Another attempt of imposing a religious belief on others by using statuary law which IS NOT freedom of religion.
Excerpt
SUMMARY:The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case about access to abortion doctors in Louisiana. The law in question is similar to a Texas one struck down by the Court in 2016 -- but decided by a different group of justices. Lisa Desjardins talks to the National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle and Mary Ziegler, professor and author of “Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present.”
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Peter Wehner of The New York Times join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Donald Trump's threat to impose tariffs on Mexican goods, former Vice President Joe Biden's policy reversal on an abortion rule, plus remembering D-Day 75 years later.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): President Trump's ongoing threat to impose tariffs on Mexican goods, Joe Biden's policy reversal, and remembering D-Day 75 years later.
It's been a busy week in politics,. and we have Shields and Wehner here to analyze it all. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and contributing opinion writer for The New York Times Peter Wehner.
And hello to both of you…
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Judy.
Peter Wehner, New York Times: Thank you.
Judy Woodruff: … on this Friday.
Let's start by talking about, Mark, what we led with tonight, which is — we started talking about the jobs report today, but connecting it to this threat of tariffs on Mexico that the President has been talking about foe days.
Now, the latest word we're hearing is maybe it won't happen, but it's thrown a lot of people off-balance, Congress, Mexico, a lot of companies. How do you assess the President's handling of this?
Mark Shields: Judy, it's the President. It's the way the President does it. It's very personal. It's high-risk.
It's not traditional. We're talking our two biggest trading partners, Mexico and China. And, right now, I think what we're facing is probably best put by Angus King [D-Me], the senator from Maine, who pointed out that 84 percent of the lobster business in Maine has already been lost because of the policy to Canada, and the unlikelihood of that getting back.
And for the first time, I have seen a little bit of resistance, a little bit of vertebrae on the part of farm state Republicans. I think that — but I predict right now, with absolutely no knowledge, that the President will declare victory, and there will be something.
But I can't believe it's going to do anything but leave relations with Mexico, which had been improving over the past 30 years, in just terrible and worse shape.
Judy Woodruff: How do you size up with the President's been saying and how he's handled this?
Peter Wehner: I think Mark is right. There's a lot of volatility in this.
Trump has a tropism for tariffs, if I can use that alliteration. It's one of the few issues that he's had deep convictions for his entire life. It's hard to tell if he thinks it's a means or an end.
If it's an end, we're in real trouble, because tariffs are taxes. It would hurt the economy. And it would create a lot of uncertainty in the market.
And the other thing — last thing that Mark said, which I think is extremely important, in some ways the most important part of this story, which is the damage that it's doing to the relations with Mexico. That has been a tremendous achievement, bipartisan achievement, over the last several decades.
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: Mexico is an ally.
Peter Wehner: It is an ally.
But the relations are getting distant and icy. And, in fact, if you study what's going on in Mexico, you see this stoking, that Trump is stoking anti-American resentment.
And if that relationship goes south, so to speak, that is going to have a lot of ramifications that are harmful, economic, security and otherwise.
Judy Woodruff: But, Mark, you're saying — when you say you think the President may back off and accept whatever Mexico offers, is it — how much of that has to do with the politics of this, that he is running into headwinds from members of his own arty?
Mark Shields:No, I think there are, and I think in the farm state — and they are states that he has to carry, quite frankly, in November 2020.
But I think he has shown that ability or the agility, I should say, to declare victory.
Judy Woodruff: And, I mean, do you agree with Mark, that what we may see is the President's had everybody on the edge of their seats, but now we will see?
Peter Wehner: I suspect that is — I suspect that's right, that it's such a question mark.
I mean, one of the, I guess, motifs of the Trump presidency is, he will be reckless, or wants to be reckless, and his aides try and stop him. And sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.
But I do agree with Mark that, whatever happens, Trump will declare victory. It doesn't have to be rooted in reality. It's just rooted somewhere in his own — in his own weird mind.
The slow march to theocracy, the Bible over the Constitution.
Excerpt
SUMMARY:The legal fight over abortion rights in the U.S. took a turn at the Supreme Court Tuesday. Justices ruled on an Indiana law stipulating how abortion providers dispose of fetal remains and prohibiting abortions performed on the basis of the gender, disability or race of the fetus. Lisa Desjardins talks to the National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle about what the ruling might mean.
SUMMARY: Missouri is part of a recent wave of state laws that would ban abortion almost entirely, sometimes without exceptions for rape and incest. The state is also making news on abortion for trying to deny its one remaining abortion provider, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, its license on grounds of alleged violations. William Brangham talks to Planned Parenthood’s president, Dr. Leana Wen.
