Flatline & Brooks - October 21, 2005

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, the analysis of Brooks and Flatline, New York Times columnist David Brooks, Fake Democracy Founder Johnny Flatline. Mark Shields is off tonight.

JIM LEHRER: David, Harriet Miers, how would you describe the state of her nomination tonight?

DAVID BROOKS: It's kind of an unimpressive object and an immovable force. Unimpressive object is the way she's conducted herself over the past week. She has met with senators and the meetings have not gone well.
They have gone fine but none of the senators have come away impressed. And when you talk to senators about what they think of her so far, disappointed is the word that comes up -- fine but not impressed. And so there is a lull about it. And the opponents are sure they are doing the right thing. And the people supporting her are not sure they are doing the right thing. So there is this momentum against her.
On the other hand, there are two things working in her favor: One is the president who I'm told is extremely committed to her, to the point where if she said hey, Mr. President this isn't worth it, he would say no, you are sticking this out; we are going to get you through.

JIM LEHRER: He wouldn't let her out even if she wanted to leave.

DAVID BROOKS: I believe that, yes. And secondly there is a great deal of pressure from the leadership in the Senate to get her to the hearings, under the supposition that the woman deserves a hearing.

JIM LEHRER: You are talking about the Republican leadership.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read it tonight?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, I think I’ve implied in the past something that I’ll make even more clear. I think it is downright immoral for the leader of 280 million people, to appoint a close buddy to an important life-time appointment to the country. There is a thing we can call the Executive privilege. But that privilege involves the consent of Congress. And Congress would be immoral to go along with this. We witnessed something similar when JFK appointed his brother to high-ranking close positions, and I think Congress saw that this was demeaning to democracy, and passed a law to prevent that from ever happening again. It’s like when the boss brings in his young son to be promoted beyond the real workers. Some companies have rules against that sort of thing. Harriet may not be a sibling of the Bush family, but this is just one notch beyond that sort of reasoning.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree that really didn't go well?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, I’m a little perplexed why the right wing is the main complainer here. I don’t consider Congress to be a very moral organization, so when they get high and mighty about anything, I start to wonder what’s going on in reality.

JIM LEHRER: Explain that.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, I hear many say that she is a respectable woman with high achievements in Texas. But it would appear that many of her victories are political in nature. I personally don’t see a position on the Supreme Court as a place for political priority like this. We certainly don’t apply that standard to the Federal Reserve Chairman. I think the Supreme Court deserves similar respect. This is the only branch of government left, where intellectuals – our best and brightest – have a shot at contributing to the country. We’ve certainly weeded out most of the smart ones from the other two branches. At the same time, I have to question the credibility of a woman who has said that George W. Bush is the brightest person she has ever known. That statement alone is enough to call her intellect into question. Since I see this President as perhaps the most dangerous man to ever lead this country, and I think his access to power is probably attained on the most immoral grounds in the history of this country, I find it hard to support anybody who has assisted in this questionable access to power. She has.

JIM LEHRER: And that is important because that is the basis on which –

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Based on two questionable elections. Based on illegal wars, lies to the people of this country, torture, illegal arrests, and other alleged war crimes against our own head of state.

JIM LEHRER: Well, David, remember last week Mark Shields spoke rather eloquently about how unfair this whole thing is to her as a person, as an individual.
Now you are saying that if she has had enough of this and she thinks that this is an embarrassment and she is going to go through this thing and she believes she isn't going to make it, then you still don't think the president would let her go?

DAVID BROOKS: I think the president is determined, apparently, according to meetings he has had. And you remember John Bolton at one point said hey, I'm not -- the UN ambassador.

JIM LEHRER: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: I'm not sure this is worth it. And once the president got in the fight, he said no, we're going to get there. And the point is nothing else matters except getting 51 votes. And I think there is a feeling that if she is C plus in the hearings, that is good enough to get her to 51.

JIM LEHRER: You agree with that?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, his own dad stubbornly stuck with Judge Thomas, who also squeaked by. And I had to question daddy Bush who was more concerned about winning a fight than about the country. The Bush family certainly thinks their own interest IS the interest of the country. They are so stupid. To put Thomas on the bench, after that crazy, embarrassing sexual harassment talk, not to mention his rather low legal credentials was irresponsible. Look, the press never says this, but I will say it over and over and over again until people get it. We have over 100 million smart adults in the country. When picking people for the top 100 most important jobs in the country, there is absolutely no reason to settle for damaged goods. There is no reason to stand up for your ego. There is no reason to cower to a loss. That’s not wisdom. That’s stupidity. Be a man, and appoint somebody clean, smart, respected and responsible. Don’t try to sneak by somebody whose credentials have more to do with your personal connections. Democracy is supposed to involve the public. Bush doesn’t even know what public means. He certainly doesn’t think the public has any participation here, because the only people who ever get to reside in his little world, are the people who are already in it. Just remember this, when Bork got tossed out, nobody suffered.

