tv Face the Nation CBS April 23, 2017 8:30am-9:31am PDT
captioning sponsored by cbs >> dickerson: today on "face the nation," as the first milestone approaches for president trump, he ups the workload for a returning congress. health care, tax reform, and avoiding a government shutdown. the sprint to the end of the 100 days began on a high note with traditional pump and pageantry, plus a basket full of promises. >> hi, everybody. >> how are you going to resolve everything? >> it will be great. it will happen. >> are you going to this health care and taxes? >> it will happen. we'll see what happens. no particular rush. >> dickerson: blue -- but there is a rush to keep congress
running past the 99th day. florida senator marco rubio will join us, along with the person new polls say is the most popular politician in america. he's trying to help the democratic party find itself. republican john kasich has a new book out, "two paths: america divided or united." he'll tell us about it. and we'll hear from homeland security secretary john kelly. as always, we'll have plenty of political analysis. it's all ahead on "face the nation." good morning and welcome to "face the nation." i'm john dickerson. we'll get to this week's news in a moment, but first we want to tell you about next week's broadcast. saturday marks the official 100th day of the trump administration. and we'll be spending that day with with the president. we'll interview him at the white house and travel with him to a rally in pennsylvania. the first part of our interview will air on "face the nation" next sunday and the rest on "cbs this morning" on monday may 1st. that broadcast will originate
live from the white house along with our interview charlie rose, gayle king, and norah o'donnell will be talking with top administration officials about the first 100 days and looking ahead to the next 100. but first, congress is going to need to agree on how to fund the government for the rest of the year. or it will run out of money on day 99. we begin with republican senator marco rubio, who joins us from miami. good morning, senator. i want to start with the government shutdown. the fight from the white house perspective is over funding for the border wall. is that an issue worth fighting over right now if a government shutdown is a possibility? >> first, understand, we're trying to finish out the current budget year, so i think that's a fight worth having and a conversation and debate worth having for 2018. if we can do some of that now, that would be great. but we cannot shut down the government right now. we have a potential crisis brewing with north korea. we've seen what's going on, the ongoing crisis in syria. we don't know what the outcome
of the french election could be, but that could potentially throw the european union and the nato alliance and some level of consternation. the last thing we can afford is to send a message to the world that the united states government, by the way, is only partially functioning. that would just have catastrophic impact, in my view, or certainly very destabilizing impact on global affairs. we should keep that in mind going into this week. >> dickerson: let me pick up on north korea. i'll ask you a question by a source in the middle of the country and it said, "are we going to war with north korea?" >> i hope not. we have to ask ourselves a very fundamental question. it is acceptable? can we live in a world where kim jung un possesses military weapons but the ability to deliver them to the con nebl united states. if the answer is yes, there are all sorts of things we would not do. if the answer is no, then the options, and the answer so no for me, then the options were you are limited and none of them
are good. none of those options are good, but it is my view at the end of the day we must do almost whatever it takes, just about anything, to prevent kim jong-un from acquiring a nuclear capability he can deliver against the mainland of the united states of america. >> dickerson: so what is the end game there, senator? is that removing all missiles? what would be the best possible outcome? >> well, i think the best possible outcome would be that he walks away from his long-range missile program. we know he has nuclear weapons. the issue is can he hit it on a rocket and hit the state of california, arizona, the middle of the country and potentially washington, d.c. that's an unacceptable risk that. cannot happen. so the end game, and the ideal one in terms of the showdown, would be that he walks away from the long-range missile program. if he continues to test them, if he continues to make progress in that direction, then we've got a big problem. >> dickerson: senator, is the ratcheting up of conversation about north korea that's taken place ov-r the last several weeks, is that because of the rhetoric and obviously the missile test in north korea, or
as you understand it, has the north korean... is north korea closer to that intercontinental >> there's no doubt they're closer and continue to get closer. you've seen some spectacular failures, but that's always part of moving forward. look, possessing the long-range missile is not technologically prohibited for most countries in the world who are willing to dedicate the resources. you have to understand, the people of north korea are starving to death. there are people starveing to death in north korea that. government is putting every dollar they have leftover into the development of these long-range missiles. so ultimately if they want a long-range missile and continue unabated and we do nothing about it, they will acquire that capability. they potentially have some of that capability now. ultimately this is not something that's prohibitive. it's one of my big concerns about robb, as well. they will follow the same track, iran will. >> dickerson: let me ask you about president trump. you had considerable reservations about his ability to handle this kind of an issue when you were a candidate.
