Shields and Brooks on Obama’s war authority request, Islamic State's threat
Nov 14, 2014.. First out of the gate for 2016, where does Ted Cruz go now?. of naked greed for oil, not china drone-bombing people said to dislike america.
Dec 26, 2014.. One in 12 marriages is now an interracial marriage in America. look at it briefly and then move away, or it can be central to the 2016 debate.
Feb 13, 2015.. First out of the gate for 2016, where does Ted Cruz go now? +1; EMAIL. LISTEN . "America is addicted to oil" is inaccurate, It is far more ..
John Harwood of CNBC details President Obama’s fracking initiative. the 2016 presidential election feature, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton of America's ..
And the CIA is already studying records found in bin Laden’s compound.. 2015: $3 million 2016: $4.7 million want to second-guess past decisions.. He died as President Obama’s America has made democratization in the Arab ..
Jan 27, 2011.. Let s not forget Oregon sucked the life out of Florida State after a beat down which resulted in a win by 39 points. It won’t go on display until at least 2016. the White House last week for President Obama’s Hanukkah party, . I desire this station for you and I pray God that the people of America ..
120636120633120633Shields and Brooks on the China carbon dealSyndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including the carbon deal between the United States and China, legislative action on the Keystone XL pipeline and how Republicans may respond if President Obama issues an executive action on immigration reform.2014-11-14 18:00:00disabled2365369673jg1ryjK2jKwfalse139693139675http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/will-indianas-religious-freedom-law-inform-2016-gop-race/Will Indiana’s religious freedom law inform the 2016 race?Judy Woodruff talks to Susan Page of USA Today and Margaret Talev of Bloomberg News about the political fallout from a religious freedom bill signed into law by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, and how former President Bill Clinton could be both campaign asset and liability if Hillary Clinton decides to run.2015-03-30 18:00:00http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/gaymarriagegop-320x196.jpeg23654543771O42m5_W-dg139586139587http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/iran-yemen-us-allies-risking-new-chaos-middle-east/Are US allies risking new chaos in the Middle East?Even as some United States allies in the Middle East fight against pro-Iranian forces in Yemen, the US is fighting with Iran against the Islamic State in Iraq. Matt Bradley of The Wall Street Journal joins Hari Sreenivasan via Skype from Erbil, Iraq, to discuss the muddled situation.2015-03-29 00:00:00http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/yemen-320x196.jpg2365453491YuHXy_BtTmY139446139472http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-harry-reids-retirement-yemen-turmoil-response/Shields and Brooks on Harry Reid’s retirementSyndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s retirement announcement, Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential prospects and U.S. involvement in the Yemen conflict.2015-03-27 18:00:00http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/shieldsandbrooks-320x196.jpg2365452878s5kKmsL-kVU Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including the carbon deal between the United States and China, legislative action on the Keystone XL pipeline and how Republicans may respond if President Obama issues an executive action on immigration reform. HARI SREENIVASAN: President Obama strikes a climate change deal, with talk of executive action on immigration, as Congress returns to take on Keystone. To analyze it all, Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks. And, Mark, since you look like you’re climbing out of the banks of Charles River behind you in Boston, I will start with you. (LAUGHTER) HARI SREENIVASAN: This deal the — the climate deal that was struck at the Asian summit with the president and the Chinese president, Xi, big deal? MARK SHIELDS: I think it’s a big deal. Let’s first understand you don’t cobble together something of this significance on the spot or over the weekend. They have been working on it for months, and I think credit, or blame, I guess, in some quarters has to be to the president, John Kerry, the secretary of state, to John Podesta, for whom it’s been a priority at the White House. But I think it’s significance because one of the principal arguments against moving on carbon emissions has been that the United States, to act unilaterally, that would let China off the hook. And now with the United States and China, the two biggest polluters globally, moving together, it puts pressure. It blows the cover of those other countries. It puts pressure on India and other places. HARI SREENIVASAN: David? DAVID BROOKS: I hope so. Well, first, it’s a big deal just because we reached a major agreement with China. U.S.