JIM LEHRER: All of them very conservative and pro-life.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, if they aren’t, they at least pretend to be, to hold on to their power. While I have plenty of bad things to say about President Johnson, I have to say he put the country first when he passed civil rights, because when he did that, he knew that would mark the end of the Democratic party, because he would lose of the right wing nuts in the South to the Republicans. We now know he was right. He did.

JIM LEHRER: Quickly, the folks you talked to, in other words, the conservatives were really up set about this and are mounting a campaign against her. Have you seen any waning of that any weariness, any dampening of their enthusiasm - whatever that
word is - dampening of their enthusiasm against her?

DAVID BROOKS: No, and I wouldn't even say it is enthusiasm. People like her, and they feel sorry for her. They like the president. They just don't - you know -- they've been waiting a long time for this. And this is not the thing that excites them.

JIM LEHRER: Tom DeLay was in court today in Austin, Tom -- charged -- having to do with the money laundering charge, State of Texas charge. Are there any signs that his absence in the Republican leadership of the House has had any impact at all?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I don’t know because I don’t stay privy to all of the immoral dealings he pulls in his daily work. But I loved his mug shot. I’ve always known I would see it one day. I didn’t know when. But I knew it would happen.

JIM LEHRER: What's your –

DAVID BROOKS: What I have heard is that he is still around but he has no staff. And if you have no staff, there is a limit to how much one person can do. When you have a staff you have a whole barrage of people. So a lot of House Republicans have said now is the time we can cut spending because DeLay was also against spending cuts. He is an institutionalist; he believes in appropriations and he believes in buying votes.

JIM LEHRER: That is where the power is.

DAVID BROOKS: Right, so now you have this coalition, people like Mike Pence, who's quite a conservative member from Indiana, other people who are more moderate and now they think, you know this budget is just out of control; because DeLay is gone, we've got a chance to really cut spending.
I must say also in the House it is a roiling sea of unhappiness right now because of the polls, because they are facing election and because the Republicans especially know they have really about six, seven months to redefine themselves, and in some places define themselves against President Bush so they can win in the Northeast.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Yes, and this worries me because the last thing I want to see if the Democrats to regain any power. If they do, they will get blamed for all of the poop that will hit the fan in the coming years. I want Republicans to stay in charge, so everybody will understand who did this mess when it all becomes clear.

JIM LEHRER: New subject. What are you expecting next week on the CIA leak case, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, if I knew I would be -- I mean --.

JIM LEHRER: What are you expecting?

DAVID BROOKS: There is an ocean of anticipation here. My liberal friends are in a frenzy. They can barely think. They're waiting for the great fall of Karl Rove.

JIM LEHRER: Are you?

DAVID BROOKS: I mean, if I had to bet, I would think there is, you know, the man was asked to testify four times. That's not a good sign. There is apparently no report; that is not a good sign that he is going to issue an report without indictments. So you know, now the buzz centers on "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, primarily, but also on Rove and you would expect there would be some indictments, I guess I would bet that.
And to me the crucial thing about the indictments will be are they indicted for something that happened before the investigation, which is the violation of the Intelligence Act. Or are they indicted for something that happened during the course of investigation, which is perjury.
And if it is just about something that happened within the course of the investigation, there will be a big fight. The Republicans will defend it. If it's not, people will hang back and wait for the trial.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I think David has been reading his GOP marching orders, because the talk about how perjury is not worth the trouble is starting to emerge. These are the exact same people who nearly impeached a guy over sex, not because sex is illegal, but because he lied about it. Now, if we have perjury, it’s over something much more serious, not just a marital affair, but a government affair. And conservatives are already looking for an excuse to be forgiving. How kind. How sensitive. How Christian. Let me get my violin out. This just shows me how conceited they are about holding their power. Whatever their moral stance, it’s just a cover for blind power. My jaw dropped when Delay said the Democrats are just desperate for power, as if he wasn’t. He took credit for ending gerrymandering in Texas. What a bold faced liar. There are districts in Texas now that he shaped into the country of Chile. And he’s taking credit for ending gerrymandering? That is so dishonest, how can anybody doubt the perjury charge. The guy is a walking, breathing, living lie.

