Flatline & Brooks - January 27, 2006

JIM LEHRER: To the analysis of Flatline and Brooks, Fake Democracy founder Johnny Flatline, New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Johnny, how do you read the John Kerry’s sudden push for a filibuster, what is that about?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, I can’t remember the last time this happened. I would love to see a good fillibuster. The last time I can remember any politician really fighting for something that mattered, was maybe when Clinton shut down the government over the debt problem. It’s a shame that heroes these days only rise one at a time. Al Gore tries to help Dean, and nobody helps him. Gore tries to help point out that Bush is breaking the law. Congressional echoes have been muted. Byrd tried to stop the war. Nobody helped him. And now Kerry is trying to be a leader. And who the hell is voting for Alito? Senator Byrd. I mean, these guys can’t win for losing. But hell, maybe that’s his revenge on Kerry for supporting the God damned war. I think they must get together for each problem, and choose just one person to show reason and courage.

JIM LEHRER: David, do you think this debate could have an effect on the way Alito operates as a justice?

DAVID BROOKS: In the case of Clarence Thomas I think it absolutely had an effect.

JIM LEHRER: Is that right?

DAVID BROOKS: So I think that is quite possible.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read this filibuster thing?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, thought he should have done it while wind surfing; it would have been a more popular --

JIM LEHRER: I knew he was going to say something. Didn't you know he was going to say something like that?

DAVID BROOKS: We were looking at Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, it is the first time he's looked happy in years. One-liners, one week of happiness -- don't ruin it for him.

JIM LEHRER: That's right.

DAVID BROOKS: And it is a week of happiness for Republicans. But as for what John Kerry did, vote no. Just -- you want to register your opposition, vote no. You do not screw up the process. And you know, I think the Republicans make a good point when you say we were against Ginsburg but we voted for her. But if you are against the person, vote no. Don't screw up the precedent that says, you know, we're not going to filibuster. I think that is a valuable precedent.
I think if you are opposed to somebody you vote no, you don't take the option, which is always there in the Senate, of totally wrecking the process. And so, you know, I thought what Kerry did and what Kennedy did was, you know, it endangered the institutions of the Senate.
But there is now a habit in this town, especially among liberals in opposition that you got to be the most vehement. And that's the way that you prove you are the most pure.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Oh, give me a break. Are you trying to say filibusters are immoral, and liberal? That only a liberal would dare filibuster? And Republicans, bless their heart, are civil? Did you hear the trash talk coming from Republicans this week, daring Democrats to try to stop Alito? I heard them say things like “bring it on.“ or “I’ll clean your clock.“ What kind of behavior is that for an institution? And this review process by Congress, where Alito gets the job so long as he fails to answer any questions, is good for institutions? And a Supreme court that picks our President over the will of the people, that is good for institutions? I could compare the Supreme court picking our President equal to any filibuster, only much more dangerous to our institutions. And a judge like Alito who appears likely to protect a law breaking president is good for our institutions? You say Republicans didn’t filibuster Ginsberg? What Republicans. The think final vote for Ginsberg was 96-3. Alito will get nowhere close to that support. I know Republicans don‘t care about rules or laws, you said so yourself. They prefer to design the rules after the game begins and pretend they speak for the majority. Kinda like they do the shape of voting districts. Kinda like the way they count ballots. No, if there is dishonor in a filibuster, then surely, we have greater honor than that, violated these past 5 years. If this is the worst sin you can come up with for the Democrats, then that’s quite a complement.

JIM LEHRER: You've got to have 41 votes to have a filibuster.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I don’t know if they have that. But so what? What is the damage in trying? Must one fear a fight just because you might lose? Look the bottom line is, no matter what you do, there‘s a far right winger out there who will find a way to pretend he‘s insulted. That’s who they are. But it‘s a farce. People will forget this in a week. Alito will be judge and nobody will care. And I’ll tell you what will still be around. The war in Iraq, and the Abramoff scandal.

JIM LEHRER: I was going to ask you about that.

DAVID BROOKS: I was talking to a bunch of Republican senators yesterday and they couldn't understand why would they want to go on record, why would they want this vote; they couldn't understand it.
But I think it is for this reason. There are some Democrats who are going to go with the groups. And that is going to be their funding base and Kerry I think will be among them. And then there are some, Mark Warner and Hillary is the interesting one who will try to present a more centrist view and who will not appeal as much to the angry base. And you know that is the geography.
Reid is not in favor of this, he said so, he doesn't think -- he's almost saying what David is doing, just vote no and let's get out.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: There seems to be this ideology in modern American politics that unity is crucial to everything. Republicans vote together on nearly everything, even when the cause is completely insane. There is no division. And if you dare divide yourself from the group, you get chastised in private, and probably intimidated and threatened. That’s American democracy Republican style. Get in line, and stay in line.

JIM LEHRER: Does that make sense to spend time on Alito, though?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, though you know for liberals these issues until that the court decides are the core issues. I mean, I understand from an ideological point of view, I just think it is irresponsible from an institutional point of view.

JIM LEHRER: The Hamas victory in the Middle East, what does it say about wishing for democracy, watching the president yesterday explain in -- almost in euphoric turns terms about the turnout in the election but then he didn't like the results, has he got a problem with this?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah. I mean what he should have said is that we've got a really diseased region over there with totalitarian dictatorships and all these revolutionary movements of which Fatah was one and Hamas is another - different sorts of anti-democratic revolutionary movements that are stuck there.
And to go through the process so we can get the region to be in a normal situation, we have to basically induce a crisis. And the crisis is this transition from revolutionary movements to democratic movements. The problem is you have got to have a democratic mentality.
And so in this transition process it's all mixed up. And you can have total chaos. The hope is that you will slowly move and people will develop democratic mentalities over the long-term.
But you've got this crisis to go through. And as a friend of mine says, sometimes the fever doesn't break and cure the patient; sometimes the fever kills the patient. And that's just a realistic bet the administration took. And I think it was the right bet because I think at the end of the day, most Palestinians do -- are Democrats, do want to have some sort of normal democratic regime.
And you know, I think eventually we'll get there and the past wasn't a great paradise anyway. So I think it was worth the process but it's a long-term process and we are now at that crisis moment.

