OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 1/14/2022

"Brooks and Capehart on voting rights legislation and partisanship" PBS NewsHour 1/14/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including Democrats' push for voting rights legislation, partisanship and President Biden’s handling of key issues within his party.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  This week, Democrats renewed their push for voting rights legislation, the Supreme Court ruled on vaccine mandates, and new data showed inflation at its highest rate in nearly 40 years.

For a deeper look at all this, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

Very good to see both of you.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Thank you.

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you for joining us on this Friday night.

Let's start with voting rights.

David, it hasn't been a good week for the Democrats, despite the fact that President Biden went to Atlanta, made, I think it's fair to say, his strongest remarks yet on why voting rights matter.

What was your take on what he had to say?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I thought 80 percent of it was fine, a very good speech is.

There were some rhetorical flourishes at the end that went over the top and they were too partisan.  If we're going to have a clean election and a fair election and a properly certified election, we're going to need Democrats and Republican officials across the country to do their job.

And, in 2020, most Republicans did their job.  And to make this a partisan issue and to have, to me, supercharged rhetoric about, are you on the side of Abraham Lincoln or are you on the side of Jefferson Davis, that offended a lot of Republicans, made them extremely angry, and I think it makes it harder for the Republican officials who are going to do a good job to be in their party.

My friend and colleague Tom Friedman wrote a column advocating for a Biden-Liz Cheney ticket in 2024.  And I don't think he meant that literally.  But what he pointed to the fact was, in Israel, they — there was a broad coalition that said, we cannot have Bibi Netanyahu as prime minister again.

And so they formed a broad coalition to make that happen.  If we're going to prevent Donald Trump from being President again, we need a broad coalition.  And I thought this speech was unhelpful, especially coming from a man who said he's going to unify the country.

So, most of the speech was good, but those rhetorical flourishes, partisan, I think, detract.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, too much partisanship in what the President had to say?

Jonathan Capehart:  I don't think so, Judy.  In fact, what David calls rhetorical flourishes and over the top, I thought was probably the most powerful part of the President's speech.

Remember, President Biden, to my mind, is never more clear, passionate, focused and determined than when he is talking about what he calls the soul of America, started with his campaign talking about Charlottesville, talking in his run against Donald Trump about who we are as a people.

And I think a lot of people make a mistake in terms of focusing in on the politics of this speech, and not understanding that it's as much political as it is moral for this President.

And we can focus in on what happened in the 2020 election, but the fire that's coming from the President, the fire that is coming from millions of Americans has to do with what Republicans in particular have been doing in states since the 2020 election.

For a lot of people, what is happening at the state and local level in terms of not just voter suppression, but voter subversion, is what is animating this entire debate.

And so for people to be upset because the President drew a very stark and clear line in the sand that you are either with, as he said, Dr. King, in terms of opening up the promise of America to everyone, or George Wallace, who was about holding on to power for power's sake, and holding it in the hands of an elite few, particularly a white male elite few, this is where we are right now.

And the last thing I will say on this is, after four years of a President who took a blowtorch to the American presidency, to the Constitution, to our values, to the peaceful transfer of power, to decency in general, for people to be upset with President Biden for fighting for American values and for American democracy, it's a little hard for me to take them seriously.

Judy Woodruff:  What about that, David?

Because what we have seen Republicans doing in a number of states is cutting back on early voting, the number of days, cutting back on things like mail-in — the ability to do mail-in voting.  What about that?

David Brooks:  Yes.  Well, I'm not here to defend that.  And I certainly have not been defending it lo these many months.

But I do think rhetoric like comparing Republicans to Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis is not helpful.  It's not 1861 anymore.  I even think the trope that he has that, well, the Georgia law is Jim Crow 2 is also not helpful.

The Georgia law was a big step backward.  And I would condemn it in the strongest terms.  And I agree with Jonathan about 80 percent.  But the Georgia law, it's compared — I have read an article — an analysis recently comparing it to the New York law.  And there are some parts where Georgia makes it easier somewhere, New York makes it easier.