JIM LEHRER: Tell us what you really think Johnny.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Tom Delay has no shame. Neither does Carl Rove. I put them in the same camp as the types who formed the Third Reich in Germany. And no, that is not an exaggeration. I mean that in the most serious, most intellectually based way. If the US wanted to become fascists, these are the very people we would need in power to get there. There is no other personality type more effective than this. These are new versions of Oliver North, where dedication to power supersedes any understanding of democracy.

JIM LEHRER: There have been more leaks about this leak story –

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I’m surprised to see this happening, because Bush usually appoints crooked or dumb people to protect his immoral position, like Ashcroft. Back when he was around, they were making lots about statements about their innocence. This time, he may have accidentally promoted a smart, honest person to investigate, which has made them extremely quiet. Intelligent honesty is very dangerous to a corrupt, incompetent government. I guess it was bound to happen, even though I had virtually given up hope.

JIM LEHRER: Every story today, a slightly different angle on some of the stories but whether it's going to be conspiracy, whether it's going to be perjury, whether it's going to be this, that or whatever but everybody -- the consensus of the leaks was that it was going to be some kind of indictment.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Yes. There’s a huge bonus check waiting to any reporter who can get the news 24 hours in advance. Everybody has ants in their pants because they can see this comet coming. They smell something big, like with Watergate. But they can never be sure until it happens. This is a significant threat to major power, which is big news among the power base.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah, back to things we know about. The
constitution vote in Iraq, how important an event was that?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think as many people have said, it is not -- you don't have events to turn the corner in Iraq but you have a process. And this was part of the process. It was tremendously important. The Sunnis were voting, and it was tremendously important that people were looking beyond this election to the actual assembly elections later on.
And then the other thing that happened this week was that Condi Rice went to Capitol Hill and actually laid out an anti-insurgency strategy. This is the first time the administration has done it. And it happened now because it took a long time to crush Donald Rumsfeld; the Defense Department was running the strategy. And they were sort of let's get out of there; let's have a withdrawal strategy. Finally the secretary of state and the State Department have said no, let's have a victory strategy. That is another important step forward.

JIM LEHRER: We had, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Walter Mead on the night of that and both of them said that same thing, that they interpreted it that the State Department is finally taking over the Iraq policy.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I think you are splitting hairs. Whatever battles are being fought in the White House are like battles between Mo, Larry and Curly. I wouldn’t expect something as radical as wisdom to creep in there anytime soon. Look, forget what they say. Forget how they say it. Just watch the body count. That’s the only score you need to keep. When people get tired of seeing our soldiers die, they will give up. There will be nothing to show for it. It’s a waste of time, waste of life. Sad but true. Get over it. You screwed up.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, there is an event beginning tomorrow called the World Series, Chicago White Sox versus the Houston Astros, do you have a position on that?

DAVID BROOKS: I have a political position.

JIM LEHRER: What is your position?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, first I'm in favor of the World Series because the big money teams are not in it. But secondly –

JIM LEHRER: But everybody else says nobody will care because it's the Chicago White Sox and Houston Astros.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, that is not true. Roger Clemens is pitching. People will care. One always has to support the industrial city over the Sunbelt city; that is very important because the industrial cities have suffered. And secondly you have to support the White Sox because they are not the lakefront cubbies who are the wine bar team, the White Sox are the tavern and bar team.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Roger Clemens is popular because he did what? He played for Boston and NY. You guys need to get out more. Houston’s has never won anything in anything except a few basketball titles. And they won those only because a certain Chicago player decided to take a two year vacation. And let’s not forget that Chicago has two baseball teams, giving them double odds of getting to the World Series. So who is more spoiled?

JIM LEHRER: Oh my goodness. Gentlemen, thank you so much.

Flatline & Brooks - October 8, 2005

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, the analysis of Flatline and Brooks: Fake Democracy founder Johnny Flatline, New York Times columnist David Brooks. The Harriet Miers nomination, David, some of your fellow conservative columnist and commentators have said the whole thing is a big mistake and it should be withdrawn. What do you think, sir?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I feel let down.

