Analysts Consider Political Impact of the Immigration Deal Collapse

Read the Full Transcript

• JIM LEHRER:

  And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

  David, do you see Republican or Democratic villains behind the failure of the immigration bill?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  This may sound partisan, but Democrats, aside from Ted Kennedy.

  (LAUGHTER)

• JIM LEHRER:

  Mark, do you — what kind of villains do you see?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I — I think David is delusional.

  (LAUGHTER)

• JIM LEHRER:

  OK.

  (CROSSTALK)

• JIM LEHRER:

  Make your case.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  I have actually got a theory behind that.

• JIM LEHRER:

  All right. Make your case.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  All week, they had a soap opera in the Senate. They stayed there night after night, negotiating back and forth, back and forth, McCain, Kennedy, Hagel, Martinez.

  It was like a soap opera. They finally reached an agreement that a majority can support. And this is the agreement they cut over — that's right in the center. It's a good agreement. It's workable. It was a — a very fine agreement. And they could have had 60 votes for this thing.

  So, why does the Senate not pass something that can get 60 votes? And I think, fundamentally, because the Republicans were happy with it. The Democrats were nervous all along. And, finally, they walked away. And I think the fundamental reason — there are a bunch of them — the fundamental reason they walked away is what Arlen Specter said at the top of the program.

• JIM LEHRER:

  They wanted..

  (CROSSTALK)

• DAVID BROOKS:

  They wanted the Republicans hanging out there with that House bill, which is unattractive. And, so, I think that's one of the reasons they walked away.

  There are other reasons. They thought they would get chewed up in — when they went to the House, when they went to conference to put it all together. But that's the fundamental reason.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Now explain why you believe David is delusional.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Well, first of all, Democrats have no reason to have any confidence in the word of the Republicans when it comes to conference.

  Conferences, which are little understood outside of Washington, are the — really, the third branch of the legislative — an incredibly important one, where — when a separate bills in the same legislation — on the same subject, rather, have passed the House and the Senate, the House and the Senate appoint members to work out the differences.

  Under this Republican Congress, Democrats have been systematically excluded from these conferences. They — historically, you go and you have to have a majority of your party and a majority of the — of the House and the Senate to agree to provisions in the — in conference, that then goes back to both houses to be passed.

  That's — that's the first thing. The second thing, David — not without some reason, David is right, in the fact that the Democrats did like the fact that the Republican House bill is the one piece of immigration legislation…

• JIM LEHRER:

  This is one — this is one that declares…

• MARK SHIELDS:

  It's punitive, mean-spirited.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Punitive means, declares people who are here illegally felons, and that sort of thing.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  That and which — which — and anybody who helps them.

  (CROSSTALK)

• JIM LEHRER:

  And there's — but, more importantly — there's also — not more importantly, but equally as important, there's no part of it that has anything to do — that touches on the 12 million folks that are already here.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  That's exactly right.

• JIM LEHRER:

  OK.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  That's exactly right.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Keep going. Sorry.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  So — no. So, I…

  (CROSSTALK)

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Just — just — so, there is — there is some — some basis for that.

  But I think the Democrats were concerned that there were enough Republicans in the Senate who are going to attach punitive features to it, which then would guarantee, when it went to conference, that a punitive bill would come out…

  (CROSSTALK)

• JIM LEHRER:

  And do you — and you think they believe, the Democrats believe that the Republicans had the votes and would, in fact, kill their own bill, that they had — you know, the compromise bill?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  No. No. No, but — not kill the whole bill…

• JIM LEHRER:

  I mean…

• MARK SHIELDS:

  … but adopt — adopt features to it which would be poison pills to the Democrats, OK, and which would — the Democrats would see as punitive.

  I don't think there's any question that we are talking about that immigration legislation is on life support, at best.

• JIM LEHRER:

  You think it's — you agree that it's not going to…

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Yes. I agree. I…

• JIM LEHRER:

  They say they might take it up when they come back in two weeks?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  No.

• JIM LEHRER:

  No?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  It never happens that way.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  No.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  It just never does.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Yes.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Now, so — OK, so, what happens now? We don't have any — we don't have this reform legislation of any kind. So…

• DAVID BROOKS:

  We have all — everybody, 435 senators — members of the House, 100 senators, all saying the status quo is unacceptable. We will have the status quo for another few years.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Another few years?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  That is what would be my guess.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Mark.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I — I agree with David.

  I do want to say one thing. I mean, I admire Chuck Hagel and — and — and Mel Martinez for trying the fashion this.

  (CROSSTALK)

• JIM LEHRER:

  Two Republican senators, one from Nebraska, one from Florida.

  (CROSSTALK)

• MARK SHIELDS:

  One from Florida, who all tried to get behind it.

