THE RIGHT TO VOTE - Republicans Are The Party Threatening Voter Rights

COMMENT: The GOP is, and always has been, the party that tries to restrict the Right to Vote by making it harder to vote.  Trying to stop mail-in voting which mean no need for polling places.  They now try restricting the number of polling places, especially in Democratic areas.  They are the one putting more and more ways to block an individual from qualifying to vote.  They are the ones pushing the LIE of rampant voter fraud.  The danger today is with the situation in the Senate where they can actually accomplish their goal of one-party-rule, especially the help of two Democratic Party traitors.

"Democrats make push for voting rights legislation in Congress" PBS NewsHour 1/10/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  U.S. senators returned to work in Washington, D.C.  Monday as Democrats launched their most concerted push yet on voting legislation.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss voting rights, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the Freedom to Vote Act and more.

 

 

"Democrats search for pathway to voting rights legislation in a divided Congress" PBS NewsHour 1/12/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  On Capitol Hill, Democrats are looking for ways to move voting rights forward as Senate Republicans pushed back after President Biden denounced them for stalling legislation.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss where legislation stands and what options lie ahead.

 

 

"Democrats’ voting rights legislation ‘on ice’ with opposition to filibuster change" PBS NewsHour 1/13/2022

IMO The filibuster (which is NOT in our Constitution) should have never been allowed and should be permanently banned.  Especially since Republicans changed the filibuster rule to NOT requiring a Senator to actually be on the floor and talk (like in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), they only have to state the will filibuster.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Biden and congressional Democrats made a new push Thursday for voting rights legislation.  The House passed a repackaged set of two bills aimed at blunting Republican-passed state laws that Democrats say will limit voting.  But they still face hurdles within their own party to achieve a filibuster rule change.  NewsHour's Lisa Desjardins and Geoff Bennett join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

 

 

"Sen. Warnock on the prospects for voting rights legislation: ‘This is about our democracy’" PBS NewsHour 1/13/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Biden on Thursday made his case for voting right legislation directly to Senate Democrats and heatedly denounced the Republican efforts to put limits on voting.  But Sen. Kyrsten Sinema reiterated that she would not support a change to the 60-vote threshold or weakening the filibuster.  Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock, a key lawmaker close to the issue, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 6/25/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on Biden infrastructure deal, crime plan, Georgia lawsuit" PBS NewsHour 6/25/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the potential breakthrough on the road to an infrastructure deal, the justice department's lawsuit against Georgia's voting restrictions, and the President's plan to curb surging violent crime across the country.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now, at the end of a full week of news, we are so fortunate to have the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.  That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

It is very good to see both of you on this — as it is on every Friday.

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  Great to see you.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Good to see you.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  A lot happened this week in Washington, Jonathan.

But I do want to start with this, do we have one or do we not have an infrastructure deal?

Yesterday, the President kind of made the unprecedented move of coming out on the driveway with a group of Democrats and Republicans, announced that there was an agreement, but then a couple of hours later, he said there's only an agreement if Democrats — if I get from Congress the spending plan.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I mean, I think there's a lot of consternation clearly right now within the Republican Party, and particularly among those Senators, about what happened.

But the deal, such as it is, last I saw, is still holding.  It's still there.  I think you have had senators like Senator Blunt, Senator Portman, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who, in the past, said we want a hard infrastructure deal, but I — we see that the President will probably go reconciliation for these other things, and that's fine.

The rub is the President and the speaker of the House both saying, OK, we will go for this deal, but you have got to do reconciliation also.

That's why the Republicans are angry.  But everybody needs a deal.  The President wants one.  The Republicans want one, because they need something to go back to their constituents and say, look, this is what we have delivered for you.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, the White House, the President, they're saying, well, the President made it clear all along that he was going to want this, but it seems to be a little fuzzy.

David Brooks:  Sort of.

You know, I think everyone knew there were going to be two bills.  There was going to be — well, we didn't know.  But the White House, to their credit, worked really hard to get this bipartisan compromise, all the calls, all the meetings.  It looked like real legislation, the kind of stuff Joe Biden was born for.

And so we get this deal, against all the odds.  It was unexpected.  The Republicans knew there was going to be a reconciliation deal.  What they didn't know, I think, is that he [Biden] was going to threaten to veto the compromise if he didn't get the second.

And so it was that linkage that I think took a lot of Republicans by surprise, and not only the — I mean, ones who really believe in the deal, the Rob Portmans of the world and people like that.

