The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: Friday, March 6th

Episode Date: March 6, 2020

As the public continues to brace for the spread of the new coronavirus, President Trump has continued to spread misinformation about the disease. And Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, made charged remarks on the steps of the Supreme Court that drew a rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts.This episode: congressional correspondent Susan Davis, White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe, White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez, science correspondent Richard Harris, legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg, and congressional editor Deirdre Walsh.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This is Katie and Aaron. We are currently starting our last day of our three-day hike on the Kepler track in beautiful New Zealand. We are also celebrating getting engaged atop Mount Luxembourg. This podcast was recorded at 12.10 p.m. on Friday, March 6th. Things may have changed by the time you hear it. Enjoy the show! They're already the couple that talks the same. So cute.

The timing was a little off, but give them a few more years. They'll get it. They'll start dressing alike, too. A lot more years. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. I'm Franco Ordonez.

I cover the White House. And I'm Ayesha Roscoe. I also cover the White House. And we've got a special guest in studio with us today. Please introduce yourself. I'm Richard Harris, a science correspondent and I guess a coronavirus correspondent for the last month or so. And that is why we have you in the podcast today, because we're going to talk about the latest politics on the coronavirus. But we've brought Richard in to set us straight on the science.

President Trump was talking with Sean Hannity on Fox News about the World Health Organization's recent coronavirus death rate estimate of 3.4 percent. And he said this. Well, I think the 3.4 percent is really a false number. Now, this is just my hunch. And but based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people that do this, because a lot of people will have this and it's very mild. They'll get better very rapidly. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even see a doctor. They don't even call a doctor. All right, Richard, President's got a hunch on this one.

Well, his hunch might be right, but it's not based on much solid data. And let's remember, if he's right, that also implies that there are 10 times as many cases in the U.S. right now as we know about. The president went on to say that, sort of implying that it would be even okay to go to work, he said, lots of people go to work with this. And that is, of course, very much against the public health message about, you know, if you're feeling poorly, you might possibly have this or flu or anything else. Really, if you're sick, you shouldn't go to work. Franco, this is and you and I've talked about this in the podcast before there. The president is often sending a very contradictory message to the public than public health officials are. Yeah. I mean, the mixed messages from the president as well as from his administration

probably have added to the anxieties and concerns that people have. I mean, this really has posed a big challenge for the president's credibility and raised some questions about his ability to manage kind of like this international health crisis. Just today, the White House abruptly canceled and then rescheduled the president's trip to the CDC in Atlanta. And, you know, look, he's trying to portray himself as, you know, in control and downplaying the risks. But you see all these canceled flights, people canceling vacations, and people are very concerned. How complicated is it for public health officials to do their job if the most powerful messenger in the country is giving the public contradictory information? So it's interesting to watch someone like Anthony Fauci from the National Institutes of Health walk this tightrope because he is really concerned about getting the correct message out. And he's been on the stage where the president says one thing, and Dr. Fauci will actually contradict him in the most gentle way, which is he'll just pretend the president hasn't

said what he said, but he'll say the right thing. And I think this is a very awkward situation. What worries me more is actually when some of the people in the world of public health go off message too and become more political than actually scientific. I heard that this week from Alex Azar, who is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He's not a scientist. He's a former pharmaceutical lobbyist. But he's sort of representing the world of public health here. And he was at the White House, and he was talking about the fact that everything is completely under control with testing. We only have over 100 cases so far in the United States.

We are not South Korea. South Korea may be doing tens of thousands of tests because South Korea is in a very different epidemiological position. They're in a different position because they've actually been testing a lot of people so they know about a lot of their cases. I suspect most of our cases are undiagnosed because we've been so slow to get off the ball on testing. And instead of having people like Azar admit that, yes, we got a slow start, we made some mistakes and we're now catching up, they're pretending all of that never happened.