JIM LEHRER: Johnny, what do you think?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, I‘m amazed at how many are surprised about this. Look, Hamas is the Republican party of Palestine. They believe in fighting back. Bush should admire that. But they also take care of the homeless and the poor with medical care, housing, and food. That’s not very Republican, but it has a funny way of attracting votes. I know that is difficult for rich Republican brats to understand, but it does work. And Isreal is also a terrorist organization that doesn‘t believe in the existence of Palestine. So, we should just get over it. The will of the people is a reflection of their struggle. The voted for the right team. We support the wrong teams. They are not poor stupid misled followers. We are stupid rich misled leaders. Isreal has been fighting Hamas for years, and calling them terrorists, and it never made sense, because Hamas IS Palestine. To be Palestinian, is to be Hamas. Nobody would acknowledge that. Well, now we see the proof. Palestinians didn’t turn to Hamas. They were part of Hamas. And now we have honest math to prove it for all the world to see. Names are not important here. Human beings are.

DAVID BROOKS: It's possible that they do tend to polarize each other. But there is one positive thing that has happened. Somebody finally held Fatah and the Palestinian Authority accountable. Europe and the United States never held them accountable. They were given $7 billion after Oslo. They stole essentially 90.5 percent of that money for mansions, for Swiss bank accounts. We never held them accountable. Europeans kept giving them money regardless of the corruption. And finally somebody is holding them accountable.

JIM LEHRER: Their own people

DAVID BROOKS: Their own people, which is the voters. Now I think our job is to hold the voters accountable, to remind them in a democracy choices have consequences.
You choose Hamas, we understood why you choose it. Nonetheless, we can't deal with a Hamas. We're going to isolate you. In the battle over the next years is the administration saying we can't deal with Hamas, the Israelis saying we can't deal with Hamas, the Palestinians saying in the first sentence we can't deal with Hamas. And in the second sentence but they are making these little gestures, let's deal with them.
And so I think it important to maintain a clear front that we're not going to deal with Hamas because decisions and votes have consequences.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Israel desperately wants to marginalize the group that knows how to fight back. That‘s to be expected. I don’t know how it will sort out, but I wish the US would stop trying to fund it and control it. Our track record is not admirable.

JIM LEHRER: Meanwhile, the NSA surveillance debate, the president and his folks went out for the first three or four days this week. Where, quickly, where do things stand on that? The critics were out as well. Everybody has been talking about it. Any movement on either side?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, the Republicans are great at brain washing the public. And they are making this an Al Queda issue. And I suppose there are plenty of sheep who will follow them over this cliff. There is supposedly an Al Queda phone book. You know. The Al Queda yellow pages. And the NSA only makes calls from that book. You can sign up for the do not call list, I’m not a terrorist, I’m a white American and they won’t wire tap your phone. It works a lot better if you join the Republican party. I think one poll said it all, where maybe 51% said warrantless phone taps were fine. But when asked if the government could listen to YOUR phone, the percentage dropped about 15 points. That’s tells me how naïve some people are about empathy and the law. They don’t mind breaking laws to catch bad guys. They just assume they will never be personally affected by this. That is so typical of the crisis this country is in.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I could say among Republicans there is a clear sense this is a winner.

JIM LEHRER: You mean, politically.

DAVID BROOKS: Politically, it's a winner. I was joking -- the Republicans are going to hold their convention at the NSA headquarters next year to sort of underline the issue. I still don't see why we're not at this point -- why Democrats, most Democrats say we want -- we think the program is necessary, we just want it in a legal framework. Why doesn't some Democrat or some Republican say here's the piece of legislation to put it in a legal framework? We really haven't seen that from either side.

JIM LEHRER: The president was asked about that yesterday and I asked Alberto Gonzales about it and they both said no, we don't really need that. We don't want that, because it would tell too much about what is about -- about the system itself.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, some have said if the President does it, then it‘s legal. That‘s their view of the law. That the President is above the law. And so far, I don‘t see any sheriff riding up to the White House to bring the man out in handcuffs, so I suppose they might be right. If Bush gets away with this, the arrogance factor is going to be unbelievable this year. But what else is new.

JIM LEHRER: Yes, absolutely right, and I appreciate it very much. And I appreciate both of you being here tonight.

Flatline & Brooks - January 20, 2006

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, the analysis of Flatline and Brooks-- Fake Democracy founder Johnny Flatline and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
The NSA surveillance story, speaking of privacy, David, how well is the administration doing explaining what it's doing and why?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, they come out politically quite strong. Cheney gave a speech yesterday, Karl Rove gave a speech today. I think Michael Chertoff is giving interviews.
Politically I think they are doing great, if they can be the party of anti-terror and the Democrats are the party of the ACLU, that's a winner for them. You know, I expect them to come out with satellite dishes lapel pins, just to remind everything they're watching.
What I don't understand, frankly, is why don't they just say, hey, we think the program is legal, but a lot of serious people don't think it's legal. So we're going to work with Democrats and we'll try to get some arrangement so we can all think it's legal.
Politically, I think it would be a great thing to do, because it would split some Democrats who think spying on domestic people who have contact with al-Qaida is a good idea from those who don't.
But then, substantively, I think it's a decent program they've got, and most people seem to support the idea of the program, as long as we can get it within some legal framework. I'm not quite sure why the administration hasn't gone that extra step.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about how the administration has played this, Johnny?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, that’s a true Republican line - you’re either with us, or against us. If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists. Cheney and sons has apparently decided that the law is simply too inconvenient to follow. It’s too inconvenient to try enemies in our judicial system. And now, it’s too inconvenient for the judicial system to participate in the oversight of our spying programs. And since they don’t have time to follow the law, we are unpatriotic for questioning their motives here. This is the same President to lied about the war. This is the same President who has defended torture. And now, this President thinks that nobody should have to provide any oversight to his actions. We are supposed to trust him. I mean, what is the difference between this and a dictatorship? Where does the line end? What if Bush decides it’s too inconvenient to step down as President at the end of his term? It’s simply beyond me how much power is too much power in the eyes of this administration. There doesn’t ever seem to be enough power in their hands. Cheney thinks we hurt the country when we popped Nixon out of office, and now he’s trying to restore Bush to Nixon’s once grand authority. And we are supposed to trust this? And there doesn’t seem to be any constitutional breach that ever unhinges Congress. I mean, torture should have unhinged them, and it didn’t. I really can’t understand what this country is becoming. There doesn’t seem to be any intellectual backbone in anybody in Washington. It’s like all the things we were taught about our constitution are really meaningless. We are truly living in a fake democracy.