So, I do think, from what we know, they are right to feel a little aggrieved.  Will they walk out on it?  Well, Senator Coons from Delaware told Politico this afternoon that, so far, they have had conversations, bipartisan, and they haven't walked out on the deal.

Now, a couple people, Lindsey Graham and others, one other, have shown some willingness to walk out of the deal.  And if they do that, then you don't have 10 Republicans in the Senate, and you can't pass the deal.

But, like Jonathan says, so far, they're hanging in there.  And there's a whole bunch of strategy I can imagine about how they're going to try to sink the reconciliation later.  It's a strategist's dream, this complicated procedure.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  But, so far, I think they have damaged the deal, but they haven't killed the deal.

Judy Woodruff:  But your sense is that it's going to hold, you think?

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes, I think it will hold.

And, really, does anyone think that Republicans are going to vote in favor of the reconciliation deal?  I think the reconciliation deal, it's a given that the 50 Republicans aren't going to vote for it.

What it really is about is trying to hold Senators Manchin and Sinema and maybe some unnamed others to…

Judy Woodruff:  Democrats.

Jonathan Capehart:  Democrats — to ensure that they vote for reconciliation, so that everybody's happy.

David Brooks:  And the Republicans are trying to get Manchin and Sinema to break the linkage and say, we won't sign on unless you do this alone.

To me, the fun will be when the Democrats start fighting amongst themselves.  I mean, say the moderate — this compromise passes.  Then we have got the reconciliation.  The progressives want this big $6 trillion thing.  Manchin probably wants less than $2 trillion.

And so they all agree on the taxes.  They do not agree on where the spending should go.  And that's how the bigger thing could fall apart.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, speaking of Senator Manchin, he played a critical role in another issue that we saw this week.  It seems like it was a long time ago, but it was only Monday, Jonathan…

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  … when voting rights came up in the Senate, and the Republicans blocked what the Democrats were trying to do.

This was after Senator Manchin, same Joe Manchin who's involved in infrastructure, said he would — was on board with a kind of a compromise.

I guess my question now is, here, today, you have the Department of Justice announcing it's going to sue the state of Georgia over its new voting laws.  Where are we on voting rights in this country?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I think, right now, where we are in voting rights is, there's not going to be any quick legislative fix.  Everyone was focused on the For the People Act as the immediate thing that could be done to stop or blunt what was happening in the states like Georgia.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Act is — hasn't even been introduced.  So that's way down the road.  I think, right now, the focus is going to be on, what can the Justice Department do, what can the administration do to blunt the impact of Georgia and what — and these other states?

And so that's what we saw today, the Justice Department suing Georgia to stop its law.  I think that's where the action.  Until the filibuster is done away with, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer comes along and says, OK, here's the For the People Act again, where it can pass by a simple majority, that bill's not going to go anywhere.

So it's imperative, really, for the Justice Department to weigh in.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see it?

David Brooks:  I guess I see it that way, though it's not clear to me why people in Congress can't just scale back.

I mean, some of the voting rights that were the H.R.1 and all that seemed to me way overly broad.  And Manchin had a proposal.  Tim Scott, Republican of South Carolina, had a proposal.  Maybe something could be scaled back, but nobody seems to be talking about that way.  So we do seem to be going to the courts.

I guess there's going to be a Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona voting some time maybe next week.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  Soon.

David Brooks:  And, to me, I'm fine with that.

We heard such different things about the Georgia — Joe Biden called it the new Jim Crow.  Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State there, who seems like a legit guy, totally disagreed.  And so if the courts decide, does this discriminate against African-Americans, I'm happy to have — make that decision.

I hate having the federal government involved in state voting procedures.  But if one party is trying to disenfranchise a race of people, I think American history has established this is when the federal government gets involved.

So I'm happy to see — let the courts make a determination, was there intent to discriminate here?

Judy Woodruff:  And, Jonathan, Democrats are arguing that Republicans are trying to deny people on a massive scale from voting.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, on a massive scale, which is why Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department's taking the actions — the action that it took today.

Judy Woodruff:  And I guess my question, though, is, whatever the Supreme Court rules, it's — it looks like this is something that's frozen in the Congress.  I mean, it's not going anywhere.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes.  No, it's completely frozen.

Until the filibuster — something is done about the filibuster…

Judy Woodruff:  Our favorite Senate maneuver, the filibuster.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

Until it's reformed or eliminated or what have you, that bill, the For the People Act, is not going to go anywhere.

Judy Woodruff:  So, David, another — we talked about what a busy week — this was also the week that President Biden rolled out his plan for addressing in a number of different ways gun crime, violent crime.