SUMMARY: The national abortion debate is raging with renewed fervor, as a series of states pass restrictive laws banning almost all instances of the procedure. Among those states is Missouri, where officials are also trying to shutter its only remaining abortion provider, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis. William Brangham talks to Mallory Quigley of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including NewsHour interviews with 2020 Presidential candidates Eric Swalwell and Kirsten Gillibrand, the escalating feud between President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and whether ongoing congressional investigations are leading to impeachment.
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.
Hello to both of you.
So, we are trying to work our way through a conversation with each one of these candidates.
Mark, there are now, as we said, 23 of them. We talked to Eric Swalwell tonight, Kirsten Gillibrand last night.
I'm not going to say they are one-issue candidates, but they are — in his case, you heard him talk about gun control, Kirsten Gillibrand emphasizing women's issues.
What are you hearing from them? Is it smart for them to seize on one issue or not?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Well, we will find out whether it is.
It just strikes me that abortion, as an issue, has been…
Judy Woodruff: What she's talking about.
Mark Shields: That's where Kirsten Gillibrand is probably most prominently identified — is an issue where those who seek serious and large change find themselves on the political defensive.
And I think it's fair to say that it's hard to imagine anybody running a winning national campaign on enlarging and making statutory abortion legal in all circumstances or, for that matter, a Democratic Party which is essentially unwelcoming to those people who are — have reservations or are pro-life, but agree on every other issue.
Essentially, we had Bob Casey in his fifth term from Pennsylvania, the United States senator, wouldn't be welcome and not receive party backing, basically.
Judy Woodruff: What is coming through to you?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
When I look at these candidates, I'm first struck by how the self-esteem movement was obviously very effective.
(LAUGHTER)
David Brooks:Because, when I look at the presidency — I have interviewed a lot of Presidents since Reagan, really. And the one thing I come away with after every single interview was, I could never do that job.
Like, it's a really hard job. And Eisenhower — if I were Eisenhower, I would think, yes, I could do that. I have run a war. Franklin Roosevelt was governor of New York. Ronald Reagan was governor of California. George H.W. Bush had served in every position almost imaginable.
But why these people think they could be President of the United States is a little mystifying to me. But maybe they're right.
The second thing I look for is a unique selling proposition, like an actual route to the White House, why you're called to run, not — why it's not just about you getting a little more famous, but why there's been some call on you to run.
And for Elizabeth Warren, I can see it. She's got a set of policies and plans that are sort of unique. It's a unique selling proposition. Biden's got broad experience. Bernie Sanders has an outlook.
With a lot of the candidates, a lot of the 23, I don't quite see a unique selling proposition or politically even a route to victory.
Judy Woodruff: Hmm. Well…
Mark Shields: Well, no, I don't argue with that.
I mean, I just say, the uneasy consensus on abortion in this country seems to me be in favor of the status quo, which is rape, incest and the life of the mother. And that — to me, if you start to change that, which I think Republicans are finding right now, when you have got the Republican national chair disavowing it, and the Republican Senate majority leader disavowing the latest change, the most zealous changes that the Republicans are making, I think it tells you something about the politics of that issue.
David Brooks: It's weird that 50 percent of the country is sort of in the middle on abortion.
Mark Shields: Yes.
David Brooks:And Gillibrand says no Democratic candidate should get support if they're in the 50 percent, which is like a guarantee of permanent minority.
Judy Woodruff: All right, well, let's talk about something that's consumed us for the last couple of days.
And that is what was a fight, a battle between the President and Democrats in the Congress over subpoenas and documents and so forth that has turned into this very personal feud, Mark, between Speaker Pelosi and President Trump.
And here is just a little bit of what the two of them have been saying about each other over the last two days.
Mark Shields: OK.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): We believe that the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.
Donald Trump:I don't do cover-ups. I'm the most transparent President probably in the history of this country. So, get these phony investigations over with.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: I pray for the President of the United States. I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.
The White House is just crying out for impeachment. That's why he flipped yesterday.
Donald Trump:I'm an extremely stable genius. She's a mess. Look, let's face it. Crazy Nancy, I will tell you what, I have been watching her. And I have been watching her for a long period of time. She's not the same person. She's lost it.
I think Nancy Pelosi is not helping this country.
Judy Woodruff: So, Mark, it's gotten very personal.
Mark Shields:It has gotten very personal, particularly on the President's part.
And it just struck me, when Nancy Pelosi used the term intervention, that's a serious — that is a — that's an attempt, a collective attempt, a cooperative attempt, a collaborative attempt on the part of family and friends to intercede and to present to a person they think is suffering from an addiction or some sort of condition that condition is out of control, and with the idea of seeking remedy and seeking repair.
And I don't think she used the term lightly. And I would add to that, when you get General James Mattis, who has been totally silent…
Judy Woodruff: Former defense secretary.
