"Pelosi steps down from Democratic leadership after Republicans win control of House" PBS NewsHour 11/17/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: It was a day of momentous change in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans began laying plans after finally nailing down a majority and with the loss of the House confirmed, Speaker Nancy Pelosi surrendered her longtime position as Democratic leader. Congressional Correspondent Lisa Desjardins reports.
"Republican leadership on Capitol Hill in flux after midterm results" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Lawmakers return to Capitol Hill after a drawn-out midterm battle for power. Democrats kept control in the upper chamber, but a Georgia runoff will determine if they gain a seat or return to a 50-50 Senate. The balance of power in the House is still pending as several races are still being counted. All of this has put several key leadership issues in flux for Republicans. Lisa Desjardins reports.
"How election deniers fared in their midterm races" PBS NewsHour 11/14/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Nearly a week after Election Day, we're getting a clearer picture of the winners and losers. We're also seeing how the candidates who spread baseless lies about the last presidential election are faring. Tammy Patrick of the non-partisan Democracy Fund joined Amna Nawaz to discuss the results.
"Factions of the GOP wrangle for power and influence" PBS NewsHour 11/15/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: With all but a handful of races decided, next year's Congress will be one of the most evenly divided in the country's history. Legislative leaders will wrangle with fragile coalitions within and across parties, complicating even basic functions. But first, leaders will need to convince their colleagues to put them in charge. Lisa Desjardins reports.
"Republicans on the state of the party and Trump’s role in it" PBS NewsHour 11/15/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Disappointing midterm outcomes for Republicans prompted the party to question its future and its leaders. Nearly all of former President Trump's hand-picked candidates in key races were defeated, but he may soon announce another run for the White House. Republican strategist Barrett Marson and Daniel McCarthy joined Laura Barrón-López to discuss the Republican party and Trump's role in it.
"A historical perspective on Trump’s 2024 presidential bid" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Former president Donald Trump launched a third bid for the White House this past week as he faces multiple investigations. Meanwhile, Democrats are eyeing a generational shift in House leadership as Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek reelection to the role of Speaker. Beverly Gage, a professor of history and American studies at Yale University, joins Geoff Bennett to discuss.
"How Democrats coalesced around the Inflation Reduction Act" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: After working through the weekend, Democrats are on the cusp of passing an historic, half-trillion dollar spending package. It's a mere fraction of what President Biden first sought more than a year ago, but significant nonetheless. Lisa Desjardins is here to unpack what's in the deal and how party leaders managed to shepherd it to the finish line when losing a single vote would have sunk it.
"What the reconciliation bill would do to boost clean energy and combat global warming" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: If the House passes the Inflation Reduction Act in the coming days it will lead to by far the biggest investment the federal government has made on tackling climate change. Several estimates have indicated the initiative may mean a 40 percent reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2030 from 2005 figures. Paul Bledsoe of the Progressive Policy Institute joins William Brangham to discuss.
"Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer discusses Democrats’ major climate and health bill" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: President Biden on Tuesday signed the bipartisan CHIPS Act into law, just days before his top health care, tax and climate change bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act heads to the House, where it's likely to pass after proceeding through the Senate along party lines. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who played a key role in getting the bill passed, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
"How the Inflation Reduction Act could affect your taxes" PBS NewsHour 8/10/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: There’s a $1 trillion gap between what Americans owe in taxes and what the government collects. The Democrats’ budget deal would unleash nearly 100,000 new IRS agents to round up all that missing money. Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen joins Lisa Desjardins to discuss the impact the crackdown on tax evaders will have on the nation’s bottom line.
"Democrats celebrate legislative win in passing of climate, health and tax bill" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2022
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Congressional Democrats are celebrating a landmark legislative victory after passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden is set to sign into law this week. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump for potentially violating the Espionage Act after classified documents were found in his home. Special correspondent Jeff Greenfield joins Geoff Bennett to discuss.
Reminder, this shutdown threat is caused by the GOP (like the others) because they want their way or no-way.
"Last-minute temporary funding deal may help U.S. government avoid shutdown" PBS NewsHour 12/2/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Funding for the federal government runs out Friday at midnight. House Democrats passed a short term measure Thursday to keep the government funded through February, but a group of Republican lawmakers in the Senate are threatening to force a shutdown over President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate. Judy Woodruff and congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins to break down the latest negotiations.
"Capehart and Abernathy on Virginia elections, Build Back Better plan, Colin Powell" PBS NewsHour 11/5/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Washington Post columnists Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy join Judy Woodruff to discuss Tuesday’s surprising election results, the fate of the infrastructure and Build Back Better bill, and reflect on the life and legacy of Colin Powell.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Democrats and Republicans across the country are examining Tuesday night's surprising election results, with an eye toward crafting their strategies for next year's crucial midterm election races.
Meanwhile, dignitaries in Washington today gathered to remember the life and legacy of former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Here to add perspective on all this and more are Capehart and Abernathy. That's Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post, and Gary Abernathy, an Ohio-based writer and contributing columnist for The Washington Post. David Brooks is away.