And the — it's true that Georgia is going backwards and New York is going forward.  So I don't want to justify that.  But the overheated rhetoric, I think, has the effect of making this just a Republican-vs-Democratic issue.  And it should not be a Republican-vs.-Democratic issue.

It should be a Republican and Democrats on one side and the cult of Trump on the other side.  And making that clear, I think, is the right thing — the right way to approach this.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I mean, all I can say is, we can polite ourselves to oblivion.  And, at some point, it is imperative that the President state clearly what's at stake here.

And when it comes to Georgia, let's keep in mind, Georgia didn't institute its new laws, propose them and pass them into law until after Georgia voters voted for President Biden to make him the next President of the United States and after they elected two Democrats from that state.

So, this is what we're talking about here.  And what — 19 — what is it, the stat I'm looking for?  Nineteen states have passed 34 restrictive laws in 2021 alone.  So, that is what's animating this entire discussion.

Judy Woodruff:  David, I want to ask you about…

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Go ahead, David.  Go ahead.

David Brooks:  Yes, maybe I will get to what we're going to.

But we have an ethical responsibility here to make sure we actually effectively repulse what's being — happening.  And (AUDIO GAP) is now in a position where nothing's probably going to happen in Washington, because they couldn't get Sinema and Manchin to sign off on the filibuster changes.

So it's likely that we will have no voting rights bills this year.  And so we have to figure out ways to actually pass things.  And I think alienating the center is probably not the way to go.

Now, in retrospect, as I look at the Biden presidency, and especially the terrible events, in my view, of not having these voting rights bills, it seems clear to me the whole Biden presidency, and, on Inauguration Day, they should have sat down with Manchin and Sinema and said, where can we go from here, and what can we do together?

That is to say, they should have started at the center and gone outward.  Instead, they started at the left and went centrist.  And I — that's looking like an unfortunate strategy both on voting rights and on Build Back Better.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, that brings up what Sinema had to say, Senator Kyrsten Sinema.  Jonathan, in her speech on the Senate floor this week, where they need — they need her, they need Senator Manchin to go along with any change in the Senate rules, in the filibuster.

But she essentially argued that it's more important to work on partisanship than it is to do something about voting rights.

Jonathan Capehart:  Sure.

And her speech could have been delivered from fantasyland, this idea that the Republicans who sit there now have any interest in working with Democrats on this issue in particular.

In 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized unanimously in the Senate.  Republican President George W. Bush had a South Lawn signing ceremony with Reverend Al Sharpton sitting in the front row.  That was when voting rights was bipartisan.  All the Republicans in the Senate voted for it.  As the President pointed out in his speech in Atlanta, 16 of those senators still serve.

And yet 16 of those senators won't even vote to allow those two voting rights bills to even be debated.  They don't have to vote for them, but why shouldn't they debate them?  Why shouldn't the American people at least get to hear what's in those bills, what's wrong with those bills, where could there be areas of compromise?

And when it comes to Senator Manchin, at least he worked with Republicans.  They had three bites at the apple on the Freedom to Vote Act.  And Senator Manchin gave Republicans, after talking to them, many of the things that they wanted, including voter I.D.  And yet no Republican voted to allow that bill to even be debated.

So, for Senator Sinema to say, look, we have to work with Republicans, and I will only do this if there's bipartisanship, well, where's it going to come from, because it's not it's happening now?

Judy Woodruff:  David?

David Brooks:  Yes, well, I mean, her argument is not an implausible argument.  And it's not really about these two particular pieces of legislation.

Her argument is that if the — if we change the filibuster rules, and the majority party basically gets to control the Senate, and never has to work with the minority party, that would be bad for the country and bad for the Senate, because you basically have sort of one-party rule.

And that's not an implausible argument.  Whether she's right to not pursue a carve-out for voting rights, I think that's a mistake.  I wish they — she would do a carve-out just for voting rights to get this issue off the table.

But her defense of the filibuster is the traditional defense of the filibuster.  And, in my view, having covered this issue for a long time, in my view, almost every effort to reduce the filibuster over the course, whether on judges or anything else, has had long-term negative effects.

David Brooks:  Jonathan and I are in violent agreement on this subject.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Is that what you call it?