  This was a legislative disaster. I mean, this thing had — talk about Rube Goldberg. It had more contraptions and trap doors in it. You — if you were here two years — if you were two — five years, you could remain under a temporary visa. Two to five years, you report to a point of entry, where you're permitted to apply for citizenship. Under two years…

• JIM LEHRER:

  But you had to go back. You had to…

  (CROSSTALK)

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Yes.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Yes.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Under two years, you had to go back to your country of origin.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Right.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Now, a lot of people — you're going to find out that nobody came here in the last two years, right, because everybody has been here for at least two years. I mean, this thing was open to — to fraud, to verification. It was just — it was…

• (CROSSTALK) DAVID BROOKS:

  It was a little convoluted.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Yes, but let me tell you…

• DAVID BROOKS:

  But it…

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Beyond the — beyond the law, what — what happens is, when something like that becomes law, it's unenforceable. And it's one…

  (CROSSTALK)

• MARK SHIELDS:

  And you say, what — it — it's irresponsibility on the part of the legislature to pass a law like this.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Let me ask you, David, to respond to what Mark says, that this was essentially a setup; the Republicans were — were going to put the amendments on there, and then they — then they were going to trash it in the — in a conference committee.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Yes.

  Well, A, I don't think — I think they could have defeated the amendments from Cornyn and Kyl, who are the more exclusionist senators. They could have gotten a good bill out of the Senate. Then it goes to the conference, and that's a legitimate concern, that — Jim Sensenbrenner is the guy in the House who leads the conference.

  And he regularly eats the Senate for lunch, breakfast and dinner. And, so, they had a legitimate concern. But if you don't think the conference process works, don't show up to work, because there's no sense in having legislation out of the Senate if you don't believe in the conference process.

  They went all the way up and down the line. And, then, suddenly, at the last moment, at the dead of night, backed away.

• JIM LEHRER:

  They were worried about the conference.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Right, suddenly.

  (CROSSTALK)

• DAVID BROOKS:

  And I agree, that was a legitimate concern. They had a few other legitimate concerns.

  But I think they had people on the Republican side and, most importantly, they had the presidency. The president was more effective in dealing with Congress this week than he has ever been. They were deeply involved in the negotiations.

  You had McCain and Kennedy, two giants in the Senate. You had a lot of people behind this. And, so…

• JIM LEHRER:

  … still couldn't get it.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  If you can't do — pass a piece of legislation now, where members of the Senate are really going toward the center, then you can never do anything.

• JIM LEHRER:

  I want to know what each of you thinks, quickly, about — before we move on to another subject — the politics of this. Do the — do the Democrats, in fact, have an issue that's real?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  They — it's — it — it's…

• JIM LEHRER:

  Whether they should or they shouldn't, do they have it?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Yes. There is an issue there, Jim.

• JIM LEHRER:

  They do?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  And — and — because the only legislation that will have passed, the only Republican…

• JIM LEHRER:

  Would be the House…

• MARK SHIELDS:

  … will be the House bill. And that — that — that is — that is a…

• JIM LEHRER:

  You agree?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  It will be an anti-Washington.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Everybody wants this fixed. Nothing is going to happen. The — Bush doesn't have to confront his base. So, that's sort of good for him. But there will be an anti-Washington.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Jim, national — Bill Clinton's health bill, OK, failed. Democrats failed to pass it, Democratic Congress, Democratic president. Republicans didn't pay the price for it. It wasn't a congressional failure. It was a Democratic failure. This will be a Republican failure.

• JIM LEHRER:

  OK.

  New subject, the — the Libby statement to the grand jury that was released yesterday. He claims that the president OKed the release of sensitive intelligence information on Iraq. How do you read that?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I — I think, legally, the president probably has a case. Politically, he's damaged.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Legally, meaning he has the authority, as president of the United States, to declassify anything he wants?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  That's right. That's right.

• JIM LEHRER:

  OK.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  But — but they're in — they're into — they're into splitting hairs right now. They're saying, well, it was legal for the president to do it; therefore, it wasn't classified because the president let it out.

  The president is selectively leaking, or having leaked, information that is classified for narrow domestic political purposes. And that — that is not the George Bush that we — that I think most Americans came to see as a straight-shooter, direct guy, un-nuanced, doesn't talk about the meaning of is, tells you straight from the shoulder.

• JIM LEHRER:

  David?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Mark doesn't understand the difference between a leak and a drip.

  A leak hurts me. A drip is — is information that hurts the other side.

• JIM LEHRER:

  That the public needs to have.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  That they need to have.

• (CROSSTALK) DAVID BROOKS:

  It's called open governments.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Open government, right.

  (LAUGHTER)

• DAVID BROOKS:

  And, so, there is a little hypocrisy on the Bush side.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Yes.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  But there's a lot of hypocrisy on the Democratic side. I don't remember Democrats getting upset about leaks that made Donald Rumsfeld look bad or the NSA story.

  People like the leaks that help themselves. So, is Bush hypocritical about the leaks? Yes. Are Democrats hypocritical? Yes. Is it a scandal, a legal scandal? No. It's — it's embarrassing. But it's not the scandal that some people think it is that's going to lead to resignations and firings.

