William: As Lisa reported,
Democrats helped speaker Johnson
get a foreign package over a key
hurdle but he faces backlash
from far right members in his
own conference.
On that and the other political
stories shaping this week,
return to the analysis of brooks
and Capehart.
David brooks and Jonathan
Capehart, the associate editor
for the Washington post.
So nice to see you both.
Thank you for being here.
David, if someone had arrived in
Washington today from outside
the beltway, and had seen what
went down which was a bipartisan
group of people voting on
something they agreed upon and
that thing moving forward they
would think -- that is
ostensibly what governing looks
like but here it is viewed as
unbelievably unusual.
David: Kudos to speaker Johnson.
To his credit, he has hung in
there and he has bobbed and
weaved to keep his job but in
the end I think he did the right
thing for the country and the
world.
And it was a test.
It is important to respect
democracy.
When you have a broad majority
of people, not only in the house
but also in the country,
including 69% of Republicans
that think Vladimir Putin should
not be allowed to take more land
in Ukraine, and this broad
majority, democracy should
prevail.
The problem in our country is
that over the last few years,
angry minorities have ruled.
William: On this issue of this
angry minority, that has always
been the talk about speaker
Johnson.
He is beholden to them and
cannot cross them.
And yet, today he did.
It sounds like governing.
Do you think this development
today reduces the sword of
damocles over his head otherwise
known as Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Jonathan: Three weeks ago we
talked about Marjorie Taylor
Greene submitting a motion to
vacate.
This week, Tom Massey says I
have a motion to vacate.
And today another member of
congress, a Republican said, I
have a motion to vacate.
That sword of damocles is
getting a little lower.
I agree with David.
It is fantastic finally at
speaker Johnson has put aside
his own professional
considerations, whether he will
hold onto the gavel, in favor of
the broad national security
interests.
The key question for me is, oh
once they vote on this thing,
they vote tomorrow, once that is
done and the motions to vacate
are acted upon assuming they
are, what do Democrats do?
And if they do save speaker
Johnson, is he literally a
Republican in name only speaker.
I don't mean it in terms of the
slur that Republicans mean it
but he would be speaker and a
Republican but the Democrats
would be running the chamber.
William: Lisa was reporting that
she has some off the record
scuttlebutt that Johnson was
offered some, if you bring
these, we will protect you if it
comes to that.
Will that actually materialize?
David: When Johnson got the
speakership, he had to make
concessions to the further right
and put some of those people on
the rules committee.
If I am a Democrat I'm thinking,
the majority.
It won't be Johnson and it will
be someone else that makes more
concessions to the Marjorie
Taylor Greene's in the world and
that will make life worse as a
Democrat.
I think it is in the interest of
the Democrats to say that
Johnson is our best shot at
having a reasonable congress for
the rest of the year.
I'm looking at chip Roy who
voted against the Ukraine aid.
I'm looking to see which way he
goes because I think he would
carry a lot of votes.
But if the Democrats don't hold
up Johnson, I think they would
be butchering the house, --
betraying the house.
Jonathan: I don't think it will
get to that point.
The reason Johnson is bringing
up these bills right now, I
think it is because of
democratic insistence that if
you do this, we will come to
your rescue but not until after
you get Ukraine aid over the
finish line and these foreign
aid bills over the finish line.
William: Let's turn to what is
happening in the Middle East.
Since you were both last year at
this table, Iran shocked
everyone with the extent of the
attack on Israel.
Israel, though they don't admit
it, it, retaliated against that.
Do you believe this tit-for-tat
has stopped temporarily?
David: Before the Iran attack,
Israel's reputation was in
freefall around the world.
Now you see Israel -- all sorts
of countries in the region like
Saudi Arabia are rallying around
Israel but also France, U.K. And
the U.S.
Suddenly, world opinion is back
on Israel side.
And one of the best things that
happened is that Israel had to
respond in some way.
They have to reestablish some
power so they had to prove they
can reach into the middle of
Iran and have an attack if they
want to.
But they did it in a restrained
way and I have to give credit to
the Biden administration for
their pressure because there
were a lot of voices that wanted
massive retaliation.