The homicide rate is way up last year over the year before and this year way up again.  Does this look like — I mean, it's a multipronged approach, a lot of different initiatives they're laying out there.  But does it look like something that could make a difference?

David Brooks:  Well, it's tough for a President to control crime.  It is mostly an issue — but it's going to be a big voting issue, no question.  We have already seen that in the New York Democratic primary, where the crime was the issue.

Voters, especially in places like Minneapolis, Portland, they are saying this has become a crisis level.  People have different explanations for why it is, partly COVID, economic stress, police pullback.

And so I do think all these things make it imperative to act.  I would give the Biden administration maybe a B-minus.  I mean, I support gun control.  I'm not sure it's a crime or a homicide reduction measure very effectively.

I'm for some police reform.  I'm glad they're using COVID money to allow police forces to increase the number of officers.  There's clear evidence that, if you increase the number of police, you get less crime.  And — but that has to be accompanied by police reform.

And so you have got to do a bunch of things all at once to have a just way to reduce crime that's not penalty on the local communities.  And that takes involvement on multiple fronts.  And I thought this was a vague gesture, more than that kind of intense involvement.

Judy Woodruff:  A vague gesture?

Jonathan Capehart:  I don't know about vague gesture.

I mean, you are right.  Presidents have no impact whatsoever on state and local — excuse me — state and local crime issues.  But people look to the President to do something.  And I agree with David.  The $350 billion from the America CARES Act to localities to do something related to crime is a very good thing.

But we have to remember that, yes, crime has ticked up this year over last year and last year over the year before.  But we are way, way down from the bad years of the '90s.

And let me just give you quickly — New York City murders, in 1990, 2,262, in 2020, 468, a 79 percent reduction.  Robberies in 1990, 100,280; 2020, robberies in New York City, 13,108.  That's an 86.9 percent reduction.

So, crime — yes, crime is ticking up over the last couple of years.  But we are nowhere near where we were 30 years ago, when it was really bad.

Judy Woodruff:  And I should have clarified.  Homicides are way up.  Violent crime is up a little…

Jonathan Capehart:  Right, violent crime, right.

Judy Woodruff:  … and other crime.  It's more of a mixed picture.

But, David, it just — people keep asking, as you say, even though the President can't reach in and control what goes on in handling the crime in individual cities, what example is he setting?  What is he saying to lead us?

David Brooks:  Well, I think he's made some progress.

Yes, I think we both lived through New York in that period.  And crime was terrible there.  It was terrible.  It was something we all lived with and all endured.

I think one of the things he's done, at least go — take us away from last summer's belief that there was such thing as a free lunch.  You could defund the police or reduce the police and not have some after-effect.  When a party tells you there's no free lunch, whether it's on tax policy, fiscal policy, criminal policy, they're almost always wrong.

And so if you just let the police pull back and not get involved, you're going to get more crime.  So, we got to do two things at once.

Judy Woodruff:  We're going to leave it there.  Come back and see you guys next Friday.

(LAUGHTER)

Jonathan Capehart:  All right.

Judy Woodruff:  David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

Judy Woodruff:  Have a good weekend.

OPINION - Brooks and Capehart 5/7/2021

"Brooks and Capehart on jobs report, Liz Cheney and election laws" PBS NewsHour 5/7/2021

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the latest jobs report, the internal politics in the Republican party as it attempts to oust Rep. Liz Cheney, and the latest string of election law changes in conservative states.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  To reflect a little on what Senator Warren had to say and more on the events of this week, it's time for Brooks and Capehart.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post.

It is so good to see both of you, smiling faces on this Friday evening.

And I do want to get to Senator Warren, David, but first let me ask you about today's jobs numbers.  They were disappointing.  It was expected there would be many hundreds of thousands more than there were.

Do these numbers say something about, frankly, the wisdom of President Biden's economic plans?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Maybe.  I don't think we know yet.

But we're doing two gigantic experiments that are really unprecedented in American history.  We have never spent $6 trillion in such a short period of time, and gone into debt while doing it.  If the two other Biden plan passes, it'll be $10 trillion.

At the same time, we have never seen Fed expansionary policy this momentous.  And so this is an experiment.  And maybe it'll pay off, but maybe there will be inflation.  Warren Buffett's a little worried about inflation.  Other people are worried about inflation.

Maybe, as Michael Strain said earlier in the program, the fact that people are paid to stay home means I don't want to get a job.  I can hang out at home, what seems a lot better.

And so we — I don't think we know the answer to what happened.  But it was a shocking number.  And we just have to pay attention to the fact that this could go sideways in a million ways, because we're doing something really risky.