do you have faith now on this sensitive and tricky issue that the president can handle it? >> well, let me say, first of all, i would never ultimately in a situation as critical as this deliberately undermine any president. i do believe this president has take then issue with north korea with the seriousness it deserves. i quite frankly congratulate him and commend him for putting people around him that are capable of handling this issue, giving him good advice. from everything i've heard, and i know some people that were involved in those deliberation, when the president looked at at the situation in syria, they were very impressed with this questions he asked and they were impressed with his thought process and decision-making process. that gives me greater confidence that we have a white house and president who is handling these national security situations in the appropriate way. >> dickerson: the president got involved personally in the release of an aid worker who was being held in egypt. some people think that in part that release was a result of the fact that he was more accommodating toward the president of egypt, who has been
accused of human rights abuses and other things. what is your sense of that tension that on the one hand it's productive, but on the other hand, some people think that being too close to the egyptian president is not a good thing? >> well, egypt is an important country in that region, and we need them to be successful on multiple fronts. my concern with egypt has been that case where the aid worker was released. she was an aid worker and she should have beeneleased a long time ago. it sounds and it looks like the president raised the issue privately and it ended in a positive result and he should be congratulated for that. i have ongoing concern, and my big concern in egypt is the way they govern that country now under president el sissi is going to lead to a destabilizing change of government because you cannot treat people this way and sustain it over the long haul. that said, we do need to work with the egyptian government, hopefully urge them in the right direction especially long term, but also work with them to secure the sinai, to be a
reliable partner against isis, and also to continue to be a reliable partner against hamas and those that threaten israel from gaza. so all of these things are important, and they're not mutually exclusive. i think this is a moment where we need to stop and say whether he did it publicly or privately, the president was successful at getting the release of an american improperly held abroad because he raised the issue and he made it a priority. >> dickerson: he made it a priority, but do you see any tension in the connection there between north korea has, for example, just take an u.s. citizen, a third being held in knock new york, do you think there is any signal sent to other countries when an aid worker can be released but these human rights abuses don't get talked about so much. >> well, i talk about them all the time. it's one of my priorities, and others i wish would talk about them more. but ultimately the release of the american aid worker should not prohibit us from continue to talk about the other human rights abuses that are occurring in egypt. there is a difference between
egypt and north korea. number one, egypt is not developing nuclear weapons designed to strike the united states. number two, egypt is a partner in the fight against isis and radical jihadists. there is a defense. it's an ally of the united states. that does not however mean we cannot and should not publicly and privately, as i did with president al sissi two weeks ago. we raise them because it's the right thing do do because it's the right thing to do. but it's also the right thing for him and egypt. if you continue to abuse your population, there will be an uprising, government instability, and that's the environment that breeds jihadists and radicals. >> dickerson: senator marco rubio, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> dickerson: we want to welcome homeland security john kelly, who joins us from oceawing a tour of the u.s.-mexican border. mr. secretary, i want to start with the government, which is going to run out of money next week. one of the items of debate is the president wants money for
the border wall. is a border wall so important right now that it is worth ritz,ing a government shutdown? >> i certainly think a border wall is essential, as do almost everyone that lives along the border. so, yes, i think it's certainly worth hard negotiation over. if we have tremendous threats, whether it's drugs, people, potential terrorists coming up from the south and some type of a barrier, an effective barrier backed up by the brave and very effective men and women of dhs, i believe it's essential. >> dickerson: of all the possible solutions to deal with, the illegal immigration problem, is the border wall the number-one thing you would pick if you could pick any solution? >> well, there is no silver bullet solution to any of. this i really do wish that the congress would really join together in a bipartisan way and figure out these incredibly complex immigration laws and make some decisions on how to deal with those that are here
illegally, illegally and behaving themselves, but a border wall, security wall, technology, patrolling, all of that is very effective, but just as effective i think and just as important is us helping reduce the amount of crime in mexico and central america, because of the drug demand in our country. that is really the number-one fuel of the problem. >> is there something based on your tour there that members of congress should see or should know to move a little faster on the legislation you'd like the see them putting forward? >> i don't think there's an awful lot that gets solved very well in washington, d.c., but if you come out here, as i do, as i say to kick the tires and maybe take a look behind the dumpsters and talk to the people that are actually doing the work on the border, they will tell you, that is to say customs and border protection people, ice people, local law enforcement, they will tell you a wall of some type is essential to the work that they do.
