Brooks and Capehart on Trump’s endorsement, Biden’s differences with Israel’s Netanyahu

Geoff Bennett:

With just days left before the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump notches an endorsement from a former rival.

On that and more, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Good to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Good to see you, Geoff.

Geoff Bennett:

So, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott is endorsing Donald Trump at a rally in New Hampshire tonight, huge blow to Nikki Haley, obviously, moving forward, especially, lest we forget that it was Nikki Haley who as governor back in 2013 appointed Tim Scott to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Jonathan, what do you see as the significance of this?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, it just means that Donald Trump is continuing his steamrolling towards the nomination.

And also this fits a pattern that we knew was coming, which is everyone is going to get on board the Trump train as quickly as they can. And so I wouldn't be surprised, if Governor DeSantis drops out of the race, he decides to endorse Donald Trump. Nikki Haley drops out of the race, I wouldn't be surprised if she turned around and endorsed Donald Trump.

We just heard Governor Sununu of New Hampshire say he would support Donald Trump if he were the Republican nominee, which is mystifying to me, given the things that he said after that answer. You think Donald Trump is going to surround himself with people who want to get things done? Has he not paid — did he not apparently attention the four years of the administration and what he's been doing and who he's surrounded himself with since then?

So, if Tim Scott wants to — if Senator Scott wants to jump on that bandwagon and maybe wants to be vice president, maybe wants to be a Cabinet official, good for him. But history will deal with him.

Geoff Bennett:

And, David, I'm told by sources familiar that Donald Trump actually pursued Tim Scott's endorsement, as did Nikki Haley, not directly, but through mutual friends.

If she performs well in New Hampshire, she then moves to South Carolina, where Donald Trump is already up 20-plus points. What does it mean that Tim Scott is throwing his support behind Trump and not her?

David Brooks:

Well, first, there was a moment in 2016 when Tim Scott and Nikki Haley did a rally with Marco Rubio to endorse him. And so you had a Black guy, an Indian-American woman, the son of Cuban immigrants. That was one direction for the Republican Party.

The Republican Party obviously went in a very different direction. And now Tim Scott is adjusting to the winds. And so he's probably pro-Trump. He's probably a little anti-Nikki Haley. South Carolina politics is the roughest state politics in the country, in my opinion.

Jonathan Capehart:

Oh, yes.

David Brooks:

And so betrayal is nothing new. And so Scott and Haley have had a — not a great relationship, even though she appointed him.

And so it's — betrayal is the art form. And if Tim Scott becomes vice president, the vice presidential candidate, frankly, I'd be happy.

Geoff Bennett:

Why is that?

David Brooks:

Tim Scott is a pretty good — he's a good senator. He's a good guy. He's a good human being. He would have a — if he was elected, he would have a moderating effect on the Trump administration.

And maybe someday there'd be a future President Tim Scott, which would be a lot better than what the Republicans are offering.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, as we reported earlier in the program, President Biden spoke today with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the first time in nearly a month. They talked about the ongoing war in Gaza, the risk for a regional escalation, and also what the plan is for Gaza after the war.

And, Jonathan, really the divisions between these two men on all of those issues, you could argue, has never been as pronounced. Help us understand the dynamics at play here.

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, when I look at these dynamics, one, you have a president of the United States who is desperately trying to keep a lid on the Middle East as much as he can.

And then you have an Israeli prime minister who has political problems, because he's got a far right coalition government that he's trying to keep with him, so he can remain prime minister. And he also has legal problems. A lot of people say that he is waging this war in part because he doesn't want to go to jail.

And so when you put this mix together, of course, it's oil and water. I praise the president, I praise the secretary of state for trying as hard as they can to be the adults in this situation, looking at this from a diplomatic perspective. But they're dealing with a prime minister who has very parochial considerations in a war that has global significance.

Geoff Bennett:

And, David, I think you can argue that Netanyahu believes that he can outmaneuver and outlast U.S. officials and American presidents.