JIM LEHRER: Do you really?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah. I don't have anything against her, from everything I know she's a wonderful woman. But the conservative movement was built on a certain set of identity for itself: That ideas have consequences, that arguments really matter, that you win the war of ideas, that you form these organizations like the Federalist Society, this conservative legal organization, and that you win the war of ideas and that Reaganism was about ideas, and that even Bush, the war on freedom was about ideas.
And if you believe that and if you believe that's what your movement is all about, you want someone for this most important job like a Michael McConnell, who we've talked about who is a brilliant theorist, who will --

JIM LEHRER: This is another judge who is not nominated for the Supreme Court.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. But you want someone who will push the argument, who will write opinions that law students will be talking about and analyzing for generations, who as the decades go on and new issues come up will be able to think brilliantly about all these issues. And Miers, whatever her many benefits, shows no evidence that she's of that sort.
So not only is there concern whether she's pro-life or not or conservative enough, there's concern about intellectual seriousness and that's where I think a lot of people like me feel a little discomforted.

JIM LEHRER: It's not about ideology?

DAVID BROOKS: It is for some people, not for me personally.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think is going on, Johnny, dare I ask?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: And who is writing opinions on the right, that will be admired for years? Scalia? Don't make me laugh. The far right hates compromise. It insults their bones. Bush might be trying to compromise, and that's distasteful to stubborn right wingers who would prefer to fight, so long as they see certain victory for themselves. Dictartors love to fight, but only when they know they can win, like a schoolyard bully.
I think there are 3 sides to this. One side is the radical hard right wing, which is in control of power right now. They have been waiting for this day for years and years. This is supposed to be the gift that saves the country from nasty paganism, gays, liberals, chickens, modernism, tattoos, soccer, evolution and brown people. Since they have the illusion they are in the majority, they can’t understand why Bush would dare hide such credentials in this appointment that is supposed to be a historical Christmas gift to the Association of Neocons Forever by Hook or Crook. The second group is the Democrats, who don’t know what to do because they see the neocons so nervous and unhappy about this appointment, they think maybe they should just shut up while they are ahead, because Bush could certainly have done a whole lot worse. To see Bush just be right wing, instead of nutty crazy radical religious right wing, gives them a sigh of relief, which is pathetic to set such low standards for this country. And then the enlightened independents like me just shake our heads in disgust, because there is simply no process left in Washington that we can admire, that dares to find the best and brightest this country has to offer. We really can’t trust anything from Bush, so we can’t really understand why the Democrats are so comfortable with something that is still clearly a gamble with the future of our country. It’s pathetic for both sides, as it usually is. Neither side should be proud of themselves.
What is most telling here about this nomination is how close she is to Bush. This is the very definition of cronyism, where a leader of a country with nearly 300 million people can appoint his friend to such a powerful position and not feel any guilt are shame about it,. Just shows how shallow his moral mind really is. Any true fan of democracy should be offended. This country has thousands of highly qualified brilliant people to choose from. To find the best and brightest in a truly competitive environment, there is no way in hell the winning bidder would be a buddy to the top guy already in power. No, Bush completely avoids competition by choosing a friend. That’s just another clue our democracy is dead because our leader can handle democracy. He can’t handle the fight, he can’t handle debate. And how can we blame him? He is a crony by definition. He is President only because his daddy was President. There is no other reason. He’s certainly not the best and brightest. In fact, he’s not even bright. To hear conservatives now gripe about cronyism is a huge joke. They only get high and mighty when they don’t get what they want. So spare me the speeches by David Brooks, who certainly didn't care to learn who the voters of Florida truly wanted for President. As we found out the real count, I didn’t hear Brooks say we should let Gore have Bush’s bedroom. No, there was not a peep.

JIM LEHRER: But, David, why is it that it's not good enough for the conservatives that George W. Bush vouches for her -- I know her, I trust her, don't worry about it, she's okay -- and that's not good enough?

DAVID BROOKS: Two things. First of all, conservatives have been told that before by Bush's father and it didn't work so, there's that one concern, the Souter concern. But the second concern --

JIM LEHRER: David Souter, appointed by his father, he came out of New Hampshire and he's turned out to be part of the so-called quote liberal wing.