It's very good to see both of you.
And, Gary, you're here from Ohio, and we're glad to see you.
Gary Abernathy, Washington Post: Thank you for having me.
Judy Woodruff: So, what a week, as the three of us were just saying.
Jonathan Capehart, you have now had three whole days to think about what happened, what the voters said on Tuesday, and what do you think it was?
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: So, I split it between Virginia and New Jersey.
With Virginia, governor-elect Glenn Youngkin showed that it's possible to embrace Trump voters with — but, at the same time, keep Donald Trump out of your — physically out of your state. He showed, as I mentioned last week, the role of playing on racial fear to drive people out to the polls, particularly when it comes to so-called Critical Race Theory.
In New Jersey, the near political death experience of Governor Phil Murphy, Democrat, to my mind shows the larger, bigger national — the problem that the national Democratic Party has. Governor Murphy is popular in New Jersey. He was running on the President's agenda, basically, and the fact that he squeaked it out says that folks in New Jersey are tired, seemingly, of the dysfunction of Democrats arguing with each other over bills, not being able to show they can get anything done.
Judy Woodruff: We saw more of that today.
Jonathan Capehart: Yes, and still going on today.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Jonathan Capehart: And so the party has to figure out how to reach those voters that Glenn Youngkin reached, be able to talk to them, but also show the country that they're competent, that they are worthy of being entrusted with governing.
Judy Woodruff: Gary Abernathy, what messages do you think the voters were delivering?
Gary Abernathy: Well, a lot of Democrats are saying that the message was: We need to do more. We haven't done this. We were punished for not passing these bills we promised we were going to pass.
I think it's the opposite. I think voters were saying: We don't like what you're doing.
Now, there are two different things here, and the Democrats try to tie them together, the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better bill, two different things. The infrastructure bill has tremendous bipartisan support. They should pass that. They should pass that tonight and show they're doing something, not just politically, but the country needs this infrastructure bill.
But people thought — we have to remember, the 2020 election was a referendum on Donald Trump. It was not about issues. It was not about what Biden was promising to do. It was, we either want Trump, more of him, or we're going to kick him out. They voted to kick him out. The majority did.
But they thought they were getting a safe alternative with Joe Biden. And he turned out to be a guy who's been much more aggressively liberal with the Bernie Sanders wing than people were voting for.
One key thing from the exit polls on — the Edison exit polls that I think The Washington Post used and other networks…
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Gary Abernathy: … said that Trump is still unpopular in Virginia. Seven out of 10 voters thought that Youngkin's policies and ideas were much like Trump's. Didn't hurt him a bit. He won.
People are OK with Trump's policies. They just didn't like Trump.
Judy Woodruff: But what about what the Democrats are offering?
I hear you, the two of you, saying different things about whether Americans want what the Democrats are debating and still haven't been able to pass yet, Jonathan.
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I think that's the problem. They still haven't been able to pass it.
If you tease out every little thing out of both the infrastructure bill, which we know has bipartisan support, but even what's in the Build Back Better Act, last I checked — there are so many things in it — but if you tease out the individual pieces, they have popular support.
It's just that, if you're going to go for it, and you have got the House and you have got the Senate and you have the White House, to the larger American public who doesn't follow the stuff the way we do, they sit back and think, why can't you get anything done if you have all three of these branches?
And that is why this is such a problem for Democrats and the President.
Judy Woodruff: What I hear you saying, Gary, is, even if they pass this other piece of legislation, that may not help the Democrats.
Gary Abernathy: I think it hurts them.
I think that it's — again, I'm going to say — and Jonathan and I are disagreeing on this, but the message Tuesday was: We don't like the direction you're going.
The Democrats, really, if they stopped to evaluate what happened Tuesday, they would be better off sitting and letting Joe Manchin lead the discussion, while Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kind of sit to the side a little bit and listen, because I think Manchin, to his credit, kind of has a pulse on where America is at now.
And, no, the Democrat Party doesn't have to become the Republican Party, but Joe Manchin is a pretty centrist Democrat who's trying to wave the red flag and ring the warning bells, and no one's listening to him yet.
Jonathan Capehart: OK.
The Democratic Party, in the Build Back Better plan, for instance, would love for there to be paid family leave. And I guess conservatives look at paid family leave as paying people to stay home, instead of looking at the domino effect of what it means in order for a family to not risk their job in order to stay home for whatever — for whatever reason, grieving the loss of a parent, a new child coming into the family.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Jonathan Capehart: There are economic benefits that the American people want, the Earned Income Tax Credit for children, any number of things.
It's not — I don't think it's that the American people don't want these things and that these aren't a grab bag of things to just give away. They have a benefit for the long-term health and security, economic well-being of this country.
Gary Abernathy: I think Americans do want a lot of those things, and they do poll as popular item by item.
But Americans love ice cream. If you did a poll, you would find out almost 100 percent of Americans love ice cream. It doesn't mean they approve of spending trillions of dollars to give everyone free ice cream. Not everybody can have things that we all agree, gee, that would be nice.