-China relations have been deteriorating, not because of anything the U.S. has done or Barack Obama has done, because of what China has done. They have gotten more aggressive on all sorts of military fronts, in the oceans. And there was some danger that the U.S. and China could just have a much more hostile relationship. So, it’s good to see some positive agreement. It’s good to see goals. And that’s what sad. I guess my question is, what exactly — what’s changing? China promised in 15 years to — or a little more than 15 years to set some targets, no interim targets, just some big target a chunk of time away from now. We have agreed to set targets, but what policies are actually going to change? Will there be a carbon tax? How aggressively will China move to get away from coal toward oil and natural gas or other cleaner forms? It’s hard to know. But at least they got a deal and at least they set a vision. So, it’s more like a precedent, but it’s sort of hollow in the middle. HARI SREENIVASAN: OK. So, because of those lack of targets, do you think that Congress will be easier on them? DAVID BROOKS: Well, the targets are there. What’s not there is the means to reach the targets. And so it depends what the means are. And so will we get a big global climate deal? Well, clearly, it makes more likely. The big global climate deal was pretty much dead. But when you got — as Mark said, when the two largest polluters are on board, that at least creates a little life. Will Congress ratify that? No way. We’re not going to do that. And so we’re not going to get a big global climate treaty. But at least, nation by nation, you can begin to see China actually moving toward cleaner forms of energy, which they have to do both for economic reasons, but also so they can breathe in their cities. HARI SREENIVASAN: Mark, do you think he’s going to get pushback in Congress for this? MARK SHIELDS: I think there will be pushback in Congress. There’s no question, especially with Jim Inhofe, the new chairman of the Environmental Committee in the Senate, who is essentially an archfoe and a denier on climate change. But I think that — two things. China is under the gun. I mean, they’re under the gun at home, as David put, on their own air. They had to close down the industrial plants 400 miles away to clean up the air just so they could have the economic — the Asian economic conference there in Beijing. That’s how bad it is. And let’s be very blunt about it. They’re going to be competing now on alternative energy, which I think, as the president has pointed out, is good for the United States as well. If there’s a competition in that area, it can only be good for humankind. HARI SREENIVASAN: OK. Shifting gears about energy, let’s talk about the Keystone XL pipeline. The House voted on it today. It’s likely to get to the Senate floor, at least on Tuesday. Is this purely political? I mean, it was motivated in part by the race that is happening in Louisiana with Mary Landrieu and her competitor. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, it’s purely political in the timing. There’s nothing wrong with politics. It’s interest people — interest groups trying to get their interests advanced. And so the timing is political. I happen to think the president’s opposition is purely political. There is a big State Department series of reports, gigantic reports on the effect of the Keystone pipeline. They found, economically, it would create thousands of jobs, not huge amounts of job, but thousands of jobs. The economic damage, they found, would be none. The greenhouse gas emissions, that oil is going to be pumped or not pumped depending on the price of crude, not depending on whether we have a pipeline. It’s either going to be pumped and sent through hundreds of thousands of train cars or be sent in a more environmentally friendly way under the ground. And so the environmental rationale for the pipeline seems to be strong. The economic rationale is not huge, but it’s significant. And so if you follow the science, if you follow the research, the case for the pipeline is overwhelming. The president is not doing it to secure his left base, because it’s a good a fund-raising tool for a lot of people. Not for very good reasons. HARI SREENIVASAN: OK. Mark? MARK SHIELDS: This has to be the most thoroughly researched, meticulously studied idea, this pipeline, in the history of humankind. It’s been slow-walked to the point of a standstill. And now it’s going to come to a vote finally in the Senate because Mary Landrieu, who is in a runoff for her Senate seat and an underdog in Louisiana December 6, has pushed it and is going to demonstrate her own independence from the White House and her clout or leadership or however you want to put it. And the senators who want to vote against it will get a chance to vote against it. And people who want to vote for it will vote for it. And I think the president will veto it. And I think that will be the end of it, other than it won’t be built, and it will not be a major issue in the 2016 campaign. But I do think that the argument basically politically is on the side of those who want to build it. HARI SREENIVASAN: OK. Something that will likely show up in the 2016 campaign is immigration. The president has said he plans to use an exclusive order to deal with immigration. We don’t know exactly what day that will show up. But do you think that there’s a chance for comprehensive immigration reform without an executive order, or does an executive order actually decrease those chances, David? DAVID BROOKS: I think it decreases. I support president’s the position on the policy, on the substance of it. A lot of what it does is going to keep families together. And so, on the substance of it, I think it’s fine. On the politics of it, on the effect on our country, I think it’s just a terrible, terrible idea, sort of a Ted Cruz stick in the eye of any chance we would have bipartisanship. The Republicans were saying reasonable things after their victory: We want to start out small. Let’s try to pass some legislation on things where we agree on. And they weren’t major pieces of legislation, but they were pieces. It would be nice to pass a law. We haven’t passed a significant piece of legislation in this country in like four years. It would be nice to do something just to get something done. I think this very aggressive way the president has led with a very difficult issue makes that much less likely. Second, I do think it takes immigration