Mark Shields: Former defense secretary.
He left, and he now is cautioning this President on Iran. He is cautioning him, the United States, on the use of military power and arguing that diplomacy is important. When you get the former secretary of defense, whom the President upbraided and insulted, Rex Tillerson, going to the Congress, and really raising serious questions about the President's…
Judy Woodruff: He testified this week.
Mark Shields:Testified that the President was unprepared, ill-prepared for the summit in Hamburg with Secretary — with Mr. Putin, and left the United States at a disadvantage, I think that this a larger message here than just political back and forth.
I think there's a serious concern about this President and this presidency. And, Judy, the first rule I learned covering American President politics is, beware of the Presidential candidate who does not have friends of his or her own age who can tell him when he's wrong and to go to hell.
And, right now, there are no grownups left in the White House. Donald Trump has Mr. Kushner and Mr. Miller as his two confidants.
Judy Woodruff: How serious do you see this?
David Brooks:Yes, I mean, it irks me that they're both questioning each other's mental competence, basically.
You can question policies. You can question a lot of things, but to say someone is basically in mental decline, it just — it just strikes me as a little too personal.
Donald Trump was — is in the Hall of Fame of the World Wrestling Federation. And he's taking it to the World Wrestling Federation levels of confrontation. And do I think he knows what he's doing? Well, at some level, I do think he does.
The question is, in that stage play, when he confronted all the Democrats, was it him going crazy because he's so self-obsessed? Yes. But was — is there also some craftiness to it? Yes.
I think it's politically the right move for him. If you look around the world, what's rising is hostility to elites? Modi gets elected. Australia, Brexit, Netanyahu, it's just all over the world.
And you can win, you can be forgiven a lot of sins, if you oppose coastal elites in our country, urban elites. And he's riding that train. And Nancy Pelosi is a good foil for that. And, politically, I do think there's some — it's not crazy what he's doing.
Judy Woodruff: Well…
Mark Shields: Can I just disagree with David, OK? And that's this?
I don't think it is shrewd. I mean, remember what they were discussing.
Judy Woodruff: I'm sorry, you don't think it's…
Mark Shields: I don't think it is shrewd. I don't think it's clever.
What they were discussing is the infrastructure of the United States. If there's one issue on which there is agreement that the country that was number one on all infrastructure, roads, highways, airports, ports, rail just 15 years ago, and is now number nine, and we're falling apart — we have got an $836 billion back-load. We haven't raised the gasoline tax in 26 years.
And there's something with the economy just maybe needing a goose very well next year. I mean, this begs to be done. It's something that the country desperately needs. And he walks away from it. He walks away from it and just ignores it, when, in fact, he could have a political success and a public success.
David Brooks:I would say, first of all, the fact that he walked away from it shows he cares about more himself than the country.
Mark Shields: Yes.
David Brooks: That, I agree with.
Mark Shields: OK.
David Brooks:But I don't think it's wrong to think that voters are driven more by animosity than by, what have you done for me?
If you can whip up animosities in this climate, or at least among some voters, then you have got a route to victory, rather than saying, oh, I did something really good for you, you should be grateful, you should reward me.
Those kind of soft and uplifting emotions are a little alien right now from politics.
Judy Woodruff: Well, let me just say, speaking of whipping up animosities, I just want to show you just this, again, a short clip.
This is something that the President tweeted a version of this. His personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, had spread this on Twitter and then pulled it back.
This is a doctored and then a real version of Nancy Pelosi speaking this week. I just want to show you a bit of it.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi: And then he had a press conference in the Rose Garden with all this sort of visuals that obviously were planned.
And then he had a press conference in the Rose Garden with all this sort of visuals that obviously were planned.
Judy Woodruff: So — and, I mean, we have seen this happen in social media. It's what's going on right now. But to know that the President's lawyer — the President was pushing another version of Pelosi.
They pulled together some clips where Pelosi was speaking in a sort of halting way and had it on FOX Business Channel.
I mean, what are we seeing here?
Mark Shields:We're seeing, Judy, the lack of any moral center or compass in a President and a presidency.
I mean, when — they're going to ask — the grandchildren are going to ask, what did you stand for, grandpa, what did you do? I mean, when Roosevelt brought a country that was on its knees and its back, back to its feet, when Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, I mean, when Lyndon Johnson brought civil rights to the country, this is what he's going to say?
I doctored up, I made my opponents look bad, I put out phony tapes on them?
I mean, this is beyond — this is an indignity to the office, and it's a disgrace, really, to the country.
David Brooks: Yes, I agree with that, but it's sort of the times.
We're sort of the old legacy media. The "NewsHour," The New York Times, The Washington Post, we're legacy media. But the one thing legacy media has is, we have basic standards below which it's unimaginable to sink, like making up stuff.
