SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks analyze the week in politics, including how Congress is reacting to President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over immigration, the 2020 candidacy of Bernie Sanders and whether democratic socialism is becoming mainstream.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): From that to what we reported earlier in the show, House Democrats gearing up to fight President Trump on his emergency declaration.
It's time now for analysis on this and more from 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, let's talk about — Mark, what the Democrats announced today.
They said that they were going to do this, but they officially put word out today that they are going to vote on Tuesday basically to just negate, cancel what the President is trying to do, declare a national emergency to find money to pay for a wall on the southern border.
Is this a smart move?
Mark Shields:Is it the smart move? Well, it will pass the House. There are 226 co-sponsors right now.
And if Nancy Pelosi does something well — she does lot of things well, but she knows how to count. And the question is how many Republicans. There's one at this point, Justin Amash of Michigan, but others who will come over.
Judy Woodruff: Only one at this point?
Mark Shields: At this point, that's right.
So, then it moves to the Senate. I mean, it's a — I think it's a moment of some truth, reality for Republicans. I think Susan Collins of Maine has already indicated her own opposition to the President's position. I think Cory Gardner of Colorado, who is up in a tough race next year, may be another. There may be others as well.
So, I think our system works best when there's a vitality and an energy in all branches. And I don't think there is any question that this is protecting the institution. I mean, when the President goes ahead and appropriates money that was denied by both the Democrats and the Republicans in the conference most recently, you know, I think it's a question of prerogative and responsibility and authority.
Judy Woodruff: So, David, do the Democrats have a real shot at blocking what the President wants to do?
David Brooks, New York Times:No, no, because they would have to get a veto-proof majority. Even if they get it out of the Congress, Donald Trump will veto it.
I think it may also pass the Senate. I forget. There were six or seven who — at least when he declared the emergency, six or seven Republicans said, I don't really think it's a good idea. And I think they may wind up voting against it.
If you're going to vote against Donald Trump about anything, this is the easiest, because you can say, well, it's not really about ideology. It's not about the wall. It's just about Congress. And it's about the way we — it's about the Constitution.
They all took an oath to swear allegiance to the Constitution. And the Constitution says that Congress originates, has the power of the purse. And if the President can just spend money on what he wants, that's really not our constitutional system.
Why don't more do it? If it was an anonymous vote, it would get 90 votes. They all think that. But there's a weird — you know, you bug them about this, there's a level of supine passivity, like a learned helplessness, where they don't even — it doesn't even cross the mental barrier that, well, maybe I should buck the President on this one.
I don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: You're talking about the Republicans.
David Brooks: Yes. You would have to do studies on maltreated pets or something, like, why don't they get up and do something?
But it's not even in their brain register. It's just, I'm used to — I go along right now. I just go along. And it's not even a conscious choice anymore.
Judy Woodruff: Doesn't have anything to do with reelection or anything like that?
David Brooks: Well, of course it does. But that's the animal instinct at play.
But I think the voters of Ohio or wherever else would understand an occasional vote against the President. It doesn't doom your career. There is not, frankly, an issue on which a lot of people are going to be voting on. It's a procedural issue. But it's a defense of the Constitution.
Judy Woodruff: But, Mark, no chance if the President were — he says he's going to veto. No chance that they could override the veto?
Mark Shields: No, it would be the first veto of the President's administration.
But I don't see the two-thirds being there. There may be a reach in the — possibility in the House, if enough Republicans do screw up the courage to do so.
But I just think the Mark Sanford experience, Judy, just haunts Republicans, it terrifies them. They look over their shoulder, they see shadows on the wall in the sunshine. Mark Sanford, the former Republican governor and congressman from South Carolina, whom the President just absolutely kind of trashed and endorsed his then — up to then previously unknown opponent in the Republican primary, and Mark Sanford went down to defeat.
David Brooks:I there's one other little element, the reason they don't leap, is that they have no power now.
Mark Shields: OK.
David Brooks:They have already given away their power. They gave away their power to their leadership, to Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.
And so that they gave that away long ago, so the idea they could seize power is a big mental leap for them. And so they're doubly bound into this learned helplessness.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week in politics, including the President’s national emergency declaration, how congressional Republicans are reacting to it, the 2020 Presidential field and whether Democrats are pushing their platform too far to the left.
Judy Woodruff: From that growing 2020 Presidential field, to the fight over President Trump's national emergency declaration, it's time for Shields and Brooks.
That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
We are going to talk about the mayor in just a moment, but I do want to start, David, with the President's announcement today that he didn't get enough money to beef up the border as he wanted, and, therefore, he's declaring a national emergency, so that he can spend up to $8 billion on it.
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, well, this is awful.
You know, I don't think it has anything to do with any invasion, as he claimed. I think he lost the government shutdown, so he's giving himself a performance trophy, so he can say, I'm a winner.