All right, well, we have only got about 30 seconds left.  So, there's no time to ask you about the Supreme Court decision the vaccine mandate and inflation.

But I promise you we're going to come back to that next Friday.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  You have got a whole week to think about it.

Thank you both, Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks.  We appreciate it.  Have a good weekend.

Jonathan Capehart:  You too.

David Brooks:  Thank you, Judy.

POLITICS - U.S. Senate, Democrats Display Their Lack of Backbone

And Democrats display their lack of backbone, again.  The U.S. Senate's filibuster is a rule of anti-governance and should have never been borne.

"Senators Strike a Deal on Filibusters, Averting 'Nuclear Option' Showdown" PBS Newshour 7/16/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After closed talks, Sen. Harry Reid announced a compromise to break a partisan stalemate and avoid making changes to the current rules on filibustering.  Gwen Ifill talks to Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss., about how the Senate averted a showdown over nominee confirmations.

POLITICS - The U.S. Senate 'Nuclear Option' on Filibusters

Reminder, there is NO requirement in the U.S. Constitution for a super-majority (67%) vote to approve Presidential Nominees.  The problem is Republicans using the filibuster to block any vote on nominees (or anything else), it takes 67% vote to stop any filibuster.  IMHO the filibuster is a rule (vs Constitutional law) preventing governance in America today.

"Reid confident he has the votes to trigger nuclear option in Senate" by Alexander Bolton, The Hill 7/13/2013

After days of intense lobbying, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is confident he has enough votes to trigger the nuclear option to change the Senate’s rules.

Reid needs 50 votes for the controversial tactic, which Republicans say would forever “change the character of the Senate” but Democrats argue is necessary to fix a broken institution.

Reid expects to have at least 51 Democratic votes to prohibit Republicans from filibustering President Obama’s executive-branch nominees.  Vice President Joe Biden could provide insurance by presiding over the chamber to break a tie vote.

The standing rules of the Senate require a 67-vote majority to change the rules, but Reid would circumvent that by making a point of order that senators should be prohibited from filibustering executive-branch nominees.

This would clear the way for the Senate to confirm Obama’s most controversial nominees with simple majority votes, including Richard Cordray, the nominee to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and three picks for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

It’s called the nuclear option because it would cause a meltdown in bipartisan relations.  Senate Republicans on Thursday threatened to shut the upper chamber down until next year’s election.

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) warned Reid would be remembered as the “worst leader of the Senate ever” if he moves forward.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) will vote against any point of order Reid raises to change the rules.  Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who is facing a tough election next year, and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) are “leaning no”, according to a senior Democratic aide.

Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) are two other swing votes, but Democratic leaders expect them to ultimately support Reid.

Reed has wavered back and forth in recent meetings with advocates pushing for Senate rules reform.

“He was agonizing over it,” said a member of the pro-reform coalition who lobbied him.  “I think Jack Reed is now in the right place.  Pryor and Baucus are still up in the air.”

Cathy Duvall, the national political director at the Sierra Club, which is a member of the Fix the Senate Now coalition, said some Democratic senators are concerned about possible GOP retribution.

“It’s my understanding there are a number of senators who still have some questions about the process and what the retribution might be,” she said.

She said whether Reid triggers the nuclear option will depend on whether Republicans allow the nominees to reach final votes.

“What happens on Tuesday depends on what Republicans do,” she said.  “Will they continue to create unprecedented gridlock on nominations or will they join with Reid to get the Senate to work?”

McConnell has signaled he will allow final votes on two of Obama’s high-profile nominees, Tom Perez, the pick to serve as Labor secretary, and Gina McCarthy, the nominee for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Republicans have proposed a deal on the National Labor Relations Board that would have Obama submit new names for those positions, according to an aide familiar with the offer. Republicans argue two of the nominees — Richard Griffin and Sharon Block — are tainted because Obama recess-appointed them in January of 2012.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later invalidated the appointment.

“It seems to me you don’t put people who have gone around the rules into power positions because they’re people who really will not abide by the rules,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).  “If they want to pick two others and maybe of the same philosophy, they’d probably get through.”

