Brooks and Capehart on what's next for Democrats in the Maine Senate race

Geoff Bennett:

To discuss the fallout from this week's shakeup in Maine's Senate race and the resumption of hostilities with Iran and more, we turn now to Brooks and Capehart. That's "The Atlantic"'s David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

Good evening. gentlemen.

So Democrats have this immediate challenge trying to replace Graham Platner in this critical Maine Senate race. The larger question is why these serious controversies increasingly fail to disqualify political candidates until the pressure becomes overwhelming.

But, Jonathan, starting with the practical question, what do Democrats need to do now?

Jonathan Capehart:

They need to get a nominee who can best go up against Susan Collins.

Now, with Graham Platner finally out of the race -- I was happy to see that he submitted the papers to fully get out of the race this afternoon. That is the first step that needed to happen. Now they have to have -- the Democrats have to have the convention, and a bunch of people are going to jump into that race and be a part of the process to become the nominee.

But, again, no matter who the nominee is, they are going up against a formidable candidate in Susan Collins. We have talked about this many times before. How many elections have we seen her either down in the polls, potentially losing to the Democrat, but, on Election Day, she blows the doors off the election?

That scenario is still at work. So whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, whoever the Maine Democrats pick, they better pick the person and then circle the wagons around them to give that nominee the best possible shot they can to defeat Susan Collins.

Geoff Bennett:

And, David, the fact that Graham Platner survived one controversy after another, his political support largely held until there was this allegation that was just so serious that it became impossible for the party to move on, what does that say about how high the threshold for political shame has become?

David Brooks:

Very high, apparently.

Everyone's a sinner, and we all have things that we're not proud of in our past. But he had so many red flags. And it was not only the tattoo and over a decade of Reddit posts. But, as we have learned, when some guy's abusive to one woman, there are more. There's a pattern of behavior all the time.

And we learned from some reporting in The New York Times this week that three operatives from the Democratic national party in D.C. went up to Maine and told him, you're the guy, you're our hero, you're a messiah, you should run. And people in Maine who knew him was like, you might still be in a fragile state. Maybe this is not a good idea.

And they turned out to be right. To me, the bigger picture is, when you decide whether or not to vote some for somebody, there should be three filters. First, do they have the moral character ready to do the job? Are they trustworthy? Do they tell the truth? The second filter should be, do they have good judgment? Can they read a situation and see, here's what needs to be done here?

And the third filter should be, do they agree with me? Do they -- are they on my political team? But what's happened in politics over the last, I don't know how many years, is those first two filters are gone. And so people only ask, are they on my team?

And that's obviously true on the Republican side with Trump, but it's also true of Bernie Sanders, who stuck to Platner like glue after a lot of these revelations were coming, because he decided, well, he's a Democrat, therefore, I don't have to worry about character. I don't have to worry about judgment.

But let's all learn the lesson character actually kind of is important. And if somebody doesn't have that, it doesn't matter if they're on your team.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, what about that, Jonathan?

Democrats for years had pointed at Donald Trump and made the argument that character matters. Does the fact that so many Democrats were willing to stick with Graham Platner, does that undercut the their argument fundamentally?

Jonathan Capehart:

No, it doesn't, because we're talking about one guy over a history of candidates where Democrats didn't put those -- the considerations they gave to Graham Platner into work.

I look at it like this. What happened, what should have happened, finally happen. And when you look on the Republican side, and particularly with President Trump, who has had similar accusations against him, including some court actions, and yet Republicans stuck by him.

And so I wonder if a lot of Democrats looked and thought, you know what, the guy in the Oval Office has got a lot of baggage, this guy has a lot of baggage. We're going to hang in there. Should they have done it? No, they shouldn't have. And the consequences of that, Maine and Maine Democrats are dealing with that now.

But I hope that this is a lesson for candidates around the country. If you have skeletons in your closet, you better know what they are, and you better be truthful and forthcoming about what they are when people come to you and say you are the one.

Maybe you should be the person who says, you know what, I'm not, and maybe you should go talk to someone else.

Geoff Bennett:

Well, let's shift our focus to the president and NATO this past week, because the president left the summit in Turkey with allies now spending more on their own defense, which is what he has been calling for, for years, and the alliance is still intact. It's a low bar.

But his defenders would say that the president's -- that the results vindicate the president's methods. Do you see it that way?

David Brooks:

Not quite vindication. I think people have taken -- gotten used to the Trump show, and they know there's going to be a lot of shrapnel flying in the air when he arrives in town.

But the good news is, according to the reporting, at the end, he filled everybody with love. He praised everybody. Apparently, he was actually listening to each of the leaders as we spoke. And we got more out of this summit than we had every right to expect or deserve.

As you said, the Europeans are taking more -- a greater share of the defense budget. To me, the most impressive thing is both Europeans and Americans and our other allies are building a manufacturing base for defense. We were -- a couple of years ago, we were so far behind China in the manufacturing base. We're now beginning to do that.

There's still a support for Ukraine and more money for Ukraine out of this summit. And that's significant. And so it was a successful summit. And Trump showed some humanity. The thing that worries me is so many foreign policy experts these days are worried that Vladimir Putin, who's got his back to the wall, is going to reach out and attack a NATO ally directly.

And they're going to wonder, is the U.S. going to be there, is NATO going to be there, is NATO still a thing? And it seems outrageous to me that Vladimir Putin would launch another invasion. But I keep hearing this from so many foreign policy experts. I'm wondering, something to look out for.

Geoff Bennett:

Yes, what's your assessment, Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

Well, I mean, I take your points, David, about a successful summit.

I just wonder if part of it was, great, the president's good behavior. But I wonder if the Europeans, the NATO allies have gotten to the point where they just placate him, have Rutte babysit him and do all the stuff for public show, but behind the scenes are doing everything they can to ensure that the alliance hangs together whether or not the United States is there.

And the one thing that tempers, when -- as I was listening to you, David, the one thing that gives me some caution is, let's say Vladimir Putin does invade a NATO country or attack a NATO country directly. I still believe, and I'm sure leaders in European NATO capitals are wondering, will the United States actually be a participant in Article 5 protection of that NATO ally?

And I don't know if anyone has a definitive answer to that right now.

Geoff Bennett:

In the time that remains, I want to get to this other topic, because I spoke with Rahm Emanuel this past week, who argued in Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the war with Gaza has left Israel increasingly isolated and facing what he called the prospect of perpetual occupation.

David, is that becoming in many ways sort of the mainstream position inside both political parties?

David Brooks:

I hope so. But I don't think so.

I think Rahm gave a great speech. He has the bona fides to do it. I thought the Palestinians were idiots for not signing up to the Oslo peace process. I think Netanyahu and the Israelis have been idiots to do all these settlements, which really make the two-state process.

And so both sides in the region have given up on the two-state solution. My problem is that, in the United States, a lot of people in America are giving up the two-state solution. Rahm Emanuel believes in it. A lot of mainstream Republicans believe in it.

But when I go on college campuses, a lot of the students I talk to, they just don't believe in it. And a lot of people on the right don't believe in it.

Geoff Bennett:

Jonathan?

Jonathan Capehart:

One, Geoff, I want to commend you on your interview with Rahm Emanuel. Your questions were great. I thought his answers were terrific. His speech was terrific.

And what I took away from it was that Rahm was sending a message to the Israeli people that this is about Prime Minister Netanyahu. And he is the obstacle to bringing about any kind of path towards a peaceful solution.

Geoff Bennett:

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, I certainly wish we had more time for this conversation. But thank you both. Have a great weekend.

David Brooks:

Thank you.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Geoff.