"Marcus and Abernathy on the deadly police beating in Memphis" PBS NewsHour 1/27/2023
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus and her Post colleague Gary Abernathy join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including the deadly police beating in Memphis and mass shootings in California as America once again reckons with its chronic struggle to prevent violence and hold the powerful accountable.
"Remembering Bob Dole: Veteran, GOP presidential nominee, Kansas senator" PBS NewsHour 12/5/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Robert “Bob” Dole, who led the Republican party in the Senate for decades and was its presidential candidate, died on Sunday at 98. A veteran who was injured in World War II, and a politician for more than 50 years, he had been suffering from lung cancer. Known for his bipartisan abilities, he helped pass the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990. Barbara Perry, Director of Presidential Studies at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, joins.
COMMENTS: I am a Californian in San Diego. In 2000 I was a registered (moderate) Republican by default because my parents were Republicans and I was (now retired) in the U.S. Navy and military tended to be Republican and even voted for H.W. Bush.
Because of the actions of G.W. Bush in 2000, and a review of the GOP Plank, I realized that the GOP was not what I thought it was. Therefore I changed to "Unaffiliated" which is non-partisan in California.
The GOP worships money. They behave as if the poor or middle-class are not worth spending any money on. They will only spend money on Big Business and The Rich, and both do not need the tax brakes nor cash input from government. When do you think a family/person with a 6-figure yearly income has had to worry about loosing the home they live in, or living day-to-day worrying about paying bills?
The bottom line is today's GOP does not care about the poor or middle-class.
The issue in California IS about Newsom refusing to follow the lead of governors of Texas or Florida and fully open California with the COVID-19 Pandemic in full effect. They wanted Newsom to risk the lives of Californians for money. They count small business closures due to Newsom following the science and experts' mandates, which is correct to protect people AND because small business (aka mom & pop) are not the ones who hire large numbers of employees. The same for shutting down schools because of COVID-19, again Republicans what to risk the lives of children. Republicans lie about school funding, ignoring that Trump and his Republican henchmen cut federal school subsidies to Democratic states but not Republican states and we have been dealing with a shortfall every year since.
This is a Trump/GOP revenge attack based on exaggerations and lies.
"Why is Newsom facing recall? Here’s what you need to know about California’s politics" PBS NewsHour 9/8/2021
PS- My "NO" mail-in ballot has be received and counted (got both text messages).
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Should he stay or should he go? That's the big question facing California's 22 million voters about their Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is facing a recall election next Tuesday. To sort out what's at stake for Newsom and the 46 candidates vying to replace him, Judy Woodruff turns to Scott Shafer, the politics and government editor for public media station KQED in San Francisco.
"Brooks and Capehart on the Republican Party’s identity crisis" PBS NewsHour 2/5/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including tensions in the Republican Party, Democrats and bipartisanship, President Biden's economic relief plan and former President Trump's impeachment trial.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.
Very good to see both of you this Friday night.
Let's start by talking about the Republican Party.
Jonathan, the Republicans in the House of Representatives this week voted — just in the last day voted not to take away committee assignments from Marjorie Taylor Greene, conspiracy theorist, someone who has made deeply disturbing statements. They left to it the full House, meaning Democrats took the vote.
She said, Greene said today that it didn't really bother her, that committees didn't matter, and, besides, it's Donald Trump's party anyway. Is she right?
Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post: Well, she's right in that it's Donald Trump's party, but she's wrong about the fact that it doesn't matter.
It does matter. And if she doesn't think committee assignments or being assigned to a committee matters, then she shouldn't be in government. She should resign her seat if she doesn't believe that sitting on a committee, doing the work of being an elected representative and representing your constituents in Congress, if that doesn't matter, then perhaps she should go back to Georgia.
But this is indeed Donald Trump's party, and we saw it with the votes that were taken within the Republican Caucus. Marjorie Taylor Greene was able to hold onto her committee seat because the vote was a public vote within the caucus. Liz Cheney was able to hold on to her leadership post within the Republican Caucus because that vote was a secret ballot.
And we talked all last week or all this week about how her hold on her [Cheney] leadership post was tenuous because the base was so angry, the caucus was so angry. And yet, by secret ballot, she won reelection to that leadership post within the caucus overwhelmingly.
So, this might be Donald Trump's Republican Party, but, behind closed doors, within the Republican Caucus, at least as it's playing out in the House, there are some tensions there.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, I mean, what Congresswoman Greene actually said was that it's a waste of time. She views committees as a waste of time.
But my question to you is, I mean, what does this say about the Republican Party in Congress?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, I have decided to look on the bright side.
I think this was the week we saw more anti-Trump activity in the Republican Party than any week in the last five years. We had Mitch McConnell calling Marjorie Taylor Greene's ideas cancerous. Liz Cheney won by 2-1. That was not automatic. And it shows there's a lot of people who — in the House Republican Caucus who are not with the Trumpsters.
