bjbjLULU JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark
Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks. David, how does the president's speech look
to you 24 hours later? (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: Oh, anguished ambivalence, as usual. JIM LEHRER:
Anguished ambivalence? Yes. DAVID BROOKS: You know, it was a very good speech, very
forceful. I was glad he actually had a plan. You contrast it to the last stimulus, or health
care, where he let Congress do a plan. So it was leading from the front. He also, as
he says quite accurately, took ideas from the center. The payroll tax cut, all that
stuff, the infrastructure spending, that is Republican and Democratic plans. There's a
Georgia Works element, where you get unemployment insurance to give people some access to the
labor market. These are all very good ideas. The third thing you have got to be aware of
is, we are in serious peril of a double-dip in recession. And so all these are in favor
of what he said. The doubts I have, one is, will he pay for it? And he sort of was ambiguous
about how aggressive he was going to be in doing that. JIM LEHRER: He said it was paid
for. DAVID BROOKS: He said it was paid for. He said he would announce a plan, but is he
actually going to announce a plan or tell the Congress they should come up with a plan?
A little ambiguity there. And then finally, just the effectiveness of the thing. Infrastructure
spending -- we might be entering a double-dip in recession right now. Infrastructure spending
will take a long time to get going. Payroll tax cuts. When people are nervous, they save
their money. Is that really going to get spent? So I see pros and cons. But on the whole,
I think it's a pretty good package for people in the middle and even a lot of Republicans
and they should walk with the president another few steps to see if they can make it a reality.
JIM LEHRER: What did you think of the speech, Mark? MARK SHIELDS: It was fascinating political
theater to me, in the sense that, ordinarily, when Barack Obama has spoken to the Congress
or a congressional group, he's been cool, and the passion has been in the crowd. And
I found him to be passionate this time, and a certain coolness. I think it would have
been -- I thought it was a good speech. I thought it would have been a better speech
if he had given it when he was at 68 percent approval, rather than 43 percent approval.
But, at the same time, I agree with David's points, that he put the Republicans very much
squarely on the defensive, because these are ideas that Republicans, a number of Republicans
have not only supported in the past, but have advocated and urged upon him. JIM LEHRER:
Do you think his -- his -- the tone of urgency worked? Did he -- did he have it? It's always
been said that he -- it's always been said that he doesn't have that when he talks. MARK
SHIELDS: Well, I mean, I think there's two questions. One, if repetition is the first
law of learning, as Susan Page told us in USA Today today, 37 times in a 34-minute speech
he said jobs. So, that kind of got across as to what really was driving him. And the
fact that, even though it isn't reduced to legislative form yet, that he does have a
specific plan, and not something that you folks are going to work out, I think is a
real -- a real plus, Jim. The reality is -- to me about it is that the electorate at large
wanted him to reach out with bipartisan -- non -- a less partisan approach. He certainly
did that. And his own base wanted him to show more passion and intensity. JIM LEHRER: And
you think he did that? MARK SHIELDS: And he did that. So, I think in that sense, it worked
politically. The big question remains, will he follow through? I mean, remember on health
care, he was going to take it to the country, go to every hamlet and convince people after
the signing of the health care bill. He never did it. Other things intruded. He wasn't just
sitting there playing golf. There were other events. But the question I think that a lot
of questions the Democrats have, is he really -- he did it in Richmond today, but is he
going to continue on this? JIM LEHRER: Do you think that's important, David, that he
has got -- he really has to go to the country with this, or forget it? DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
Well, I think he went to the country on health care. I think he can go to the country. He
is facing a tough public. A lot of Americans have, A., given up on him, but a lot of Americans
have given up on government. When he came into office, he said, I want to restore some
faith in government. But if you look at the polling, do you trust government, it has fallen
in the last two years, continuing really two decades of fall. And now it's down to 17 percent.
So he's facing a very skeptical public. He's facing a public which is, to my mind, insanely
skeptical about stimulus packages in general. The vast, vast, vast majority of people say
the first stimulus did nothing. Now, I didn't like that bill, but it must have done something.
JIM LEHRER: Done something, yes. DAVID BROOKS: Right. So... JIM LEHRER: There's a lot of
lists of things it did, but people don t agree. DAVID BROOKS: Right. Right. JIM LEHRER: Yes.
