tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News January 23, 2010 11:00pm-11:30pm EST
on this week on the journal editorial report, obama's next move. how will the white house respond to republican scott brown's victory in the bay state? we'll preview next week's state of the union address. and plus, a landmark supreme court decision up ends decades of campaign finance law. what it means for mid term elections ahead. >> welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. first up, obama's next move. will tuesday night's stunning upset cause the president to shift center or left? doug shown joins me now on his take. doug shown, welcome. >> thank you. >> good to have you back. you worked in the clinton white house, tell us about the
debate inside about how to respond. >> well nrk the clinton poll there was in debate. there was a clear recognition bit president he had to move to the center to be pro balance budget, fiscal discipline. job creation. moderate social welfare. >> 1994? >> that is correct. i think in this white house there will be a debate between the populus on one hand and led by axlrod and other, more pro business like rahm emmanuel there is 94, 95, and 96 saw how repositioning the president got him reelected. >> let's take health care what do they do? try to get republicans on board? >> they should. nair a position as republicans don't want to do bipartisan. so hence, incrementalism is the word of the day, making sense if they can get
insurance reform to cover preexisting conditions, portibility and the like. smaller bits fchl they can get y pays dividends to the country, it pays dividends politically. >> populous on health care, what does that mean? the president is already attacked the health insurers, he attacks the special interests all the time. what would it mean to-- how can you get anymore populous than he's been? in this white house and particularly in the congress who say he hasn't been populous enough, you have to attack the big banks, big insurers and the big polluters and not abandon the so-called public option, and be robust, aggressive, on health care and other issues as well. >> but you couldn't get the public option, you couldn't get the public option through the senate and yet, it is, are they saying double down now and you'll move public opinion more so you can finally get it th >> argument poll that you have to give people a choice, a real choice, and frame
elections as republicans being obstructionists and democrats who have been clear social agenda that is unambiguous, involving an overhaul of the economic and social structure? >> terms of health care this means giving up on getting anything this year? and putting in a -- to a referendum in november and then, hoping to do it next year? >> it would be, let's try to do something z if we can't make it clear what we stand for, and what the republicans, by signing preem bli on the side of the banks and insurance companies in this instance are obstructing to give people a clear choice in november. to so. >> what do you think the administration's big mistake was? >> oh, i think big mistake in the beginning was in the getting republicans in the room. as we did in 95 and 96, finding areas of common grund, making it clear on reform on record keeping there was
common ground f president had done that, republican woz have been forced to go along at start of the administration. >> what makes me amazed is that we've seen this movie twice before. saw knit early part of jimmy carter's administration bill clinton's administration. you bow to big democratic majorities and it hurts you until you recover in the case of bill clinton or you don't in the case of jimmy carter. why didn't they learn a lesson? >> well, they had big majorities and seemingly veto proof math tiz. democratic left in the house poll is, i think, we both agreed is so powerful. the president couldn't really resist them. resist that. by not resisting, he fell into the same trap you spoke of. >> who is going to win this debate inside of the white house? which way is the president going to go? >> i think back and forth. ultimate, i think is going to be populus. i think forces of pou skbrer the unions, the left are going
to make the case we have to present that clear choice i was speaking of before on financial reform, on health reform and the environment. if they give voters a choice in november, i think it's going to be a clear, unambiguous defeat. >> wait a minute here, when i talk to liberals they say it worked for roosevelt 32-36, and harry truman in 1948. why can't it work again? >> you look at swing voters they've been rejeblgting these policies and democratic candidates since november of 2009 by two does three to one margins. >> and that didn't work in virginia. the left saying they didn't try knit virginia and new jersey and coakley didn't try it. >> i suggest they tried too much and by not really being able to convince people that these pop lift policies make sense, they suffered a big defeat. >> what would be your recommendations? >> a centrist policy redusing
the deficit and importantly, private sector job creation. unless we do something like payroll tax, holiday, aid to small business and steps to stimulate job creation in the private sector we're not going to succeed. democrats aren't going succeed. >> focus on the economy, jobs and deficit reduction which is the focus of bill clinton's first term. >> it focus second two years of that. >> second two years of bill clinton's first term and john f kennedy's economic poll says. there is a legacy in the democratic part yes for fiscally prosecutent, pro business policies. they've got to get back to that quickly with fiscal discipline f they don't, they'll be cooked in november. >> doug shown. thank you. when we come back, the future of obama care and speaker
we're shopping for car insurance, and our friends said we should start here. good friends -- we compare our progressive direct rates, apples to apples, against other top companies, to help you get the best price. how do you do that? with a touch of this button. can i try that? [ chuckles ] wow! good luck getting your remote back. it's all right -- i love this channel. shopping less and saving more. now, that's progressive. call or click today.
