do with this — with the Iran deal.
Regarding Macron, I think he did the star turn this week. He rally did, because he managed Trump. He flattered him. He got along with Trump and all of that, which isn’t the easiest thing to do. And then, when he spoke to Congress, he sounded like the leader of the Western world.
He was talking about the importance of our obligations and freedom and that we shouldn’t retreat into nationalism and protectionism. I thought it was a real star turn. And I thought he did himself a lot of good.
Mark Shields:Let me just agree that I hadn’t heard a President with such command of the English language speak to Congress since Barack Obama.
(LAUGHTER)
Mark Shields: And I just — I was very impressed by Macron’s performance.
SUMMARY:More than 300 Central Americans have arrived in Tijuana, Mexico, in recent days, and plan on Sunday to ask for asylum at the San Ysidro Port of Entry [San Diego]. But President Trump has tweeted that Homeland Security is instructed to turn them away. Special correspondent Jean Guerrero of KPBS reports.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