They're a little intimidated by them, but, in private, that's not where their views are. We had Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse with a very forthright assault on the GOP of one of the counties in Nebraska who wants to censure him. And so people are beginning to stand up in ways that haven't happened.
And I think, partly January 6, partly looking at the things that Greene believes, they see, as McConnell said, that these are just disastrous cancers for the party. And so it's not all the way there, but we're beginning to see much more of an assault than we saw before.
And then, just finally, we had 10 Republican senators break from a bit of their party and put out a COVID relief proposal. So, I'm seeing progress.
Judy Woodruff: Well, let's pursue that.
I mean, Jonathan, I interviewed former Missouri Senator John Danforth this week, who said that his party, who — he says he's still a Republican — has become, he said, a grotesque caricature of what it once was, that it's no longer conservative, it's populist at the extremes.
Do you see — where do you see this going, is the question.
Jonathan Capehart: Well, I do agree with David that there are green shoots to use a phrase from a previous presidency, green shoots of progress, and maybe even green shoots of a new beginning.
But the Republican Party right now is going through — I think, is going to be a multicycle refreshing, that the these green shoots that we are seeing, will that mean that Republicans become more emboldened and stand up for themselves and, going into the midterm elections, the non-Trump Republicans get elected, maybe even Republicans take over the House, but not with Trump Republicans? I don't know.
But what I do know is this. The Republican Party is not — is not going to cure itself of what former Senator Danforth talked about until it has concerted leadership within the caucus to push the Marjorie Taylor Greenes and the other folks within that caucus, because she is not the only one, push them aside and get about the business of governing.
I focus on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who should have used the Marjorie Taylor Greene moment as a leadership moment to do what a leader is supposed to do and stand up for the values of the party and the caucus, and to push aside those who run afoul of that.
I don't know what Leader McCarthy stands for. I don't know what the Republican Party stands for. And if his calculations this week are about retaking the House in 2022, my question is, what is your program? What are you for?
Because unless you can tell the American people, and particularly folks in the districts around the country, unless you can tell people what the Republican Party will do and what Leader McCarthy would do as speaker proactively, positively, then why should the American people look at the Republican Party as a viable alternative to the Democratic Party?
Judy Woodruff: Well, speaking of what the Republicans can do, David, you mentioned the Republican role, I think, in COVID relief.
What role do you see them playing? As the president is saying, we need to go big, Republicans and even some Democrats raising questions.
David Brooks: Yes, I — Joe Biden ran on bipartisanship and unity.
He had a chance when the 10 Republicans put forth their $618 billion proposal to say, OK, let's try for a week. I'm not going to give you more than a week, but I will give you a week, and we will see if we can get you over a trillion. The Republicans have already voted for roughly $4 trillion dollars in aid. I think they could have gotten a fifth.
But the problem is, aside from Joe Biden, I don't think there's any taste for bipartisanship in the Democratic Party, sometimes with justified reason. They have just lived through the horror of the Trump presidency. They just lived through January 6. They just don't have much respect or trust for the Republican Party.
And so they don't want to do bipartisanship. I think those 10 Republicans really do. I think there are another 10 or 15 in the Senate who would prefer it. They're not going to go as big as Biden wants to go, but I think they would like it.
But you can't tell people to trust people they don't trust. Trust takes time. And the trust is not there for bipartisanship in this Congress. I think Biden really wants to do it. It — the evidence of this week is, we're just not going to see that.
Judy Woodruff: Jonathan, what do you see as the outlook for bipartisanship?
Jonathan Capehart: Well, it depends on your definition of bipartisanship.
If bipartisanship, you mean sitting with people from the other — from the other side of the aisle, talking through the issues, talking through policies and programs, and then, as President of the United States, you decide that what you have heard does not meet the policy proposals that you have in mind and the mandate you feel you have from the American people, well, then, if you go a different route, that doesn't mean that you haven't been bipartisan.
It just means that you have a different governing philosophy. I do think President Biden has lived up to his promise to be bipartisanship. He didn't have to meet with those 10 senators, and yet he did.
I do think that David was absolutely right in his — in what he said and in his terrific column today in The New York Times. I don't think that Democrats don't want to do bipartisanship. I do think that Democrats do suffer from a lack of trust, because they have been Charlie Brown to the Republicans' Lucy with the football.
When President Obama was in the White House, President Obama tried desperately to negotiate in good faith with Republicans, only to have them say no, be recalcitrant. And having learned that lesson, President Biden, having been part of the Obama/Biden White House, does not want to be in that position, nor should he, especially when you have millions of Americans who are not only suffering through a pandemic, but also through the resultant economic crisis.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, lingering effects? If the Democrats end up doing this with Democratic votes, what's the fallout? What does that mean for the future?