If you go down the food chain a little bit to the frontline people at the CDC, they've been very upfront about saying, yeah, you know, we had some problems with our tests. We had to delay it several weeks and so on. And we're getting the truth from the people down below, but we're getting less and less truth the higher you go up in the administration. We keep hearing about this, these tests, and there was talk of a million tests would be ready by the end of the week. What is the importance of that? Do they need to have these tests rolled out? Absolutely. You do need to have these tests. And in fact, we're nowhere near a million as far as anyone can tell. It's the public health labs that are have these tests. And in fact, we're nowhere near a million as far as anyone can tell. It's the public health labs that are running these tests.

They have very low capacity. They can run maybe 100 a day. The best labs can do several hundred a day. So even if they flood the zone with a million of these tests, it's actually not solving the problem that we have in this country. And it's going to take a couple of weeks, I think, before testing ramps up enough until we really have a sense of the dimensions of this epidemic in places like Seattle, where it is spreading a lot. And we just don't know who has it and who doesn't. How sensitive is the White House to this? I don't know if we can call it a crisis yet, but the coronavirus threat being a political liability to the president if the White House isn't seen as effectively managing the crisis, potential crisis. I think it is a big deal. I mean, the president has long said that he is in control of this virus.

You know, in the beginning, he talked about how not many people had had it. Then he talked about no one had died from it. And that, as Richard just said, this is not like some of the other countries that have been hit harder. But it's looking like the United States is going to be hit hard. And the United States doesn't have the same ability, as public health officials had said, to kind of clamp down and stop the economy as, say, China did. China really clamped down on transportation, basically shut down transportation in and out of some of the affected cities. You can't just stop people from going to Seattle. You can't stop people from going to Washington state. So the expectation is this

is going to continue to spread. This is a president who his instinct is to be defensive and also to be effusive in praise for his actions and for the actions of his administration. He wants to be able to say America is the best and the brightest and I did the right thing and I saved the day. And the problem is when you have something like this happening where no one really knows what's going to happen next. If you want to get out there and take a victory lap when things are still happening and people are dying, that's the issue. It's like this is not something that has already wrapped up. And you can kind of just say, oh, we got it all fixed. This is ongoing and you don't know what's going to happen next.

Richard, how does the World Health Organization rate how the U.S. response has been so far? Well, I think they are very careful not to make comparisons. But I mean, the U.S. response has been from the standpoint of just looking at what public health people should be doing. If you talk to academics who say, are we taking the right steps? The answer is yes, not fast enough because of the snafu they had with the testing. In retrospect, the U.S. probably would have done well to start taking tests from Germany and other places where they were developed and they did not hit the same snags that we hit. But, you know, we have to live in the world we're in right now. But I think

in terms of thinking out the response so far, it seems to be following the script that you'd hope it would follow from the standpoint of public health, just with bumps along the way. Here in Washington, there's a lot of people that don't think the White House is doing enough. Congress certainly thinks the White House should be doing more. They passed overwhelmingly an $8 billion spending package that was just signed today. That's more than triple than what Trump requested. What's that money going to go for? A major chunk of it goes to increase the stockpile of essential medical supplies like hospital supplies like masks and gowns and things like that, the personal protective equipment that people who are working in hospitals need in order to respond to this. They go through that material pretty quickly. If you're in a sort of a hot zone, you throw it away and you put on a new set and so on.

And we're well behind the eight ball in having enough of that on hand, especially as everybody around the country is saying, we want to make sure our own individual stockpile is high enough. It's like, you know, trying to buy toilet paper right now. It's not like there's a shortage of toilet paper, but once everyone says, oh, there might be a shortage, everyone wants to stockpile. I can report that there is a shortage of hand sanitizer because I was in CVS and Target and the grocery store yesterday and none of them had it. And you cannot use your homemade vodka for that to make your sanitizer. Don't do that. Don't do that.