to save the legislation. joining us now this week is dan henningger, joe rago and kim straussel. all right. the question everybody wants to know the answer to, has speaker pelosi ferried health care this week? >> this, what by do know is that the strategy they're using to build from the house and senate are done. you know? the senate can no longer pass what the house put forward and had no desire to. the house speaker said they cannot pass the senate bill. the question is, now, what can they salvage? there are a couple options. >> you it's dead yet sf. >> i'm saying what they've got out there at the moment is stuck. it's not going anywhere. the question is how do you maneuver and change and try to salvage something different out that have? and that is where we're headed. >> all right. here is the first question. can she, speaker pelosi rally
enough democrats here if the president gives a good state of the union address next week, says we neat to fight republicans. can't they ral yeah votes to get the senate bill through the house? >> no. i do not think so. what you've gt now is a number of house blue dogs who are very worried about what this means for november. looking at the senate of massachusetts rates rais, seeing that nag any fied in their own race autos these are the moderate democrats. they're not going to come around. >> that is right. you have a lot of house liberals who detest elements of the senate bill this, cadillac tax. party is worried about passing legislation now with the sigma of back room deals, special payouts to certain senators. i don't see the bill going anywhere. >> what about this other idea? senate reconciliation, a buzz word, washington perfect ses word whachl it means is try to get parts of the bill through with 51 votes.
not 60 as they have tried to get needed in the past. is that likely? >> right, well that entails starting over. it's the same thing for another option, which is a stripped down bill where you might see a modest coverage expansion. some insurance -- well, reforms is what they're called in the beltway. but they're destructive. but that really requires you to go back to the committees and can it if you can't hold hearings, hold votes. they have to decide if they want to spend another two months, three months on a health care plan that is really unpopular and the well is poisoned in a lot of ways. or just do nothing and move to jobs and that budget. >> the other option, i think probably their best one would be to take doug shown's advice. go back to republican if you can get 10 on a stripped-down
bill and try to pass that and value sage something are from that. is that possible? >> i think it is possible. if -- it will be difficult for the reason that ken suggest that had there are lib brl who's are dug in and would refuse to do that. your suggestion raise what's i think is the big x factor going fortd that. is the new senator, scott brown. now, he's a freshman senator. >> only one vote. >> only one vote but this guy has got a moment here, somehow representing the voice of the people. otherwise why are we having this conversation? that is what scott brown just did in massachusetts. whatever says on this birth i think is going to carry a lot more weight than any freshman senator previously f they can find a way that might be a path forward. >> what about olympia snow voting for the bill coming out of the senate finance committee before voting against it on the senate floor
whit moved left? is there a critical mass of republicans, half dozen maybe who the president could get on a stripped-down bill? >> there might be. the first problem is that so much is connected to other parts of the bill. so take, for instance insurance regulations. one of the reason that's business communities signed on to insurance regulation is because they felt they're going to get money back. >> or customers. >> more customers. get rid of the individual mandate and try to do reform have you an angry business community that turns against this legislation, too. so it's hard to pluck pieces out of it. sek problem is that a lot of republicans are just angry about the way they were cut out profit ses. and they don't any longer see upside in deciding to play nice this, is the problem the administration has gt. >> the price for republicans just went up? >> yes. and this is going to require
starting over. and require starting up the bill and starting from the center. meaning you have to go to the senate and rethink the entire crux of the last year. >> it's hard to do in an election year. >> exactly. >> i can't remember at a time when a party did. >> democratic congressman from maryland head of the democratic campaign committee wants out of it. he says he wants to talk about jobs and move forward. i think a lot of democrats just wanted to get this off the table. >> just get this carcass off to the side, push it to the side and talk about economy. >> yes. >> when we come back the supreme court strikes a ble for free speech. what it means for 2010 mid term elections is coming up next.
in a stunning reversal of the nation's fetd ral campaign finance laws supreme court ruled this week a corporations, unions and nonprofits can spend freely to support, or oppose candidates for public office in a 5-4 decision the court threw out parts of a 63-year-old law prohibiting companies and unions from yousing money from general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads and struck down part of a 2002 mccain fine gold law banning labor and corporate-backed issue ads this closing days of election campaigns. president obama blasted the decision calling it a victory for big oil, wall street and other special interests and said he'd work to craft, quote a forceful response. opinion journal.com editor joins us and senior editorial
page writer collin levy. so the president is riled up about this. should he be upset? unions and corporations are both going to benefit from this. >> right. the key point. idea this is a decision that benefits conservatives is ridiculous fchl you just look at corporations sh corporation raigss don't speak only with one voice. unions are going to speak a lot more and are politically active and are going to benefit from this. so there is a situation where there is a lot more political speech that is going to be very diverse. >> corporations will not be able to give to individual candidates. but what they and unions will be able to do donate to ind groups that can then spend on behalf of a certain issue or something else. but this is a -- a big, big hole that has been developed since the last 25, 30 years since water gate. it can -- can those
