Donald Trump, President Trump, Stacey Abrams discussed on Brian Lehrer

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

There's a lot more to say, and we'll play more clips of Trump's Stacey Abrams and California attorney general heavier Basirah who gave a Democratic Party response in Spanish listeners hold off on costs for the moment. We'll take them in a little while. Our first guest today are Anita Kumar White House correspondent for politico and Allie Vel she MSNBC hosts part of the Vail. She and rule weekday anchor team with Stephanie rule in the network's one o'clock hour, plus alleys own our at three PM, Anita and alley. Thanks so much for the time today. Welcome to WNYC. Thank. Can we talk about that weird defensive moment about investigations, I ally, what did it even mean that he paired war an investigation as the only things that can stop legislation? We'll probably I think what we've learned in the last two years is that there's an audience that that takes the president at his word. So when he says things like that, you know, one of the latest things that he's been talking about is that the wall is being built that there's lots of wall being built, and there's a percentage of Americans probably close to thirty percent who believed that they take him at his word because they've come to disbelieve the media. So when the president says something like that, there's no intellectual economic historical basis for that. It actually doesn't make sense to most people. Those those functions should be working investigative and oversight functions should be working and the economy can work. There's actually there's virtually no connection between the two. In fact, if I were to argue I would say war wild terrible, generally actually gives you an economic boost. So it didn't make any sense whatsoever. Ever and Anita. He actually did say with war. There can't be peace. That was one little weird part of that that stretch. But do you know, the White House correspondent who wrote that speech with its ungrammatical on matching singular and plural in that moment. Maybe it's picky to talk about the English. But I mean, it was tended to be a high publicity highlight the only thing that can stop. It are foolish wars politics or ridiculous partisan investigations that was in the print attacks and text than on his teleprompter. Right. We have been we have been told that Stephen Miller one of his top aides who people might know. He's behind a lot of the immigration policies at the White House. Put out wise one of the authors. I don't think. A speech of this magnitude this length is written by one person. But I think he was the primary author that of course, the president also is involved. I'm not saying that he's writing every line. But he doesn't look at it make notes send it back that sort of thing and Allie apparently though, it didn't see this with my own eyes. I must have looked over Twitter or something just wrong moment. But when Trump said that line, I I understand congressman Adam Schiff chair of the house intelligence committee began to laugh and Pelosi from the podium signaled with her hands for him and other Democrats in the chamber not to. Yes. What did you make of that? Well, so we had heard some reporting ahead of time that Nancy Pelosi had spoken to her gosh members. Obviously the women were wearing white in support of women's voting rights, but she had sort of said, let's let's not take the attention away by antics and responses and things like that. And it was interesting to watch Nancy Pelosi through the whole thing. Not only not having frustrated responses or I rolls. But at the point where Donald Trump made his comment about how many women had been elected, which was really a moment. She got up and applauded Donald Trump for that. When in fact, one might argue the reason there are as many women elected as there are today was because of the strong position that so many women have taken since the election of Donald Trump. So I suppose he could be applauded for that. Because he's a he's a bit of a cause for it. But that growth in the number of women in in the congress was actually in opposition to Donald Trump, not not because of him, right? But the Democrats decided I guess under the leadership of Pelosi indicating to look like the dignified party last night and avoid taking Trump's bait to overreact. Which after all is exactly his and Steve Bannon playbook, that's entirely, right? And I think that it was a successful move. One of the things that's happened. With all the people who doubted, Nancy, Pelosi's strength and vigor in. Ability to do her job in a lot of the new progressives in congress felt that it was time for somebody else. Somebody younger the the skirmishes with Donald Trump since she's become speaker seemed to have invigorated her by some accounts, she won round one by forcing Donald Trump's hand into and then out of the shutdown and with a just over a week to go until we may have another one she seems to be in a strong position. So I think they are really hoping not to compromise with sideshows that that occupy the media. No, Joe Wilson moment for a state of the union. Another contrast last night was that Trump never mentioned the government shutdown. Stacey Abrams did like this making lively livelihood of our federal workers upon for political games is a disgrace the shutdown with a stunt engineered by the president of the United States. One that defied every Tenet of fairness and abandoned not just our people, but our values and here's another state. Abrahams clip that also shows