It's got to be at least 60% alcohol, and vodka's not there. Everclear's a higher alcohol rate, but it's also a different alcohol. The drinking alcohol is ethanol, and the rubbing alcohol is isopropyl alcohol. So I don't know. But you should just wash your hands is the answer. Well, since we have you here, Richard. I was just going to add that the CDC officials had said that you do not need, you know, that special super duper hand hand sanitizer, that soap and water will work as long as you are vigorously, vigorously washing your hands for at least 20 seconds. All right, Richard Franco, we're going to let you go.

Thanks, guys. Thank you. My pleasure. And we're going to take a quick break, but when we get back, we'll talk about a political storm Senator Chuck Schumer started on the steps of the Supreme Court. On a secret military recording, a sound so haunting, one scientist believed it could change the world.

My mind was racing as I listened to this. And I thought, this, this is the way. Join NPR's Invisibilia for the first episode of our new season. And we're back and we have two new guests in the studio. NPR's Nina Totenberg and Deirdre Walsh are here with us now. Hi, Nina. Hey, Deirdre. Hi.

Hi, Sue. Thanks for coming in. So this week, the Supreme Court is hearing an abortion case. And as that usually does, there was a protest outside on the steps of the Supreme Court. And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was there. And he had this to say about Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Quite the scene there, Deirdre. It was. So what was Chuck Schumer doing over there? So the court was hearing one of the probably most closely watched cases that we'll hear this session. It was an abortion case. And Schumer was there speaking to a group of abortion rights activists, advocates who were very concerned about the case before the court. The Democratic base and a lot of its supporters are keenly focused on the Supreme Court's consideration of cases this term that relate to abortion. There are concerns that they will uphold laws that will further restrict

abortion rights. And so I think Schumer was there speaking to these group of activists to say he was with them. I think the one thing about his remarks that he and his office have pointed out that he was essentially riffing on what Brett Kavanaugh said at his own confirmation hearing in 2018, when he warned the then Senate Judiciary Committee that they would reap the whirlwind. You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind. That's what he was trying to do. I don't think most people realize that. It didn't land that way. So before we get more into the politics of it, Nina, what is the case before the court?

This is a huge case. And folks started lining up to get into the Supreme Court on Sunday night. Sunday night. They started with the microphones the day before with rallies. And instead, he gives a gift to the Republicans by appearing to threaten members of the court and then having the chief justice, which he's only done once before, do a rather stunning thing, rebuke him. Chief Justice Roberts put out this statement. He said, quote, Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job without fear or favor from whatever quarter. How unusual is it for John Roberts to put out a statement on anything, let alone criticizing a leading member of another branch of government? He's only done it once before, rebuking President Trump when he started talking about Obama judges.

But there's been a sort of a low rumble about this. There was even a long article in the Washington Post magazine basically saying that the court needs to defend itself because it's losing credibility. It's very difficult for the court to do that. These are people who have ideologies, but they are not active partisans. They're not politicians. And they don't do that very well. I think having this happen and having Schumer say this very inappropriate thing, having this happen on the day of this abortion argument which is incredibly fraught for the court for the chief as chief justice i think he finally just said enough and clearly there was pressure on schumer because his remarks were viewed as over the line to to walk them back well and he did

right he did walk back he did walk them back he did not apologize. No, he said my words were not intended the way that for anyone who makes comments about justice. But of course, we've never had a president before who routinely attacks judges and Supreme Court justices. And jurors. And jurors. The four women of the jury. On the Roger Stone or or in this case Chuck Schumer if he did that every time he'd be in a major match with with the president all the time well Schumer's words and then Chief Justice John Roberts rebuke was also in some ways a gift

to Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell certainly took advantage of it to try and earn some political points, too. This is him on the floor this week. At the very best, his comments were astonishingly, astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible. The minority leader of the United States Senate threatened two associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, period. The problem, I think, politically is that Schumer clearly would rather be having a conversation about abortion rights and somehow stepped on it and made it a story about judges and about politicization and kind of created a conversation he didn't want to be having to begin with.