reform much less likely over the next five or 10 years. I think the Republicans were eventually going to have to get around to it. Just — they just know eventually they have to get around to passing this thing. That makes it much less likely. And then, finally, I just think it’s constitutional overreach. Basically, five million people, maybe six million people are going to be affected by this. I think it just, constitutionally, for the sake of our system, when you have something that major, redefining the status of five million or six million people, I think it should go through the legislative process. I’m not a constitutional lawyer. I don’t know the effect of that. But I just think it’s a major change in American policy, and it would be nice to go through Congress, rather than just by the signature of a pen. HARI SREENIVASAN: Mark? MARK SHIELDS: I think it’s always nicer to go through Congress. I would just point out that, after the 2012 election, Republicans went through a period of deep introspection. They concluded as a party that they had to do something on this issue, that they had — were seen as anti-immigrant, not only to Latinos, but also to Asians and other minorities in this country. And so they didn’t do anything about it. They — some Republicans joined the 68-32 majority in the Senate on June 27, 2013, to pass a really comprehensive immigration reform bill. And John Boehner, the speaker of the House, had negotiations with the president, couldn’t bring it up for a vote, couldn’t bring it up for a vote. It had the votes to pass in the House, but it wouldn’t pass with a majority of Republicans. The House voted 54 times to repeal Obamacare, 54 times, but they couldn’t vote once on immigration. Obamacare was never going to go anywhere in the Senate, the repeal of it, that is. And this is something that could have become law. And the president had told the speaker that — in private conversation, that he was going to act. He didn’t act before election because of, quite frankly, Democratic senators in red states were concerned about it. But he’s not the first president to do it. Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1987 unilaterally moved to protect 200,000 Nicaraguans from returning to the Sandinista regime. So — and so did President Kennedy and President Johnson and President Clinton and President Bush. So, you know, I think it wasn’t going to happen anyway. I agree with David. It would be nice to have harmony, but when the principal priority of your opposition is to repeal the signature legislation of your administration, Obamacare, you know, I think the hopes for that are probably pretty unrealistic. HARI SREENIVASAN: Mark, what about the fact that, if this comes through an executive action, that it could be rescinded by the next president? MARK SHIELDS: Yes. And that’s the key point. I mean, any time either side advocates executive action — Republicans did it under President Bush, and Democrats are certainly doing it under President Obama — it’s with the understanding that, A, you’re expanding executive power, and that — usually at the cost of the legislative power and regular order. But you’re also risking it’s just going to be repealed. But I think, quite frankly — and I think David would agree — that it’s unlikely whoever is elected in 2016 would set about repealing that law — that act. HARI SREENIVASAN: David, the topics that we’re all talking about in the context of the results from the midterm elections that just happened, do you see a general pattern here? Is this part of a more concerted strategy from the White House, saying, here’s the two years that we have got left, here’s what Congress looks like, here’s what we can do, and let’s just start going out and doing it? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, there are a couple ways to interpret that, and I suspect all these things are part of the thinking. One is, there’s a lot of stuff we want to do. We held back just for political relationships. As you say, let’s just get it done. We believe in this. Let’s do it. The second, more cynical strategy is the idea that the Republicans have a strong incentive to get stuff done. Anybody who wins elections, they want to pass stuff. And if you can obstruct, it seems you can hurt them. The Republicans obstructed President Obama when he won. Now President Obama is going to obstruct the Republicans. And that’s a tit for tat. And the problem is, we’re stuck with that. We’re stuck with World War I, essentially, with everybody obstructing the other. The third fact factor here is money. The — my newspaper has a story on the powerful — the $300 million the immigration groups have pumped into some of the immigration reform. The Keystone pipeline is a big fund-raiser. And so every politician is thinking about, how do we keep the donor base going? And I wouldn’t say that’s the major element here, but that is certainly an element here. HARI SREENIVASAN: OK. Mark, we have got about 30 seconds. MARK SHIELDS: I think there’s no question that the tension in immigration is between the Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the House. Mitch McConnell’s on record saying, under no circumstances will we close the — shut down the federal government, will we default on the federal debt, on the national debt. The speaker, with a — as he calls them, 16 knuckleheads in his caucus, probably more after the election, is in a position where he says, we can’t take anything off the table. And he has got members now talking about impeachment. So, that — and there’s no question there’s been mischief created in the Republican ranks by the White House. HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, “New York Times” columnist David Brooks, thank so much.