Judy Woodruff: Absolutely.
David Brooks:And if you do make an error, you correct it.
And so that's just the job we do. It's the normal thing, part of our world.
The Internet comes in, and there are some things on the Internet that are great, that live up to the standards that we're used to as professionals, and some things that are not.
And you have got to make the distinction between those above the line and those below the line. But that distinction between above the line and below the line seems to get washed away on the Internet.
And it doesn't help that the President doesn't seem — even seem to acknowledge the idea of the line.
Judy Woodruff: It's the Internet. It's social media. It's also some work being done on cable — on cable news.
SUMMARY: On the campaign trail, 2020 Democrats condemned a new Alabama law that bans abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called the measure, as well as other recent state efforts to restrict abortion, “blatantly unconstitutional.” Many of the candidates vowed that if elected president, they would nominate only judges who would uphold Roe vs Wade. Amna Nawaz reports.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the role of foreign policy in the upcoming Presidential election, restrictive new abortion laws, polling for Presidential candidates and a generational divide in the Democratic Party.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And with that, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Gentleman, hello.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Judy.
Judy Woodruff: So, you have listened to the conversation with Congresswoman Gabbard.
David, to you first.
How much of a role is foreign policy going the play in this election?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, at the moment, I don't think a primary role.
I was a foreign correspondent in the early '90s covering sort of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. And I remember, when the Clinton campaign started, suddenly, all my stories about these foreign policy issues disappeared off the American consciousness, because, when Clinton came in people said, something is happening right here.
And, right now, the focus of voters' attention is the crisis right here. And so I think that's the way it is. It could change with one foreign policy crisis. It could all change. But, right now, this is a pretty domestically focused nation.
Judy Woodruff: So, for Congresswoman Gabbard, I mean, Mark, as you heard her say, she's very focused on, what does the U.S. do, what's its role in the world, mistakes have been made.
Is that a way to capture voters' imagination, I guess is what I'm asking.
Mark Shields: Well, it is if, in fact, David is right and an issue or crisis does develop.
And I think we can see crises brewing at this point. George H.W. Bush, I think it's fair to say, in 1988, his foreign policy credentials, his own military experience, were strong credentials in his election, John Kerry's nomination in 2004.
And Barack Obama, being the only Democratic candidate who had opposed the United States' war in Iraq was — that was his calling card. That was his credential. So, I mean, if in fact it's there, it becomes central, if it isn't. It wasn't in 1992.
So, a lot of — just quickly, David, a lot of comment right now about how the President has handled North Korea, Venezuela, Iran. So, do we see that being a plus or a minus for the President?
(CROSSTALK)
David Brooks:Well, I would say the big minus is the way he's frayed all our alliances, which makes all those issues harder.
But his general posture is one of sometimes extreme bellicosity, with no convincing idea that he's actually going to do anything about these things. And so I think we're not very far — we're not very close to a war in Iran.
I think he's loathe to do that. He'd be crazy to do that. But he is responding to a situation, which is a tough situation. If the intelligence reports are true that the Iranians told their militant armies that they sort of control in the region to target Americans, then that's something any American President is going to respond to.
I'm not sure you can respond as well when you have no allies, or you can respond as well as when you have already walked out of the Iran deal. You have sort of left yourself in a hard place.
And the thing that worries me is, the administration seems to think Iran is on the verge of folding, and that if they just up the pressure, get a little more erratic, then Iran will fold. Most experts I know do not think they're that close to folding, and we could be in a situation where things spiral.
Judy Woodruff: Mark, let's turn to a domestic issue that a lot of people are talking about right now.
And that is the anti-abortion movement moving essentially state after state in the last few weeks and months to impose even stricter limits on abortion, in the case of Alabama, the strictest limits in the country, basically saying all abortions are illegal. Doctors could go to prison.
What do you see is going on here? I mean, what does this movement say to you? And do you think one political party or another — I mean, setting — obviously, it's a serious issue. But setting the issue itself aside, does one political party or another stand to lose from this?
Mark Shields: Yes. Yes.
I would say that, first of all, the issue itself is thorny and unresolved in the country, and remains so, after some 45 years, unlike the country's moved considerably to the left or liberal position on gay rights, on same-sex marriage.
Abortion has been stuck in — the Gallup poll has asked the same question annually. Do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life? The most recent, 48 percent of Americans considered pro-life, 48 percent pro-choice.
But Lydia Saad of Gallup writes — and I think she's right — there is a consensus on this thorny, difficult issue on three aspects, on the life of the mother, should abortion be available and optional in the case of the life of the mother.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields:And 71 percent of those who identify as pro-life say it should be, so seven out of 10. And the same thing by a simple majority — it's not quite that high — on the question of a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest.