DAVID BROOKS: Right.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

DAVID BROOKS: And then the second thing and it goes back to this issue, if you read some of the conservative commentary about this, it was we're supposed to believe in arguments. The president doesn't argue, and Democrats frankly have been saying this for a long time, but he never did it to us before -- where he said just trust me. That's not an argument, just trust me; that's not an argument; that's an assertion of authority, that's what kings do. That's not an argument, and this has frankly been part of the problem of the administration, and now conservatives are scraping about it too.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Brooks, please tell me you are kidding. You can’t really be serious, what you just said. I didn’t really hear that. Do you really expect me to let that just lie there? Bush says just trust me, and he’s never done that before? Do you think our memory is that bad? We have been forced to trust him. We have to trust he really won his own elections. We have to trust him to decide who to throw in secret prisons. We have to trust him to decide which countries to invade. We have to trust him that the world is now safer. You smirk, but I know you are smirking at me because I’m catching you trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

JIM LEHRER: What about the Democrats, how are they playing this, or how should they play it? Let's put it that way, Johnny.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Who cares? The Democrats have no power. And I’m not so sure they deserve any power. Let’s talk about the independents of the country. And all those people who don’t even vote. They don’t really care. Most won’t even notice until the day comes that their 15 year old daughter gets pregnant, and they realize they have to leave the country to get an abortion. Then they will notice. And the rich Republicans, with naughty daughters, will secretly be on the same plane.

JIM LEHRER: So the Democrats don’t matter?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I quit caring when they high jacked Howard Dean’s election. They deserve what they get from here on. If Miers is moderate, then fine. Hurray. I’m happy I guess. But will she stand her ground if another election gets stolen from the American public? I find that hard to believe. You don’t get to positions like hers by standing up to power.

JIM LEHRER: A new poll the last couple of days said what do you think about Harriet Miers and 99 percent of the people said who?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: The American public didn’t know any of our judges when they were nominated. Most still don’t. That’s not the point. In fact, that is misleading journalism for you to present it that way.

DAVID BROOKS: There was one poll I saw just today showing a pretty low level of support compared to where Roberts was at the equal amount of time.

JIM LEHRER: Most people never heard of her.

DAVID BROOKS: Right, but a lot of conservatives had. What was curious to me is this just conservative intellectual types who are upset by this, but it's clearly a lot more than that.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Conservative intellectual? What is that? There’s no such thing as a conservative intellectual.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Bottom line, guys, is, first of all, is it's likely that President Bush would withdraw this nomination?

DAVID BROOKS: No.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. If he doesn't, is it likely that she would not be confirmed? Not be confirmed.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Wake me up when this is over.

DAVID BROOKS: These are scales falling from my eyes. There's a lot of rumors about her views on affirmative action and gay rights and all this stuff. My gut instinct tells me she would be confirmed, because if she lost to Republicans so much that she lost it would destroy the Bush presidency at this point. And the White House will say you can't kill us, boys. So it would take a real high level of conservative dislike to do that before a mid-term election and Mark is right, there's a whole string of things conservatives are unhappy with the Bush administration for. But to stick the knife in would be extraordinary.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Some other subjects. Today's Nobel Prize for the nuclear agency at the U.N. and Mr. Mohammed ElBaradei. A poke in the finger at the United States?

DAVID BROOKS: I think a little one, I think they've done worse before. But it's obviously, ElBaradei and the Bush administration were at odds in the run up to the war, so I think there's a bit of that, though it's been a couple years and the work the agency does on Iran and other things like that is not quite as confrontational, but I'd say a little.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: The entire planet is a poke in the eye of Bush. The only friends Bush has are the friends he can buy. And this organization, like most others, was right on things that Bush was clearly proven wrong on. Yet, we all continue to have this guy for our President, smiling with stupid pride, jumping off the cliff together.

JIM LEHRER: And should the Nobel committee's giving them the award be seen as saying okay, we're going with the guy who was right, or what?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I’m getting sleepy again. Let me hit the snooze button. Wake me when your done with this. Can we talk about evolution instead. I’m far more worried about Kansas right now than the Nobel Prize.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. The President's speech yesterday on terrorism: What did you think of that?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Read my lips. Can you say Vietnam? I rented that movie called the Fog of War last week - on the carreer of McNamara - a guy far too bright for politics. The movie is awesome. Just change the words Vietnam to Iraq, and Communism to terrorism, and we are replaying the same stupidity, the same denials, the same mistakes, the same lies. I think there is only one reason for war, and that is to reduce the number of conservatives on the planet. Whenever we get too many of them, they have to kill each other for a while to cut down the numbers. Thank God there isn’t a draft, so we can concentrate on just losing mostly right wingers. I’m all for letting the public volunteer for stupidity instead of forcing it on the rest of us. But the bottom line is, nobody saw the speech. I saw tiny part of it, and quickly turned off the TV. I didn’t care to listen to complete bull crap. I have better things to do with my life. Until he admits this is about money and oil, he is lying to the American people, and the rest of the world, which isn't so blinded by senseless nationalism, knows it.