that combined with policies inside the united states that no longer make it absolute that if you get here illegally you'll be able to stay. my appeal to folks in mexico, central america, other place, don't waste your money and come here because we're going to pick you up and send you back home. on top of that, this is network that they travel on is terribly, terribly dangerous and abusive. to me this is a human rights issue. keep people in their homes and communities in central america and other parts of the world. >> dickerson: let me ask you about those who are here. they broke the law by being in the united states illegally, but they are not in the category, as the president calls them, of being "bad dudes." the "washington post" says that number of people who are just here illegally but have broken no other law has increased, has doubled since the president has been in office. so it sounds like they don't fit in the category of bad dudes, but they're being deported anyway. >> the way we're doing our business is that ice officials
will establish or will go after targeted individuals, develop target packages and then go after them. if people who are here illegally fall into our hands incidental to those, as an example, the other day i was talking to some ice agents in el paso, they said typically when they go into these homes or places looking for the person they targeted, there will often times be five, six, seven, other people, and by the way they do their jobs, they ask those people who they are, and if they can't produce some form of proof that they're here legally or that they're use citizens, then they could be taken into custody. so as police officers, they simply can't turn a blind eye to the lawbreakers. in every case, we're targeting people who are here, a, illegally, and, b, have broken other laws. >> drew: so it sounds like you're not targeting them, but
because they broke a law by being here, they would be suitable for deportation. >> it's more than that sounds like, john. we are not doing that. but people fall into our hands incidentally that we have no choice in most cases but to go ahead and put in the system. but i think you know that system is years long. >> dickerson: right. give me your homeland security assessment of the north korean threat? >> well, i mean, as long as they're on the other side of the world without a missile and a nuclear weapon to deliver against the united states, they're not much threat right now, except in the world of cyber. they'rerey aggressive when they want to be in cyber. the minute they get, john, you know, the instant they get a missile that can reach the united states, and they have a weaponnized atomic device, nuclear device on it, we're at grave risk as a nation. >> dickerson: in recent paris attack, a policeman was killed. is there anything in the paris attack that sends any lessons
about u.s. policy or policy that should be put in place? >> there are so many aspects of this terrorist thing. obviously they have home-grown terrorists. i don't know how to stop that or detect that. you got other terrorist threats that come across the border. i believe in the case of the murderer in the paris shooting, i believe he was homegrown, but again, there are so many threats that come in from across borders. it's essential to control one's border. the other thing, john, that keeps me literally awake at night is the threat against aviation. we know that would be the souper bowl for the terrorists to knock down an air plane in flight, particularly if it was full of americans. we have taken measures overseas to reduce that threat, but it's something i watch every day. there are a number of plots that we're watching very, very closely, very sophisticated, very threatening, and the number-one thing in my mind is to protect the american people. so we'll do that. >> dickerson: i just want the follow up mr. secretary. you said on the homegrown
threat, a lot of people think that is the biggest threat, part of the san bernardino shooting, part of the boston bombing. if that's the biggest threat and you don't know how to stop it, that seems lake a big problem. >> it is a big problem. it is, you know, depending on where you sit is where you stand on this. it's a big threat. is it the number-one threat? i think it's the most common threat. unfortunately there are other similar-type terrorist threats that could come from outside the border. you know, the c.i.a., n.s.a., all the great women of d.o.d. are doing a great job keeping them away from the homeland, but i focus on this aviation threat as something that is very real they're successful, they're going to kill hundreds and hundreds of people in one fell swoop. so i think the appeal i would make on the homegrown threat is if you see something, say
something, whether you're a parent, a sibling, an imam. this extends to white supremacists and that kind of terrorism, as well. if you see a young man or a young woman going down that path where they're always on these kind of web sites or saying things at church or in a mosque that are clearly disturbing, then tell someone about it so we can help that kid, young man or woman, before they break the law. >> dickerson: all right. secretary john kelly, thanks so much for being with us. >> thanks, john. >> dickerson: when we come back, vermont senator bernie sanders will be here to tell us what he's doing to help get the democratic partyk with -- party become on track. ♪ i'm dr. kelsey mcneely and some day you might be
calling me an energy farmer. ♪ energy lives here. >> dickerson: we're back with senator bernie sanders, who is back home in vermont after a week-long tour of red states with the head of the democratic party. i want to talk to you about that unity tour you're on. you were with dnc chairman tom perez. he was booed in maine.