DAVID BROOKS: So, there's a lot of skepticism out there. And I do think, again, it's important,
especially in Congress, for him to come back next week with a surprising way to pay for
it. He's going to raise taxes on the rich. That's fine. He believes in that. But one
of the things that struck me about the speech last night was the extra emphasis on the Medicare
reform. And he said, some people in my party don't agree with that, but we have to do it.
And if there's a strong element of that, well, then that raises some eyebrows: Oh, he's trying
something new. So, that would be very impressive. JIM LEHRER: Back to Mark's point about repetition,
he didn't say it 37 times, but he said, pass it, pass it, pass it. I didn't count them.
MARK SHIELDS: Sixteen. JIM LEHRER: Sixteen? MARK SHIELDS: Sixteen times. JIM LEHRER: Sixteen
times? MARK SHIELDS: In one form, either pass it or you should pass it, yes. JIM LEHRER:
Are they -- will they pass it? DAVID BROOKS: They could pass part of it. As Eric Cantor
said, there's lots -- if you went back to the debate, the stimulus debate the first
time, when they had the first stimulus bill, there were a lot of Republicans saying this
is a terrible bill. What he should do is cut the payroll tax. Well, now that's what is
in the bill. JIM LEHRER: He's doing it, yes. DAVID BROOKS: So it's very hard to turn around
and say, no, we're not going to do that. MARK SHIELDS: And the president does get credit
for oneupsmanship, because the payroll tax will expire. Now, Republicans have always
insisted that if you let a tax cut expire, that's a tax increase. Now, are they going
to be a part of that? I thought there was one great moment in the speech when he said,
the next election is 14 months away, and the people who sent us here, who hired us to work,
they don't have the luxury of waiting... JIM LEHRER: Fourteen months. MARK SHIELDS: ... 14
months. Some of them are living week to week, paycheck to paycheck, day to day. I thought
that put a human face on the problem like had not been done in the past. DAVID BROOKS:
Yes. It was a very good moment. I thought that was the best moment of the speech. But
it should be said, they have these official numbers of how many jobs are going to be created,
but people in the White House are pretty realistic about this. The real -- I think last summer,
or in the beginning of the summer, they were, OK, let's grind this out. Let's wait for the
economy to slowly bounce back. The news of the summer really is what created this speech,
the fear that we could be in a double-dip. And so their hope -- I don't think they have
extravagant hopes that we're going to jolt the economy into prosperity. If we can stay
even, given what's happening in Europe and things like that, then that will be fine.
JIM LEHRER: The politics of it again, Mark. As we said, as Ray said in the lead-in piece,
the Republican leadership was conciliatory, but the people who want to be the Republican
nominee for president hammered this speech. Why the difference? MARK SHIELDS: Two different
worlds. The Republican House members and Eric Cantor -- I had lunch with him and a bunch
of other reporters, a luncheon hosted by The Christian Science Monitor on Thursday. He
was sweetness and light. He was talking about common ground and finding a point of agreement,
and that that was important. Members of Congress understand, Jim, that American voters are
disgusted with the Congress. They're disgusted... JIM LEHRER: Eighty-two percent of them are,
yes. MARK SHIELDS: That's right -- with the rancor, with the petty partisanship, and so
forth. In the past, what has been the source of consolation for individual members of Congress
is voters have said, can't stand the Congress, but old Charlie, my guy, is OK, or Sally,
they're OK. It's the other 534 horse thieves you have got to watch out for. Well, that's
changed. Now we have seen polls that actually show a majority of people willing to get everybody
out of there. JIM LEHRER: Including Billy Bob. MARK SHIELDS: Billy Bob. JIM LEHRER:
Yes. MARK SHIELDS: Evict them all. JIM LEHRER: Yes. MARK SHIELDS: And so I think that there's
that understanding that people do want a more grownup sense, a sense of working together
and that perception. The presidential candidates exist in a separate world. That's Republican
primary voters. They agree on two things. They're against taxes and they're against
Barack Obama. And that's what sustains them. JIM LEHRER: You see the division the same
way? DAVID BROOKS: Yes, exactly. The presidentials are competing on who can be the most anti-Obama,
which is a different thing than the House. So I agree with that. The one -- only one
thing I would add is, you know, we sit here every fourth Friday and we talk about the
jobs numbers for that month. JIM LEHRER: Right. DAVID BROOKS: And the last time, it was zero.