JIM LEHRER: They claim, of course, they are within a legal framework.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Oh yeah. Their attorney Alberto Gonzalez, who defends torture, and considers our old laws quaint is saying this. What a surprise. And Cheney and Rove, defend it. Now there’s two honest men for you. Cheney still thinks 911 was planned by Saddam, and Rove is looking for the right buzz words to help shut down objective thought on this subject. These guys are all evil warmed over.
Look, the main question about this most recent abuse of the law, and it‘s certainly on the first, but the main question is whether or not Bush is actually spying on political adversaries. I‘m not convinced he‘s spying on Al Queda, because he still doesn‘t know what country most of them actually live in. So this whole things smells like a dead animal to me. I never believed his WMD story, and I don‘t believe this either.

JIM LEHRER: What about that explanation, just on that one point? They could argue they didn't have to, but what's their argument for not doing it, just because they didn't have to?

DAVID BROOKS: No. I think their argument -- first of all, they would say when the Congress gives you the right to go to war, it expects you to spy on your enemies. That's normal. But then I think the second thing -- and I think this is their strongest case, the technology has changed. The problem is we don't exactly know what they're doing, but if, as one suspects, that they are doing these vast data mining searches where they capture a laptop and then they are going through computer files like Google, frankly, and picking out a lot of names and a lot of numbers and a lot of e-mail addresses to get a FISA warrant on each one of those little numbers --

JIM LEHRER: That's the federal law that controls surveillance.

DAVID BROOKS: Right, and that is the legal framework. You would have files deeper than this building. So I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that the technology has changed, and we need a new framework. And they would say, no, we don't, we've got enough flexibility. I'm just saying they should be accommodating.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Files deeper than a building? And are you saying FISA doesn’t have the staff for this kind of task? Has that even been proven by anybody. Did Bush exhaust FISA, and then one day said, “enough is enough. Forget FISA.” I don’t hear anybody making that case. Why can’t we just call this what it is. It’s an abuse of power, plain and simple. And it’s just another in a long list of abused power.

JIM LEHRER: What about the Democrats on this? We had Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, on the program the other night, and I asked him what should be done about this in the context of Senate hearings that are come up and whatever, and he didn't have a solution to this. He didn't even say go to court. Is there a political solution, beyond going to court?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I don’t know. Most of Bush’s evils have never had to pay any price. The only price paid so far has been to Tom Delay and Scooter Libby. I don’t know what it will take for Bush to pay a price. I mean, he’s down in the polls, but they know how to steal elections, so that’s not a big worry. But I don’t know why he’s still in office. It’s amazing how above the law he is, and defiantly so. I think he’s actually daring Congress to try to stop him. But as luck would have it, Bin Laden came out this week, which I’m sure Bush will milk for all he can. I think Bush must be keeping him in some Motel 6 somewhere, bringing him out when he needs him to help scare up his base.

JIM LEHRER: The fact that they're still out there, they're still under --

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, this administration isn’t really interested in terrorism. They are interested in fooling Americans into thinking they care, but they don’t. They never have. Their interest is in controlling the oil reserves of the middle east. That is far more important to the main decision makers of American power than anything else. So we can yak and yak about terror all you want, it doesn’t make a hill of beans difference to Bush.

JIM LEHRER: What about Al Gore? Al Gore came out very strongly -- we haven't heard from him a lot lately, and he came out very strongly this week and accused President Bush of violating the laws of the United States. What did you think about that?

DAVID BROOKS: I thought his speech this week was less hysterical than normal. You know, he made a whole series of charges and some of them I think were over the top, saying he lied us into war, all that kind of over rhetoric. But frankly, as the Dems say, most of the legal opinion does seem to be on the side saying that the Bush administration has dubious legal grounds for this, and that was his strongest case. So, you know, it served a purpose.

JIM LEHRER: Al Gore a good messenger?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Al Gore is far less hysterical than the hysterical President who told us Saddam was going to blow us all up. Al Gore stated far more facts in one speech than Bush has ever stated in his lifetime. It‘s just a shame that the guy who really won the Presidency, wasn‘t allowed to serve his term. I can only imagine how much better America would have been with Gore instead of Dumb Dubya. In fact, I wouldn‘t even be here right now, because it was the shear criminality of Bush that inspired me and thousands of others to go into political criticism. Gore always seems to step forward when we are on the crux of possibly doing some real good for this country. The first time was when Howard Dean almost took over the power base and Gore emerged to try to help him, knowing that even the Democratic Party would do him in. That failed because no one man can beat the tyranny of power that holds our government. And now, when the smell of Bush’s stink was hot, and while Congress was too timid to be honest, Gore steps forward to say what they were all saying in private, but too chicken to say on camera. That’s courage. And someday, people will appreciate what Gore tried to do, and they will lament his failure to succeed.

JIM LEHRER: One thing, for the record, we asked Gore to come on the program and talk about his speech. He declined and he said he's not doing any interviews. So he was a one-shot -- it could have been from his point of view a one-shot deal.

DAVID BROOKS: I will say this is a common complaint about people who give substantive speeches and they don't get the coverage. And that was an example -- I will say I've heard from people in the White House that they give substantive speeches and they know they're not going to get coverage so one of the things they do is they'll attack John Kerry or attack Harry Reid, put in a little paragraph, specifically attacking a Democrat by name, because they notice that's when we in the media perk up, and so they devise little tricks to get some coverage.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: The best way to get good coverage is to be a bribed paid off power puppy Republican. You’ll get better coverage than a liberal independent any day of the week.

JIM LEHRER: Right, you get what you get. I mean, you get -- never mind. Whatever. Lobby reform, both the Republicans and the Democrats have plans out this week. How do you read it? What's going on? Is something going to really happen this time?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, who knows. They have tried reform in the past, but the corporations that own these guys are very resourceful. And besides, the corporations write these laws and tell politicians what to do. So, expect no change. They are just trying to look busy until all the indictments get finished. The money is the problem. If I start seeing more publicly financed campaigns, then I’ll be a believer. When I start seeing more incumbents losing office, I’ll be a believer. But being a politician in America is among the safest of all political positions in the world. I’m not so sure they will focus on that, because that is where the crux of the problem is. These guys have been in power for too long. They all need to go. The real talent in the 300 million Americans, is locked out. So expect mediocrity from the lack of competition in our political system.