there is a dust-up over your endorsement of a candidate in omaha. what are the terms of the discussion in the docratic party about its direction? >> well, i think what is clear to anyone who looks at where the democratic party today is, that the model of the democratic party is failing. we have a republican president who ran as a candidate as the most unpopular candidate in modern history of this country. republicans control the house, the senate, two-thirds of governor's chairs and in the last eight years they have picked up 900 legislative seats. clearly the democratic party has to change. and in my view what it has to become is a grassroots party, party which makes decisions from the bottom on up, a party which is more dependent on small donations than large donations, a party, john, that speaks to the pain of the working class in this country. middle class is shrinking. 43 million people living in poverty. almost all new income and wealth
is going to the top 1%. people can't afford to send their kids to college. they can't afford childcare. they can't afford health care. the democratic party has to take the lead, rallying young people, working people, stand up to the billionaire class, and when we do that, you're going to see voter turnout swell. you're going to see people coming in and running for office. you're going to see democrats regain control of the united states congress. >> dickerson: one of the things as democrats try to fix the party is this question of should there be a prioritization. you put those populist economic issues at the forefront. one of the reasons there's a bit of a debate about omaha candidate for mayor is that he is against abortion rights and so there is a debate about cultural issues versus economic. how does the party sort all that out. >> i don't think there's much of a debate about that. i have 100% lifetime pro-choice voting record, overwhelming majority of democrats are pro-choice. i'm going to do everything that i can to see that the
republicans do not get away with their horrific efforts to defund planned parenthood which provides health care to 2.5 million women. but if we're going to become a 50-state party, if you're going to go to omaha, nebraska, which has a republican governor, two reican senators, all republican coness people, republican legislature, you know what, and if in omaha 5,000 or 6,000 people come out to a rally led by their new democratic chairperson, who is doing a great job, and if you have a rally in which you have the labor movement and the environmentalists and native americans and the african american community and the latino community coming together saying, we want this guy to become our next mayor, should i reject going there to omaha? i don't think so. it was a great rally, and i hope very much he wins. by the way, his opponent, the incumbent mayor, is also, of course, anti-choice, and she is inviting scott walker, one of
the most reactionary anti-choice governors, anti-labor governor, anti-education governors, to campaign for her. the choice is clear. i hope very much the democratic candidate there wins. >> dickerson: senator, we'll keep this conversation going, but we'll be interrupted quickly by a commercial, so we'll be back in a moment with more from senator sanders. our teams of specialists at cancer treatment centers of america. the evolution of cancer care is here. learn more at cancercenter.com/experts ♪ ♪
what we do every night is like something out of a strange dream. except that the next morning... it all makes sense. fedex powers global e-commerce... with networks built over 40 years... that are massive... far-reaching... and, yes... maybe a bit magical. ♪ get your ancestrydna kit. spit. mail it in. learn about you and the people and places that led to you. go explore your roots.
take a walk through the past. meet new relatives. and see how a place and its people are all a part of you. ancestrydna. save 20% through wednesday at ancestrydna.com >> dickerson: we're back with senator bernie sanders. you have an e-mail list of all the grassroots voters you contacted to who voted to you almost hand that list over to the democratic party to help with its grassroots outreach? >> right now, john, our focus is building up a strong progressive movement in this country. and i think the people who donated want us to focus on electing the most progressive people, people that we possibly. can and bringing our people together to oppose this disastrous trump agenda, which calls for tax breaks for
billionaires while at the same time he wants to throw 24 millions off of health insurance, defund planned parenthood, and raise premiums for older seniors. our job right now is to build a progressive movement, and we're making some pretty good success. all over this country with the progressive running for office and beginning to win. >> dickerson: some democrats are going to hear that and think, well, he's not totally committed to the whole democratic party idea here. >> well, there's very few people who have been running around the country quite as much as i have been, trying to bring people into the party. and here's i think what the major issue is as we go into the 2018 election dealing with the most unpopular president after a three-month period in american history. as you recall, in 2014, we had a voter turnout of 36% in the mid-term elections. two out of three americans didn't vote and republicans did
very, very well. if that continu, there is no future forward for the democratic party. so what we have got to do and what the democrats have got to do is go all over this country, start getting into those red states, which have been ignored for decades, start growing the voter turnout, having an agenda which brings people together to say that in the richest country in the history of the world, yeah, you know what, we've got health care for old people. we can raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. no, donald trump is not right, climate change is not a hoax, it is a major planetary crisis. we have the transform our energy. if we focus on those issues, voter turnout goes up, then the democrats win. >> dickerson: senator sanders, we've run out of time. thanks as always for being with us. >> thank you very much. >> dickerson: we'll be back in a moment. finally.
hey ron! they're finally taking down that schwab billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.