So I would say, in answer to your question, Judy, that, politically, this is a — it's — I don't want to say a suicide pact for Republicans. Republicans are very much on the defensive. And it will put them in a position where all those Democratic House seats that were won in 2018 in places like Pennsylvania, New Jersey got a lot tougher for — uphill for Republicans to win back.
David Brooks: Yes, I'm not sure.
I mean, New York started this by passing a very liberal abortion law, which went all the way through the pregnancy.
Mark Shields: That's right.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
David Brooks: Virginia, there was one that was proposed that didn't end up going anywhere.
And so I — the polling data I look at has three positions. One, do you think abortion should always be legal? And you get like 27 percent.
Mark Shields: Yes.
David Brooks:Should never be legal, 18 percent. Should be legal, which the European solution, which is just legal first trimester, harder the second, 50 percent.
And that 50 or 55 percent has — as Mark says, has been very stable since Roe v. Wade. And — but the problem is, we took it out of politics, so we couldn't get to the moderate position. Now the extremists have taken over both sides.
And everybody is speaking for these extreme position.
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: But I was just going to say, right now, it's the restrictive side that is having success in legislature after legislature.
David Brooks: Right. Well, in the red states, yes.
Judy Woodruff: Right.
Mark Shields: I think David — both in Virginia and New York, the Democrats were seen, unfavorably and unfortunately, and I think wrong, as a party of infanticide. I mean, they really were.
I mean, Ralph Northam, that's what got him into initial trouble.
Judy Woodruff: The proposal that was put forward and then withdrawn.
Mark Shields: That's exactly right.
But now I think there's no question that it's the Republican dominant position. That's why Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House leader, has tried to distance himself. He realizes this — this is a killer in suburban America.
And America remains pro-choice and anti-abortion.
David Brooks: It's like what the NRA did to the gun issue, these people are doing to the abortion issue.
SUMMARY:With the Supreme Court's conservative makeup, more states are implementing legislation that tests the limits of Roe v Wade. Alabama's governor has signed the most restrictive abortion law in the country, while Vermont aims to preserve abortion rights into the future. Amna Nawaz talks to The Montgomery Advertiser's Brian Lyman, VTDigger's Anne Galloway, and Florida State University's Mary Ziegler.
IMHO: There is a big push by conservative Christians to turn the United States into a theocracy by making their doctrine and beliefs the law-of-the-land over our Constitution. The ONLY persons who should be making the decision on abortion are women; not local, state, or federal government. It is a right of women to make this moral decision.
Doreen Denny is not really concerned about women, they are concerned about their agenda. Some states already have banned abortions in clinics, to there will be no 'other providers' to refer to. (see link to CWA below)
SUMMARY: The Trump administration intends to limit the Title X program that provides birth control and other reproductive health services. Under the new restrictions, any clinic accepting federal funds would be prevented from performing abortions -- or referring women to other providers for the procedure. William Brangham talks to Doreen Denny of Concerned Women for America, who supports the new policy.
REMINDER: The majority of what Planned Parenthood provides is NOT abortion. (see link below)
SUMMARY:Under a new rule proposed by the Trump administration, family-planning clinics that receive federal funds through Title X would be prevented from referring women to other providers for abortions. One organization that would be affected is Planned Parenthood, whose president Dr. Leana Wen talks to William Brangham about why the move would compromise patient health as well as medical ethics.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including chaos at the highest levels of Virginia government, the effectiveness of congressional investigations, the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling and the legacy of Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich).
Amna Nawaz (NewsHour): Virginia and the country weigh the transgressions of the state's top leaders in a moment of reckoning. And, in Washington, Democrats flex their new power in the House, starting with investigating the President, bringing us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.
That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome to you both. Happy Friday.
So, let's start in Virginia.
I want to bring up a couple of tweets real quick, because we have had late-breaking news on this. There has been a second allegation of assault against Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, leading to former Governor Terry McAuliffe to now call for Fairfax's resignation.
He says the allegations are serious and credible and he doesn't believe Fairfax can effectively serve the people of Virginia.
I should note other lawmakers have now joined that call for him to resign.
And Fairfax has also issued a statement in response, calling the allegations an obvious — sorry — "vicious and coordinated smear campaign" orchestrated against him, and he says he will not resign.
So, Mark, start us off here. There's a lot happening in Virginia, still. It's still evolving. What do you make of how it's been handled by leader there so far?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Terribly.
The late Mo Udall wisely said that, when the Democrats organize a firing squad, they first form a circle. And I would say that's gone on.
I think each of the cases has to be treated separately. I do think that Governor Northam — politics, to begin with, is not brain surgery. It's about addition, and not subtraction. It's about a party that welcomes people to its ranks, that warmly embraces newcomers and accepts converts happily and finds common ground.