But, at some point in time, there comes a point where we have to say, we don't have any money. I mean, we're — I don't care if we're talking $6 trillion, $3 trillion, $1 trillion. It doesn't exist. So I think the American people know that too.
Yes, we'd like to have all these things, but our great-grandchildren pay for it?
Judy Woodruff: One other piece of analysis that's been out there, and it came from James Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist on this program Wednesday night, Jonathan, essentially said this woke business has gone too far, the focus on injustice in our society.
Does he have a point or not?
Jonathan Capehart: He has a point up to a point.
I understand where James Carville is coming from. I have heard the quote in full and in context, I get where he's coming from.
But what he's done is, he's basically said to the base of the Democratic Party: Who cares what you think?
He calls it wokeness. Is it — it's not wokeness to want to be treated fairly by the police. It's not wokeness to want law enforcement to not view you instantly as a criminal, instantly as a bad guy. It's not wokeness to demand that our nation's history be taught and reflected accurately. That's not wokeness.
That's — at a minimum, it's asking for dignity and respect. And so for someone, a Democratic strategist like James Carville, to say those things basically to the base of the Democratic Party is really unfortunate, because I think we can talk about these issues of injustice and talk about how to move the country forward together. These don't have to be two separate conversations.
Judy Woodruff: This is a larger debate that's been out there, Gary.
Gary Abernathy: And I actually agree with a lot of what Jonathan just said. I think that we can talk about the role of slavery, the role of racism in this country. And we should do more of that. I agree with that.
But there doesn't have to be — I think what happens is with the wokeness, what a lot of us think of as the wokeness, the cancel culture, is that we have to create villains. We have to demonize. To lift up one set of people means we have to demonize another set of people.
And that's what turns a lot of people off to having the conversation.
Jonathan Capehart: No, I mean, I understand where the sentiment comes from about demonizing people.
But — the people I talked to and the people who I'm associated with and related to, we're not about demonizing anybody. We're about — could you recognize for a hot minute what we go through? Can you recognize that there was a clip of a Youngkin supporter saying, well, if young people just treat police with respect when they're stopped, everything will be OK?
No, that is not true. That is not true. And so for — until someone like her is able to see that perspective, we're always going to have this problem.
Judy Woodruff: Like that young person.
Gary Abernathy: Yes.
We tend to — on all things, whether we're talking about Critical Race Theory, which is not a thing being taught in Virginia schools, but it's a thing. I mean, it's a theory that a lot of people would like to have taught.
Jonathan Capehart: In — well, it…
Gary Abernathy: Go ahead.
Jonathan Capehart: It's taught in law school.
Gary Abernathy: Yes. But there have been — I mean, there have been pushes to get it more into curriculums.
Jonathan Capehart: Well, that's a larger conversation that we don't have time for.
Judy Woodruff: It's a larger conversation.
Gary Abernathy: But there are — it's like one extreme and the other — or the other.
We need to talk, to recognize more about what? As I said, slavery and race and racism have played a role throughout history in the building of this country, and do that honestly. And white people shouldn't be afraid to say, you know what, we really haven't done that well, and we need to do a better job of that recognize it, but without making us feel like the villains for doing it.
And I think there is a lot of that. There's a lot of emphasis on white people need to feel a certain amount of guilt over this. And we need to get past that.
Judy Woodruff: I want you to make a comment, and then I want to bring up something else.
Jonathan Capehart: Sure. Yes.
I'm not — I'm not asking for guilt. But I do think white people have to get over the — feeling villainized just even when the word race is used in a sentence. That's all.
Gary Abernathy: And you may be right.
Judy Woodruff: It's a conversation we should continue to have next Friday.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: But speaking of all this, someone who I think represents what black Americans have meant to this country was memorialized today. And that was, of course, Colin Powell.
There was a service for him. He was remembered as someone who is an example for generations to come, someone who worked across party lines.
In just a few words, Jonathan, what is his legacy? What should we take away from this man?
Jonathan Capehart: He was a statesman. He was a warrior statesman. He was the best of this country.
He — when he was thinking about running for President in 19 — in the '96 election, you know what? I was a young editorial writer at The New York Daily News. I was a big fan of President Clinton. But the idea that a black man would run for President and had a chance to win left me a little conflicted, because he was a walking role model of who we should be as Americans, but also a walking role model for me, a young black man, seeing a black man like him walking through the corridors of power as if he was just walking in the park.
We need more — we need more people like Colin Powell, regardless of party.
Judy Woodruff: Admired by so many. Just 30 seconds.
Gary Abernathy: Yes, I can't improve on that, but — other than to say, to me, Colin Powell always represented a very classy person, just conducted himself with class.
Even when he was upset about something, even when he was angry about something, even in his criticisms of people, it was done with style and class, which is why I think he was so widely admired across the divide.
Judy Woodruff: Well, we remember him fondly today.
Gary Abernathy: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: Gary Abernathy, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.
Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Judy.
Gary Abernathy: Thanks, Judy.