on your big day the only tears you ...not allergies.from joy... flonase allergy relief helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. it's an allergy nasal spray that works beyond the nose. flonase. >> dickerson: we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us. >> he's the billionaire ex-mayor of new york city who considered running for president. >> if i thought we could win, i would have done it. >> so what's mike bloomberg doing now? "60 minutes" tonight. ,,,,,,,,,,
>> dickerson: welcome back the "face the nation." we're joined by ohio governor john kasich. he's the author of the book "two paths: america divided or united." welcome, governor. what is the message with this book? is it a memoir? is it a cry of the heart? it is a manifesto? is it a campaign book? >> i guess in some sense it's a cry of the heart, john. i have been fortunate enough to have so many different experiences in my life, bh in politics and in business and the media across the board. what this book is is about how did we get to where we are, which is today divided, and how do we get out of it? and what is our responsibility? all of us as individuals. it really gets down to living a life bigger than ourselves. i think that in some sense we
kind of lost it. and what's most important is the people... is for people the realize they matter. they matter as much as a c.e.o., even if they're turning off the lights at night. and we need to come together as a nation. we need to focus on the things that bring us together, not the things that divide us, and we need to listen to one another. look, i have two 17-year-old daughters. some people are going to say, why did you write this book? is this politics? are you running in the primary? it has nothing to do with that. i wrote this book because i have observed what has been happening in our country. i'm concerned about it, but i believe that with with an awakening the country can be refreshed and brought together again. i have no doubt. and you just had bernie sanders on. i have more democrats, more independents, more republicans that just walk up to me on the street and say, you know, you were the adult, you were the positive one, the message of this book, i'm begging people to look at this book and to understand their responsibility and their ability to bring this country together and stop
waiting for these politicians to get it right. they're not going to get it right until they get a message from us. >> dickerson: so what is this message? let's leave aside donald trump, you're a strong critic, you still russia but let's leave that aside for just a moment. what is that other message? what do people have to do? what can they do? >> john, i think a lot of it is to focus on common humanity. the editor of his book said he and his uncle were fighting at every holiday. i said, well why don't we focus on the things that pull us together? are we concerned about drug adirection? of course. it's not republican or democrats. are we worried about veterans that can't get a job? of course. what about a senior citizen who lost their spouse in what about the issue of human trafficking? can we keep our eyes open. you had secretary kelly talking about how we're all in this together. if we can focus on common humanity and sit down and fix problems where we live and believe in ourselves, it will open our ears to people who might not think like us. there are families that are in
war with one another over politics. it's ridiculous. there are more things tt bring us together. so i think common action, at a food bank, fighting the drug addiction, helping our kids to read at earlier ages, these are things that get us to communicate, so then these other big global issues won't matter as much. i was in atlanta, bernice king invitedded me for barkevious mingo. somebody said, what about trump? i said, what about your neighbor? what about your kids? martin luther king did not change america by going to the big shots. they wouldn't even meet with him. he brought republicans and democrats and liberals, conservatives who had moral outrage of what was happening in this country, he changed the country, and then the politicians got it. so we need to be engaged and live a life bigger than ourselves. life is not about self-absorption and just about me. not looking for sainthood. live life bigger. >> dickerson: martin luther king marched for racial equality and jobs. what is everybody on the streets
of columbus marching for? >> i can tell you in columbus is we should be marching against the discourage of drugs. it brings people together even in the political parties, the fight against drugs. the ability to keep our eyes open and to do things against the issue of human trafficking. the issue of racism. these are the things that people... in my hometown, if we all marched against drugs, we'd begin to win that battle. people sometimes look at the problems and they think they're so big that i'm just one little person. we have a holocaust memorial on the statehouse grounds in columbus, and it says, if you say one life you've changed the world. we need the believe in ourselves again and not think, you know, life sort of ends at the grave. it doesn't, an accountability, values, and i'll tell you another thing, job. faith, whether you're a humanist or whether you have religious faith, there is a certain accountability. you don't bury your talents. you don't shut people out, you don't shut people down. if we keep doing this, my kids
are going to live in a country that i won't recognize. but if we begin to talk to one another, listen to one another, respect one another, because we live life bigger than ourselves, we will make progress. >> dickerson: you say people should point together that will affect their lives. how can they possibly ignore that and particularly when you are very critical of president trump and his campaign and the choice the republican party made. you talk about two paths. you say they have chosen the path of darkness. >> john, john, the politicians are all locked in. they're afraid of their own shadows. they're afraid to talk to people of the other party. you see, this is the disease that's affecting all of us. and look at united airlines. you tell me how they could have yanked that guy off that airplane? who was in charge there? what was anybody thinking? why are politicians not working across the aisle? the health care problem, the issue of obamacare, of course it needs to be improved, but it takes both parties. i'm critical of both parties
because i see them being locked in their own silos. you know what, john, a lot of the constituents are locked into their own silos. they only absorb the news they agree with. and if they see something they don't like, they tune it out. we need to listen to other people's points of view, and the country can be healed. i have no doubt about it, but it isn't going to be healed if we're waiting for somebody else to do something special. >> kim:. >> dickerson: let me ask you a question. you came out of the gate with a big list of things to do as cover. you had a lot to get done. you might have overshot in trying to do too much too fast. do you have any advice for the current president? >> well, i was a congressman in a governor's body. i talk about it in here. being a governor held me back in the presidential campaign because i wasn't going to make wild promises and i was going to be responsible. i was with the president. he invited me to the white house. one day she said, you're
governor of ohio, you're the father of ohio, that's powerful words. i didn't tell him that to get in his face, flu is a takeaway for the president. ?oo what kind of father has he been? >> it's incomplete. he's done some things well. his story about yanking people out of their homes who have not committed a crime once they've come into this country, dividing families, i don't agree. i think what he did in syria is corrected. he seems so have toned down. it's 100 days, john. he's never held public office. he's learning. and there is a big learning curve. now, i experienced it, but you know, in ohio today, we're more united. you know why? because i'm not playing that stupid political game. and i think political parties are on their way out essentially. sanders is talking about yes constructing the democratic party. people care less about party. they want action and things done, but it's not just politicians, john, it's where you work and where you live and what you do. >> dickerson: governor, thanks so much for being with us. we'll be right back with our political panel.