David Brooks: Well, people do really like bipartisanship.
Our own Amy Walter had a good column this week saying that, when you try to pass something with — on a partisan basis, what happens is that piece of legislation tends to be unpopular, because independents would rather you do it on a bipartisan basis.
So, I think, in the long term, Democrats probably made it slightly more likely the Republicans will do very well in the midterm, if they ram this through on a partisan basis.
Having said that, I think the size of our social problems are so large that $1.9 trillion basically given to the least fortunate among us is about the right size. And so I wish they had done it with bipartisanship. I wish the Republicans had come up to like $1.2 trillion.
But I'm thinking about the country, I'm thinking about a country that is suffering from inequality, from decay, from declining prospects, from a rural-urban income gap. And $1.9 trillion, can go a long way to setting us on a different social path, a more equal social path.
And so, despite my reservations about the way they're doing it, I still think it needs to be done.
Judy Woodruff: Just a little over a minute left.
I want to get from both of you your expectations for next week's impeachment trial, the second one, Jonathan, for President Trump. What do you think will happen?
Jonathan Capehart: I think we will hear wrenching testimony, in that the House managers, the House impeachment managers, will present a case that will bring the American people and the witnesses/jurors back to that day on January 6.
I expect the moment to be probably one of the most impactful, emotional moments in recent American history.
But I also expect this trial to be short. I wouldn't be surprised if we're talking about the end of this trial a week from today.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, what do you expect?
David Brooks: Yes, that sounds about right.
I'm mostly struck by how Donald Trump has sort of vanished. Obviously, he's off Twitter, but he's not taking any measures to be anywhere. And so it's just going to be a one-sided affair, which will end in an acquittal. And then we will get back to business.
I will be very curious to see if the nation tunes in or whether they're really ready to move on from the Trump era.
Judy Woodruff: Well, we are going to be covering it, and we are going to be asking the two of you about it one week from tonight at exactly this time.
David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.
Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Judy.
David Brooks: Thanks.
"Shields and Brooks on the damage done by Trump’s claims of election fraud" PBS NewsHour 12/04/2020
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the Biden team’s transition to the White House and the impact of Trump’s election fraud claims.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): And now it's time for the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
I want to pick up with what we were hearing, Mark, from Congressman Riggleman of Virginia, talking about putting party over country. That was something he wasn't comfortable with, and talking about conspiracy theories, all of this stemming from President Trump insisting that he's won the election, that the election was completely riddled with fraud.
We're now hearing a number of Republicans calling for other Republicans to call the President out. How much damage is being done by what is going on right now, Mark?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: I can't calculate it, Judy, in concrete terms, other than to say it's dangerous.
I mean, America has been the envy of the world. It's been an example to bring millions of people to our shores, a free and open democracy, where every voice is heard. And to have the elected leader of that nation charge that it is not that, that it's corrupt, that it's criminal, is damaging beyond my calculation.
And I just — I think — I hope it's reparable, but we will — it will be a while before we find out just how much damage has been done.
Judy Woodruff: David, how deep is the damage that's being done?
David Brooks, New York Times: Well, 77 percent of Republicans or Trump backers say the election was stolen by fraud, according to a Monmouth poll. A lot of those same people don't believe in manmade climate change. A lot of those same people don't believe that masks can save your life.
So, there's a section of a country that's become detached from reality and, under Trump paranoia, has become a style, a resurgent style.
I wrote a column about this a week ago. And I tried to theorize that this derives out of a sense of menace and threat, that people feel existentially unsafe, and so they grasp for conspiracy theories, because it makes them feel powerful, that they see the truth. It makes them feel agency. They can expose the evil cabals.
And I think there's some truth to that, that people — a lot of people just feel very scared economically, socially, racially. And out of that fear comes paranoia.
But I got a lot of e-mails from people. Like, I got one from a guy in Palo Alto. And he said, the neurosurgeon down my block believes all this stuff. So, where's his anxiety? And I'd say, I don't know the answer to that question.
But there is a lot of anxiety. There's a lot of fear, and out of that has arisen an entire industry of paranoia-mongering. The Newsmax, the far right-wing media TV station, their viewership has gone up 20 times since the election. So, that paranoia is pretty deep and pretty widespread right now.
Judy Woodruff: Mark, we are — as a news organization, the "NewsHour" is trying to understand this. I know other news organizations are as well.
We want to understand the origin of this and how deep it goes and how long-lasting. How much does it matter that we try to tackle this right now? Is it — I guess what I'm trying to understand, is this a flight of fancy, that we're just living through a brief period, and we're going to wake up in a few weeks or months, and we're going to be past it, or is this with us for a long time?
Mark Shields: Well, no, I mean, I think David put his finger on it, as he does regularly.