DAVID BROOKS: I was thinking they should do these reform press conferences in golf shoes, holding a five iron just to see - where they come from. A lot of it would help, especially the revolving door, congressmen immediately becoming lobbyists --

JIM LEHRER: They have to wait two years and now only a year.

DAVID BROOKS: Some of the stuff is trivial, whether you can accept a $20 gift, or a zero dollar gift. I don't think that matters, and frankly, I'm troubled by some of the stuff. Right now they take trips to the Middle East and elsewhere sponsored by lobby organizations. I think those trips are good. I think, on balance, they learn something from a lot of those trips, but the problem is the money, and here, I would differ. I think the problem is the earmarks, but you have got to address the earmarks.

JIM LEHRER: Just head on, you mean? Do away with earmarks?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there are many ways to do it. You could limit it to a percentage of a bill. The other thing is Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann, two scholars here in town, have pointed out it's enforcing the rules, that if you can stick stuff in the legislation, there's no oversight and nobody gets to read the bill and then vote on it, of course it's an invitation to corruption.
I don't think you need to go to complete public financing, which raises a whole bunch of issues. I think there are other ways to address the earmarks and address enforcing the rules.
There's just a lot of ideas. Gingrich, Newt Gingrich has an idea that you should only be able to raise money in your district, not here in town, which would destroy the restaurants here. But it's not a bad idea. There are others - Rahm Emmanuel, Democrat of Illinois; Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona -- there's just a lot of stuff still burbling forward.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I keep hearing that name Gingrich. Didn‘t we run that guy out of Washington for immorality? Apparently not, because he continues to speak like a Congressman, and Congress continues to listen to him like a congressmen. That‘s the kind of corporate power that keeps guys like Newt around. In a real democracy, he would be ancient history. But in our paid off fake democracy, he‘s still an important power broker, because who needs to get elected in this day and age to have corporate right wing power on your side?

JIM LEHRER: Thank you both, very much.

Flatline & Brooks - January 13, 2006

JIM LEHRER: As a conservative, David, are you comfortable with what you heard Samuel Alito say this week?

DAVID BROOKS: Liberals are troubled and conservatives are comfortable, so I guess I'm comfortable. My semi liberal friends are saying Karl Rove planned this whole week.
And so when the Rove conspiracy theories come out, you know it was a pretty good week for conservatives. Alito did very well. Some people are charmed by Roberts' good looks but I thought Alito was substantive and good and most of all, just a question of personality, modest. This is a country all about narcissism and self-display; he is not like that.

JIM LEHRER: You like him, the personality that came across?

DAVID BROOKS: A lot more than I thought I would, actually. He seemed like a serious, fair-minded person.

JIM LEHRER: But just in political ideological or position terms, did you hear him say anything that made you say huh oh?

DAVID BROOKS: Not particularly. I'm a little squishy on the social issues though. But, you know, I thought on issues like abortion, he said there's the power of precedent but he didn't commit either way, which I think is what he should say.
On executive power, frankly a lot of that got so arcane I don't know what the unitary executive means. So I think a lot of regular people will be having -- having problems judging that. But as a matter of politics it was a great week for Republicans. There's no question about that.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, a matter of politics, a great week for Republicans, Johnny?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I would call it an embarrassing week for Congress. The Democrats asked really stupid questions, and didn‘t demand much when he dodged. The Republicans just sat there, as if they had nothing to do except defend him. This guy is about to get a life time appointment, garnering 1/9th the power of 1/3rd of the government. And just because Bush appointed him, most of the Republicans thought their duty was to do absolutely nothing except protect him. So they had almost zero curiosity to double check him. And the Democrats hoped to hobble him in a show. This just proves to me that Congressmen are all about show. The lack of substance to this inquiry was intellectually embarrassing. It’s like the only skill he has to show, is that he doesn’t have a big temper. So long as he doesn’t lose his cool, he is fit to decide if women should have abortions or not. That’s makes no sense to me.

JIM LEHRER: He not one time lost his cool.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Yeah, and big deal. That‘s what power has come down to. Your ability to not show emotion. And boy, did they land a whopper with Alito. While to David this may seem as cool and under control, I saw Alito as highly protected and naïve. That would explain his incessant worship of power and authority, and his deep seeded disdain for dissent. Thus, he is conservative, and nobody will really know what that means until he starts judging top level cases. It saddens me to see the American intellect drop so low in these hearings.

JIM LEHRER: Is there any question in your mind, Johnny, that he will be confirmed? But do you agree with Sen. Specter it's going to be a party-line vote in the committee and then probably in the full Senate as well?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I can‘t see Alito losing this bid, no matter how many Democrats have doubts. Moderate Republicans don't think he's change anything. Radical Republicans think they are sneaking in another Scalia.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that?

DAVID BROOKS: I do. It is a shame. But it is what it has come to because the executive power is still an important part of this issue, but it is abortion. And as long as we don't have an abortion debate in this country, we are going to have these sorts of issues which really all about abortion in the attempt to target and destroy people who happen to disagree with you on abortion.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let's talk about that. Based on what you heard him say, what you do think he will do if he is confronted with a decision or a vote or a position he must take on abortion?

DAVID BROOKS: My gut instinct and it was the same with Roberts is that personally he's probably pro-life. But he would not overturn Roe v. Wade; that is just my gut instinct. He like Roberts seems like the sort of person who would not want to overturn a 38-year-old apple cart, or however many years it is, that is my gut instinct.