hours under fi. you know, our vehicle got progressively less drivable. everybody was very focused, looking out the window. being outside of a vehicle was suicide. i heard somebody scream in arabic, "sayarat mufakhkhakha", which means "booby-trapped car". i felt the explosion directly in front of me. i thought a lot about the person in that car. i wish i could have talked to him to understand who he was. trying to imagine that without anger or disgust is part of our job as journalists, too. ( ♪ ) i'm bryan denton, photojournalist for the new york times.
>> dickerson: we turn now to our political panel. we want the welcome carol lee to the broadcast. she's the white house correspondent for the "wall street journal." jeffrey goldberg is the editor-in-chief at "the atlantic." reihan salam is the executive editor at the national review and a policy fellow. and mark leibovich is with "new york times magazine." the government needs funding or
it will be shutdown. the omb director at the white house says the reach a deal, they will give democrats $1 for obamacare funding if they get $1 for the president's border wall, which democrats don't want to fund. there that solve it? >> it got a pretty quick rejection from senate minority leader chuck schumer. he said it's a non-starter. they're not going to negotiate that. but it's emblematic of two things. one, the president really wants a victory before the 100-day mark. particularly on some of his most significant campaign promises, like the border wall. the second thing is they need democrats on board if they're going to avoid a shutdown, which the white house would like to do. so that's part of the reason why we've seen them leave open the possibility of not digging in on the border wall funding. that's also why we've seen them try to make a last-minute reach at taxes or health care, two things that on a good day for congress would be really complicated and difficult, never mind that they're trying to avoid a shutdown.
so at the end of the week, what it sounds like we may wiped -- nd u is at place that's very conventional where w get a one-week continuing resolution so they can continue negotiations and perhaps look at health care in the following week. >> dickerson: reihan, congressman tom cole, a republican, said this about the politics of a possible shutdown. "he said even our most recalcitrant members understand if you shut down the government while you're running it, you can't blame anybody but yourself." does he have the politics of that right, do you think? >> it's not entirely clear partly because president trump is a different animal. he's someone who could lay blame at the feet of congress if he so chose, and that's why there's so much unturnty here. the deeper issue is for republicans, they've been trying to get to regular order, that is a kind of regular ordinary way they that we're supposed to have legislation that goes through committee, you vote, you have conference committee, all this other stuff, instead the only way we ever pass anything is when we cram everything into omnibus must-passes legislation
where someone will die. it's like this kitten is going to die if we don't passes this right now. the up shot of that is you get legislation that is not scrutinized. you get all kinds of terrible decisions crammed into this stuff, and this is not a sane, reasonable way to govern. the question is: how can you actually press reset? the expectation had been on the part of republicans with congress that you get a republican president, maybe we can take a breather and actually do this the normal way, but the republican president we got is donald trump, and we go back to the brinkmanship. the things that mick mulvaney is saying, it doesn't actually add up. these are not deals that democrats are willing to make. you send everyone right back the their brinkmanship position. >> dickerson: mark? >> i also think democrats aren't as worried about a government shutdown as an opposition party normally would be. i think that the democrats believe, probably rightly, that the republicans control every branch of government, and traditionally president obama, you know, experienced some actually political success when republicans controlled the house and senate, shut down the
government, same with bill clinton in the 90s. in this case, democrats feel like they have a great deal of leverage. what's interesting is as you approach this 100-day marker, when you're trying to break up a no-hitter, a baseball analogy, you don't swing for the fences. you try to get a single. and legislatively... >> dickerson: you think the president is trying to break up a no-hitter? >> correct. he's accomplished nothing. justice gorsuch maybe, but there's nothing he's accomplished. this is not going to be a big victory you get by imposing a deadline by congress. >> dickerson: jeffrey, i'll dismount from the baseball metaphor and ask you about the rest of the world. marco rubio made the case that if congress can't get its act in gear on funding that it will send catastrophic message to the rest of the world. what did you make of that? >> that's a big word. you know, it's not the only signal we're sending to the world in recent days that might leave the world a little bit doubtful about where we are and who we are and whether we're
