The White House was again juggling major foreign and domestic priorities
this week as president Biden met with allies in Europe while in Washington,
his Supreme Court nominee was in the hot seat.
Discuss another busy week We turn to Brooks and K part that is New
York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, columnist
for The Washington Post. Hello to both of you So good to see you
here on this.
Friday night, a lot to talk about Jonathan. But let's start with
Ukraine. Um, the Ukrainians more than holding their own on a number
of fronts, but the Russians just keep pounding away.
In general. How do you think the West is doing in standing up to
what's going on? Well, I think the West is doing a good job. I mean,
they've been making it very clear. Excuse me, making it very clear.
That if Putin hits a NATO nation that NATO will hit back, the alliance
has been continuing to funnel weapons and things to the Ukrainians
to aid in their fight with the president in Brussels and also in
Poland, but especially in Brussels, with those back to back to back
meetings, NATO, EU and other meetings.
The signal being sent by the president and by the West to Vladimir
Putin is we are united. We are strong and you you will have to contend
not just with the Ukrainians, but with us collectively, if you go
even farther than that, and I think you know it's symbolic, but symbols
matter in in a conflict like this.
Is it? Is it an effective response to what's going on, David? Yeah,
I think so. I mean, if you take them from where we were last week
sitting here, um, humanity is worse off than last week. More people
have been killed. More buildings have been destroyed, so that's one
reality.
The second reality is Russia's a lot worse off economically but particularly
on the battlefield. There was a good piece by Elliot Ackerman in
the Atlantic from Kiev, talking people who are actually doing the
fighting.
And they made three key points. First, we may be leaving the tank
era. The anti tank weapons now are very powerful at destroying tanks
in the way they didn't used to be in Russia as a tank based military
Second, apparently the Russian tactics they're not as a learning
organization. The way we thought were, they were there so top down
the commanders on the ground and even the soldiers on the ground
don't have the choice to make choices to adapt to circumstances,
So they go from a to B and it's very easy for the Ukrainians to
To raid them and then finally morale. There's that famous Napoleon
saying that Morales to the physical as 321.
And it's pretty clear by now. The Ukrainians have pretty high morale.
So, like I said last week, it's time to trust the policy and we've
been ramping it up. But you look at what the Russians said today
what you talked about earlier in the program who knows where that
will lead, But it certainly seems like a plausible out to me if they
want to take that out, you know.
Do what they used to say we should have done in Vietnam, which is
declare victory and go home.
Well, it's it's hard to be patient when we're watching these kinds
of pictures. He's the stories that we're hearing. I do want to ask
you both about the help President Biden himself is doing and Johnson
There was a poll out today. The respected Ann Selzer Grinnell College
Poll, It shows disapproval 48% by 11 points. People disapprove of
his handling.
Compared to 37% approved. But when you ask people what about the
specifics of the administration's policy, namely, should we be sending
armed forces? 70% say No, That's the president's policy. Should we
provide weapons? 72% say Yes, that's the president's policy. Enforce
the no fly zone 52% small majority.
Say no, that's the president's policy. So there is a contradiction.
Um, what do we make of all
this is what drives me crazy about about public opinion polls which
go beyond just tell me what you think about the president's overall
job approval rating when you get into specific things like, how is
he doing with the war?
Books aren't following the war and specific policy things like like
we are. So I discount. You know how you handling the war? What is
more important are the specifics that you just pointed out asking
specific questions, Troops, weapons
and other things.
And it shows that the American people are with the president and
the president has his finger on the pulse of where the American people
want to be with on the war with Ukraine, and all of this will change.
If Putin does the unthinkable chemical weapons or or use a nuclear
device, all bets are off. If that if that happens in my view is if
if you ask the American people, what do you think of President Biden's
policy toward beautiful sunsets?
85% American people say no, I don't really disapprove of breath and
mine's policy toward view. Beautiful sunsets. You know, we live in
a partisan era. When you touch the name Biden or Trump or Republican
or Democrat anything.
And you get instant opposition. So it's it's nothing more than a
measure of partisanship. The question is, if we're really in trouble
as Jonathan mentioned something we get to next step in this work.
Could we unify after 9 11?
If someone really was correctly, George W. Bush's approval rating
was like 92%. It was something insanely high. Could we ever imagined
that again?
It's very hard to imagine that and that means we're just not as resilient
country
As we were when you could get beyond party labels.
But it is a it is. It is notable that they there's agreement with
the policy just as you say, Not when you attach President Biden's
name to it.
The Supreme Court confirmation hearings this week. It was almost
Jonathan a tale of two. It was as if two nominees were sitting there.
Judge Catania Brown Jackson to listen to the Democratic senators.
You would think this was a supremely qualified
Woman who had served for almost a decade in the federal courts to
listen to Republican she soft on crime, she tends to give lenient
sentences.
To people who have engaged in child abuse.
What did you make of the senators of the process of the nominee?