A losing political party is one that spends time, energy and effort hunting down heretics and banishing them to the outer darkness because they don't subscribe totally to the received wisdom.
The Democrats in Virginia have played that second role. They had, in Ralph Northam, a popular governor who had secured passage of Medicaid for 400,000 Virginians, something long promised, who had run against the NRA, gave them an 'F' rating, he took them on, on universal background charges, who, in the most segregated day in America, which is Sunday morning, when people go to church with people of their own race, belongs to a church with 60 percent African-Americans, with an African-American pastor.
And all of that is forgotten, all of that is tossed aside blithely because of one yearbook page which was hateful, hurtful and absolutely indefensible.
But I just — I thought the stampede on the part of national Democrats, and including Democrats as honorable as Tim Kaine, the former Governor and Senator of Virginia, to toss him out, to demand his resignation was really unacceptable. I really did.
Amna Nawaz: What did you make of this, David? Did you think it was a stampede?
David Brooks, New York Times: A bit.
Men turn out to be a problem. There's a lot of male bad behavior. Maybe we should have only women leading our states. That might solve these problems.
I think there are two different cases here. The Fairfax case, the Justin Fairfax case, is suddenly looking to be the much more serious of the two to me, that there's multiple — two women making allegations, with some suggestion that there is contemporaneous evidence, that he assaulted them.
And so that, to me, it turns out, is the most serious one to me. I would say he's in the post peril. He might have done an actual crime. So, there, I think — I'm always very slow to call for resignations. It makes everybody feel good. But I really believe in investigating. And so somebody should be investigating that one.
On the Northam case, you know, what he does — we spoke about it briefly, because the news had just broken last week — that what he did was appalling and hateful.
And yet I do think, in a lot of these cases, that there should be some path to redemption. And that path should involve an apology. It should involve a lifetime or decades or years of service in the cause.
And Northam, frankly, his record on civil rights is quite good. And so whatever hateful thing he may or may not have done as a med student, it's not evident in his adult behavior. And I do think that mitigates toward some sense of leniency. Then maybe he can spend the rest of his governorship continuing good work, heightened because of what he did as a young man.
So, to me, to throw — to destroy a reasonably good career, whether you — for — over this thing is probably not — we do not have a surplus of good people in public life.
Amna Nawaz: I wonder, though, Mark, because the Democrats rely on votes from minority voters, African-Americans in particular, in Virginia.
When you have Herring and Northam both admitting to wearing blackface, and Northam not handling it particularly well, showing very awkward conversation afterwards and admitting that, doesn't that lose them some moral high ground down the line?
Mark Shields: Oh, sure.
I mean, and you're being excessively charitable by saying not handle it well. I mean, he handled it terribly.
But, I mean, the attorney general turns out to be the real ace of the week by — he demanded that the governor resign for his yearbook picture, and then remembered photographic evidence of his doing something quite similar, if not identical, when he was at the University of Virginia.
And he's been far more fulsome, articulate, almost eloquent in his apology. And so now it comes down to not the act itself. And I agree with David. What the lieutenant governor — the allegations against the lieutenant governor, I mean, are potentially criminal. I mean, we're not talking about bad taste or insensitivity or racial insensitivity.
So I do think that they are very different charges.
David Brooks: Yes.
And it should be said, when I mentioned the road to redemption…
Amna Nawaz: Yes.
Mark Shields: Yes.
David Brooks: … frankly, to be honest, it's not white people who have the — who are in the position to offer forgiveness.
The African-American community is the one that was wronged by this. And so it's trying to work with them and sort of humble oneself before them that I think is the ultimate court here.
And that would be a good role for any governor in any state to do something like that.
Mark Shields: He had the endorsement, Northam had the endorsement of every African-American lawmaker in the state when he ran. So it's not like he's unfamiliar with that constituency.
Amna Nawaz: Yes. Let's move on now to Democrats in the House.
Mark Shields: Sure.
Amna Nawaz: Speaking of investigations there, it's been a busy week for them, David, launching oversight investigations into the Trump Organization, threatening subpoenas.
They came out at a quite a pace. Is it sustainable? Are they sending a message? What's going on here?
David Brooks: Yes, I wonder about the word investigation.
Are we investigating, or are we having just television shows? And Matthew Whitaker was on — was in the hearings today. The guy is going to be out of office probably in a few days, because Bill Barr is going to be — become the actual attorney general.
So, what exactly was the purpose of that show? And these days, when you get one of these televised hearings, they're not investigations. They are shows. And I'm struck by how Congress has shifted that way.
I was reading Kamala Harris' memoir last week. And she describes her Senate career not as a series of legislations, but as a series of confrontational moments at a hearing that were televised.