"Why Biden pitched infrastructure bill in Michigan amid congressional stalemate" PBS NewsHour 10/5/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: President Joe Biden spoke in Michigan Tuesday on the need for his infrastructure and social spending plans, as negotiations over both bills are underway on Capitol Hill. Yamiche Alcindor talks to two leaders in the state about what Michiganders need and the potential impact of the Biden agenda.
"Brooks and Capehart on Biden infrastructure deal, crime plan, Georgia lawsuit" PBS NewsHour 6/25/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the potential breakthrough on the road to an infrastructure deal, the justice department's lawsuit against Georgia's voting restrictions, and the President's plan to curb surging violent crime across the country.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now, at the end of a full week of news, we are so fortunate to have the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.
It is very good to see both of you on this — as it is on every Friday.
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: Great to see you.
David Brooks, New York Times: Good to see you.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: A lot happened this week in Washington, Jonathan.
But I do want to start with this, do we have one or do we not have an infrastructure deal?
Yesterday, the President kind of made the unprecedented move of coming out on the driveway with a group of Democrats and Republicans, announced that there was an agreement, but then a couple of hours later, he said there's only an agreement if Democrats — if I get from Congress the spending plan.
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I mean, I think there's a lot of consternation clearly right now within the Republican Party, and particularly among those Senators, about what happened.
But the deal, such as it is, last I saw, is still holding. It's still there. I think you have had senators like Senator Blunt, Senator Portman, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who, in the past, said we want a hard infrastructure deal, but I — we see that the President will probably go reconciliation for these other things, and that's fine.
The rub is the President and the speaker of the House both saying, OK, we will go for this deal, but you have got to do reconciliation also.
That's why the Republicans are angry. But everybody needs a deal. The President wants one. The Republicans want one, because they need something to go back to their constituents and say, look, this is what we have delivered for you.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, the White House, the President, they're saying, well, the President made it clear all along that he was going to want this, but it seems to be a little fuzzy.
David Brooks: Sort of.
You know, I think everyone knew there were going to be two bills. There was going to be — well, we didn't know. But the White House, to their credit, worked really hard to get this bipartisan compromise, all the calls, all the meetings. It looked like real legislation, the kind of stuff Joe Biden was born for.
And so we get this deal, against all the odds. It was unexpected. The Republicans knew there was going to be a reconciliation deal. What they didn't know, I think, is that he [Biden] was going to threaten to veto the compromise if he didn't get the second.
And so it was that linkage that I think took a lot of Republicans by surprise, and not only the — I mean, ones who really believe in the deal, the Rob Portmans of the world and people like that.
So, I do think, from what we know, they are right to feel a little aggrieved. Will they walk out on it? Well, Senator Coons from Delaware told Politico this afternoon that, so far, they have had conversations, bipartisan, and they haven't walked out on the deal.
Now, a couple people, Lindsey Graham and others, one other, have shown some willingness to walk out of the deal. And if they do that, then you don't have 10 Republicans in the Senate, and you can't pass the deal.
But, like Jonathan says, so far, they're hanging in there. And there's a whole bunch of strategy I can imagine about how they're going to try to sink the reconciliation later. It's a strategist's dream, this complicated procedure.
(LAUGHTER)
David Brooks: But, so far, I think they have damaged the deal, but they haven't killed the deal.
Judy Woodruff: But your sense is that it's going to hold, you think?
Jonathan Capehart: Yes, I think it will hold.
And, really, does anyone think that Republicans are going to vote in favor of the reconciliation deal? I think the reconciliation deal, it's a given that the 50 Republicans aren't going to vote for it.
What it really is about is trying to hold Senators Manchin and Sinema and maybe some unnamed others to…
Judy Woodruff: Democrats.
Jonathan Capehart: Democrats — to ensure that they vote for reconciliation, so that everybody's happy.
David Brooks: And the Republicans are trying to get Manchin and Sinema to break the linkage and say, we won't sign on unless you do this alone.
To me, the fun will be when the Democrats start fighting amongst themselves. I mean, say the moderate — this compromise passes. Then we have got the reconciliation. The progressives want this big $6 trillion thing. Manchin probably wants less than $2 trillion.
And so they all agree on the taxes. They do not agree on where the spending should go. And that's how the bigger thing could fall apart.
Judy Woodruff: Well, speaking of Senator Manchin, he played a critical role in another issue that we saw this week. It seems like it was a long time ago, but it was only Monday, Jonathan…
Jonathan Capehart: Right.
Judy Woodruff: … when voting rights came up in the Senate, and the Republicans blocked what the Democrats were trying to do.
This was after Senator Manchin, same Joe Manchin who's involved in infrastructure, said he would — was on board with a kind of a compromise.
I guess my question now is, here, today, you have the Department of Justice announcing it's going to sue the state of Georgia over its new voting laws. Where are we on voting rights in this country?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I think, right now, where we are in voting rights is, there's not going to be any quick legislative fix. Everyone was focused on the For the People Act as the immediate thing that could be done to stop or blunt what was happening in the states like Georgia.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Act is — hasn't even been introduced. So that's way down the road. I think, right now, the focus is going to be on, what can the Justice Department do, what can the administration do to blunt the impact of Georgia and what — and these other states?
