On Friday's PBS NewsHour, pseudoconservative pundit David Brooks noted that public opinion is moving the wrong way for people who want to remove President Trump from office, but he's "99.9 percent guilty" and Adam Schiff will "walk all over" Trump's new defense lawyers, like Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, because "he has the evidence on his side."
PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff turned to liberal pundit Mark Shields on Friday and said time may be running out for Democrats to impeach without interfering with the primaries early next year. Then Shields said something weird about Pete Buttigieg. It was a product placement for PBS. Buttigieg is a regular Mister Rogers!
Liberal PBS NewsHour analyst Mark Shields sort of bumbled into the idea that the way voters prove they're not racist is by voting for Democrats. Many years ago, NBC's Bryant Gumbel announced they had a test to see "whether you're a racist or a liberal." Shields was discussing counties where voters picked Obama, but then switched to Trump. If -- and the if is what makes the bumble -- voters pick a Democrat over Trump, they "wouldn't be racists."
If there's one amazingly bad take on the Democrats in 2019, it's the idea that they're somehow not secular, and appeal to a strong base of secularists. Mark Shields used old examples to argue "I think there is a strong spiritual, almost religious chord to the Democratic story."
On the PBS NewsHour on Friday night, liberal analyst Mark Shields and "conservative" analyst David Brooks aggressively agreed with each other, as usual -- this time, in defending Democrat front-runner Joe Biden after he brought up working with segregationist Democrats in the 1970s to get work done. Brooks, a New York Times columnist, compared segregationists to "homophobes," which is highly offensive if it's used to describe social conservatives and orthodox religious people. Shields shamed Biden's Democrat opponents as purists who would make a minority party.
The Mueller Report is out, and Donald Trump’s summary got it right: “no collusion, no obstruction.” Mueller could also have labeled him the next iteration of St. Teresa but it still wouldn’t have made a lick of difference. The left wants him impeached -- period.
It was bad enough when liberals like Thomas Friedman reacted to Hillary Clinton losing the election by calling it a "moral 9/11," which in no way represented anything like a set of terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 and wounded more than 6,000. But on Friday night, PBS NewsHour analyst Mark Shields returned to the scene of that rhetorical excess in reaction to the Mueller report. The investigations into Russiagate must never end. We need a "new 9/11 Commission."
On the PBS NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks is somehow expected to be identified as the conservative (or at least center-right) pundit, and he keeps sounding like a leftist instead. On Friday, he came out for reparations because "we're in a make-or-break moment on race" due to "the election of Trump," and "aggressive gestures" are needed to show "we're all part of the same country."
Friday night's pundit segment on the PBS NewsHour began in a predictable way, as both pseudoconservative David Brooks and liberal Mark Shields rained fire on President Trump declaring a national emergency to secure federal funding for a border wall. But after both pundits agreed that Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was "impressive," Brooks was gently asked if the Democrats were getting too progressive, and he dropped a bomb. They were "somewhere to the left of Che Guevara."
On Friday's PBS NewsHour, liberal analyst and columnist Mark Shields took a position for civility, arguing that Kavanaugh critics on the Left shouldn't be protesting after the fight has ended. The Supreme Court is too important for ongoing agitation:
New York Times columnist David Brooks expressed public disagreement with his editorial-page bosses on Friday night's All Things Considered on NPR. He didn't directly mock their choice to publish an anonymous "senior administration official" bragging about how they keep President Trump in check from his worst impulses. He just mocked the official: "It was a stupid act. You know, if you're going to be protecting the president from himself, don't tell him. And so, you know, it's going to make him be much more erratic and much more willful in the face of White House aides."
Liberals try to play quite a game with special counsel Robert Mueller. When he indicts Russians, analysts like Mark Shields on PBS start making jokes about how Trump's summit with Putin will be a "campaign reunion" with Trump's "favorite absentee voter." But when anyone suggests Mueller's probe is partisan -- or leads to partisan smack-talk -- they suggest it's nonsense, that "there's not a partisan corpuscle in Bob Mueller's system."