And I think, for a lot of members now, that is what being in Congress is. And so sometimes you get real investigations, but I'm dubious that we're going to see a lot of actual investigating.
Amna Nawaz: What do you make of that, Mark? Are they looking for answers, or are they just putting on a show?
Mark Shields: Well, both, obviously.
I will — I will say this. I mean, I think the Democrats won last fall because of health care, because the Republicans tried to repeal health care. I think the Democrats ought to spend time, effort, energy trying to guarantee that coverage be available, and especially preexisting condition, which Republicans were ready to repeal.
I think they ought to be raising the minimum wage. And they — changing people's lives for the better, but guaranteeing that Robert Mueller continues unimpeded in his investigation, and is given the resources and authority necessary to do it.
But David's right. They can't resist the camera and the lights, and just like us.
(LAUGHTER)
Amna Nawaz: I want to ask you about some news yesterday.
A couple of Supreme Court decisions came down, one in particular that caught a lot of people's attention.
Mark, I will start with you on it. This was the Supreme Court basically blocking a Louisiana law that would have closed a lot of the abortion providers in that state.
And I mention it in the context of Republicans having weathered that whole storm around Brett Kavanaugh, thinking that he would make the difference in decisions like this. John Roberts in this case was the swing vote.
Mark Shields: John Roberts, yes.
Amna Nawaz: What do you make of that?
Mark Shields: Well, I mean, the Chief Justice has been time and again sort of the ballast on the court.
I don't think there's any question — and we saw it at the State of the Union address as well, Amna — that the President is going to make a abortion, and particularly late-term abortion, an issue in 2020. He was a convert. He was Saul on the road to Damascus in 2015 and became an ardent pro-life candidate.
He won 80 percent of the vote of white evangelicals along the way. And, quite bluntly, late-term abortion, 1.3 percent of all abortions, is unpopular with Americans. It is not — it's not unlike immigration.
If you think of immigration as grabbing children out of their mother's arms, then everybody in the world is on the side of the immigrant. But if you see it as a caravan marauding toward the border, then, all of a sudden, there's a skepticism about immigration.
I think the same thing is true, quite frankly, on abortion. And the idea of a child full-term being plucked from the womb, and then not being given life, I think it's an issue that Donald Trump, quite bluntly, wants to run on in 2020.
And he can point that he's — Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were on his side, on the side of the angels, I guess you would call them, in the decision.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including the uproar over a racist photo on the medical school yearbook page of Gov. Ralph Northam (D-Va) the furor erupting over state legislation related to third-trimester abortions, hope for resolving the border wall standoff and the widening 2020 field of Presidential candidates.
Judy Woodruff: (NewsHour): An update now to a story we reported earlier.
This evening, Virginia's Governor Northam acknowledged that he was in a photograph depicting blackface and a Ku Klux Klan outfit. The photo was made public today, and comes from his 1984 medical school yearbook.
Northam's statement this evening said, in part: "I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused, then and now."
And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Judy.
Judy Woodruff: So, I want to begin, David, with this news that we reported earlier in the program, that the pictures of Governor Northam had surfaced. He was elected just a year ago, is seen as a progressive Democrat in the South, in Virginia.
But now there's this. Can he survive this?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, first, it just shocks you with how appalling it is.
1984, it was not like 1850. And it's his med school. It's not high school. It's not college. This is a full-grown adult. And so it's just shocking and appalling that this was the norm, that it was OK to do this.
I don't know if it survives — he doesn't — Virginia is a one-term state, so he never has to run again. But I really don't know. I — frankly, I was a little more appalled by his comments earlier in the week about letting babies die on tables when they're born in late-term abortions.
And that was sort of what got this ball rolling. And so I would say, these are two events that I find morally incomprehensible.
Judy Woodruff: Mark, what about this? And I do want to ask you about the abortion debate that David's referring to.
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy, I think that Ralph Northam won a campaign last year in which race was the issue, and he was the pro-civil rights candidate, and was castigated by Republicans for sponsoring, supporting the removal of Confederate statues from public places to museums.
And that has been his public record. This is very much at odds with that. And I agree with David. It's offensive and it's indefensible, and the fact that he was a grown man.
I do not think it leads to resignation. It is a one-term state. But, I mean, it certainly, I think, inhibits his effectiveness as governor, and certainly from the moral level of a governor calling, summoning a people to sacrifice, a collective sacrifice.
Judy Woodruff: Well, we will certainly see. This is all literally breaking just as we're sitting here tonight together on the program.
But, David, just quickly, you referred to the dispute, the, frankly, outrage that poured out earlier this week. Virginia, there was just — in brief, a state legislator in Virginia was talking about expanding abortion rights into the third trimester, a lot outcry about that.