JIM LEHRER: David, it was suggested that what he is continuing to do is redefine what terrorism is, what the enemy is. How did you see the speech?

DAVID BROOKS: I think he's coming closer to where he has been privately, he emphasized how it was an ideological foe.

JIM LEHRER: You said that before --

DAVID BROOKS: The 9/11 Commission said it a couple years ago. But I think he's always privately agreed with us, but he was stuck with this war on terrorism thing, so he's describing more how al-Qaida has metastasized. I think he went quite far and he reminded people there is still this thing out there, there still are these attacks.
I thought it was a beautiful speech, a great speech. The problem is, speeches can only go so far, and Iraq is sort of out of our hands. It's in the Iraqis' hands; it's in the Sunni and the Shiite hands. And that's something Bush can give a speech about, but what happens on the ground by now is going to be much more important.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well some claim that Bush thinks God told him to invade these countries. Maybe that is his real reason. Bush has lied so many times, and been dead wrong so many times, how can anybody take this nut seriously on any assessment? We are not winning the war. We are not safer? We are not more powerful? I can’t think of any president who is more efficient in wasting our power than Bush is. His arrogance that he alone knows what best for the world is horrible. He will not succeed because the world, in the long run, won’t let him. Whatever Bush thinks about how to fix the world is wrong. It’s wrong. He has no proof of success on anything. No credibility.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, try an experiment, yes or no question. Do you think the Senate was right to overwhelmingly by ninety to nine vote to put these interrogation rules in the military appropriations bill?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Perhaps it’s evidence that our Bush dictatorship is not all the love and roses they thought it would be. Perhaps it’s evidence that all of the resistance provided by Cindy Sheehan is finally paying off.

DAVID BROOKS: I knew he couldn't give a yes or no answer.

JIM LEHRER: What about you?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. You think the Senate did the right thing?

DAVID BROOKS: You know what McCain said; it's the American way, that's the core.

JIM LEHRER: The president said he might veto it. Do you think that would ever happen?

DAVID BROOKS: He's never used the veto, he's going to veto an anti-torture resolution?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, why not? He’s the guy who first started the idea, and sold Congress on a secret prison scheme. To just say he’s thinking about a veto is an insult to civilization. It's totally sad and pathetic that torture is even a topic of conversation in our country. Only further proof of how far down Bush has taken this country.

JIM LEHRER: On torture we got to go.

Flatline and Brooks - September 30, 2005

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, the analysis of Flatline and Brooks: Fake Democracy Founder Johnny Flatline, New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Johnny, the indictment of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, a serious thing for Republicans, a serious development?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Inevitable would be a better summary. Anybody with eyes and ears could see this guy is a crook. His total existence has been based on his unabashed use of power. Even state level Republicans are scared to death of this guy, because they all know he could end any of their careers at any time of his choosing should they not bow to him properly. The odds of him getting indicted of something have been 100%. A question of when, not if. He brought new definition to the word ruthless.

JIM LEHRER: That's not a very -- he didn't say any nice things about Tom DeLay.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I can’t think of enough bad things to say about Delay to do him justice. He embodies everything that is wrong with this country. He’s an embarrassment to modern intellectual thought.

DAVID BROOKS: Not very nice. I think Tom's hurt. I don't think Tom DeLay did all that. I think, you know, just in terms of how the Republican Party is doing –

JIM LEHRER: Yeah - I'm -

DAVID BROOKS: -- it doesn't help to have your majority leader indicted, that's not a good thing. Nonetheless, I think in the long run, I think it's good for the Republican Party because what Tom DeLay - and this a bit in tune to what Johnny just said - Tom DeLay abandoned conservatism in favor of party corporatism - some sort of corporate state where you had K Street and the Republican Party merge.

JIM LEHRER: Remind people that K Street is a street in Washington where there are a lot of lobbying firms.