This also has a commercial aspect to it. I mean, there is a profit in upping your viewership if you're spinning paranoid theories to your listeners and explaining that the other side — you never argue on the merits, Judy. What it comes down to is, the other side is evil.
I mean, that is the first thing I learned when I came to Washington, that you don't question the motives of somebody on the other side, that they love their country and their children as much as you do. And they may be mistaken, they may be ill-informed, they may be illogical, but you don't start off with, they're evil.
Well, that is — that's where these arguments begin, that it's a sinister, criminal collusion all out to get the American way, to destroy the American way. It is anything we can do to rebut it.
And one hopes that the new administration, with a fresh start, will be a start in that direction. And the fact that the President — that his predecessor is now receding in the rearview mirror, inevitably, I think, has to be helpful.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, I guess my question is, is his predecessor disappearing in the rearview mirror? He's raised over $200 million and counting since the Election Day for his legal defense fund.
But we are now learning that money, most of that money can go toward his new political venture, whatever it may be. President Trump may be here for a long time to come.
David Brooks: He's certainly talking like he will run again in 2024.
And Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri, said that, if Trump runs again, he would endorse him and expect him to win. And he might. He might win the nomination again. So, I don't think we have seen — maybe not seen the last of him.
The problem with all the paranoia and the conspiracy theory is, you can't talk people out of it. The psychological research is super clear on this, that if you try to fact-check people when they have incorrect facts, you only entrench their belief, that you can't talk people out of an emotional state.
And so I think the two things that we can do is try to have contact, more contact between, frankly, those of us in the expert class, who tend to live in blue America, in the metro areas, and people in the rural country.
COVID doesn't allow that. But traveling around the country is a good way to alleviate a lot of the barriers between us. And, second, somehow, life has to become more secure for a lot of people. And I'm hoping the administration, the new administration, will pass legislation that makes life economically more secure, so that sense of existential anxiety goes away.
Judy Woodruff: Well, we can certainly hope not only the economy gets better, that we will all be able to travel more, get around, see our fellow Americans, family and friends in the not-too-distant future.
But, Mark, let's talk about Joe Biden, the President-elect. Since the last time I saw the two of you, two weeks ago, before Thanksgiving, he's named more of the senior members of his team, his Secretary of State Tony Blinken, his Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, a number of others.
What do you make of the team so far?
Mark Shields: Well, I would say, the reviews, Judy, that are in are quite positive.
I mean, they reflect Joe Biden. They're experienced. They believe in public service. They're people whom he knows, again, unlike his unnamed predecessor, who chose a Secretary of State because he had a very active passport and had traveled a lot and looked like a secretary of state. He's choosing somebody with whom he's worked for close to a generation, experienced people, people who believe in public service.
And I guess dully competent would be the unflattering observation. But I'm impressed. And you mentioned a Janet Yellen. I think that is a 10 strike. I mean, to have the chairman of the — former chairman of the Fed, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers of her stature and, figuratively speaking, and just her values as Secretary of the Treasury, I think is just awfully important, especially with Joe Biden, who has great experience in foreign policy and — but not deep in financial matters.
So, I'm encouraged by them.
Judy Woodruff: David, what's your take on these folks Joe Biden is naming?
David Brooks: Yes, I'm super encouraged too.
It's Biden being Biden. It's Biden people — picking people he's comfortable with, people he knows, and people who you could wake up in the middle of night, and they could do the job. Janet Yellen is super well-prepared to be Treasury Secretary, Jake Sullivan, a rising young star in the policy world. Jared Bernstein has been on this program many times in the economic world.
Neera Tanden will be our flashiest OMB Director in history, but someone who's been around and who just knows the job. And so you can rest assured that these are people who have experience and often served in the job right below them in the Obama administration. So, we can expect fewer own goals under them.
Judy Woodruff: Well, we're seeing, Mark, a number of women put into — or nominated for prominent roles, powerful roles in the new administration.
But there's still some interest groups out there saying there's not enough diversity here, for example, NAACP saying, where are the blacks in senior Cabinet jobs?
How much pressure is Joe Biden under to name a more diverse — more diverse leaders in — to his team — for his team?
Mark Shields: Well, I mean, the diversity so far, Judy, I mean, I don't think anybody can make the case that it's for diversity's sake. Everybody who's been chosen is somebody who qualified and is qualified for the position to which they were named, irrespective of race or gender or whatever.
I think that, as far as women is concerned, I mean, Joe Biden's campaign was run by Anita Dunn and Jen O'Malley Dillon, two women. I mean, he's used to having women. His sister Valerie ran all his other early campaigns for the Senate. So, that is — that's a natural. That's not window dressing. That's a very natural development.
I think that the most important voice to Joe Biden has to be that of Congressman Jim Clyburn. And Jim Clyburn has been critical of the paucity of African Americans in the Cabinet.