Judy Woodruff:  Jonathan, do you see that this makes some sort of statement about what President Biden's doing?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  I don't think so, not yet.

We cannot grade the entirety of President Biden's fiscal plans based on one unemployment number.  We have got to look at the long haul here.  And so the jury's out on that.  However, we have to think about all the things that David was just talking about, in terms of the inflationary concerns and all of that.

We have to also talk about the fact that we're also dealing with — still with a global pandemic, people being reticent.  As much as folks want to get out and restart their lives, there are a lot of people who, like, can't find jobs, are too afraid to get out there, for fear of what's going to happen with the pandemic.

And, also, on top of all of it, even though lots of states are starting to reopen, some more fully, like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have announced, but they're still slowly reopening.  So I think it's a little too early, Judy and David, to start being gloom and doom over the state of the economy, not just yet.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, in connection with all this, you heard Senator Warren.  I asked her about her plans to tax the wealthy.

She has a much more, shall we say, ambitious set of proposals even than what President Biden has put out there.

David, what do you — where do you see any of this going with regard to taxing the wealthiest in order to pay for what he wants to do?

David Brooks:  Well, it's pretty popular.

And it's also just a fact that wealth is concentrated over the last 30 or 40 years.  It's also just a fact that corporations have done extremely well, and corporate profits have done pretty well.  So, if you want to tax things to pay for things, these are probably the least bad things to tax.

There is going to be a cost.  When you raise the corporate tax rate, and, on the margins, companies will flock to a place with a lower corporate tax rate than a higher corporate tax rate.  That's probably true on the margins.  But it seems to me the Biden administration has chosen the appropriate areas to raise taxes.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Jonathan, what do you see when you look at taxes and President Biden and what Senator Warren's saying?

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, one, I agree with David in the last point that he made.

But let's also remember they're still in the middle of negotiations.  And even though I think the initial number the president has put out there, wanting to raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent, and, before that, under Trump, it was 35 percent, and he lowered it that much, that the President and the Administration has been — have been sending signals all along that they're willing to negotiate, willing to negotiate on that piece.

As for Senator Warren, of course, she is going to shoot for the moon and the stars as a means of, one, because she believes that fully, firmly believes it, but also as a way of trying to push the President further, push him to do more than maybe he is constitutional — he thinks he's constitutionally capable of.

But if the American — if the American Rescue Plan is any indicator, I don't think she's going to have to push too hard to get the President to think imaginatively about how to go about his policy — his plans.

Judy Woodruff:  Let's talk about the Republicans, David, a lot going on in that party this — the last few days, and, next week, a vote upcoming among House Republicans.

It looks like they are going to kick out Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming as the conference chair in the House, because she's not only insufficiently loyal to President Trump.  She's saying he actively should not be the person the party's following.

What does all this say about the Republican Party?

David Brooks:  Well, it's still Donald Trump's party.

It shows that you have to — more or less, as everyone is pointing out, you shouldn't have to be a lie to qualify — you have to lie to qualify to be a Republican.  And that's the standard that is now being laid down.  And Elizabeth Cheney just didn't want to lie.

There's also a lot of internal politics here, that what they want from the person in a leadership role is the ability to get them reelected.  And so the House members are worried that, because she keeps picking on this issue, she's going to be less effective at raising money and getting them reelected.

Elise Stefanik, the person who's probably going to replace her, has read the party.  She was a Harvard educated person who worked in the Bush administration, endorsed John Kasich, and sat out the 2016 convention because Donald Trump was going to be the nominee.  Ruth Marcus, our friend, has a good column on this.

And she's [Elise Stefanik] now a roaring Trumper.  And so she's read the winds.  And that's what this is all about.

Judy Woodruff:  In fact, Elise Stefanik just said in an interview, Jonathan, yesterday that President Trump is the strongest president ever when it comes to standing up for the U.S. Constitution.

But what do you — what does all this say, from your perspective, about what Republicans are — where they're headed?

Jonathan Capehart:  That quote you just read from Congresswoman Stefanik just sort of proves what David was just talking about.

In order to be in the leadership, but also to be considered a Republican, you have to lie.  All of this tells me that the Republican Party has officially lost its way.  It is not about values and substantive issues and being a policy counterweight to the Democratic Party.  It is all about being loyal to Donald Trump, one.

But, also, when it comes to the House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, it's do anything, say anything to ensure, you hope, that you are in good position to retake the House in 2022.

Elizabeth — Congresswoman Cheney is a conservative.  She is a conservative.  Elise Stefanik, by comparison, from Upstate New York is a moderate.  And when you look at — the Club For Growth gives Elise Stefanik a 35 percent rating.  The Heritage Foundation gives Elizabeth Cheney an 80 percent rating and Elise Stefanik a 48 percent rating.