How much time do we have? No, we don't have don't have a lot of time.
It was as if we were watching. Yes, the Supreme Court nomination
hearings of Catania, Brown Jackson but also a re litigation of the
Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Kavanaugh
Ah, on one level
Democrats doing their level best to remind people of just how qualified
Judge Jackson Judge Brown Jackson is
How qualified beyond qualified. She is to serve on the high court
and the Republicans did everything they could to tear her down. Belittle
her experience. Um, call her everything but a child of God telling
a mother that
C is not too soft on crime, but it's fine with with
People peddling in child pornography. It was just appalling. And
I think that what Senator Booker who is even more locations than
I am.
Um
His or aeration.
Um, that made her cry.
I would've cried if my in laws and my mother weren't also sitting
in the living room as we watch this.
When I saw her, wiping away the tears.
I felt that in my bones because I understood
Where that emotion was coming from, You know, in the black community,
we call everyone brother and sister, that brother over there. That's
just that sister over there, and it really wasn't until watching
that that I really
Understood what that meant. I'm about three years older than Judge
Sandra Brown Jackson.
I'm an only child. I don't know her. I've never met her.
But watching her sit. There's we're looking at that picture right
now. I felt as if I was looking. I was watching a relative go through
hell. And to have Senator Booker remind her but remind the country
of why she's there. How hard she worked. How qualified she is to
not let anyone robbed her of her joy. How important that was.
She loves her country. She's
interviewing for a job she's always wanted. And yet we have people
there. Um, just trashing her in ways. We work so hard as African
Americans to get to these spots and to stay in these spots and and
to have to jump through these hoops and be questioned by people.
Who
Aren't even at our level. But yet that's what we have to do to get
in the tent. Get a seat at the table and then to keep that seat.
What did you make of it? Well,
Um and
so moved by them.
Uh, you know, we have a group of, uh, Republican senators who are
not really senators.
Their cable TV host, and they use these hearings as an occasion to
drag up whatever issue is popular with Tucker.
And so whether it's what is a woman or whatever it's going to be.
They're going to ask her about that.
They're not going to ask about judicial philosophy. They're not going
to ask about temperament. They're just going to ask about whatever
the issue of the moment is, and it reached its
Apogee with Ted Cruz, who I spoke about nicely last week and
go back to being a schmuck this week. We don't remember. Uh he's
he likes makes a big kerfuffle and then leans back and checks out
how he's doing on Twitter.
It's like the perfect cycle of Narcissus.
And so these are not hearings on the child pornography issue. Andy
McCarthy, who's a conservative writer from National Review, who happened
to be a prosecutor for 20 years.
Says her position that there should not be mandatory minimums for
people who simply possess some child pornography is absolutely the
right position.
And this is the standard position because some people are stupid
and they do something terrible.
But they shouldn't get a five year minimum because they're not fundamentally
criminals. And so this is McCarthy's case, and that's your case,
but Holly Josh Hawley treats it like she's soft on child abuse.
And so that's just the distortion of the record. Well, well, we let
that sink in as we turn finally to, um, the interview that Lisa Desjardin
I just had with Jane Mayer. And that is
Connected to the Supreme Court. The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas,
Ginny Thomas, new information text that she shared with the White
House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, urging the White House too.
Overturn it work to overturn the election overturned a free and fair
election. And this revelation comes after she granted that interview
where she said that she was at the January 6th rally. She was at
the rally. I think that the January 6th committee needs to
Call her in, have her come in and testify about these things. And
I say that because yes, she's married to Justice Thomas, but it's
not just as Thomas who's sending these text messages. It's not Justice
Thomas.
Who was at in January 6th rally, So we need to remember that the
spouses not the is not the principle, but this spouse should be called
in. Ginny Thomas should be called in to explain.
What are these text messages? What's this about? Um, uh, you know,
Jane Mayer is the preeminent expert on this. And when she said that
she talked to folks who said that Jenny Thomas and
Justice Thomas crossed the line. I want to know how far that line
how far over that line they've gotten. How do you see it? You know
their coats of decorum that hold up the legitimacy of our system.
And the Trump area. We've seen those codes. Speed trashed, and I
would say Ginny Thomas trash those codes just how justices wife should
behavior. It's husband. Whatever it is
Because it implicates
Did it go over the line. I want to Jane is the expert on all this,
but I want to ask Jane
You can't when your spouse has an interest you've gotta recused.
But does that word interest? Does that mean financial interest or
psychological interest? Because in this case, it seems to me Thomas
has a psychological interest. But we all have psychological interests
on right to life cases on civil rights cases, so there's a lot of
interests.
So I want to ask Jane that question about whether it really went
over the line.
And that's a question. We don't have the chance to ask. We're gonna
have to wait a few days
to look at that, but we'll try to. We'll try to figure it out in
the next few days.
David Brooks. Jonathan Capehart. So much to think about this week.