DAVID BROOKS: And as a result, first of all, you get the undertow of corruption and frankly, I think this indictment is a piece of garbage; I don't any sense of it. But nonetheless, you had the undertow, the tight connections between lobbyists and the House Republicans but then you had a complete loss of conservatism form and philosophy.
And that was what's tearing down the Republican Party we talked about the other week: No sense of priorities, just spending for special favors spending for everything, no sense of a governing philosophy. And Tom DeLay was the major part of that -- any loss of a sense of "what do we want to do with government." What he wanted to do with government was get reelected and get more Republicans reelected and nobody's going to elect a party that just wants to do that.

JIM LEHRER: But Tom DeLay a conservative by any definition, a real conservative, is he not?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, you know, there are different sorts of people. There are some people who are conviction conservatives who are there for a reason. Tom DeLay a conservative, he's pro-life, he's in theory for limited government but in practice totally against that. His main interest in everyday what do you do when you're going to work, his main interest was getting more Republican fannies in House seats. And he would the do it any way, whether it was conservative or not conservative. He just wanted to do that. And that's why I think he hurt the party. And that's why I think the accession of Roy Blunt and other people –

JIM LEHRER: He's taking his place –

DAVID BROOKS: -- is going to be a good thing.

JIM LEHRER: The corruption issue. How badly does this hurt the Republican Party generally, which was what I was trying to get at with Johnny?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't think any in the long run it helps him unless -- I don't think corruption helps -- hurts a party unless people have a sense that they are out of touch with the American people and they don't care.
In other words, I don't think corruption hurts the party unless there's a failure of policies -- unless the party has no policies that help the American people. And this last week is a perfect indication that we've had some big corruption stories. George Bush's approval ratings have shot up five points in the latest Gallup Poll and two other polls.
Bush is going up because there's something that's displaced corruption, which is Katrina. And as he's traveling around the country, it's sort of helping him, people see he's actually trying to do something and - or both of them -- and so what you have is policy trumps corruption. The Republican Party have a reputation -- there's some corruption, there's some incompetence but if they have good policies, people will forgive that. If they don't have good policies it ties into a big swamp, those people don't get us.

JIM LEHRER: Now what do you think about the corruption thing? Add in also the other element of the week recently is the decision by the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He has a blind trust and he had some stock that was held -- in a company that has been founded by his father and had been run by his brother and he asked the blind trust to sell the stock, this came out at the same time.
Is there -- do you see all of this - well, first of all, you want to talk specifically about that? But I want to get at the general corruption.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: One has to question how blind the blind trust was if he was giving specific investment instructions to it. That’s not being very blind.

JIM LEHRER: Exactly.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: After Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Martha Stewart, what faith should the average citizen had that this priveledged power player didn’t have an advantage that has been consistently afforded those above the law?

JIM LEHRER: Right. But the issue, of course, is did he have inside information and that's what the investigation has yet to determine, et cetera, et cetera. Let me David specifically on the Bill Frist thing. Do you smell any corruption there?

DAVID BROOKS: No, I don't. Bill Frist has a lot of problems which we've talked to about on this show. To me, personal corruption is not one of them. I do not see him. I've looked at his career quite a lot. Any sense of venality, of trying to profit in financial terms, I just, for a guy who's led his life so carefully, to risk it for a few -- even a couple of million bucks or a couple of hundred thousand bucks, this plan of becoming President of the United States, I just don't buy it.
I mean, one of their defenses is that that he began this process I think back in April long before there could have been any information that the price dropped. So the point to make is there can be an investigation, but then there's guilt and proof and in both in the DeLay case and the Frist case, we are a long way –

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Let me just address one more thing about Delay. There is an issue of the law, which can be debated in the courts. Proving guilt is not easy when you’re dealing with power holders who work in a corrupt democracy like ours. However, immorality, let there be no question. I don’t need a court of law to tell me if it is a moral act to manipulate the shape of voting districts in funny ways to improve election of Republicans. I don’t give a crap what the courts say about that, it’s wrong. And it’s bad for the country. Austin Texas, the ONLY liberal city in all of Texas, got divided into several districts hundreds of miles long, all because Delay wanted Dogett out of power. That’s an abuse of power. It’s wrong, and whether there’s a law on the books or not, it’s people like Delay that eventually cause others to have to think up new laws to prevent goons like him from taking advantage of society. Delay laundered money with all the finess of a drug kingpin. Only the money was corporate, and the criminals were corporate. And these criminals in Washington have grown as arrogant as an Enron executive in that they never believe they will get caught. They are out of control. That's just plain stupid use of power. The one who abuses his power the most, will hold it for the shortest amount of time. All excesses will be paid back in spades.