restrictions survive this other restrictions survive going forward? >> this is going to be becoming difficult. you make a good point. one of the things have you to remember is that this is not as though all has been demolished. do you still have individual contribution limits and limits on the way that candidates can coordinate with parties and still have disclosure limits. and so there is ideals to get as much as possible. >> what do you think this means for future of campaign politics? >> one reason politicians are upset is because it makes it harder owe control their message. this is only independent expend tours, limits are still in place as are limits on so called top money in mccain fine gold. to so this means these goring to have a lot more to say and harder for politicians,
congress is smart, they'd just deregulate the whole thing. >> the senate making the case this is going to corrupt american democracy because wealthy interests are going to be able to to have a swing now. >> i find this fascinating aspects of the decision, paul. justice stevens wrote this famous 90 page dissent arguing founding fathers basically didn't like corporations. >> and shouldn't have free speech. now, consider reaction on a political side. senator shum yefr says he's going to introduce legislation to modify this decision and president obama himself has, denounced this decision in favor for, what they're saying is that corporate america, proi vit sector is the enemy. we don't like these people. and corporate america has share holders and employees and as justice scalia argued is part of the free market economy that has -- is the
system we've gotten in. >> why are they going to get on the wrong side that have? >> this levels a decision and the playing field between corporations because before you had an exemption nrt law if you're a media company like news corp or "new york times" k nobody says we can't write editorials but if you're another corporation you didn't own a newspaper or radio station then, you're subject to limits. >> this is a very awkward thing this, is a situation where previous laws have said certain people can speak and certain people can't speak that. is what the supreme court really came out against yesterday. and there is a good point. idea here is that corporations are november illegal z as long as they're not illegal they should have same rights individuals have. that is what the supreme court established. >> justice kennedy made the point there is no basis for distinguishing between media corporations and other corps railgss. so if this is constitutional,
congress could regulate the press directly oo. that is right some of those restrictions here could get to the point of regulating books that are about a candidate that -- . >> right. >> and this case involved a movie. a movie. >> so, anyone, george sorros, a liberal financier who supported sports democrats was investigated in fact by the federal election commission in 2004 as reported this week about what, whether he was illegally inflouncing campaigns. >> yes that. is right this, is something that can affect certainly affect liberals as much as conservatives. we know there are popular "new york times" best-selling liberal looks -- books out there. >> and what is this ruling telling us? this was supposed to be an inkrumtal court. this s.this getting are they
finding their center of gravity? >> these were precedents in which was a dissenter. one other thing is that there is liberals have -- idea free speech has gone by the wayside. >> we have to take a break. coming back our hits and misses of the week. nd misses of the week. ♪ wellbeing. we're all striving for it. purina cat chow helps you nuture it in your cat... with a full family of excellent nutrition... and helpful resources. ♪ purina cat chow. share a better life.
n the purina cat chow. morning because my back hurt so bad. the sleep number bed conforms to you. i wake up in the morning with no back pain. i can adjust it if i need to... if my back's a little more sore. and by the time i get up in the morning, i feel great! if you have back pain, toss and turn at night or wake up tired with no energy, the sleep number bed could be your solution. the sleep number bed's secret is it's air chambers which provide ideal support and put you in control of the firmness. and the bed is perfect for couples because each side adjusts independently to their unique sleep number. here's what clinical research has found: - 93% of participants experienced back-pain relief. - 90% reported reduced aches and pains. - 87% fell asleep faster and enjoyed more deep sleep. for study summaries, call this number now. we'll include a free dvd and brochure about the sleep number bed including prices, and models plus a free $50 savings card.
and how about this? steel springs can cause uncomfortable pressure points. but the sleep number bed contours to your body. imagine how good you'll feel when your muscles relax and you fall into a deep sleep! i'm not just a back surgeon, i'm also a back patient. i sleep on the sleep number bed myself and i highly recommend it to all of my patients. need another reason to call? the sleep number bed costs about the same as an innerspring but lasts twice as long. so if you want to sleep better or find relief for your bad back, call now. call the number on your screen for your free information kit with dvd, brochure and price list. call right now and you'll also receive a $50 savings card just for inquiring about the sleep number bed. ask about our risk-free 30-night in-home trial. call now for your free information kit and a free $50 savings card. call now!
>> time for hits and misses of the week. secretary of state clinton making internet freedom a policy priority for the united states because fierce the system was being hacked into as well as ire yn's efforts to suppression f the internet there. and what is interesting is back in 1998 hillary clinton said the internet had to be rethought and now, if today because of what is going on she's seen a larger social freedom issues involved here this is a huge hit. >> all right, james. >> i have a miss for the transportation security administration. 22-year-old going through airport security in philadelphia. tsa agent pulled a plastic bag containing white powder out of the carry on demanding to know
where she'd gotten it. it turned out tsa planlted it on her as a joke. saying he lost his job, but i think there should be criminal charges against this guy so he can be named and made an example oof and kim? >> a super slimey mix to former president candidate john edwards this, is a guy who has an affair, denying he has an affair, when he finally gets caught and has to admit it convinces an aide to step forward to say the baby was his, and now, only now, it's maybe that indeed the baby is mr. edwards'. most apalling thing is that this has been going to the presidency, lying and covering this up if voters would only let him. >> ask all of the aides that knew about this and didn't tell people should be beened from politics. that is it for this week's edition of the journal editorial report. thanks to the panel and to you for watching. hope to see you