Scofield Study Bible III-KJV, 2003, 2016 pages, Oxford University Press. the Dream of a Post-Racial America, Michael Tesler, David O. Sears, Nov 15, 2010, .. Barack Obama’s presidential victory naturally led people to believe that the ..
Shields and Brooks on the China carbon deal
And I feel that he believes that he’s committing a CFR President Richard N. .. “It is time to put North America at the forefront of U.S. policy,” the Task .. riled critics of President Barack Obama’s proposed immigration reforms, and.. Applications: 2015–2016 Fellowship Programs CFR is seeking applicants ..
134699134696134696Shields and Brooks on Obama’s war authority requestSyndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Obama’s request to Congress to engage in military action against the Islamic State group, the ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, and the uproar over Brian Williams’ error and subsequent suspension from NBC.2015-02-13 18:00:00disabled2365425785t1LRXq43WWofalse139693139675http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/will-indianas-religious-freedom-law-inform-2016-gop-race/Will Indiana’s religious freedom law inform the 2016 race?Judy Woodruff talks to Susan Page of USA Today and Margaret Talev of Bloomberg News about the political fallout from a religious freedom bill signed into law by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, and how former President Bill Clinton could be both campaign asset and liability if Hillary Clinton decides to run.2015-03-30 18:00:00http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/gaymarriagegop-320x196.jpeg23654543771O42m5_W-dg139586139587http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/iran-yemen-us-allies-risking-new-chaos-middle-east/Are US allies risking new chaos in the Middle East?Even as some United States allies in the Middle East fight against pro-Iranian forces in Yemen, the US is fighting with Iran against the Islamic State in Iraq. Matt Bradley of The Wall Street Journal joins Hari Sreenivasan via Skype from Erbil, Iraq, to discuss the muddled situation.2015-03-29 00:00:00http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/yemen-320x196.jpg2365453491YuHXy_BtTmY139446139472http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-harry-reids-retirement-yemen-turmoil-response/Shields and Brooks on Harry Reid’s retirementSyndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s retirement announcement, Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential prospects and U.S. involvement in the Yemen conflict.2015-03-27 18:00:00http://www.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/shieldsandbrooks-320x196.jpg2365452878s5kKmsL-kVU Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including President Obama’s request to Congress to engage in military action against the Islamic State group, Congress’ tangling over the president’s immigration order, and the uproar over Brian Williams’ error and subsequent suspension from NBC. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s been a busy and a serious news week. President Obama asked Congress to approve military force against the Islamic State group. Congress is struggling and near a deadline to fund the Department of Homeland Security. And the media world faced multiple surprising headlines. To analyze it all, Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks. So, a lot to talk about. The toughest news of the week had to be the confirmation of the death of the American aid worker Kayla Mueller at the hands of ISIS. Mark, it raises the question, how is this administration, how is the United States doing at dealing with ISIS and specifically this authorization of force, for the use of force the president sent to Congress? Does it look like they have struck the right formula there? MARK SHIELDS: Well, first on Kayla Mueller, I mean, this is a woman who devoted her life generously, from every report, just comforting the afflicted. And so the tragedy of her death is even compounded more by the life she led and the loss she leaves. Judy, ISIS and the Middle East remain a Rubik’s Cube that the United States has not figured out. Everything over there is five-sided, and we just — we haven’t figured out — and this is not a war to be won. They are a force to be controlled, to be reduced, to be managed. But this is not — we are really not going to reintroduce American ground troops into the area. We can to some degree restrict their military effectiveness. But that is the reality. We have already done that once in this century. We sent American ground troops in. And we’re not going to do it. As far as the authorization of force, a shout-out to Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia. Alone, he’s been a voice for several months saying, we’re sending Americans into combat, into harm’s way. We are at war. The Congress has abdicated its responsibility by not declaring or confronting that or dealing with it or passing any sort of resolution. It’s the most solemn responsibility the Congress has, and they have ducked it. They ducked it through the election. The White House was thrilled not to have a vote. Every White House, including this one, doesn’t want — they want carte blanche. They want to decide when to use power. They don’t want their — quote — “hands