Joe Biden came crawling out of Iowa, limping out of New Hampshire. He was dead on arrival in South Carolina, until African American voters, led by — led by Jim Clyburn, endorsed him and made him the nominee. So, if he's going to heed any voice, the voice of Jim Clyburn is the voice that Joe Biden will be responsive to, and legitimately so.
Judy Woodruff: And, David, how much pressure do you think Biden is under to name — get some more diverse figures in this Cabinet in top jobs? And how much does it matter?
David Brooks: Well, pressure implies resistance. I don't think there's any resistance.
I think Joe Biden wants to have a diverse Cabinet. He wants to have a Cabinet that looks like America, in part because it's a better Cabinet idea. You have — the bigger diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds, the better decisions that get made.
And I don't think he will have any problem finding African Americans. He's already found Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who's the — his choice for the U.N. Secretary — our Ambassador to the U.N. And she's someone who has a long time career in the Foreign Service, somebody who ran the Africa desk under Obama. I'm sure he will find many more people under that.
I think it's important to have vast diversity. I hate to — when it gets reduced to a demographic label and a person is filling in a slot. The person is the person. And all the people he's picked so far and in the future are A-team. They're super talented.
And so I'd hate to see it get down — it appear, even appear like it's just because of somebody's skin color or anything, because I don't think it ever is going to be that.
Judy Woodruff: Well, he's saying he's got more to name. He said you will know who they are in the next few weeks, and he said you can judge it then.
So, we will keep talking about it, keep looking at it.
Mark Shields: Yes.
Judy Woodruff: Thank you both, David Brooks, Mark Shields. Thank you.
Mark Shields: Thanks, Judy.
Republican efforts to impose voter ID laws and redraw election districts both wound up in federal court. Dale Schultz ended 30 years in state politics lamenting the recent displays of partisanship.
Dale Schultz, a Republican, served in the Wisconsin Legislature for more than 30 years, from 1983 to 2015. His Senate district is located in south Wisconsin, much of it rural farmland. Schultz was considered a moderate, and so much of what happened in state politics near the end of his tenure dismayed him; partisan fights over the rights of unions, a gubernatorial recall election, and claims of partisan Republican gerrymandering that will now be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And then there was the prolonged entanglement over voting rights in the state — who could vote, when they could vote, how they could vote. In the face of years of political combat and federal court fights, the legislature ultimately adopted a vast array of changes to election laws. Among them:
- Voters would have to produce certain types of identification.
- Early voting was reduced.
Time frames for how long people had to be residing in the state before they could vote were lengthened.
- Restrictions on absentee balloting were implemented.
Republicans hailed the moves as overdue steps toward improving the integrity of state voting. Democrats cried foul, alleging a conspiracy to suppress votes among people of color and others inclined to vote Democratic.
Schulz was in office for the birth of the efforts to tighten voting procedures and often present for the Republican deliberations about their aims. Schultz, before leaving office, voted for the initial voting measures, a decision he came to regret. He opposed some of the subsequent measures as litigation over the issues made their way through the courts and his career wound down.
ProPublica had a rare interview with Schultz recently about the issue of voting in Wisconsin. The Q&A follows. It has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.
ProPublica: You were initially in favor of Republican efforts to tighten voting and reconfigure districts. What first appealed to you about those ideas?
Dale Schultz: Well, the blunt truth is, as a partisan politician, your knee-jerk reaction is to protect the standing of your party because that solidifies your power to accomplish what you want to do. My good friend and former colleague, Tim Cullen, also served as Senate majority leader but on the Democrat side, and we've said we're both guilty of voting for redistricting maps which were politically motivated. This isn't a one party sin. It happens on both sides, and that's why we introduced our bipartisan bill to change how we redistrict in Wisconsin. I'm happy the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue this fall.
ProPublica: The Republicans pushing the voter ID effort cited voter fraud as a concern and a reason to tighten voting rules and requirements. Did anyone ever show you compelling evidence of that?
Dale Schultz: No, in fact, quite the opposite. Some of the most conservative people in our caucus actually took the time to involve themselves in election-watching and came back and told other caucus members that, “I'm sorry, I didn't see it.”
In terms of voting laws, look, I don't have a fundamental problem with having to show a photo ID in order to vote, but what I do have a problem with are the severe restrictions on what kind of photo ID is allowed and also using these laws to suppress the votes of specific groups.
You need to understand, I come from the old school of the “Institution of the Senate.” When I was coming up through the ranks, and even when I was majority leader, I put great stock and respect into the chairmanship system. When you were given a chair of a committee, you were expected to put the good of the Senate above all else. So when the chair of the Senate elections committee says there's a problem with voter fraud in the state, and the committee passes a bill out, you take them at their word.
But that's on me.