The governor was attempting to talk about it, as someone who was an OB/GYN, a doctor, a physician. But it made an even bigger story.
David Brooks: Yes, well it started with Andrew Cuomo in New York, where they passed a bill with full-length abortion.
And I — you can have pro-choice, pro-life — I thought Andrew Cuomo made a mistake in lighting up the tower on the World Trade Center. Abortion is a tough issue. You don't celebrate it, a full-term abortion, with lighting up a tower in celebration of your law.
Then the — there was a bill proposed in the Virginia legislature to do this, and the legislator was asked, would she — could you abort a baby just before it was in the birth canal? And she said yes.
And he was trying to explain it, the governor was, with — very medically, that the — if a child comes out with some problems, then the physician and the parents would decide whether or not to resuscitate.
And, to me, that's not my understanding of the Hippocratic oath. If a baby is on a table, it's not even abortion anymore. It's a baby breathing on a table. And that's a human being, whatever you think of the pro-life issue.
And so we're pushing new territory, I would say, in this debate, territory that almost no other country in the world endorses.
Judy Woodruff: Where do you see this?
Mark Shields: I think David makes excellent points.
I would add to this, Judy. Abortion is — Americans are collectively pro-choice and anti-abortion. You ask Americans, how do you feel about abortion, they don't like it.
But a woman forced to make a decision under difficult circumstances, in consultation with her confessor, her conscience and her physician, they're not going to — they're not going to criminalize it.
But, as long as the question is, what is being decided, as rather who is deciding, and when you're talking about what is being decided, what David has described, I think, frankly, it's now indefensible.
Abortion is a — is an issue that Americans, quite bluntly, have never resolved. I mean, it remains in every Gallup poll every year the plurality Americans think abortion is immoral. They — at the same time, they do not want to criminalize it.
But I do think that, when you get into the — as we talked about in Virginia, it's infanticide, when you say, make a child — have the child born, comforted, consoled, and then decide whether in fact — is it 24 hours, 12 hours, a week?
I think — I just think the Democrats have gone from being the pro-choice party in both those instances to being the no-choice party.
Judy Woodruff: Well, we should — we should point out that what the Democrats are trying to do in a number of states is talk about the health of the mother, the life of the mother, the health of the baby. And those issues are part of this as well.
But you're right. We're not going to resolve this, this evening. But it's an important thing to bring up.
Let's talk quickly about the border wall dispute, David. Here we are, a week later. The committee is meeting at the Capitol. The President is saying, it doesn't matter.
Does either — Republicans or Democrats on either side have more leverage? Where are we headed?
David Brooks: Yes, I assume we're not going to have a shutdown again on February 15, just because the Republicans, it would just be suicidal.
And the Senate Republicans are a little more active this time. But I don't quite see how it gets resolved. Trump has said, the negotiations don't matter, I want my wall. Nancy Pelosi is still at the position a wall is immoral.
And it's — the obvious exit route is, they find some money for border security, and Donald Trump gets to call it a wall, whether it's a wall or not.
But it — the other — but they don't seem to have a route to get there. And they seem — both have decided, I can't let the other side seem to have won.
And so, even symbolically, they can't share a victory here. And so I don't see a way out. It's certainly not evident right now.
Judy Woodruff: The — Senator Shelley Moore Capito was on the program this week, Mark, and she said they're talking about, among things, fences, maybe levees, as one definition of a barrier.
Mark Shields: Yes. That's right.
Judy Woodruff: So, it could very well come down to some construction or definition.
Mark Shields: Yes. I agree. I agree with David's — David's point.
Judy, I think that, whether it's border security or whatever, the President is not being helpful. I mean, there seems to be, on the part of Republicans, Senator Capito, but Senator Cornyn, Senator Thune, an understanding that a — they got hurt, and they have got to resolve this, and they want to get it resolved.
And, at the same time, they're being increasingly frank about the President's unhelpfulness in it. I mean, John Cornyn said, we're trying to figure out where he stands. And John Thune, the senator from South Dakota, said, we cannot say that these meetings are fruitless. We're trying to get something.
It's almost — what President Trump is doing is making the congressional branch of our system more positive, I mean, that we're turning to them in hopes. We always thought the executive was very efficient.
But, I mean, now the hope for resolving this really, frankly, is with the conference of senators and House members.
Judy Woodruff: Even as the President pronounces it a waste of time.
SUMMARY: Proposed legislation in Virginia that would loosen restrictions on third trimester abortions has sparked outrage among conservatives. Many pro-choice advocates expect the Supreme Court to scale back abortion rights, and states favorable to abortion are preparing. Lisa Desjardins talks to Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of several books on abortion politics.
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.