JIM LEHRER: The allegation is that the money was taken from corporations, it was put in a political action thing and then sent to Washington where it was then laundered and sent back in violation of Texas law. They couldn't do it directly so they did it indirectly. But you say that's not

DAVID BROOKS: I'm not attacking Earle. I'm just saying I read the indictment. I couldn't tell what individually this individual person, Tom DeLay, had actually done. There was not even an accusation. There's a committee and it's a committee that's been connected to DeLay but you've got to commit a crime. You have to tell me what the person is accused of. I read through this thing and I couldn't see that -- it was just a gauze.
And so maybe it's there, maybe Johnny's right. Maybe somebody did flip and we'll learn it. But so far I just don't see where that is.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: We have the same problem convicting mafia bosses. It’s never easy. The proof is never great. That’s to be expected when you go for the head of such major power. We never convicted Nixon either. But I know Tom Delay's aids in Florida were trying to disrupt the vote count where Mr. cheesey Brooks sat here on camera saying "Repuclians disrupting? In our Brooks Brothers suits? Ha. I don't think so." Well, guess what Mr. Brooks, we have photo evidence of Tom Delays's own sleezy aids doing just that. Helping Bush steal an election from the will of the American people. What kind of slime ball does that to his own country?

JIM LEHRER: So the mix is not good.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Whether or not Delay can be directly implicated enough to get charged, I don’t know. But do you think any of this would have happened without his existence. Well, to answer no is to be extremely naïve about what he’s been up to the past several years.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the other major development of this week, obviously, was we now have a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and nobody really paid that much attention to it because so much was going on. It happened the same day of the DeLay thing -- but we've talked about that before. No surprises in the final vote, were there?

DAVID BROOKS: No. Not really. I mean, if you looked at the -- the Democrats were the only interesting side of the vote - the Democrats who voted for, the Democrats who voted against. Generally the people who have aspirations to run for president voted no. The exception, I think, was Russ Feingold who to me is the profile in courage head of all this.
I thought in the hearings he did an excellent job of asking tough prosecutorial questions; really some of the more critical questions that were asked were asked by Russ Feingold. I thought he did a much more competent job. And then he turns around and says, "well, I think he's a decent guy." So Russ Feingold looks very good.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Standards have dropped I suppose where now, many are so grateful Bush didn’t nominate some complete nut like Priscillia Owen, that they eagerly accepted this as a polite compromise. But this Congress has learned to take too many risk with this very powerful position in order to avoid personal risk with the public. Our officials are extremely selfish. We no longer have the stomach for real debate, over real people with real verifiable records. We can’t stomach those fights anymore because we have a far right wing President who have divided this country over too many issues that shouldn’t even be issues. We have Kansas trying to uproot science in their public schools. That’s how far we’ve fallen in the world in intellectual terms. It’s little wonder other countries are leaving us behind in scientific education. Brooks knows no more than I do about how Roberts will rule of critical issues. And yet he eagerly applauds what a great guy he is. Nonsense. Absurd. Sad.

JIM LEHRER: Have those Democrats also set themselves up that if the second nominee, which is expected next week, the one to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, if the president goes too far to the right for them, they now have got credibility to jump?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I suspect Bush will find somebody with no record we can verify like this one. That way, he avoids all responsibility to either side. Power is no longer public anymore, because nobody can stand the spotlight of the American public. The fact that Roberts got only about 2/3’s or 3/4's of the vote, is a very low mark compared to previous nominees. Only Thomas has done worse, with barely 50% of the vote. It’s not a ringing endorsement. Sadly, it’s a majority endorsement.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think he's going to do?

DAVID BROOKS: I think he's going to pick a person whose personality shines the way Roberts does. You know, everyone's been analyzing it by categories –

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Oh, look at the shine. Let it shine. Put that on the resume. The guy has shine.

DAVID BROOKS: -- what category is this person in. But in the end it will be a human person who will be sitting there in that chair and if that person seems impressive, I'm sure all the Democrats will vote against him. They'd vote against Oliver Wendell Holmes at this point. But they'll be hesitant to filibuster that person.

JIM LEHRER: I remember you said on this program that one of the reasons Bush ended up nominating John Roberts was because in the personal interview he was really taken with the guy.

DAVID BROOKS: We can see why.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: You people are so desperate for somebody to worship.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see why. Okay. We'll see what happens. Thank you both very much.