tied.” And so we’re finally going to have a debate in this country. And I think Senator Kaine deserves — of Virginia — deserves a lot of credit for forcing the hand of the administration. JUDY WOODRUFF: David, the language in this request that the White House sent over for authorizing it, does it get us, the United States, any closer to handling all this? DAVID BROOKS: No, it’s ambivalent. I don’t understand why we have an authorization of use of force that includes not only the ends, which seems to me legitimate — that is what should be in this — but the means and the process and the duration. I don’t know why we need to put that in the use of force. It lasts three years, we’re not going to this, we’re going to do this. If we’re going to use force, then we should do what the president and the military leadership think is proper. And that shouldn’t be in the authorization, it seems to me. The killing of the hostages is an outrage, but not really the most important thing that’s going on over there. I happened to be in conversation with a bunch of financial analysts this week. And I asked them, what’s the biggest threat to the world economy? And I expected them to say the Greek — euro crisis, whatever. They both independently said ISIS. If ISIS takes over the Middle East or destabilizes the Middle East, that is an economic cataclysm with human suffering. JUDY WOODRUFF: Because of oil? DAVID BROOKS: Because of oil, because of just the destabilization of this most fragile region of the country. And so I think I disagree with Mark a little. The Middle East has always been the Middle East. For 5,000 years, it’s been a troubled zone. The Islamic State seems to be a new order, a new order of magnitude, a new sort of threat building an ideological threat, a unique level of evil, even by the standards of the Middle East. And so I think taking them on and containing — I agree. We’re not going to put in land troops and all that kind of stuff. But containing them seems to be a higher order than anything we have faced in the Middle East for a long, long time. And the president and future presidents should do what they need to do to do that. And they shouldn’t have sort of resolutions which are really resolutions of ambivalence. JUDY WOODRUFF: But the administration is being criticized, Mark, at least what I am reading, for not being specific enough, I mean, for — they need to say more about what they’re going to do. David’s point, it seems to me, is they didn’t need to say as much as they did. MARK SHIELDS: Well, they have said whatever — they wouldn’t have a permanent land force is what they have said, but they would have freedom, the next president, including this one, for the three years it would be in force, would have the authority to pursue ISIS or its sister-brother groups throughout the region. So there isn’t a geographical restriction. So he’s facing some criticism from both sides, from both Democrats, who want it more limited, and Republicans, who want this large mandate still uncharted. Judy, I just don’t understand where this fits in in terms of how we define what the objective is. I mean, how will we know when we have won? I mean, for thousands of years, it’s been the dream of a caliphate in that area, of a Muslim caliphate throughout that area. And we’re not going to end that dream or that — we might — this latest iteration, we can control it, we can debase it, but we’re not going to totally eliminate that. And I just think that is something that — I welcome the debate. I really want to hear everybody be heard on this, because it is really an unsolvable — unsolvable mystery now. JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re saying nobody has the correct formula? DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think there are certain things about which there is a national consensus. We’re not going to stick ground troops in. There is a national consensus. Nobody wants to do that. We need to degrade ISIS. There is a national consensus about that. I just would like to see leadership which affirmatively for that goal, not one foot in and one foot out. And this has been symptomatic of the Obama presidency with a lot of issues on foreign affairs, that we’re going in, we’re not going in. We put some boundaries about what we’re going to do, but we crash through those boundaries. We declare red lines, but we don’t act on the red lines. There’s just been a lot of half seesaw action. And it seems to me, if ISIS is worth going after, it’s worth going after. If you’re going to take Vienna, take Vienna. And so I don’t know what the war will involve. I don’t think anybody can know what the war will involve in the years coming forward, but it seems to me there’s nobody been like ISIS before. Hafez Assad was not like ISIS. The Saudi regime was not like ISIS. Yasser Arafat was certainly not like ISIS. This is something different and more threatening. MARK SHIELDS: Just one quick thing, Judy. There’s a lot of politics involved here, the unwillingness to take a stand and to be heard and to vote. The last time the Congress did this, you will recall, was 2002, when they gave up the authority to President Bush to go into, invade and occupy Iraq. And the Democrats who voted for that, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd basically killed their presidential chances. And that gave the opening for Barack Obama. So, they’re mindful of this. In 1964, the Congress, 535 people, two, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, were the only two who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which led to 550,000 Americans in Vietnam. So there is some history, there’s some precedent, and there’s understandably some political wariness. JUDY WOODRUFF: Two other things I want to ask you about. One is Congress wrestling, David, with the president’s immigration executive order. It’s gotten tied up in funding for the Department of Homeland Security at a time when you would think the country would be focused on homeland security. The Republicans are pointing fingers at the Democrats, saying they’re holding all this up, but Republicans aren’t agreeing with each other about what to do about it in the House and Senate. DAVID BROOKS: Yes. And the Republicans run the Congress, so they get ultimate responsibility. It is turning from sort of a comedy to a farce to a travesty. Why have they started their reign as majority parties in both houses with this, with, A, something they’re bound to lose? They do not have 60 votes in the Senate, so they’re bound to lose. Why have they started with this, with a measure where the House and the Senate, even on the Republican side, can’t get together, and then in the atmosphere of the past three or four years in which shutting down the government has turned into a code word for dysfunction? And so why do you want to walk into this, something you’re not doing well, something badly you’re not doing well? And so just as a question of leadership, not even ideology — it’s just competent leadership. I don’t understand why they’re here. MARK SHIELDS: I agree with David. The Wall Street Journal, scorching editorial this week on the Republican leadership in its first month, and not flying well and dividing themselves, rather than Democrats. The Wall Street Journal editorial page attacking Republicans is like L’Osservatore Romano going after the pope. MARK SHIELDS: This is not where you expect to take incoming criticism. So I think it’s — they are going to have to back down. The House has done what it does. It passes symbolic legislation that is going nowhere; 57 times, they have repealed Obamacare. That’s what they did in this case. And they sent it over to the Senate, and it’s going to die there. It’s on the Republicans’ doorstep. JUDY WOODRUFF: One last thing I want to make time for is just a tumultuous and in many ways bad week for the media, Brian Williams suspended at NBC News, the death of David Carr, of Bob Simon with CBS, but David Carr, the media critic for The Times, and of course the news from Jon Stewart. David, on the Brian Williams question, I guess what I’m curious to know is, does that reflect on everyone in the media? How does the media come out of this episode? DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I don’t think it reflects us broadly. It speaks to a couple truths. The one is that no amount of public success is satisfying. You can have all the accolades in the world, be where Brian Williams was, at the tippy-top. Public fame is still empty and it still leaves you hungry, and you still want to brag a little more, on the hope that you will get what you want, which is some sort of adulation that will satisfy you. But that never happens. That never comes. And so it just leaves you hungrier and hungrier. And I think that’s what we saw with Brian Williams, somebody who just wanted to be seen a little cooler and so made up some stuff. I personally think the reaction against him is way out of proportion to what he did. And I think we all have to cultivate a capacity for forgiveness, a rigorous forgiveness for what he did. And I personally hope he continues his job. Just quickly on my colleague David Carr, who I wasn’t close with at all, it’s one — two lessons. There are second acts in American life. He had a drug-riddled first act. Second, it’s an encouragement to be yourself. He had an amazingly large personality, which he did not check ever. And it glowed in his prose and in his presence. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, you wanted to comment on David Carr. MARK SHIELDS: David Carr — David Carr was the anti-New York Times man, if The New York Times is the guy who went to the best boarding schools, and knows the best wine and has two last names, basically. DAVID BROOKS: He’s talking about me. MARK SHIELDS: Yes, my friend David. MARK SHIELDS: David Carr was larger than life. He was totally authentic. He was a brilliant journalist, a great reporter, unflinchingly honest, and incredibly thoughtful of everybody he came across, whether it was a waitress or the youngest intern. He was just a wonderful, wonderful person, in addition to being this larger and colorful character. As far as Brian Williams, I just want to echo what David said. Yes, it was self-inflicted, Judy, but this is a good and decent man. And the people in a rush to tap dance on his grave and provide the gallows and the rope to hang him, it just really is disturbing and unseemly. JUDY WOODRUFF: I don’t think we have seen a week like this one in a long time. Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.