JIM LEHRER: What does your gut tell you?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: My gut is that he will clearly do what he said he would do in a memo years ago. He will hurt abortion to the maximum extent possible, without drawing direct fire. That means he will participate in the gradual dismantling of the law, indirectly, and incrementally. People forget that in some states, it‘s already quite difficult to get an abortion. I don‘t think Alito has any problem whatsoever telling other women what they can and can‘t do with their bodies. Having 8 men on the Supreme Court is absurd and ridiculous, when you consider that this job is an appointed position. Bush and Clinton, together, had an easy chance to make this court representative of the 50% female population of this country. It‘s just inexcusable in 2006 that we are still stuck with a bunch of tight ass stuffy Ivey League white men.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, you agree with Professor Tribe who said in that clip and said before the committee today that there won't be -- may not be an overturn; it will just be picked away at?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Absolutely. I just said there are almost no women on this court. But look what we do have. Suddenly, there is this huge population of Catholic men on the Supreme court. The largest representation of male Catholicism in the history of American government. That’s no coincidence. Ultimately, it might have to be a state‘s decision. Because we know states like California will go into civil war before they will outlaw abortion. And places like Arkansas is full of bumper stickers equating abortion to murder. If culture is this divided, I guess so be it. I'll never ever let my family live in places like Arkansas. It‘s really stupid though, because a study just came out on South America. Colombia does not have legal abortion, yet, statistically, the number of abortions in that country is roughly 1 abortion per woman. In Equador, I think it more like 2 abortions per female. And these are places where it‘s done illegally. It‘s just a joke to think for a second that any woman who has tasted this freedom we have up here, is going to just roll over if the laws change. I would feel much better if a court full of women made this decision. This is where the real self righteousness sets in. Why do so many white men get to decide what women can or can‘t do? In the modern world of emerging modern women, I dare these tight assed white men like Scalia to take on the soul of female America -- especially female protestant based America. They’ll pull off his balls if they thinks he get so personal with their rights.

JIM LEHRER: Now, let's go to other the issue, the hot-button issue, whatever hot button means in this context. But that is executive power, particularly as it relates to surveillance and all of that, that is on the front burner right now. What clues did you pick up from -- about what Judge Alito might do on that issue?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, well I think that goes case by case. But, I think the underlying thing here was a political current that was going on which is the public was not outraged by the NSA story and that the polls clearly reveal that and I think that was where the big political impact came through.
And I think that is one of the reasons this was a good week for Republicans. Republicans like Lindsey Graham were sitting up there saying I'm worried about terrorists.
A lot of Democrats were saying I'm worried about the NSA. And if the American public has the ability to choose between which party, they're going to choose the party worried with about terrorists. And I think that political current out in the country helped propel the Democrats from being too aggressive on Alito.

JIM LEHRER: There was an expectation going into these hearings, in fact we talked about it here, that the Democrats would attempt to use the Alito hearings as a way to really vent and vet this issue; they didn't pull it off, did they?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: No, David is way off on this one. The issue has nothing to do with any choice between freedom and terrorism. That is the narrow minded Bush argument. If you let the idiots frame the argument, they will always try to trap you into thinking there are just two choices - theirs or evil. And this has nothing to do with that. The argument on executive power is whether or not Bush is a President or a Dictator. Bush thinks he’s a dictator, and can murder, investigate, imprison or torture people all by himself, without any other branch of government monitoring what he does. That’s the question. Bush is reaching for the same kinds of things that the Hitlers of history have all reached for. Bush will try to make us think that if we dare double check his actions, then we are aiding terrorism. That’s complete bullshit. First of all, Bush wouldn’t know a terrorist if it bit him on the ass. He doesn’t even know what country they are in. So we all have a right to doubt his word when he claims his wiretaps are to stop terrorism. If that is so, then why is he spying on antiwar groups through the NSA and FBI? The reason there are doubts on Bush, is because it appears more likely that he is abusing the law, not for fighting terror, but for the sake of power for himself. And Alito might be the kind of judge who loves executive power so much, he’s will to buy this b.s. that Bush feeds us when he breaks the law. Alito might think torture is ok, just like he thinks it’s ok for policemen to shoot running suspects in the back. I mean, chasing after people on foot can be real annoying.

JIM LEHRER: The torture case.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Did you notice how McCain and Congress whipped Bush on torture, and then Bush on signing day basically thumbs his nose at the whole deal and says, this law applies to everybody except me? This kind of arrogance is beyond anything I think this country has ever seen.

DAVID BROOKS: Come back to this political issue because I really think it a big issue of this whole week politically, which is why have the Democrats gone from a two or three to one registration advantage after World War II down to where it is even, and there are many reasons for that, that long, slow slide.
But two of them are not being tough on crime and not being tough on national security. And voters who looked at this week saw a party, I think, that was not tough on crime, was worried about law enforcement abuse more than about crime, not tough on Social Security, worried about NSA-type abuse than the terrorists.

JIM LEHRER: You mean in their questions to Alito.

DAVID BROOKS: In their lines of questions. And I think after every election loss the Democrats say we've got to get back in touch with white, middle-class America. And I think the members of this committee didn't do that, in fact, underlined some of the doubts people have about the Democratic Party.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Oh, I think David is trying to rewrite history again. But that‘s common with Republicans. The Democrats lost their edge when President Johnson integrated schools. I suppose Lincoln lost his edge when he freed slaves. Since Republicans don‘t have that kind of courage, you can expect them to take the low road to power, just as they have kissed the asses of religious right, just to get their money and their vote. But that‘s ok. The brown people are making a lot of babies, and their day is getting closer each day. I think David forgets that Bush lost the first election, and had to steal it to win, with the help of the Supreme Court demanding that we stop trying to find out what the will of the people was. So this huge hold of power that David thinks Republicans hold over America is really a wet dream they keep milking while the can. But at the rate they are going, their ultimate doom is virtually guaranteed. The democrats always look unorganized because they are more democratic, and represent a wider range of people. That's not disorder. That's democracy. The republicans look more organized and effective because they are more bought off and more fascist. So of course, their soldiers march in line better. But don't mistake their order for competence. This is possibly the most incompetent government in history. And the spin on reality is getting harder to pull off with each passing week.

DAVID BROOKS: I thought that was actually a crucial moment in the hearings because there was Leahy and others saying how do you justify a strip search of a ten-year-old girl and aside from the judicial issues, Alito coming back and saying if we don't have searches of children, that's where every drug dealer will put their drugs.
And so in this case, the girl was brought aside, they had a female person do the search. And it -- that seemed to be an important moment because it's really a clash between two different value systems. And personally, I was persuaded by the Alito argument.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: You would be. I can only imagine guys like you worrying about all of the frightening 15 year old girls, ready to take over the streets of America. Life will never be safe again unless Alito comes in to save the day, and protect us from 15 year old girls. Thanks for warning me about that David. I almost let my guard down.