And so that's what we saw today, the Justice Department suing Georgia to stop its law. I think that's where the action. Until the filibuster is done away with, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer comes along and says, OK, here's the For the People Act again, where it can pass by a simple majority, that bill's not going to go anywhere.
So it's imperative, really, for the Justice Department to weigh in.
Judy Woodruff: How do you see it?
David Brooks: I guess I see it that way, though it's not clear to me why people in Congress can't just scale back.
I mean, some of the voting rights that were the H.R.1 and all that seemed to me way overly broad. And Manchin had a proposal. Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, had a proposal. Maybe something could be scaled back, but nobody seems to be talking about that way. So we do seem to be going to the courts.
I guess there's going to be a Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona voting some time maybe next week.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Jonathan Capehart: Right.
Judy Woodruff: Soon.
David Brooks: And, to me, I'm fine with that.
We heard such different things about the Georgia — Joe Biden called it the new Jim Crow. Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State there, who seems like a legit guy, totally disagreed. And so if the courts decide, does this discriminate against African-Americans, I'm happy to have — make that decision.
I hate having the federal government involved in state voting procedures. But if one party is trying to disenfranchise a race of people, I think American history has established this is when the federal government gets involved.
So I'm happy to see — let the courts make a determination, was there intent to discriminate here?
Judy Woodruff: And, Jonathan, Democrats are arguing that Republicans are trying to deny people on a massive scale from voting.
Jonathan Capehart: Right, on a massive scale, which is why Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department's taking the actions — the action that it took today.
Judy Woodruff: And I guess my question, though, is, whatever the Supreme Court rules, it's — it looks like this is something that's frozen in the Congress. I mean, it's not going anywhere.
Jonathan Capehart: Yes. No, it's completely frozen.
Until the filibuster — something is done about the filibuster…
Judy Woodruff: Our favorite Senate maneuver, the filibuster.
Jonathan Capehart: Right.
Until it's reformed or eliminated or what have you, that bill, the For the People Act, is not going to go anywhere.
Judy Woodruff: So, David, another — we talked about what a busy week — this was also the week that President Biden rolled out his plan for addressing in a number of different ways gun crime, violent crime.
The homicide rate is way up last year over the year before and this year way up again. Does this look like — I mean, it's a multipronged approach, a lot of different initiatives they're laying out there. But does it look like something that could make a difference?
David Brooks: Well, it's tough for a President to control crime. It is mostly an issue — but it's going to be a big voting issue, no question. We have already seen that in the New York Democratic primary, where the crime was the issue.
Voters, especially in places like Minneapolis, Portland, they are saying this has become a crisis level. People have different explanations for why it is, partly COVID, economic stress, police pullback.
And so I do think all these things make it imperative to act. I would give the Biden administration maybe a B-minus. I mean, I support gun control. I'm not sure it's a crime or a homicide reduction measure very effectively.
I'm for some police reform. I'm glad they're using COVID money to allow police forces to increase the number of officers. There's clear evidence that, if you increase the number of police, you get less crime. And — but that has to be accompanied by police reform.
And so you have got to do a bunch of things all at once to have a just way to reduce crime that's not penalty on the local communities. And that takes involvement on multiple fronts. And I thought this was a vague gesture, more than that kind of intense involvement.
Judy Woodruff: A vague gesture?
Jonathan Capehart: I don't know about vague gesture.
I mean, you are right. Presidents have no impact whatsoever on state and local — excuse me — state and local crime issues. But people look to the President to do something. And I agree with David. The $350 billion from the America CARES Act to localities to do something related to crime is a very good thing.
But we have to remember that, yes, crime has ticked up this year over last year and last year over the year before. But we are way, way down from the bad years of the '90s.
And let me just give you quickly — New York City murders, in 1990, 2,262, in 2020, 468, a 79 percent reduction. Robberies in 1990, 100,280; 2020, robberies in New York City, 13,108. That's an 86.9 percent reduction.
So, crime — yes, crime is ticking up over the last couple of years. But we are nowhere near where we were 30 years ago, when it was really bad.
Judy Woodruff: And I should have clarified. Homicides are way up. Violent crime is up a little…
Jonathan Capehart: Right, violent crime, right.
Judy Woodruff: … and other crime. It's more of a mixed picture.
But, David, it just — people keep asking, as you say, even though the President can't reach in and control what goes on in handling the crime in individual cities, what example is he setting? What is he saying to lead us?
David Brooks: Well, I think he's made some progress.
Yes, I think we both lived through New York in that period. And crime was terrible there. It was terrible. It was something we all lived with and all endured.
I think one of the things he's done, at least go — take us away from last summer's belief that there was such thing as a free lunch. You could defund the police or reduce the police and not have some after-effect. When a party tells you there's no free lunch, whether it's on tax policy, fiscal policy, criminal policy, they're almost always wrong.
