amna: An impassioned state of the union address by president Biden served as an unofficial kickoff to the general election. On that and what lies ahead in the race for the white house, 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." Thank you for joining us from Philadelphia. Let's talk about that speech last night because the numbers are in. According to Nielsen, huge numbers for p
resident Biden. Some 32 million Americans tuned in to watch. That is 18% higher than last year. As we noted, it was a pretty fiery delivery. Some unscripted back and forth, we will call them, including moments like this unfolding. >> We have two ways to go. Republicans can cut social security and give more tax breaks to the wealthy. Well, that's the proposal. [Jeering] Oh, no. You guys don't want another $2 trillion tax cut. I kind of thought that's what your plan was. Well, that's good to hear.
You're not going to cut another $2 trillion for the super well, that's good to hear. Amna: Going into the speech, you said you were looking for poetry. Geoff: I said-- David: I said feudalism. On a day's reflection, two thoughts come to mind. The first is that the Democrats have had trouble digging out how to respond to the trump era, so the first response was the Michelle Obama Monday go low, we go high. That has clearly gone. They are going super partisan and they are going super strong with
the fight. A lot of Democrats just want to see the fight. He has come out as a pretty partisan fighter, and I think a lot of Democrats will be very pleased by that. The second is reflecting on the moving pieces in that speech and how they touch a lot of basis to reassure Democrats. I am most struck by the fact that he led with Ukraine. It is so unusual to begin a state of the union speech with one issue, then one issue that frankly turns around the whole political universe. I was looking at thes
e liberal Democrats on th floor thinking, more defense spending. What world am I in? In my world, the Republican party is for more aggressive foreign policy. But we have seen a reversion of the political universe. On social security, he is kind of wrong. Donald Trump said explicitly no cuts to social security. It was kind of unfair. But he clearly wanted that fight and enjoyed that fight. Amna: It was the same moment last year that goaded Marjorie Taylor Greene into a back and forth. Jonathan, t
he president did have lingering concerns he was trying to address going into the state. Did he do what he needed to do in those remarks? Nick: -- Jonathan: Yes, he absolutely dead. Not only Democrats wanted to see the president fight, I think lots of Americans wanted to see, is this guy really alive, as the Republicans keep saying he is practically dead, that he is senile. The man who showed up yesterday was decidedly not. In that clip you played, it was reminiscent of last year. He was negotiat
ing in real time, trying to paint them into a corner in real time. Sorry, but someone who is not all there can't do that in front of a crowd of people on live television in a high-stakes address. What he did overall I think was reassure the country and reassure Democrats that not only is he willing to fight but he is willing to fight for the things that he has accomplished. He is willing to fight for the things he wants to try to do and that he is willing to fight for them in the same way that R
epublicans or Maga folks view Donald Trump is fighting for them. Amna: He didn't mention Donald Trump once by name. Should he have? Jonathan: No. I think that was on purpose because even though David says last night was a very partisan speech, he didn't mention Donald Trump's name until today. His rally here in Pennsylvania wrapped up about 20 minutes before this segment, and he used Donald Trump's name a lot. He is not shying away from the fight at all. Amna: I want to ask you about the Republi
can response delivered by Katie britt. Much of her remarks focused on immigration and crime, but part of her message was on the economy. Here's what she had to say. >> The American people are scraping by while president Biden proudly proclaims that bidenomics is working. Goodness, y'all. Bless his heart. Amna: David, she is 42 years old. She is accomplished in her own right, but unique among senate Republicans because she is also a mother to two school-aged children. Who are Republicans hoping t
o reach? David: I am her last defender. I thought she did an adequate job. I expect to do this segment from my kitchen from now on to stay tuned. Most of the country, you show that you are concerned about your family, you are equal and nobody is better than me, I am no better than anybody else. I thought she example fight a style of communication that may not be popular in the media world but is popular in most of the country. Most can say, maybe she overacted a little, but I thought she was com
passionate, smart, effective. She happens to be completely wrong on what we just showed. We just had 275 thousand new jobs. We have the greatest economy in the world of any major economy. The idea that people, that Joe Biden is puffing up the economy is just completely wrong. It is true the American people are in a bad mood. I call that a pessimism bubble. But I thought she was completely fine and will appeal to a lot of moms, a lot of suburbanites who are just not super into politics, but they
sense that something is wrong with the country may be spiritually, morally, relationally, and think, I know people like her. Amna: Many of those voters are the same voters, the former Haley voters that president Biden was making an appeal to himself. Could he reach some of them? Jonathan: Maybe. Maybe she can. Maybe those are voters who are up for grabs, but maybe she is from the Maga wing of the Republican party and those voting for Haley may not like her. I think David is being charitable sayi
ng she may be overacted a bit. It made it difficult to watch, between the range in her octaves and how she was saying what she was saying and performing what she was saying was kind of hard to hear what she was saying. The other thing is, I know if Hugh Hewitt, one of the most conservative thinkers out there, a fellow columnist at "The Washington post," if he and I are in agreement about how bad the Republican response is, that tells me she was bad. [Laughter] Amna: I think it is safe to say we
are in general election mode right now. And if that is the case, what does what was said last night and how it was said, what does that tell us about what we are going to see for the next eight months? David: One of the nice things I loved about last night is we were talking about policy. Biden crammed that speech full of policy. Early childhood education, whatever. Student loan forgiveness. And one of the problems with the anti-Trump world has been too much reliance on this. Trump says some hor
rible things, we react, that is so horrible. We watch our favorite commentators who say that was horrible, then we expect there to be some massive moral turn on him. We expect the indictments. We expect something that will wipe them off the face of the Earth so we can feel vindicated. It feels good, this exercise. It has been a total failure because we have been doing it for six years and Donald Trump is politically in a better spot now than he has ever before. To me, if Biden is going to beat h
im, it has to be reminding people, this policy, I like that, I like that. Most people are not looking for moral leadership from politicians anymore. They are looking for who will make my life a little better? Amna: Do you agree with that? Jonathan: I absolutely agree with it. Actually, it is sort of a vindication of what the Biden white house has been saying from the very beginning. If we focus on getting legislative accomplishments, if we focus on getting winds on the board, if we focus on gett
ing things into law that will then start making people's lives better that we can then turn around and go back to the American people and say, look what we've done, not what we promised to do, but what we've done, then that is half the battle. And what we saw last night, I think David is absolutely right, that speech was crammed with all sorts of things he has done and things he wants to do, right down to the billions of dollars over 10 years. I think we are going to see the president talk about
those things, both what he has done and what he wants to do, as he goes on the campaign trail. Like I said before, I just watched the rally. It is it a state of the union speech with Donald Trump's name and it. Amna: Do you think Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden will debate, and should they? Jonathan: Yes, they should debate. I don't know whether they will debate. But I do know this, I think president Biden absolutely wants to debate. The question is, does Donald Trump? I am not convinced he does. David
: He said he does. It is a presidential campaign. All of our lifetimes, they have debated. I don't know when it started, but certainly Nixon and Kennedy, so there should be a debate. Whether it will be useful, eh. It doesn't lead to who wins the elections. President Obama had a terrible debate. President bush didn't do well in debates and won twice. But it should be fun for us. Amna: I have to ask you, the no label third-party group said they will be fielding a defending candidate. What impact w
ill that have? David: It could have an impact. The former Dallas mayor, I know him. He has a very serious guy. So these are not half-baked people. But I have long thought looking at the data, whoever they put up, it will hurt Biden more than trump. Amna: We will see. Always great to see you both. Thank you so much. ♪♪
Comments