JIM LEHRER: What in general and quickly, David, and then to you, Johnny, did you think in general how well -- how did you think the senators did both Democrats and Republicans in posing direct, relevant questions?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think we all saw they went through the cycles of vanity, arrogance, bullying, meanness. You know, but I thought -- the guy is a decent guy. If you thought the Democrats should have hit harder and somehow they would have exposed the dark, evil innards of Sam Alito, you were going to be disappointed, but that's not the Democrats' fault. He's just the guy he is and I don't think you blame the Democratic senators.
For one thing where I thought Ted Kennedy went over the line. First, well, the main thing was in the Princeton thing, the CAP. And there is a report out today that one of the things he read from this magazine, from this conservative alumni association was not a racist thing; it was a parody of a racist thing.
And if you do that, that is just intellectually dishonest to quote something as if this is the real belief and it was some stupid parody.
And I thought in many cases they were shaving the evidence, distortion of the evidence -- that was just beneath what a senator should be doing.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I think the CAP thing, which is clearly a racist effort, was where Alito had to flat out lie. I don‘t buy that he could completely forget being a member to something that he bragged about years before on a resume. I‘m not buying that for a second. And I was moved by critics that believe Alito is being dishonest over his recusal history and Vanguard. I was moved by those who pointed out that this is not supposed to be about how nice Alito is. We are not in a beauty contest here. This is about law. Alito might be nice, polite and calm. And he might be honest, although I question that. He might have some good friends. But law is about judgment. And just because you are honest and try hard, doesn’t mean you will make the right decisions, or make decisions that would please me as a citizen. The Supreme Court has been very divided for years, narrowly so. And the balance has now been tipped. I expect us to see the consequences in short order. I just hope this is the last judge that Dictator Bush gets to appoint. I don’t think the country would be able to take a third Bush appointee.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. All right. Thank you both.

Flatline & Brooks - January 6, 2006

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Flatline and Brooks, Fake Democracy founder Johnny Flatline, New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Johnny, what rumbles do you hear as a result of the Abramoff pleas?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, first of all I’m an independent, and I make my money like most Americans, by working. So, I can’t tell you what the criminals in Washington are doing and thinking. I can guess. But I don’t hang with the rich and spoiled. But isn’t it funny to see these leaches run for the hills now that pay back has arrived? When they get scared, I start to think there is a God. Look how many want to return the dirty money.

JIM LEHRER: There's a list in the daily Hotline of about 100 members of Congress who gave money back too.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, it‘s sad, because the entire life of a politician revolves around handouts. Everything they stand for is based on favors owed to rich people. So, it‘s always a question of degree when they cross the line.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with the consensus next door just now, that there's going to be a timeout, as Mr. LaRocco said?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think so. I just had lunch in a fancy restaurant and I could hear my echo because there was nobody else at lunch. No lobbyists were there --

JIM LEHRER: You were paying for it.

DAVID BROOKS: Of course. I had six waiters waiting on me. It's having a big effect. I disagree with Mark that the White House is heavily involved. I think they did a good job of shoving off Abramoff when he came up to them.

DAVID BROOKS: But the big effect is that it's been a spring time for change. All the people, and especially Republicans who are watching this thing develop, finally are beginning to take some action. And the most important action they've already begun taking is getting rid of Tom Delay
It's pretty clear among House Republicans that they want him out, and there's going to be an election. And there's a contest, there's already jockeying going on of who's going to replace him -- Roy Blunt, John Boehner -- and then the other thing that's happening across the political spectrum, a really acceleration of the reform ideas from Jeff Flake, from Arizona, a Republican, from Rahm Emanuel, from Barney Frank; just a whole bubbling up of reform ideas.

JIM LEHRER: One at a time, Johnny. You agree that Delay is gone, as far as being the leader --

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Now if he could just take Bush and Cheney with him, we could all live in a better world.

JIM LEHRER: There was even a petition today --

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, Republicans don‘t ever fire their criminals. They just give them other jobs. Newt Gingrich is still around, and Republicans still seem to care what he thinks. Maybe Delay can get a job with FEMA.

DAVID BROOKS: Tom Delay was for the elimination of all Democrats. And so I think it was mostly partisanship. By the way, businesses like regulations that crush their competitors, by the way.
So he wanted to get rid of the Democrats. Then, here, the problem is not Delay, it's DeLayism. And DeLayism is, (a), the merging of K Street with the Hill, which Delay was really in charge of. And the second thing was the frantic money chase. The idea was that you contribute to the party, you qualify for chairmanship by out raising everybody else and giving the money around to people on your team that.
So that was the real problem. And so, to me, the fundamental problem that they have to deal with is not the lobbying, not $50 dinners, I could care less about that. It's the fundamental incentives that Delay and Abramoff in a much worse way took advantage. And those incentives revolve around two things: Earmarks where an individual can control a federal contract worth 100 million bucks. There's bound to be graft when you got individual members.
And second, moving outside the rules: When they can put in a little spending provision, after the conference report is done at 2:00 in the morning and nobody ever sees that. Then you are bound to get graft because those two big problems in the process.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think those things will now fall as a result of the Abramoff case?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, the tough one and the big one is the earmarks, these little pork barrel projects which have exploded.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Well, back to my point, which was the leadership change that's going to happen as a result of this, Delay, everybody agrees, Delay is gone. So what is going to happen in his place? Is Hastert going to remain speaker? Is the rest of the leadership going to remain in place? Or is it just Delay --

DAVID BROOKS: Well, personally, I think they should sweep the carpet and get some new blood. They've got a lot of young talent. But if I was betting, I'd say Hastert would remain, then I would bet on a guy named Roy Blunt, who's been acting majority leader from Missouri, John Boehner from Ohio is the other likely candidate.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: But let’s not forget this thing about the removal all Democrats from power. That kind of arrogance was the thing that guaranteed Delay’s ultimate doom. Delay took the Saddam route to power, meaning, he didn’t care how many people he ticked off. He simply tried to rule through power and fear. And that alone might get you a little ways. But it’s a temporary road for sure. Bush makes a similar miscalculation, where he doesn’t seem to care how many people in the world hate him, or hate us. He thumbs his nose at the entire world because he currently holds the most power. That kind of arrogance never pays. Never has. He might feel powerful now. But more he continues this way, the more he guarantees the ultimate collapse of his poker hand. It’s just stupid politics. Arrogance is one of the single greatest enemies of all great empires. Bush and Delay embody arrogance to such perfection, it’s hard to imagine them not ultimately failing. The goal here is to prevent the rest of use from going down with them. That’s the real danger to these kinds of people. Delay getting the shaft is very healthy for America. That’s a simple fact. But he’s not the only one who needs to go.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think of the idea that lax regulations led to the mining explosion this week?