Anyway, I ultimately ordered my staff to launch our own investigation and come up with three concrete examples of voter fraud in Wisconsin. Well, guess what? They couldn't do it, and you need to understand the time, I had graduates from the University of Wisconsin journalism school on staff who'd worked for national publications. But we did come up with two examples. One was a Republican legislative staffer who'd voted in the Madison area as well as back in her hometown in the same election. The other was the estranged wife of a Republican. That's it, and both examples were on the Republican side.
ProPublica: Did you ever raise the lack of evidence with your Republican colleagues?
Dale Schultz: Our caucuses were quite raucous. Our meetings and how we dealt with one another was blunt.
I asked my colleagues to show me three specific examples, and all I got was a bunch of hand-wringing and drama-filled speeches about the “buses of Democrats being brought up from Chicago.” I said, “Show me where that was ever prosecuted or even charges brought.” It was crickets. Nobody could give me an answer, and that was both an eye-opening and sad moment for me because I think it finally hit me that time-honored tradition of the “Institution of the Senate” was all but dead.
You know, I had, I think it's fair to say, a reputation for challenging the thinking of our caucuses. But if you find yourself in a situation where you're dissenting too often, pretty soon people go, “Well, he never agrees with us, he's not really one of us. We're not going to bother to listen.” So, you learn to pick your spots and try to make a difference where you can.
I want to be clear. I don't want to cast myself as some sort of superhero. Look, I'm a politician. I was for 30 years. Inherently, that means that you compromise and that everybody's hands get a little dirty as they try to work out a solution that is the best for people.
People were very frank and this is not a game for the timid. People were very emotional, but you know when it comes to casting votes, people know that once the decision is made, the team pretty much sticks together.
ProPublica: Talk about why you later came to regret ever voting for the measures.
Dale Schultz: I voted for the first voter law bill, and then I did what I'd done since I first got elected in 1982; I went out and did my regular scheduled district office hours. It took all of my first stop to realize I didn't do my homework. I had town and village clerks coming up to me saying, “Dale, are you nuts? Do you realize how restricting voting hours and early voting and absentee voting is going to affect how people can vote let alone making our jobs all the harder?” They also made it clear that there was no voter fraud happening that they were aware of. Because of the feedback from my constituents, I voted 'no' on the subsequent bills.
I enjoyed all the people I represented and it was a great honor. But there were occasions where people said, “Dale, I've heard your explanation on what you've done and why you've done it, but I think you got this wrong.” And I think voter ID was one of those.
A long time ago my father told me on the farm, if you happen to, when you're out in the pasture, put your foot in a cowpie, don't sit there and explain why you stepped in it, just take it out. And it's been my experience politically, that when you do that, and you explain the reasons, people tend to see that as a politician evolving and thinking and listening, and I think most people are hungry for that. And they're supportive of that, as long as it doesn't become a daily flip-flop.
ProPublica: The numbers are in from the 2016 election in Wisconsin. The state surprised the pollsters by going for Trump. And now there's likely to be a long debate and examination of whether the voter ID and other measures played a role in that outcome. Any early thoughts?
Dale Schultz: Oh, yeah, all of these things have an impact. Even just constantly keeping up a steady drumbeat of claims about election fraud has an impact. It motivates a base. How big an impact probably varies from state to state. In very close elections, even seemingly small impacts can have great consequences.
ProPublica: You got out of elective office after 32 years. Why?
Dale Schultz: Well, because I like to think I'm old enough and wise enough to know that there's more to life than politics, as important as it's been to me and as enjoyable as it has been to me for all those years. Then again, it's not that I haven't been bothered by the changes I'd seen around me or just the simple reality that it was less fun than it used to be as people stopped thinking and became more Pavlovian.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the first Republican presidential debate, whether Vice President Joe Biden is considering a 2016 run and Sen. Chuck Schumer’s announcement that he won’t support the Iran nuclear deal.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): He’s (Trump) not a real candidate?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: No. He doesn’t have an ideology. He doesn’t have a belief system.
He has himself. And they went after him, the three excellent moderators. And he defended himself and I think he did fine. Probably 70 percent of Republicans disapprove of him. A lot of the things he said were astonishingly inappropriate, that he wouldn’t support the Republican Party nominee. That’s kind of a big one. He likes single-payer health system. That’s the first Republican that sort of likes that.
He is outside of all the categories, but he is a lord of self-esteem. And his main message is society is filled with losers, and they happen to be running it, and society has some winners who are being ignored. And if you’re a winner like me, we got to get rid of those losers.
And that’s an ideology that is not a political ideology. It is a narcissistic ideology. But I suspect the 20 percent who like him will continue to like him and like him even more. And so he will be hanging around there.
Among the real candidates, I thought Rubio did quite well. Carly Fiorina in the underdebate card did quite well. And John Kasich did quite well. And so I think those three helped themselves and they actually are viable candidates and make us rethink the race.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you size it up, Mark?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist: I don’t know where to agree and where — no.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS: I agree. Donald Trump fills up the hall. There were 24 million people who watched. That’s more people than had ever watched a cable event, other than a sports event.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Huge numbers.