And if you want to talk about fealty and loyalty to Donald Trump, Congresswoman Cheney voted with Donald Trump 92.9 percent of the time, as compared to Elise Stefanik, who voted with him 77 percent of the — 77 percent of the time.  And this is data from FiveThirtyEight.

So, it's like the Soul Train Scramble Board here.  It's going to take a while to figure out what they're — what the Republican Party is all about, really.  But, right now, the Republican Party is about Donald Trump, only about Donald Trump, and how Donald Trump feels about everything.

And one last point, Judy.  I know I'm going on.  The number one reason why Congresswoman Cheney is in trouble is because Donald Trump hates her for telling the truth.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, David, as both of you are saying, it is not only what Congresswoman Cheney — or Congresswoman Stefanik is saying about former President Trump, but it's also her — her continuing to insist, along with so many other Republicans, that the election — in her words, she said election fraud was widespread last year.

She has spoken out for this recount going on in Maricopa County, Arizona, that's paid for only by Republicans — or being sponsored only by Republicans.

So, I mean, this says something about future elections as well.

David Brooks:  Yes, in a country with a lot of problems, the Republicans have picked the one area that's not broken to address all their energy on.  And that's elections.

And so they — all these laws, I doubt they will have a huge effect.  I think studies show that they don't have a big effect on damping down turnout.  But it's just a — given American history — Jonathan and I have talked about it before — it's just a horrific look.

And the amount of energy going into it, and the fact that Florida Governor DeSantis did it, announced is the signing of Florida's new election law on FOX, who does a news event on one network?

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  I mean, this — it just shows we are in a land of theater.  It's not about anything but the symbols of showing Donald Trump is right about the election and there was a lot of fraud.

And it's a theatrical gesture, a Potemkin set of laws to just reinforce the Trump narrative.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Jonathan, as both of you have said, these election laws have a very real effect on what happens going forward in the congressional elections next year, the midterm elections, and, of course, beyond.

Jonathan Capehart:  Right.

I think, a few shows ago, I said that these election laws were a solution in search of a problem.  And I cannot remember the person who sent me an e-mail, but they wrote me and said, listen, stop saying that because it's not true, because, from the Republican perspective, it is a solution in — to solve a problem.

And the problem from the Republican perspective is too many Democrats voting.  And, in the end, that's what this is all about.  The mail-in voting, the absentee balloting that Democrats pushed hard because of the problems with the Postal Service, because of fears of going out in public because of the pandemic, Democrats, who used to not vote by mail and not absentee vote, did it in droves in the safest election in American history, as we learned from the federal government.

And so all of these laws are about stopping as many Democrats as possible from voting, as a means of increasing Republican power and increasing their chances of retaking the House.

Judy Woodruff:  Only a little more than a minute left.

But I do want to finally quickly ask both of you, David, about this idea of how the insurrection at the Capitol is investigated.  I interviewed Speaker Pelosi this week.  She said it's not something that should be chosen by the President, it needs to come from Congress.

And, right now, Republicans and Democrats are at loggerheads.

David Brooks:  I'm dubious.  I support the idea, I guess, but I'm dubious they can come up with a commission filled with people who have credibility on both sides.

When the 9/11 Commission happened, we had people like Lee Hamilton and Governor Kean of New Jersey leading it, people who really were part of the establishment center.  We don't have as many people like that.  And even those who are in the establishment center have less credibility with the polarized wings.

And so it looks — I'm much more pessimistic than I would have been after 9/11 that we can put together a commission that we trust.

Judy Woodruff:  And Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:  But we have to put together a commission.  It must be done.

The horror of January 6, the tipping point that those events put American democracy on, we cannot forget it.  We must investigate it.  We must find out what really happened, what truly happened, all the things that we don't know about right now.  It must be put before the American people, so that, at a minimum, we can try to not have that happen again.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, I know we are going to continue to ask those questions.

In the meantime, we thank you both, Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks.  Have a good weekend.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.  You too.

See you, David.

U.S. CONSTITUTION - 19th Amendment 100 Years Later

"A century after 19th Amendment, Gloria Steinem on what challenges remain" PBS NewsHour 8/18/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Tuesday marks a full century since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which says that the right to vote “should not be denied or abridged” on the basis of sex.  We look back to the path to that milestone, and Judy Woodruff talks to longtime activist and scholar Gloria Steinem about what challenges remain.

New York Times - 19th Amendment