fulfilling our responsibilities. it is true that allies and adversaries alike watch washington. they assume because we are the world's sole remaining superpower that we have our act together. when we don't, that sends difficult signals, but again, there's a panoply of difficult signals that are coming out of washington. so i wouldn't call it catastrophic. i would say at a moment of heightened tension in the korean peninsula and obviously the issues surrounding iran and syria, a recent strike in syria, is not the moment to signal to the world that we can't even keep our government running. >> dickerson: carol, as mark pointed out, the president is trying to swing, you know, health care, taxes, give us on health care, there was a blip that there might be something. was there something going on last week about reviving the replacement to the affordable care act, or was that kind of wishful thinking? >> there has been an effort going on. the vice president mike pence has worked on. this he's obviously been traveling in the last week. but there is the conservative, the moderates and the freedom
caucus and the republican party are trying to work together to come up with some sort of compromise. what they've come up with is something that is a bit cos met nick terms of the differences that it has with the failed health care bill a few weeks ago. and so it's not clear that it will actually go anywhere. and even if it goes somewhere, right now the president, the white house's argument is they consider it a victory if they get something passed in the house. they still have to go through the senate. it's not necessarily... it doesn't guarantee that it's going to go anywhere. >> dickerson: and as one senator said to me, the freedom caucus in the house will have bigger problems among republicans in the senate. reihan, also parted of this beat-the-clock game to get things done in the first 100 day, the republican seems ready to announce his tax plan that. seems faster than we expected it. explain what you think will happen when you introduce a big tax cut plan in the midst of this environment? >> one possibility is if you're not going to get legislation that can get past a filibuster,
you'll have temporary tax cuts, something that will be a bit more crowd pleasing potentially and a bit narrower in scope because republicans have been working on getting a big border adjustment package that would give them the revenue they need in order to do a variety of other things the make the tax code more investment friendly. but of course the border-adjusted tax is dividing republicans some we might wind up seeing something that's a little more narrowly political and more stimtive. what treasury secretary said is we want to focus on a middle-class tax cut. we've heard that again and again and again. what exactly is that going to be? a middle-class tax cut is not what pro-growth, supply-side republicans are most enthusiastic about. they care about corporate tax cuts, and high-end tax cuts. so it's possible we'll see something from trump that's very, very different from what we've been talking about to date, mainly something that is focused on his constituency. that would be, in my view, politically smart, but it doesn't actually do much to get the republican leadership on side. >> dickerson: mark, focused on
constituency, give me your sense of that. the president is in this interesting position. he is a republican, but he's also got his own constituency. that's why a fight over the border wall on government spend south carolina that putting him right back in the center of what brought him, which is to say his focus on border and maybe it's threatened a shutdown, but he's keeping his eye on the prize. >> he has great confidence that his supporters are for a border wall. he's probably right about that. the problem is his supporters right now have not scaled at all since he's been elected, at all. it's also unclear where country is on a border wall. if you polled people who voted for donald trump, you'll get very, very high numbers on a border wall. there's in consensus even on the hill itself that this is something that is worth really having a sort of knock knock-down-drag-out fight. tax, health care, border wall, these are not small things when you have an area of need, i.e. keeping the government open, which is coming down in five days from now. >> dickerson: jeffrey, a quick
question about international affairs. the president this morning tweeted, "very interesting election currently taking place in france." what did you make of his occasional forays into the french election? >> that sounds like he should be a panelist on a panel discussion, fascinating election. what he's doing, it's a very sort of passive aggressive thing, because we saw him earlier this week say i'm not endorsing the far-right candidate, but she's really great on this subject and that subject, borders especially. it's... we're in a novel moment obviously in american-european relations and the history of the presidential interventions in overseas elections. she's the far-right candidate. her party, the national front, has its roots in i vichy fascist ideology. so an american president saying i'm not endorsing but in essence endorsing is really something we haven't experienced before, and if she wins, if she makes it through this round and gets to
the second round or even possibly win, we're looking at the end of the european experiment, the end of post-world war ii experiment, and donald trump has been sympathetic to that idea. he's been very hostile to the e.u. he's intermittently hostile to nato, as we've seen erhe years, and so he's clearly trying to putale while being set it. >> dickerson: reihan, what do you make? there are a lot of foreign policy developments this week, north korea. the president made a phone call to erdogan of turkey about his victory. and then there's this discussion about the french election. what do you make of the president and his foreign policy? are these totally independent decisions? cothey follow a pattern of any kind? >> i think there is a tendency to impose a narrative on what's going on some the fact that president trump congratulated president erdogan. president obama congratulated president putin on his election victory. that didn't mean that president obama thought putin was a great