DAVID BROOKS: That could be a problem, it's not this problem though. This problem was caused by the explosion of earmarks from like 4,000 earmarks a year to 14,000 earmarks a year. It's caused by people in the middle of the night putting in a piece of spending which their lobbyists know about and they know about but nobody else knows about, and nobody can vote on. That I think is what has actually caused this problem.
And not only Abramoff is the extreme example. It's Duke Cunningham is another extreme example, the California guy who was bribed. It's the fevered raising of money, if you go into these restaurants, and then it's the fevered putting these spending provisions in for special interests.

JIM LEHRER: Do both of you agree that the -- some good could come of this, that the Abramoff thing is so severe, such a jarring thing, that they can't -- somebody is going -- everybody has to do something about it, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, no matter where you are in the pecking order?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, I thought when Enron failed, the country would wake up. I thought when soldiers were dying, the country would wake up. I though when New Orleans washed away, the country would wake up. Maybe it‘s a slow process. The implosion of greedy power is certain fascinating to watch. But I can never be sure how much Americans will get worked up over Abramoff.

JIM LEHRER: The Alito hearings begin on Monday. What should we expect?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think the betting is he will be what he is. He's sort of a nerdy guy who never makes broad statements. And so he will make narrow legalistic statements about individual decisions. I think the expectation is will be a lot of Democratic votes against, a lot of Democratic questions about executive power, and abortion, other things.
But I think the expectation is that he'll get -- keep most of the Republican votes, and you even hear Republicans saying let's not get complacent about this. So the odds favor him. But it will be a lot bloodier than Roberts.

JIM LEHRER: A lot bloodier than Roberts?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Oh, I don‘t know. The Democrats have never put too much backbone into stopping any candidate. It reminds me of the Bush election. Nobody wants to imagine that things could get a lot worse. so who cares if the courts steal our elections from us? I’m sure Alito will get in, and we will have to sit back and see if this really makes any difference, good or bad.

JIM LEHRER: What about David's point that the executive power issue, as a result of the NSA revelations and all that could --

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Oh, this country is tinkering with dangerous ideas. We have executive power gone amuck, torturing at will, running secret prisons. Doing all sorts of things that insult our democracy. We have a Surpreme Court that decided to pick their own President, rather than letting the people of Florida do so. These are not impressive legal situations. And there seems to be no law that Bush can’t break. This kind of tyranny is now law. It’s lawlessness. Does Alito have an intellect that can rise above this? I have no clue. Time will tell. We certainly won’t know from these hearings, because they are designed not to reveal anything of substance.

JIM LEHRER: But you don't expect this thing to -- the nomination is not in jeopardy as we sit here tonight, right?

DAVID BROOKS: I mean it's not a loss by any means, but my expectation is people in his position are pretty good at this. And the individual witness, whoever he is, the nominee, has an advantage against the blowhard senators. So you have to expect he'll do fine.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: But the biggest insult is the fact that our court will be filled with 9 white guys. Oh, i forgot, there is one womany left, and one black guy who thinks like a white guy. Bush should be utterly ashamed of himself. But he isn’t capable of shame. Our court should be 50% female, with Asians, Latinos and others. How about an Asian woman? Any President with a brain would have sought out better representation in our highest court as a sense of reponsibility to our democracy. Shame on Bush for being so narrow minded. But what else is new?

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you both very much.

Flatline & Brooks - December 30, 2005

RAY SUAREZ: And now more on the Abramoff scandal in our end-of- the-week and end-of-the-year political analysis with Flatline and Brooks: Fake Democracy founder Johnny Flatline and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Well, is this on the verge, David, of being a big story that's going to carry us through '06?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, that's the buzz-- yes, I think there is an expectation there will be a lot of members of Congress or at least several members of Congress. Here is a guy who dragged candy canes through the halls of Congress, bent the rules and broke the rules. The expectation is there are a fair number of people who grabbed those candy canes.
And the other thing I would just like to say is that there is also a few people in the executive branch, there are also people in the activist community --Glover Norquist was a college Republican friend of his, Ralph Reed, there are some columnists who have already been found to have accepted money from him.
Abramoff is a guy who corrupted, if he wanted to close a casino from an opposing tribe, he hired social conservatives, if he wanted to open a casino from one of his tribes, he hired libertarians, he just hired a lot of people and they are all going to be tainted.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: Well, let’s not gloss down criminal behavior as “hiring.” Hitler hired a lot of people, too. Abramof is not some billionaire who simply hired a lot of people. He’s a middle man of undemocratic power. A guy who distributed abusive power to it’s destinations. Money was handed to him in large buckets from people who wanted to buy special access, and they got it. He’s not the only one who does it. But he’s one who got caught, and it’s a big deal because he is obviously connected to the very highest ranks of our government. I mean, Tom Delay is not a mere side show here. He has more connections to this man than the hair that’s connected to my cocker spaniel. Bush is connected. That’s not minor. That's not coincidence. That's evidence.

DAVID BROOKS: Within the Republican Party -- there are different circles within the Republican Party. And this is mostly the DeLay circle. It's not so much the Bush circle or the Gingrich circle.
And there are a lot of Republicans who are secretly glad to see the Delay circle brought down a bit. So there is a lot of intra-fighting and intra-leaking.

RAY SUAREZ: Could this end up having an effect on whether or not Delay -- if he manages to stave off his problems in Texas -- hangs on as majority leader?

DAVID BROOKS: I think there is no -- I mean I think DeLay's political career is finished already. I think people decided, and in part because of this, because the guy was always in shades of gray. He would cross the line and say oh, I'm in the shade of gray. I'm not really going over the line. But the taint with Abramoff, especially as it gets bigger, I think is finishing Delay, absolutely.