And so if you just let the police pull back and not get involved, you're going to get more crime. So, we got to do two things at once.
Judy Woodruff: We're going to leave it there. Come back and see you guys next Friday.
(LAUGHTER)
Jonathan Capehart: All right.
Judy Woodruff: David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.
Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Judy.
Judy Woodruff: Have a good weekend.
"How the shadow of the Jan. 6 riot still looms large over Congress" PBS NewsHour 5/19/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: The U.S. House on Wednesday moved to form a commission to examine the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The violent pro-Trump riot resulted in widespread injury, deaths, and damage to the building itself. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins was in the building that day, and has been reporting on how its shadow looms large over the Capitol. She joins Amna Nawaz to discuss the latest.
"U.S. House prepares for immigration legislation amid migrant surge at the border" PBS NewsHour 3/16/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: The Biden administration had promised a humane approach to immigration but is now facing upheaval at the southern border, as illegal migrant crossings have skyrocketed in the past few months and authorities struggle to find proper housing for thousands of unaccompanied minors. Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, whose Texas district is located on the southern border, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
"Brooks and Capehart on President Biden’s first month in office and Rush Limbaugh’s legacy" PBS NewsHour 2/19/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including Republican infighting, the legacy of Rush Limbaugh and President Biden's first month in office.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.
So good to see both of you on this Friday night.
It's the first time we have seen you since the impeachment trial last week, ended last Saturday, President Trump.
Jonathan, it seems almost every day this past week, though, we have been hearing from different Republican state officials about how they were going to punish or censure Republican senators who voted to convict, whether it was Senator Cassidy in Louisiana, Senator Toomey in Pennsylvania. There's talk that he will be censured.
How deep is the animosity toward these lawmakers who voted against former President Trump?
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: I think the animosity is deep, very deep.
I mean, these state party chairs, one might be responding in their own capacity, these state parties in their own capacity, but they are reflection of the Republican Party base.
You know, Judy, when I interviewed former RNC Chairman Michael Steele back in August of 2016, and I talked to him about the candidacy then of Donald Trump, running for President, being the nominee, and he told me then that he thought that the nomination of Donald Trump would hasten the conversation that the Republican Party needed to have about who they are, what they value, and certainly about the role of race within the party.
Fast-forward, Donald Trump becomes President, Donald Trump loses an election. But, in the process, Donald Trump has transformed the Republican Party into one that is completely loyal to him. And so people who voted for his impeachment, people who voted for him, voted guilty, wanted him to be convicted in the last go-round with this impeachment trial, they — those are the folks who are riling up this super loyal base within the Republican Party that is loyal to Donald Trump.
And I think what we're going to see down the road is, whether these censure votes, whether these reprimands of these Republicans, who I think voted their conscience, whether those actually have any political power, meaning bumping them from office in that way.
Judy Woodruff: David, how do you see this animosity, division inside the Republican Party?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, Trump is popular.
And when Democrats in the media seem to be attacking Donald Trump, the Republicans sure rally around; 78 percent of Republicans say right now they want Donald Trump to play an important role in the future of the party.
Underneath that, there are divisions. And they show up between the normal Republicans and the Trump Republicans. And you can ask, do you feel more loyal to, the party or Donald Trump? And there, it's about 50/50. And then there's an important split when you ask Republicans, should we work with Democrats?
And there again, you see the regular Republicans vs. the Trump Republicans. The regular Republicans, who seem to be a slight majority, want to work with Democrats. The Trump Republicans do not.
I think the party leaders have decided, we can't have this fight over Donald Trump. We have to displace Trump with policy-making. And so, today — this week, Tom Cotton and Mitt Romney began to work together to create a bill that would raise the minimum wage and fix enforcement of immigration on the border.
And they're trying to make the party a regular party, so it's not just a media party, but a party that actually does legislation. And I think that's a pretty promising way to try to displace Trumpism.
Judy Woodruff: But, meantime, Jonathan, you had President — former President Trump coming out this week, appearing on three different, I guess, conservative TV channels, still talking about how the election was stolen, attacking Mitch McConnell.
Does — is McConnell hurt by this? I mean, I guess I'm asking, how lasting is this damage the former President is still trying to level?
Jonathan Capehart: Look, in a battle between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, I would put my money on Mitch McConnell.
Senator McConnell is worried about two things, one of which he has succeeded. Judges was the first one. But the most important thing is power. He lost the Senate majority, primarily because of what then President Trump did that allowed those two Georgia seats to flip to the two Democrats, Warnock and Ossoff.
But, also, Senator McConnell wants that majority back. And so that's why I think we saw him on the one hand vote for the acquittal of Donald Trump, but then, after that vote, excoriate Donald Trump, lay the blame right at his feet. And, in doing that, what I think Mitch McConnell is doing is creating an environment for his — for his caucus and those Republicans running for the Senate in 2022 and 2024, giving them the room to be able to run races that would give them the best chance at winning.