guy. similarly, we don't know exactly what donald trump thinks about erdogan and the political changes within turkey domestically. as for north korea... >> you're assuming he has thoughts about it, actual thoughts. >> or it's something he's thinking about, puzzling through. i think we've seen his mind changes from time to time. >> dickerson: he's definitely know cussed on isis and turkey's pole in possibly helping. >> that's very complicated because the turks, they want to be the tip of the spear. they want to be sure that it's syrian-arabs taking out isis, whereas the united states is working closely with syrian kurds and the turkish government believes these guys are terrorists. so that's nomly is complicated and north korea is, too. >> i think what you're seeing is his foreign policy is his transactional nature is playing out in that what he said in congratulating erdogan, which white house officials said he wanted to do, particularly just so he could try to put turkey in a place where he might be able to get something he wants from them on the islamic state fight,
and that it was worth taking criticism that the u.s. is hypocritical in its preaching democracy, and you see he... this is a president that likes to be praised, and so you see him offering praise to erdogan. you saw him doing this with egypt, in which they felt that resulted in him getting this aid worker released. he's done that with president xi jinping of china. so you see how he's operating. he's praising people who we would not nessarily praise, and he's trying to get some sort of transactions from them. >> i also think that what we're seeing, in a way, the current foreign policy environment suits his fairly situational approach to the world. he was praised for syria, for instance. what was the next president every sentence in the world said after that, what's the strategy? by the time we're on to the strategy we're back the north korea, we're in turkey, we're in egypt. so i think he's also well situated with pretty strong advisers at this point.
i think mcmaster to some degree tillerson, certainly kelly, certainly mattis are people he's pretty comfortable with, and again, the situation and format suits him well. >> let me speak on behalf of the strategy-loving pundit class. you can have transactions for a while, but these problems pile up because transactions don't solve the problems. you need an actual strategy to figure out what we're doing in syria. you need an actual strategy to figure out what you're doing in north korea. no sign of any strategy. >> we've had a transactional strategy in north korea for the last 20 years. here we find ourselves. >> drew: the transaction i must transact is that we are out of time. so we'll be back in a moment with thoughts about civility.
>> dickerson: the chairman of the democratic committee tom perez has been swearing a lot lately. >> they call their budget a skinny budget. i call it a [bleeped] budget. >> dickerson: a gun is michelle obama's advice: >> when they go low, i go high. >> dickerson: gone and words we should live by. this is more about crass
language inch times of tension do you keep your standards or do you drop them? the "washington post" asked perez about his potty mouthed and he pointed out correctly that republicans have tolerated far worse from donald trump. so two wrongs make a right and the race is on to the bottom, or whatever is below the bottom. at this point you may be swearing in rebuttal. party chairman are supposed to be extreme. it creates urgency and excites the crowd. plus donald trump never paid the price. essentially this is good politics. is it really? if you oppose a president for his coarseness, why imitate it? donald trump's primary opponents tried and failed. also for a party with a message problem, there is something exhausting about the overuse of the manure spreader. it suggests the reliance on shock rather than a real argument. the move comes across as thoroughly calculated. a pointed word can be effective, as bernie sanders proved when he
said... >> the american people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails. >> thank you. me too, me too. >> dickerson: but it was the prior restraint, not just the words, that made people take notice. back in a moment. the following ad is being condensed for your viewing convenience. i finally switched to geico. oh yeah? ended up saving a ton of money on car insurance. i hear they have a really great mobile app. the interface is remarkably intuitive. that's so important.
,,,,,,,, >> dickerson: that's it for us today. thank for watching until next week when we bring you our interview with donald trump on his first 100 days in office airing on face nation and the following morning on "cbs this morning." live from the white house, for "face the nation," i'm john dickerson.
presentation, brought to you by beachbody, but filmed by me on my iphone and directly from my heart. >> hold up. i want to ask you a question. how do you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror? not so good. like, "ugh. gross." who is this person? like, you know you have to do something, but it's so confusing! there's fad diets, extreme workouts, and it's working for other people, but it is not working for you. you just want a system, a program that actually works -- hello! -- that doesn't feel like punishment. girl, i got you. >> announcer: introducing piyo, the best of pilates and the best of yoga fused together to create a body-sculpting and wgh