As the — as President Biden is pushing for a Palestinian state after the war, Netanyahu gave that speech yesterday where he says, the prime minister needs to be capable of saying no to our friends, saying no when necessary, and saying yes when possible.

How does Biden contend with that?

David Brooks:

Yes, well, and Bibi Netanyahu is about Bibi Netanyahu and staying in power. And so far, he's been pretty good at it.

And his strategy now, apparently, is, I'm going to defend America — I'm going to defend Israel from America. And those Americans are trying to shove a two-state solution down our throat, and I'm going to be your defender.

He has very remote chances of being prime minister after the war ends, because he's going to get blamed for October 7, deservedly. And so he's adopted this strategy, which is insane. I mean, the idea that America would — that Bibi Netanyahu would attack the prime — president of the United States, who came to Israel right after October 7?

And, plus, there's just no viability to his plan. He's got a war with no end date. He's got this dream of a security from the river to the sea. You can't have a future in the Middle East without some Palestinian Authority. Those people live there. And he's got an opportunity to sign alliances with Saudi Arabia and everybody else, but the Israelis need a Palestinian partner.

And somebody's got to construct that. So his idea that you could do this without any Palestinian partner, it's just completely unworkable. But it's a campaign strategy, more than anything else.

Geoff Bennett:

So, when he says the prime minister needs to be capable of saying no to our friends, no to the U.S., why can't the U.S. then say, well, then we can say no to more aid and weapons, or at least without conditions?

Jonathan Capehart:

I think we're going to — I think we're going down that road.

I mean, every week, it seems there's yet another Democratic senator, another Democratic elected official saying, we need to take a look at this. We need to do something because the Israelis, meaning the prime minister, isn't paying attention.

And I think this is something that also the president and the administration has been trying to warn him, warn Netanyahu about. But, clearly, he's not listening because he has domestic considerations.

David Brooks:

I would just say that it seems — it strikes me as a long way off, because the president, President Biden, does agree that we need to get rid of Hamas, or at least severely degrade Hamas.

So, a lot of the pressure now is just to get them to do more targeted attacks, less bombing, slow down the military operation. I think the military — the presidential — the administration's posture is quite the right one. But that doesn't mean you want to cut off arms or let the U.N. pass some resolution condemning Israel for genocide.

That would be very disruptive of the relationship.

Geoff Bennett:

In the couple of minutes that remain, I want to talk about the big picture about the challenges facing The Baltimore Sun and The L.A. Times.

What business model for American newspapers right now is the sustainable one?

David Brooks:

Well…

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

I guess, if we could answer that question…

(Laughter)

Geoff Bennett:

But is it — as I asked Ann Marie Lipinski, is it super wealthy, in most all cases men, swooping in and buying a paper?

David Brooks:

That's the way we have always done it.

(Laughter)

David Brooks:

So, yes, I do think there is a model. I work at two places that are doing it. I work at The New York Times, where we're owned by the Sulzberger family. And I write for "The Atlantic," where it's Laurene Powell Jobs.

And both places are either close to breaking even or doing moderately well. But I would not say even at our publications that anybody's satisfied or not completely alarmed, because the business model for online journalism is just tough. And the oncoming train is A.I.

Suppose you wake up in the morning and say, A.I., tell me what happened in the Middle East. Well, the bots take all of our news organizations' material, which we paid for to get, and then they synthesize it and they give away for free.

And so A.I. is — as bad as it is right now, A.I. is even a bigger threat.

Geoff Bennett:

How do you see it?

Jonathan Capehart:

I agree with what David said.

But I would also say, between "The Atlantic" and The New York Times, and I'm at The Washington Post, which is owned by — personally by Jeff Bezos, what we have with — what The Post, The Times and "The Atlantic" have in common is that they are mission-driven.

And it seems to me that The Baltimore Sun and The L.A. Times is stat — that the owners are status-driven. And when you have mission-driven owners, they let the journalists do the journalism.

Geoff Bennett:

And on that note, we will end it there.

Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks, thanks so much.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Geoff.