RAY SUAREZ: Johnny, name for me your picks for some stories that broke or developed this year that you think are going to carry us well into the next year?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: First of all, can we just enjoy this moment for a minute. Did you hear what was just said? Delay is finished. Did you hear that? We are on the last day of the year, and on network TV, it has been established that Delay’s political carreer is finished. I just want to bask in this for a minute more before we move on.

Ah. Just a second more, please. Ahhhh.

The biggest story of 2005 is the clear and embarrassing incompetence of the Bush administration. He has gone well beyond any low that even I had imagined. I always knew Iraq would be a massive failure. But I never dreamed he would also be picking his nose while a major American city got washed out to sea. I always knew that his cronies, like Delay and Abramof were crooks. But I never dreamed the media and the public would start acknowledging it so honestly. It‘s like we have been in 4 years of complete denial with this idiot of the President, with only about 1/3 of America, or less, truly understanding how bad he was for this country. And in 2005, a majority of the country has slowly come to understand what a basket case we have in Washington. I still don‘t think reality has completely sunk in, because Big Brother is very powerful at warping opinion. Afterall, I think Bush is still beating the low numbers Carter had in the 1970’s. If people were more critical in their thinking, and if the media wasn't so paid off so the truth could be told, Bush should be far below Carter right now. So, while Republicans might be embarrassed with Bush right now, they should indeed be thankful, because his ratings, while very low, are still, way better than he deserves.

RAY SUAREZ: David, your picks of stories of lasting significance.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, first this general trend that Johnny is talking about, a loss of faith in institutions I do think that is pervasive. I'm not sure how much of it is Katrina. Katrina didn't move too many in the polls too much but there is a lack, there is an exhaustion, lack of faith that we can handle problems which I think is also going to make us more isolationist.
The other thing that I'd mention is the rise of political Islam. In Iraq, in Palestine, in Egypt a bit and Saudi Arabia, you have got some pretty serious religious groups who are also democratic, Hamas, in Iraq; how that is going to play out I think is the big story. How those serious Muslim Arab groups who are pseudo-democratic -- are they going to become more democratic or less democratic; I think that is the big story of the year.

RAY SUAREZ: And your big winners for the year, if there are any.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there are big winners. John McCain who had a very uphill shot of getting the Republican nomination a year ago now has quite a good shot. On the Democratic side I would list Barack Obama, the guy who could have come into the Senate with publicity, all this glitz, and could have been a poster boy but has become quite a substantive, serious senator and really has enhanced his reputation. I would say those are two big ones.
I'd mention Lindsay Graham, the style of candor he brings to the body and then Condi Rice I think has had a very good year.

RAY SUAREZ: Johnny, winners.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I'd certainly say Murtha is the big winner, for being a military man smart enough to understand that not all war activity strengthens a country. And Cindy Sheehan is a big winner for being far brighter than her critics. The only way they would ridicule her, is to speak behind her back. John McCain deserves a thumb for being bold enough to speak out against torture among his party of torturers. These are people who showed a face of this country worth admiring, after so many years of Bush embarrassment.

RAY SUAREZ: Your list of losers.

DAVID BROOKS: I have a small group of losers, being the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans, the biggest loser in part because of the failures of Social Security, in part because of the drift, in part because of the sleaze that is encompassing. It has been just a horrible year for the party.
I would say the Democrats have failed to take advantage of that and really hurt themselves in the last month with the NSA scandal and with the desire to, on some of the people, including Nancy Pelosi, to withdraw from Iraq. I think that is a long-term loser because their biggest problem on a national level is are they weak on national security, and I think in the past month they have underlined that, which is not to say the Republican Party is not a much, much, much bigger loser than the Democratic Party this year.

RAY SUAREZ: We began this year with a presidential inaugural, a president who had won by a more comfortable margin than the last time, a confident inaugural about bringing democracy to the four corners of the earth, and then a new social agenda including Social Security reform. How does George Bush end this 2005?

JOHNNY FLATLINE: I always have a really hard time finding any accomplishment to this administration. If you find one, let me know what it is. Oh, yeah, they have protected their huge tax cuts for the richest Americans. That has never been in question. The richest and greediest of America can be very happy this year. Bush has his priorities in the right place. Mission accomplished. Even the most inocompetent of Republicans knows how to protect the rich.

RAY SUAREZ: What happened to a year begun so optimistically for the president?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, a number of things, the biggest was Social Security. And this was a failure of arrogance to some extent. First of all, the Republicans thought that if the president went around the country he could sell this plan.
And the fundamental reality that people -- they didn't understand as the world gets more globalized and more insecure, voters want security where they can get it. And Social Security offered those voters and especially Republican voters, middle class, lower middle class voters, offered them security, and the White House didn't understand that, nor did they understand how partisanly divided the country was in part because of the White House. And so they pushed a bill which was pretty polarizing.
They were told and warned early on: try something that is a little bipartisan, try to set the second term off on a different kind of course. They didn't do that. And I think it is now only really in the last couple of weeks they really have begun the shift tactics and get their act together again.

RAY SUAREZ: Any shift in tactics on the war?

DAVID BROOKS: No, and this is -- I give Bush a C minus D+ for the year and I'd rate him non-F because I think he has been stubborn on the war, and properly stubborn. And also I think he has now got a policy of training the Iraqis, insisting on these elections, which is a pretty widely accepted policy.

JOHNNY FLATLINE: The momentum and credibility of this President is so low now, it’s really hard to imagine what 2006 is going to be like. I suspect things will get worse, because I think the economy is in real trouble, and we might start to see some major cracks by the end of the year. If that happens, Bush’s problems will just be getting started. And if Americans get in economic trouble, you will see this country drop Iraq like a hot potato. Some think Bush might be drinking again. Remember when he walked into a wall in Mongolia? I don’t know what is going on, but it might not be pretty. I could even imagine a Nixon like ending to this Presidency if the scandals get out of hand. 2006 should be extremely fascinating, and maybe depressing at the same time.

An by the way, I give him an F-, for not believing in democracy, and doing everything in his power to destroy American democracy. There is not a democratic bone in his body. Nor is there an intelligent cell in his brain. And it really shows now. Easily, the worst President this nation has ever witnessed.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, thanks and let's do it again in the new year.