how never mind what the solutions are the two parties can't even agree on what the problems are. Let's be clear voter suppression is real. From making it harder to register and stay on the rolls to moving and closing polling places to rejecting lawful ballots. We can no longer ignore these threats to democracy. So Anita KOMO from politico to hear Stacey Abrams, our central problems revolve around inequality rigged, even more by the Trump tax Bill. She used the word rigged while to Trump inequality was never mentioned and our problems come mostly from immigrants, Iran and socialism. How you hear the contrast and its political implications. Yeah. I mean, definitely there were certain things. I mean, there were two totally different totally different things that they focused on, you know, Stacey Evans also mentioned two things about gun. She had many things that she mentioned that he didn't mention at all, and you and you hit a couple of those. But this was what the president wanted to. This is what he's going to campaign on. This is what he wants to push for the next year. He he dealt a lot with immigration, but not the repercussions of that meeting, the shutdown and a lot of people pretty upset about that. A lot of Democrats were upset about it. I know Senator Mark Warner who represents Virginia a lot of federal workers. I thought we were supposed to here so Lucien to this impasse, which there might be another government shutdown in another week or so, but we didn't hear that part. So, you know, the the White House had assured us last week that he would offer a bipartisan way forward that was there. Were there words on this possibility of a shutdown how to fund the wall, or do whatever they want to do to make a deal, but we didn't hear that particular part of it? No. In fact, he invoked bipartisanship and unity at the very beginning of the speech, and then went on to give kind of a typical Trump nationalist address, not that he's the only politician ever to invoke unity as an abstract idea. And then go on to appeal to his base. But he certainly did that last night. So for both of you, and Anita I as a matter of political analysis who were they each talking to last night. Did you think that Trump was primarily doing what he usually does just trying to stoke the fires of his base that thirty five percent or whatever it is to keep them, loyal and inflamed? Or was he trying to, cultivate, any kind of? A bigger audience with this big platform before he went for reelection presumably in twenty twenty on the Stacey Abrams side, I've heard so much analysis that they picked her to encourage her to run for US Senate from Georgia in twenty twenty. But I feel like it must also be more than that. The Democratic Party establishment wanted Stacey Abrams out there. To look certain way or to deliver a certain message or some combination. So who who do you think he was actually trying to address? Sure, I think the president had two different speeches in one. Right. Maybe that's why eighty minute. I mean, he definitely wise had moments where he was talking to his base that immigration talk with what he has talked about before his talk about trade and China ending endless wars. I mean, those are the things that he's talked about for a long time. He talked about in twenty sixteen. He's talked about the first two years, and those are things that member piece of people that are, you know, have been supportive of him want to hear any plans on campaigning on that. But there were definitely moments where he tried to appeal to other people, and those were the more patriotic moment if you will that you were talking about talking about the holocaust survivor. And the little girl who had brain cancer. I mean, there were definitely those feel good moments that you're used to in the state of the union address. But is that going to resonate beyond? You know, a few hours another day. That's how long the state of the union. We'll probably be around tomorrow. We'll be talking about something else. I don't think that that's going to he may have tried to appeal to a broader off. But I don't think it's going to last because this is President Trump the next day today. He'll be off doing something else. They'll be disparaging someone or until someone or tweeting about something. They just announced that he's having his I make America great again rally Monday in Texas. No, I think, you know, by by the first this year, he'll be he'll be off, you know, doing more of a parties in parties and talk, but it was an interesting speech because it was a little bit of both. We Stacey Abrams. It was clear that they the Democratic Party thinks that she is a rising star. I heard all sorts of last night about how this woman should run for president. And that she really has a future in the party. But you're right. It is someone that the the type of person it was her message was good. But they also wanted to portray a type of person, right? This is someone win working class roots. She she said that she went between I think middle class and working poor. And she that beginning of her speech described that her biography, and what it was like growing up and things that she's learned from her family. And I thought they, you know, the Democratic Party thinks that she has a good message to share about the values that they want to represent now L E L she same. Yes. So I think that whenever I hear who's giving the response it always gives me a little chill because that that can be the kiss of death. That is just as often worked against somebody as for them..

Coming up next