Well, what happens if next month it's in the negatives and then the month after that? I
don't care where you are on the ideological spectrum. If we have got two negatives, people
are going to want him to do something. And so they might as well be open now for that
possibility. JIM LEHRER: Speaking of the Republicans, the Wednesday debate, what did you think of
that? And were there winners, losers? Give us your report for a second, from your perspective.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I thought it was, A., an excellent debate, one of the best debates
I have seen in many cycles. I thought all these people did quite well actually pretty
much. I thought Mitt Romney did the best, best I have ever seen him, very forceful,
knew what he was trying to do, moments of grace, when he had a chance to attack Rick
Perry and he pulled back. And so I thought that was a sign. If I were Barack Obama looking
at what Mitt Romney did, time to be nervous, if he gets the nomination. Rick Perry is still
the favorite. I thought what was interesting about -- revelatory of his character was,
when he was on the offense attacking people, going after people, I thought he was quite
strong. When he's on... JIM LEHRER: You mean Perry? DAVID BROOKS: Perry. JIM LEHRER: Perry,
yes. DAVID BROOKS: When he is on defense, when somebody is asking him, or when he has
to show sort of conviviality, much less strong. And I was sort of shocked by the ineptitude
of the answers on Social Security and global warming. Any mediocre staff should be able
to give you a decent answer for an entirely predictable question. So, I thought he showed
great strengths and also some pretty good weaknesses. JIM LEHRER: What about Perry?
What's your opinion on Perry? MARK SHIELDS: I defend -- I defend staff. I'm sure that
he was given answers that would pass David's test or anybody else's. That was the candidate's
decision. He wasn't going to retreat. He wasn't going to -- "No excuses, no retreat, no surrender."
JIM LEHRER: That's the way he's going to run right? MARK SHIELDS: "That's in the book.
That's what I wrote." And I think that Rick Perry did meet the question about doubts whether
he could deal in this kind of a national setting. I think he showed himself to be at ease, comfortable
with himself, comfortable with the setting. I think that the problem for him is that he
raised questions about his electability with the answers on Social Security and global
warming that is -- Republicans have to understand, Jim, have dealt with Social Security -- IN
1964, Barry Goldwater made that an issue, and he got crushed by Lyndon Johnson. But,
more recently, in 2005, George W. Bush in his second term raised the question of privatization,
of private accounts even, not even privatization, private accounts for Social Security. That
contributed in the eyes of many Republicans to their losing the Congress in 2006. I thought
Mitt Romney was the best platform performance of his entire career. He showed himself to
be able to take an elbow and to throw an elbow on the jobs question about Texas and Massachusetts.
And I thought his defense of Social Security said: I'm the electable Republican. I'm the
guy you want to go with. JIM LEHRER: Finally, what are your thoughts about 9/11 10 years
later? David? DAVID BROOKS: Well, I mean, everyone has talked about the scars, the wars,
the cost in life, and blood and the de-morale -- low morale and the low position, America's
standing in the world. And so that's pretty obvious. I would just emphasize some of the
positive things that have happened since 9/11 because of U.S. actions. Saddam is out. Gadhafi
is out, not all because of U.S. actions. Taliban is out. Mubarak is out. There has been a change
in the world. Al-Qaida has been destroyed. We haven't been attacked again. And so I would
say it's at least a mixed blessing and that, after 9/11, the Middle East is in a period
of turmoil, could turn out bad, could turn out good. But given that that part of the
world was in a decline, cultural, economic and political, the fact that there's turmoil
is potential good news. So, there is an upside to all the things that have happened since
9/11. JIM LEHRER: Mark? MARK SHIELDS: I disagree. I think that to use 9/11 as a justification
for going to war against Saddam Hussein is indefensible. It was indefensible then is
indefensible against -- war on Iraq and a war of occupation. The United States now has
two wars of occupation 10 years later. I think Afghanistan, you could certainly make the
case, after the attack of 9/11, that that was necessary and required. There was a sense
of national unity and solidarity and compassion that existed in this country after 9/11, which
is gone. It's no longer, no longer with us. The United States' standing in the world,
that sense of solidarity with the United States and support for the United States after the
terrible events of 9/11 has been allowed to go away. I agree with David about the Arab
spring. And I think it is encouraging, and I -- but I don't think that going to Iraq
is an instrument of it. JIM LEHRER: Well, on that note of disagreement, thank you both
very much. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you. h{XC h{XC urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
City urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags place urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
State urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags country-region JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis
of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David
Brooks Normal Microsoft Office Word ,7(Fo JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields
and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks Title
Microsoft Office Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8