  And, by the way, I think, just on political terms, I — I think this Plame thing has never had any political traction out in the country. Iraq has political traction. This Plame thing is of interest to a lot of people, but it has no real political traction.

• JIM LEHRER:

  You don't think that this will raise the interest, because the president — you remember, the president did say, anybody who is caught leaking in here any classified information, I'm going to get them.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  People are not shocked that politicians are leaking.

• JIM LEHRER:

  About that.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  They're just not shocked about that.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  That has — that has been George Bush's stock and trade. George Bush is not Lyndon Johnson. He's not an — an operator.

  He's not a guy who gets things done. He's a guy that tells you what he believes. And, in this case, he didn't.

  (CROSSTALK)

• JIM LEHRER:

  So, you think it will — you think it will hurt?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  I think — I think it's — I think — well, we have seen one single word in Andy Kohut's Pew poll over and over. When they ask the one single word that identifies the president to you, it had been honest for six months every year — every six months. And it plummeted, to the point where honest fell to sixth.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  And I — and I — I don't think there's any question.

  We used to have two out of five people say it. He — honest is the most thing.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Honest.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Now it's down to 14 percent.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Well…

• MARK SHIELDS:

  This is not going to help.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  He's got Iraq.

  But, you know, they gave it to Judy Miller, and, then, eight days later, they gave it to a lot of us. They handed — I think Scooter Libby himself handed the NIE the — to me, this intelligence estimate.

• JIM LEHRER:

  This is the national intelligence…

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Intelligence estimate.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Gave it to you?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Well, we were — I was in a group of a whole reporters.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Raise your right — raise your right hand.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Yes.

  (LAUGHTER)

• JIM LEHRER:

  Put your hand on the blue sleet.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  I now have to get a lawyer. I shouldn't have said that.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Yes.

  (LAUGHTER)

• DAVID BROOKS:

  But there were a whole bunch of reporters. It was declassified.

  And, so, he gave it a — a little earlier to Judy Miller, I guess. But to the idea that this is some big scandal — and, by the way, if you read through that — that document, you were scared. There was — it wasn't complete, but it had things that made…

• JIM LEHRER:

  The national intelligence estimate…

  (CROSSTALK)

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Right, that made you think, if you were president, yes, you would want to act on this stuff.

• JIM LEHRER:

  OK.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  So, it was a valuable document.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Finally, before we go, this was the week that Tom Delay resigned. Both of you had — have — have expressed yourself on Tom Delay up until now. What do you have to say now that he's going?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Well, I — I think it's — I think, in — in many respects, it's the end of the Republican era.

  After 9/11, and I think probably led by Tom Delay, in large part, the Republicans decided to run the Congress on Republican votes. And — and it was Republican majorities. That's how they were going to get everything through. That's how they did get everything through. Now they can't get anything.

• JIM LEHRER:

  And Tom Delay did that.

  (CROSSTALK)

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Yes, Tom Delay

• JIM LEHRER:

  Yes.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  And now they can't get anything through. And even with Tom Delay at the top of his game, they couldn't. And, so, it's — it's an entirely different era.

• DAVID BROOKS:

  I have revised everything I have thought about him. I now think it's Lincoln, Jefferson, Delay

  (LAUGHTER)

  (CROSSTALK)

• DAVID BROOKS:

  No.

  No, I — you know, I don't think he will have much of a future. It's — it's funny, because Gingrich has a future now. He's had a bit of a renaissance, because he has ideas that people find valuable. And he has worked with Hillary Clinton. He has worked with Bush. So, Gingrich is still around, and I think will run for president. But Delay was more a political operative, as Mark suggested. I don't think he will have much of a future.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Do you think the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is better off without him?

• DAVID BROOKS:

  Yes, absolutely, because of the — the style of politics. I mean, he was very skilled as a whip. There's no question about that. But the style of politics, of mixing the party with K Street, of doing a lot of earmarks, that was terribly damaging.

  (CROSSTALK)

• JIM LEHRER:

  Back to the same issue on a similar issue on the immigration thing. Does his departure deprive the Democrats of, hey, let's go after Delay in the 2006 elections?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  Well, his — his face…

• JIM LEHRER:

  As an issue, I mean.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  His face isn't there, but — but his legacy certainly is there, 36,000 lobbyists in Washington, four times as many as the day Tom Delay became the whip of the Republican Party, the K Street, a — a corrupt relationship, money back and forth, soliciting back and forth, indictments. The — the court cases continue. He will — he will still be — he will still be in the news.

• JIM LEHRER:

  DeLayism is still here, even though he isn't?

• MARK SHIELDS:

  DeLayism, that's — I like that. That's very good.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Well, you might want to write this down.

  (LAUGHTER)

• DAVID BROOKS:

  In fact, I did write that down.

• JIM LEHRER:

  Did — you did write that down. OK.

  (LAUGHTER)

• JIM LEHRER:

  Thank you both very much.

• MARK SHIELDS:

  What a difference Delay makes.

  (LAUGHTER)