MARK SHIELDS: And this was a sports event. (IMHO, a boxing event)
Donald Trump indicated right at the outset he is going to run as Donald Trump. And I thought it was an indication of the magic he has established, the chemistry he has with Republican voters, that the only person on the stage, candidate who would even take a shot at him was Rand Paul.
All the others ducked him, John Kasich included, Jeb Bush included, when given opportunities. Who went after him? The three FOX moderators, who were tough. They really did. And I really think he made a serious mistake by going, retaliating, attacking Megyn Kelly. First of all…
JUDY WOODRUFF: When she asked him about his comments about women.
MARK SHIELDS: Asked him about women, his misogynist comments.
First of all, FOX News is the validator, it’s the gatekeeper for Republican, particularly conservative voters. And you don’t go after — it is not like you’re attacking Chuck Todd or Judy Woodruff or some of the liberal elite establishment. You’re attacking the mother church when you go after FOX.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s make a distinction here, please. I’m not part of the liberal media.
MARK SHIELDS: No, but I’m talking about by the definition of conservative America, where FOX really is the gatekeeper — I think you would agree, the gatekeeper and the validator.
And when he went after her, I think he made a serious mistake. I thought, as far as the others were concerned…
JUDY WOODRUFF: You don’t think he helped himself?
MARK SHIELDS: I think he hurt himself. I really do.
He’s a combination quite unlike anything I have ever seen before. I agree partially with David that it is sort of egotism and cynicism. Everybody is transactional. You believe nothing. Why do you give money to Democrats? You give money to Democrats because you are going to give them a call and they’re going to do what you want.
Everything. There’s no ideal. John Kennedy said he was an idealist without illusions. Donald Trump is a cynic without illusions. Nothing is on the level. You go into bankruptcy four times. You screw the investors. Hey, that’s the way it’s done now.
I just — I thought he came across really, by having taken on FOX News, and particularly Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, and particularly Megyn Kelly, I think he made a mistake.
A unanimous state appeals court on Thursday deemed unconstitutional a portion of a 2011 law that gave Gov. Scott Walker the ability to halt administrative rules by Schools Superintendent Tony Evers, who is independently elected.
The ruling by the Madison-based District 4 Court of Appeals upholds a 2012 decision by Dane County Circuit Judge Amy Smith.
Walker signed the law in May 2011, which gave his administration a greater say in writing administrative rules, which are used to implement state laws. Administrative rules include more specifics than state statutes and carry the force of law.
Looks like Scott Walker got caught ignoring the State Constitution:
The state constitution says that "the supervision of public instruction shall be vested in a state superintendent and such other officers as the Legislature shall direct." In a 1996 case that the appeals court repeatedly cited, the state Supreme Court held that lawmakers and the governor cannot give "equal or superior authority" over public education to any other official.
The Supreme Court's ruling found that the state constitution prevented then-Gov. Tommy Thompson from transferring powers from the Department of Public Instruction to a new Department of Education overseen by the governor's administration.
"In sum, the Legislature has the authority to give, to not give, or to take away (the school superintendent's) supervisory powers, including rule-making power. What the Legislature may not do is give the (superintendent) a supervisory power relating to education and then fail to maintain the (superintendent's) supremacy with respect to that power," Appeals Judge Gary Sherman wrote for the court in Thursday's decision.
No, Scott Walker, you can't control state education. You've defunded K-12 education by $2 billion and you're stripping $300 million from our previously wonderful State University system. You've made taxpayers fund the private education of rich kids, too.
You have already done more than enough damage.
Since his 2011 inauguration, he's taken complete control of virtually ALL state agencies and has been hard at work on legislation giving him complete control over everything.
The last 3 remaining agencies or departments he doesn't completely control (the DNR with it's soon to be legislatively abolished Citizen Advisory Board oversight, the Secretary of States' Office - run by a Democrat - soon to be stripped of staff and moved to an inaccessible basement by Walker's new budget, and the Government Accountability Board which oversees elections) have now been joined by a 4th, the Department of Public Instruction.
Walker's 2011 law gave him the final say in administrative rules for public schools despite the fact that the Superintendent is independently elected. Not any more.
Aside from national fundraising and speechifying for his long anticipated Presidential run, Walker has spent every hour of every day since his election giving himself control of nearly all aspects of State Government in order to reward donors and punish real or imagined enemies or opponents.
Apparently the GOP isn't concerned that a Democrat could ever be elected as Governor in the future and wield all of that power to set things on the right path again. Maybe they're right since Republicans have friendly media in Wisconsin and mega bucks to propagandize (or suppress) the voters.