And when it comes to Donald Trump, it's all about him. It's not about the party. It's not about policy, as David was talking about. It's about him and loyalty to him. And so, if you're Mitch McConnell, and you are about power, but you're also about doing things that advance the Republican Party, you're going to do whatever it takes to push Trump to the side and make it possible for those candidates to come to the fore.
Judy Woodruff: So, David, who's got more muscle, Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump?
And I do want to ask you both about Rush Limbaugh, but McConnell first.
David Brooks: Yes, I was — I questioned McConnell's strategy last Saturday, doing that acquittal vote and then excoriating, as Jonathan said.
Napoleon said, if you're going to take Vienna, take Vienna. But maybe Jonathan is right it sets the Republicans up for a good run in 2022. And let's face it. You would have to think it's likely the Republicans will take the House and Senate. That's just the way — what happens in midterm elections. The opposition party does very well.
And I think McConnell's main goal is to keep really extreme Trumpians from getting Republican nominations in these Senate races and House races. And so maybe he's playing that game, just trying to ride this thing out and not try to fire everybody up and fire up the Trumpian base.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, in just a few words, the legacy of Rush Limbaugh.
David Brooks: Well, he changed media. He changed AM radio. Before Rush Limbaugh, hosts tended to be not too opinionated. After Rush Limbaugh, on left and right, hosts are super opinionated.
He changed conservatism from George F. Will and William F. Buckley to what we have today. So, he had a big positive effect on media, I think, or — and a pretty negative effect on American conservatism.
Judy Woodruff: Jonathan, it was on the media, as David says. It was also on the Republican Party and on conservatism broadly.
Jonathan Capehart: Right.
My relationship when it comes to Rush Limbaugh is more than complicated, as someone who was attacked by him many times when he was on the radio. I mourn for his family. I mourn for his family and the people who loved him.
But I — I, quite honestly, do not, simply because of the corrosive nature of his radio programming and what he did with the power that he had, the corrosive nature that he had on American politics, on American political discourse.
And legacies can be good and legacies can be bad. And I think, for me, personally, Rush Limbaugh's legacy is one that has harmed the country.
Judy Woodruff: All right, President Biden, first month in office, after tomorrow.
David, what are you seeing so far? And before you answer that, let me ask you both to respond to something President Biden said at the CNN town hall on Wednesday night, reminding us that he's not comfortable yet in this new job. Let's listen.
Pres. Joe Biden: I was raised in a way that you didn't look for anybody to wait on you. And it's — we're — I find myself extremely self-conscious. There are wonderful people that work at the White House.
But someone is standing there and making sure I — hands me my suit coat.
Judy Woodruff: So, David, I guess I should have said not comfortable with the trappings of the office yet.
David Brooks: Yes.
I mean, it's so weird being President. Every president talks about this. You're never alone. They — Secret Service knows when you go to the bathroom. They know when you're in the elevator. George W. Bush would ride his motorbike — or his bike, his mountain bike, up at a training center, a Secret Service training center in Maryland, and he would try to ride in front of the agents, because he said that was the only time of his week when there weren't people in front of him, and he could look out and sort of be alone.
And so it's just very weird being President and I think very hard.
As for President Biden, I think he's doing a lot of sense of sensible things on his own.
What's different from the Obama start — and Obama had a bigger Senate majority — Obama passed some big legislation right away, Lilly Ledbetter week one, children's health care week two, the stimulus package week three. So, there was a lot of legislative action.
There hasn't been as much from President Biden.
Judy Woodruff: Jonathan, how do you see these first 30 days?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I see them as terrific, if only because we have a President of the United States who's focused on governing, who's focused on doing things on behalf of the American people, but who is also not focused on being in our faces 24 hours a day, seven days a week with all manner of vitriol and nastiness towards his political opponents or even regular citizens.
Judy, what I love about that clip you showed of President Biden talking about his not being comfortable with the trappings of the presidency is, that's the man the American people voted for.
It's a person who — for whom service, public service, the emphasis is on the service, but it's also the public, someone other than himself. He is that boy from Scranton whose family had hard times, and he worked his way up to the highest office in the land.
And the idea that with this office comes someone who hands him his suit coat in the morning, or, to David's point, he and his family now are never alone, I think it resonates with the American people, because this is someone for whom power is something that's part of the job. It wasn't anything that he strove for just for power's sake.
For him, being President of the United States is about helping people.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, less than a minute, but your thoughts on whether he's getting people behind him? I mean, is it your sense that he's building the kind of public support he's going to need?
David Brooks: Yes, I think he is, actually.
He's amazingly done very well at holding the Democratic Party together, which was not natural. I think he's done that extremely skillfully, his approval rating. There really have been not so many flaws — not so many errors, one little error about — how when schools are going to reopen, but, pretty much else, it's a professional organization, just as it was a professional campaign.
Judy Woodruff: All right. It's only been a month. We will do this every month, every week. We will keep asking.
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: How's he doing? How's he doing?
(LAUGHTER)
Judy Woodruff: Very good to see both of you. Have a good weekend.
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks: Good to see you too.
