SUMMARY: Britain's ruling Conservative Party is in search of a new leader, and the country in search of a new Prime Minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May announced her resignation Friday, acknowledging that the time for her to try to usher in Brexit had concluded. May’s turbulent tenure was defined by the UK’s struggle to withdraw from the European Union. Judy Woodruff reports.
SUMMARY:A day after President Trump announced a surprise decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, Secretary of Defense James Mattis submitted his resignation, which will take effect in February.The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Gordon joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why the policy differences between the President and Mattis were “too profound” to allow a sustainable working relationship.
SUMMARY:The resignation of U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis is putting our nation at risk, two top former defense and national security leaders say.
To lose Mattis “increases the danger in this country,” not only because the retired four-star general brought valuable experience to the role, but also because of his belief in some long-standing tenets of American foreign policy, said Leon Panetta, who served as secretary of defense and CIA director during the Obama administration.
In his resignation letter, Mattis pointed to the fact that he and President Donald Trump could not agree on several foreign policy and national security issues.
Richard Haass, the director of policy planning at the State Department during the George W. Bush administration, said that is in some ways even more concerning than Mattis’ departure itself because it’s not clear whether the President will take the advice of whoever serves as secretary of defense next.
“Even if someone were to espouse [Mattis’ point of view] … this President simply is not going to listen,” said Haass, now the President of the Council on Foreign Relations.
SUMMARY:Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) said President Donald Trump “is abandoning that effort [in Syria] before it is completely finished,” and that it is the job of Congress to attempt to convince him otherwise.
“I think he is about to make a major blunder” by pulling out of Syria, Rubio told the PBS NewsHour anchor and Managing Editor Judy Woodruff.
The President’s announcement this week that U.S. troops would be pulling out from Syria, where it has been aiding forces against Islamic State militants, surprised and outraged members of Congress, including some loyal to the President. Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday offered his resignation in a blistering letter about the importance of America’s global alliances — a decision many believe was motivated by the President’s decision on Syria.
Rubio said that what concerned him the most from Mattis’ abrupt departure was what the Defense Secretary wrote in his letter, which seemed to “confirm our fears” about upcoming decisions facing the Trump administration.
“I’m deeply concerned that we’re about to undertake a series of foreign policy decisions that are going to undermine our security, that are going to undermine our alliances and that are going to embolden our adversaries.”
SUMMARY: The resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reverberated around the world Friday. Although he disagreed with the President repeatedly over major issues, the retired four-star Marine Corps general was widely admired and seen as a stabilizing force within the administration. John Yang has global reaction to the departure of a military legend described as "a partner for all occasions."
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week's news, including Republicans' failure to pass a health care reform bill, President Trump expressing his anger at Jeff Sessions to The New York Times, the abrupt resignation of former White Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and a cancer diagnosis for Sen. John McCain.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): But, first, the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
It's good. It looks like you're paying attention.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Yes, Hari.
HARI SREENIVASAN: All right.
So, let's start with health care. This week, we started with repeal and replace. And then it went to repeal now, replace later. Neither of those seem to be going anywhere.
MARK SHIELDS:The Republicans' health care plan had three problems. It wasn't healthy, it wasn't caring, and there was no plan.
(LAUGHTER)
MARK SHIELDS: It was just that simple.
I mean, you can't get people to vote for something when they don't know. (A) what it is, there's no public case for it, but, beyond that, it just — the conservatives, led by Rand Paul, objected that it didn't root out and repeal Obamacare. That was correct.
And the moderates, embodied by Susan Collins, who we just saw in the previous piece, objected that it was going to hurt, unnecessarily and gratuitously, millions of Americans who are needy and depend on Medicaid. True.
So, the two were almost irreconcilable. And I think they can't figure out now how to leave the field without embarrassment. Ideally, if you're a Republican, you do not want to vote on this. You do not want to vote Tuesday, because it's going to be used against you.
It is incredibly unpopular. It's got 16 percent support in the country. There is not one person of the 213 in Republican — in the House of Representatives voted against it who regrets having voted against it.
And there are scores of House members in the 217 who voted for it who are nervous that they voted for it. So, that's where it is.
DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times: Yes, I don't think it's dead.
I think, from what I hear, they're leaning on Mike Lee, the senator who has been a no vote who is the decisive no vote, to change his mind, to buy him out with something and offer him something. And then they figure, once they get him on board, there are probably another Republican 15 senators who would like to vote no, but they don't want to be the one person who kills it.
And so the feeling, if you can get Mike Lee, you can get some of the others. And they might pass it. I wouldn't say it's likely, but I think — I just think it's too early to say it's dead now.
The second thing to say is, Mitch McConnell has two parts of his job. The one is to create a process where reasonable legislation gets promoted. And the second is to whip for that legislation.
I think he did an abysmal job on one job and a pretty good job on job two. As Mark said, you have got a plan with 16 percent approval. Nobody in the Senate likes it, including the Republicans. They all hate having to vote for it. And he still got 48 votes. That's kind of impressive.
But the underlying problem is, you have a chance to change, to reform health care. There are a lot of conservative ideas to reform health care. And it would solve some problems. You could pick some things that a lot of people would like. You could have catastrophic coverage for the 20-odd million people that are still uninsured after Obamacare.
You could do a lot of — offer a lot of things to a lot of people and do it in a conservative way. But that's not what this Republican Party does. They just say, we want to cut Medicaid.
And they're unwilling to talk about anything positive, though there are some things in the bill. It's just, what can we take away from you? And what can we take away from the poor and the needy and the children?
And it's a publicity and a substantive disaster area that they're just trying to live with.
HARI SREENIVASAN: What about the President's role in this?
MARK SHIELDS: The President's role in it is mercurial.
He said let Obama founder and burn. Then the next day, he says no, within 24 hours to the Republican senators, you have got to come up with a plan. He knows nothing about the specifics. He knows nothing about the substance. He's made no public case for it.
I don't — I think David makes a very compelling point. I would just say this, that Mitch McConnell had a reputation as this master strategist. And what Mitch McConnell's greatest accomplishment as leader has been is that he denied a hearing to one of the sixth most qualified nominees to the Supreme Court in the last century. That's it.
There's a big difference between obstruction and construction and putting together a coalition. And it's a lot easier to get people to vote against something than it is to vote for something and to take a chance.
And when you're denied the individual mandate, that is you let healthy young people not pay anything, you leave as a pool of people for insurance who are older and sicker. Therefore, it's going to be more expensive.
I mean, you know, this isn't rocket scientists, in spite of the President saying it's a lot more complicated than it is.
DAVID BROOKS: I thought something important happened with the Republican views with the president.
They were having all these meetings in the White House. And, apparently, they'd have these substantive meetings with Mike Pence or with somebody else, with staff. And they would talk through things. They would try to make some progress.
And then the President would dip in and do something, say something extremely stupid, extremely ill-informed. And then they would all groan and live through it and wish he would leave. And then he would go.
And so that could be a change in psychology. Everybody in the Senate has problems with the President. But if you begin to have, oh, he's just the 'crazy uncle,' like an attitude of contempt, then relationships between the Republicans on the Hill and the White House really do begin to change.
It's not some guy, oh, he has some political magic. It's some guy who really just is annoying and gets in the way.
SUMMARY: It was a tumultuous day at the White House, with major personnel shakeups involving the public faces of the Trump presidency. The resignations of Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and the spokesman for the president's legal team, came amid reports that Trump lawyers are hunting possible conflicts of interest by Robert Mueller. Hari Sreenivasan talks to Rosalind Helderman of The Washington Post.
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.