I think this is more about his psyche than anything actually in the country. And it is a complete violation of any constitutional position that any liberal or any conservative should believe in.
The Constitution clearly states that allocations and appropriations are the job of Congress. And Congress has been ceding power time and time again. Presidents have been grabbing it. And this is by far the most egregious grab.
And once you walk down this line, then the constitutional order begins to fray. And we have seen the fraying of social norms. Now we're seeing the fraying of constitutional norms.
Judy Woodruff: And, Mark, the President says it's entirely within his right to do this. And he points out other Presidents have done similar things.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:Not really similar things, in a sense after they have been rejected by the legislative process, immediately upon following that rejection.
I think, Judy, that you have to say a national emergency is the Great Depression, the polio epidemic, the firing on Fort Sumter, you know, or something that we can agree is an emergency.
This is a political emergency. It's a political emergency, just as David described, not simply the stinging rebuke of Congress, but, by actual count, 200 times Donald Trump, candidate and then President, has promised that this wall, this tall, unscalable wall, will be built and paid for completely by the Mexican government.
And he obviously has not delivered on that. I would just point out that, in 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in the White House, there were 1.6 million illegal entries stopped by the authorities at the border. In 2017, Donald Trump's first year, there were fewer than 400,000.
I mean, this is not — it's not an invasion, as David said. I mean, it's not an emergency, other than a political emergency.
Judy Woodruff: And it's going to be challenged in the courts. We were hearing some of that earlier in the program.
David, what about the fact that Republicans in Congress didn't go along, there weren't enough of them to go along with what the President wanted in terms of money, and now some of them are saying what you two are saying, that they don't like the fact that he's declaring an emergency?
David Brooks:Yes, this was an interesting thing that, within the negotiations over the last week, the Republicans, and specifically Mitch McConnell, decided basically they were writing the White House out of the negotiations, and they sidelined them.
And so they basically — the deal McConnell said was, we're going to cut them out of the negotiations, we will give them nothing, but we give them this, that I will support this chance to have an emergency.
And that is a bad deal. Mitch McConnell made a bad deal for the American people. This — violating the Constitution is worse. And so I think they should have a vote . The Congress should assert itself, for once in a lifetime, for the sake of our country.
A few Republicans have come out and criticized the President, Ben Sasse and Marco Rubio. But a lot have not. Some who warned him not to do that are suddenly on board.
And so you're seeing rank open opportunism. It was not long ago, a few years ago, we were sitting at this table, and Barack Obama did something — I thought something egregious. And every Republican, including me, was — had their hair on fire.
And now suddenly they're fine with an even more egregious grab of White House power.
Judy Woodruff: How do you see this political — or is it a significant division in the Republican Party?
Mark Shields: No, it isn't, Judy.
I mean, the Republican Party needs a vertebrae transplant. It is essentially a political invertebrate. It has no backbone.
Mitch McConnell is terrified of a primary challenge in 2020. And that's the power that Donald Trump wields. Donald Trump has always, in his arsenal, the Mark Sanford experience, the former governor and congressman in South Carolina.
Donald Trump said good words about his opponent and bad words about Mark Sanford, and Mark Sanford's career came to a crashing end in the Republican primary.
And every — virtually every Republican who's up in 2020 is afraid that Donald Trump — to get on the wrong side of Donald Trump. I don't think there's any question about it.
I think Susan Collins has said some questionable things about questioning the President. So has Mike Lee from Utah. It's a small group. Lamar Alexander has. He's retiring in 2020. So, I don't expect any great resistance on the GOP side.
SUMMARY:Lawmakers working to develop an agreement on border funding by February 15 say they have reached a bipartisan deal. President Trump said he wasn't "happy" with the proposed bill, as it would provide only a fraction of the funding he had originally demanded, but didn't say whether or not he would sign it. Yamiche Alcindor explains what concessions each side made to arrive at a compromise.
SUMMARY:As members of Congress finally arrive at an agreement over how to fund border security and avoid another government shutdown, both Democrats and Republicans are claiming victory -- and fielding criticism that they caved. But with only three days before the deadline, it will be a scramble to pass the proposed legislation. Judy Woodruff gets the latest from Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor.
SUMMARY: Congress is preparing to send a government funding package that contains a compromise on allocations for border security to President Trump, who has announced his intention to sign the bill. However, Trump also plans to declare a national emergency in order to access additional money for a border wall. Judy Woodruff talks to Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor about what comes next.
SUMMARY:After signing a congressional funding bill, President Trump plans to declare a national emergency to obtain additional money for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But would such an executive action be lawful? Judy Woodruff speaks with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about who decides what constitutes a national emergency and whether the President is attempting to circumvent Congress.
SUMMARY: President Trump declared a national emergency Friday over immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, so he can redirect billions of dollars to build additional sections of wall there. Trump plans to take roughly $6 billion from the Defense Department and millions from other sources. Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor about expected legal challenges and why the President's data is problematic.
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.