Judy Woodruff: David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.
 |
| Man with the plan.....Sen. Josh Hawley (R) |
"The Republicans Have an Insurrectionist Caucus" by Jordan Weissmann, Slate 1/7/2021
After a mob of Donald Trump’s supporters invaded the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday to stop the certification of November’s election results, smashing windows and storming offices while forcing lawmakers to cower in hiding, Republicans had to confront a simple question: Were they with the insurrectionists or against them?
Going into the day, 14 GOP Senators and more than a 100 House members had announced that they would object to the Electoral College count, on the baseless premise that there were unanswered questions about voter fraud, helping to ensure that the ordinarily ceremonial event would become another flash point in Trump’s flailing efforts to retain power.
After the mayhem, some chastened lawmakers had second thoughts, realizing that it might be best not to give any more oxygen to the delusions that had set in motion the attacks. “What we have seen today is unlawful and unacceptable,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who had previously planned to object, said in a statement. “I have decided I will vote to uphold the Electoral College results and I encourage Donald Trump to condemn and put an end to this madness.” Senators such as Georgia’s Kelly Loeffler, fresh off her runoff loss, and Oklahoma’s James Lankford, gave subdued speeches announcing that despite their concerns, they would drop their opposition to the results. “The events that have transpired today have forced me to reconsider, and I cannot now, in good conscience, object,” Loeffler said.
Meanwhile, Utah’s Mitt Romney, who has become the Senate’s principal voice of conservative never Trumpism, put the choice facing his colleagues as plainly as possible.
“Those who choose to continue to support his dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy,” he said. “They will be remembered for their role in this shameful episode in American history. That will be their legacy.”
But most objectors shrugged and stuck to their plan. Even after the breach, eight GOP Senators and 139 representatives—a solid majority of the party’s House members—ultimately voted against certifying the results from either Pennsylvania or Arizona. It is hard to overstate just how frightening that end result is.
Up until the moment glass started to shatter, one could have at least made a case—albeit, a weak one—that objecting to the Electoral College results was nothing more than a symbolic gesture of loyalty to the President [Trump] and his base that would ultimately prove harmless. There was nothing Republicans could actually do on their own to overturn the election’s outcome, since throwing out a state’s Electoral College results would have required a majority vote in both the Senate and Democrat-controlled House. What’s more, small numbers of Democrats had pulled similar stunts in the past, objecting to certification after losing the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, and the republic hadn’t exactly collapsed as a result.
The obvious difference between those previous elections and this one is that the losing Democrats willingly conceded their races, while Donald Trump did not. Instead, he spent two months whipping his followers into a frenzy with lies about a stolen election in a haphazard, often cartoonish effort to cling to office, then gathered them on the National Mall for a demonstration on certification day. The chaos that ensued, in which four people ultimately died, illustrated in the bluntest terms possible that by fanning the flames of voter fraud conspiracies, the Republican objectors were playing a lethal game with American democracy.
And yet the vast majority of them decided to keep pumping away at the bellows. The lawmakers just shook their finger at the mob’s rampage, while denying any responsibility for egging it on. In a particularly brazen act of chutzpah, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who kicked off the whole objection effort in the Senate, suggested that the attack actually showed why debating the election’s validity in Congress was a good idea in the first place, since it would be a nonviolent way to resolve concerns about fraud. (Never mind that politicians like Hawley helped conjure up those concerns in the first place.) “Our Constitution was built and put into place so that there would be, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, no appeal from ballots to bullets, which is what we saw unfortunately attempted tonight,” Hawley grandiloquently declared. “And that’s why I submit to my colleagues that what we’re doing here tonight is actually very important.“ Other Republicans, such as Reps. Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar, just gunned it straight to Looneyville, repeating the fast-metastasizing conspiracy theory that the people who attacked the Capitol were actually left-wing antifa members masquerading as Trump supporters. One way or another, lawmakers found ways to justify themselves.
Ultimately, Wednesday night’s vote was another demonstration of how Trump has permanently reshaped much of the Republican Party in his own image. Yes, his attempt at the history’s dumbest autogolpe has finally caused some of his allies to crack and staffers to resign, as well as brought about rebuffs from the likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and erstwhile golf buddy Lindsey Graham, who seemingly declared his independence from the President (“Count me out, enough is enough,“ he said). But most of its House caucus is now made up of members who are either terrified that they will be primaried by a Trumpier-than-thou challenger from the right or who outright share his lunatic fantasies. Ambitious senators with their eyes on the presidency in 2024 know that for a large share of primary voters, the most important qualification may be loyalty to the current President. The result is a group of legislators who, after witnessing firsthand the dangerous fury that their party’s rhetoric unleashed, decided it was best to more or less just go along. Their ranks include not just rambling backbenchers and the newer class of QAnon-winking reactionaries, but also leaders like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. What’s more, their ranks only seem likely to grow after redistricting this year, which will allow Republican legislatures to create a new batch of safe, Trumpified GOP seats. The Republican Party’s insurrectionist caucus is going to be with us for years to come.
"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.