I thought they did a very
effective retaliation.
Iran's response was muted.
It leads me to believe there is
a bit of a week of
de-escalation.
William: How do you see
president Biden's hand and the
use of American soft and hard
power?
Jonathan: I would amplify what
David said.
I will give the Biden
administration credit.
How many times have we sat at
this table where we talked about
the fact that the Biden
administration from the
president down counseling the
prime minister to not do this or
that and to do this or do that
and have the prime minister
laugh in the face of the
president?
Over the last month now, it
seems as though the come to
Jesus phone call the president
and prime minister had -- since
then, it appears the prime
minister has been listening and
heeding the warning over
all sorts of things they talked
about doing including an
invasion of rafa.
I think the fruit is bearing out
on the president's very
painstaking and patient quiet
diplomacy and public diplomacy.
William: Do you agree that is
what is happening?
That we are seeing a shift?
David: Israel will do what is in
its interests.
It would be a disaster for
Israel and the region long-term
if hamas was allowed to survive.
I'm still reasonably confident
that they will go into rafa.
The question is how they will do
it.
But it is not in Israel's view
to have a multi-front war.
And having a massive retaliation
on Iran, you are looking at a
massive Hezbollah assault and a
multi-front war.
I think they were influenced by
president Biden and they need to
keep the U.S..
But they will still do the
things they need to do.
This was a case in Iran the
case, their interests were
aligned.
William: Biden is on a political
tight rope.
He has said, we stand
steadfastly behind Israel and if
they need to go after hamas, we
are with them.
How much they really are against
the humanitarian disaster
unfolding in gaza is a problem.
There is a clear political
problem.
Not just Columbia university
students protesting but
democratic base voters across
the country turning against that
policy not liking the
president's for Israel.
How do you see him navigating
the as the election gets closer?
Jonathan: It is tough.
You have a situation where you
have a president who has massive
foreign policy credentials
dealing with a prime minister he
has known for about 50 years who
is running a country where the
president says, there is no
daylight between Israel and the
U.S. However, between me and
there prime minister there might
be a line and he is doing
everything he can to solve all
of the crises on the ground over
there.
At the same time, all of his
work over there is not working
to his benefit at home.
As you were just describing, you
have a lot of democratic
constituencies that are not
happy with the president.
I believe the administration
when they say, from the
president down, their
considerations about how they
handling the israel-hamas war,
there are no political
considerations involved in that.
And I think that is one of the
reasons why so many people are
upset.
If the president were playing
politics, he would be doing all
sorts of things to try to please
the people demonstrating and
doing encampments at
universities.
I would say to the people who
are protesting and the young
people who are upset and all of
the folks who are upset at the
president and the
administration, keep thinking
about the thing that president
Obama used to say to criminal
justice activist and others who
were upset with him for not
doing more things on criminal
justice or racial issues.
And he would say to them, I need
you to keep protesting on the
outside because that puts
pressure on me on the inside to
get something done.
And I think that is what is
happening.
David: This aim thing that lbj
was telling mlk.
William: Do you believe that
politics are not getting into
this and that this is just
Biden's core belief?
David: He may tell himself that
story but no human being looks
at it this way.
I don't believe that.
I think the American people
believe a couple things and a
complicated way.
They agree with what Joe Biden
said, that Israel sometimes goes
over the top.
They are also very pro-Israel.
If you look at John Fetterman,
the senator from Pennsylvania
who has been more pro-Israel
then Golda my year, he is doing
well in Pennsylvania.
William: With a very strong --
Israel must defend itself at all
costs -- position.
David: Unabashed.
There is a market to say that
Israel is over the top but also
to say what Biden says, that
Israel has a right.
There are fringes and I think
some of the Columbia protesters
are part of this, and they are
hate filled and bigoted.
When I saw some of the picture
is coming out of Columbia, I
thought of Chicago this summer.
We are going to the convention.
And just like in 1968, there
will be a lot of writing and it
will get ugly.
William: Let's hope it does not
turn that way but history is
leading us in that direction.
David brooks, Jonathan Capehart,
nice to see you both and thank
you.
♪♪