It's nice to see Walker lose a big one like this and lose a bit of the power he's grabbed. Well, that and seeing him trip on all the rakes he's been running into as a now top-tier Presidential candidate.
JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Budget politics and the 2012 campaign merged today, as President Obama lit into Republicans and their priorities. His main target was the House Republican budget plan. It would cut the deficit by $3.3 trillion in the next decade, over and above the $4 trillion in savings in the Obama budget.
The president addressed the Associated Press annual meeting in Washington.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: For much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, our economy will grow stronger.
They keep telling us that if we just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we'd all be better off. We're told that when the wealthy become even wealthier and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it's good for America and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That's the theory.
Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we've tried their approach on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see.
Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. And yet this isn't a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party. This is now the party's governing platform. This is what they're running on.
One of my potential opponents, Gov. Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency.
This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan horse disguised as deficit reduction plans. It is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who's willing to work for it, a place where prosperity doesn't trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of middle class.
And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last, education and training, research and development, our infrastructure, it is a prescription for decline.
House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.
The unchecked power of this presidency "has weakened the constitutional order on which the American way of life depends."
Those words aren't from the American Civil Liberties Union. They're from the free-market, less-government Cato Institute, generally a durable friend of Republicans.
A Cato report analyzes and decries a "ceaseless push for power (by the Bush White House), unchecked by either the courts or Congress."
Where to begin? One place is a Boston Globe report that more than 750 times President Bush has attached statements to laws he signed claiming a president's authority to disobey them.
Other presidents have written such "signing statements" challenging laws passed by Congress. Bill Clinton wrote 140 over eight years. But Bush has lapped the field many times.
New laws aside, we have bedrock legal principles this White House has simply decided to ignore, such as habeas corpus.
Such rights have been suspended in war, as Lincoln did during the Civil War. But today's "war on terror" has been used, says the Cato report, to effectively pronounce "the entire world, including every inch of U.S. territory, a battlefield."
"If the president can surveil international calls without a warrant," said the Cato report, "can he (or his successor) issue a secret executive order to intercept purely domestic communications as well?" Oh, yes.
This is all about trust, because without a check on one man's power, like warrants, trust is all we have.
Relative to the White House's broad use of the term "enemy combatant" to hold people without trial, "the liberty of every American rests on nothing more than the grace of the White House," warns the report.
As we come into another election cycle the question must be asked: Is this a nation governed by men empowered by a political hold on the three branches of government? Or is this a nation of laws?
In an “urgent” e-mail last week, right-wing activist David Horowitz hyped his latest book about threats to America’s youth from leftist professors.
The ad for The Professors -- The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America describes me as: “Texas Journalism Professor Robert Jensen, who rabidly hates the United States, and recently told his students, ‘The United States has lost the war in Iraq and that’s a good thing.’”
I’m glad Horowitz got my name right (people often misspell it “Jenson”). But everything else is distortion, and that one sentence teaches much about the reactionary right’s disingenuous rhetorical strategy.
Why would anyone suggest that I rabidly hate the United States? It’s easier to defame opponents using emotionally charged language than engage on real issues. Accuse them of being irrational and hateful. Ignore the substance of the claims and just sling mud. By even minimal standards of intellectual or political discourse it’s not terribly honorable, but it often works.
Beyond these junkyard dog tactics, Horowitz’s email also makes one crucial factual error. I did write that the U.S. losing the Iraq war was a good thing -- not in celebration of death and destruction, of course, but because the defeat temporarily restrains policymakers in their dangerous attempts to extend the U.S. empire. But that was the first sentence of an opinion piece I published in various newspapers in 2004, not a statement to students. The distinction is important.
Our goal is to allow the House of Representatives to create public policy that is democratically sustainable. Representative democracy is being thwarted by current Republican practice. The Republican leadership has gotten very good at holding roll call votes open and marshaling its troops. This gives them the ability to win by changing only as many votes as they need to pass legislation, thereby allowing some Republican members of Congress who support this ruse to vote against the legislation. Their purpose is to let Republican members hide from the public, so that they can give their constituents an impression that is contrary to where they really stand. That allows members to boast about how they voted against the Republican leadership 40, 50, 60, 70 percent of the time, when in fact they voted with the Republican leadership 100 percent of the time when they were needed.
Although its roots run more deeply into the recent past, the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, when Republicans captured both houses of Congress, marks the rise of bought and sold conservatism, as business tightened its grip on conservative organizations and the Republican Party. Corporate donors began expecting and receiving value returned for contributions to the American Right, not just the advancement of conservative principles, but direct action to boost profits.
The Gingrich Revolution also spawned a new breed of lobbyist, shown in its most virulent form by Jack Abramoff. The new lobbyists not only siphoned off huge profits for themselves, but also orchestrated flows of big money to targeted officeholders and candidates and to conservative organizations that dispensed travel and perks to opinion-makers and public officials.