Reid, however, will not agree to any deal on nominees that leaves out Cordray, who is seen as essential to the functioning of the financial protection bureau, one of the chief reforms of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.

“Cordray is not coming off the table. Period,” said a senior Democratic aide.  “Republicans are trying to appeal to us for a deal on the NLRB guys.  I don’t think that they’ve gotten a very receptive reaction.”

Barring filibusters on executive-branch nominees would give Obama greater leeway in appointing Janet Napolitano’s successor as secretary of Homeland Security.

“If Democrats actually do the nuclear option, it would reduce the confirmation process to one party rule,” said John Ashbrook, a spokesman for McConnell, in an e-mail.  “President Obama could install controversial nominees with a complicit Democrat majority and no real input from the opposition.  The selection of her replacement could be the first test of a scaled back check on the President’s power.”

Republicans warn this could undermine confidence in the implementation of pending immigration reform proposals.

Reid has scheduled a rare joint Democratic-Republican caucus meeting on Monday evening in an eleventh-hour effort to quell the mounting partisan tensions, but Democrats doubt it will yield a result.  Republicans requested the bipartisan session.

The Senate will start voting on Tuesday to end debate on seven of Obama’s nominees, beginning with Cordray and then moving to the three nominees to the labor relations board.  A senior Democratic aide said seven votes are likely to occur, but some could be delayed until later in the week.

If Republicans block a final vote on Cordray or the labor-board picks, Reid could make a motion to reconsider the vote to end debate on their nominations later in the week.  That would give him an opportunity to trigger the nuclear option on Thursday, after procedural time to consider the other nominees has elapsed.

Reid has several procedural options for invoking the nuclear option.  As of Friday, he had not decided which one to use, according to an aide.

GUN CONTROL - Senate Republican Filibuster Fails

"Senate Blocks Attempt to Prevent Debate on Gun Legislation" PBS Newshour 4/11/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With families of the Newtown shooting victims looking on, Congress moved closer to coming up with a comprehensive bill for reducing gun violence.  The Senate blocked an attempt to prevent debate on the subject.  Judy Woodruff reports on what measures the bill may include.

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  The full U.S. Senate officially took up gun control today.  Supporters swept aside a procedural hurdle and began what is likely to be a long struggle to craft a final bill.

SEN. HARRY REID, D-Nev., Majority Leader:  The hard work starts now.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking moments after senators rejected efforts to prevent debate on new gun legislation.  It required at least 60 votes and the final margin easily exceeded that.

MAN:  On this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays are 31.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Sixteen Republicans joined all but two Democrats in the majority.   Reid had acknowledged powerful feelings on both sides.

Still, he said:

SEN. HARRY REID:  But whichever side you are on, we ought to be able to agree to exchange thoughtful debate about these measures.  Let's engage in it.

POLITICS - What Our Federal Legislature Leaves Undone (Part-2)

"Critical U.S. Infrastructure Vulnerable to Cyber Attack, Congress Fails to Act" (Series Part-2) PBS Newshour 8/8/2012

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Next, another look at some of the work Congress failed to finish before leaving for its August recess.

Tonight, the subject is cybersecurity.

Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): America is increasingly exposed to the threat of cyber-attacks, as hackers go after money, intellectual property and other data from individuals, the financial industry, corporations, government and the defense business.

Last Thursday, the U.S. Senate took up a bill to address the vulnerability in one key sector: the country's critical infrastructure, including the electrical grid, nuclear power plants, oil and gas lines, water supply, and transit systems.

MAN: The motion is not agreed to.

MARGARET WARNER: But Republicans filibustered the measure, and it fell well short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. With that, lawmakers left for the August recess, leaving the bill's co-sponsors, Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, frustrated.

NOTE: The title of the video, at this time, in incorrect

Significant excerpt

JOEL BRENNER, author, America the Vulnerable: ...Department of Homeland Security began keeping figures on this in 2009, there were four such attacks. Last year, there were 198. The numbers are pretty -- they really tell the story.

So now Republicans sacrifice our nation's security to their no-regulation doctrine.