Correct. It was a total political gift to Mitch McConnell, and he pounced on it, and other Senate Republicans joined him on the Senate floor to pile on Chuck Schumer. They're shocked, shocked. I mean, if there's any... Shocked that anyone's politicizing the court. But if there's any issue, Sue, you know this well, that's in Mitch McConnell's wheelhouse, it is the federal judiciary. He is very proud of his own record and regularly cites that I think it's one in every four circuit court judges was nominated by President Trump. Obviously, the two big accomplishments are the two justices on the

Supreme Court that his Senate majority confirmed. So these are issues that he is happy to talk about. But it's an election year and it became a partisan flashpoint. I think it's just remarkable how this is an issue. Certainly abortion rights, when you look at the polling data, should be an issue that the Democrats can capitalize on. But somehow, when it comes to Supreme Court justices and talking about them, every time this comes up, the Republicans manage to win the debate and energize their base while the Democrats somehow blow the opportunity. But isn't this sort of a blip in the road to the bigger story? I mean, if there is a court decision to restrict abortion rights, I think Democrats would say

that is a decision that ultimately in the bigger picture of our politics is one that they think would benefit them. It could completely play into their hands in the final stretch of the election, which I think what Nina's point is that Republicans clearly have the view of the Supreme Court importance in their view on election years. Democrats haven't. They don't tend to vote on those issues. But this is that issue. And when are we going to find out like when the Supreme Court makes a decision on this? We're going to find out in June. I mean, even if they slice the salami pretty thin, we're going to see that either they're going to uphold what they did four years ago, and the court is no different in terms of the outcome because one justice retired and Donald Trump replaced that justice,

or they're going to start moving down the road towards restricting abortion rights. And you can say, well, maybe they'll stop short of overturning Roe. But I think most people who are court watchers think eventually, if they're going to head in that direction, they're going to overturn Roe. All right, Nina, we're going to let you go. Thank you so much. Love being here. All right, we're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, it's time for Can't Let It Go.

Hi, I'm Manoush Zomorodi, and I am the new host of NPR's TED Radio Hour. I am so excited because we are working on a bunch of new, amazing episodes. We're exploring big ideas about reinvention, making amends, and the psychological effects of climate change. Our first show drops March 13th. Please join me. And we're back and it's time to end the show like we do every week with Can't Let It Go, the part of the show where we talk about the things we can't stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. Aisha, what can't you let go this week? So I can't believe this happened this week because it felt like it happened 18 years ago. But I think this week on Super Tuesday, right?

That was this week? That was this week. It does feel like a year ago. I was working very late that night. And, you know, one of the big winners was Joe Biden. He got up to give his speech, kind of celebrating all his wins for the night. And out of nowhere comes these women oh the protesters the protesters that was crazy dairy down with dairy or something like that i'm not

really sure but who jumps out to to you know regulate the situation jill biden and simone sanders a top aide to Biden. Senior linebacker. Yeah. Who you have probably seen. Yes, completely fearless, bodyguard, Secret Service. She jumped out and basically pushed this woman off the stage. And Jill Biden got in there, too, and was just like, you're not going to get my man.

This is nice. It was amazing. There's a picture of Jill Biden pushing back on this protester you can't even see what the sign is but it was clearly it was like hardcore like reflexes were amazing just jumped in and then simone sanders tweeted i mean after all of that was like i broke a nail and so she also the next day or so she tweeted a video of her at the nail salon getting it getting it together. She could expense that. Yes. Well, now we know there are two people guaranteed to get a job in the Biden administration if they want it.

Jim Clyburn and Simone Sanders. Yes. Absolutely. I mean, because she was ready. So she was protecting her boss. And Joe Biden gave a shout out, I noticed, to his wife at a fundraiser, I think he was at, where he said that the Eagles were scouting Jill for a possible linebacker position on next year's team. Deidre, what can't you let go? The thing I can't let go of is the last official royal visit of Harry and Meghan to the UK this week. We all know they had their final break from the royal family, but they are back for their final duties. I saw a picture of them. So this is their final, so they're no longer official after this. Right. I think these are the last official events

they had. There was one last night. I think there's one today. But there was this amazing picture of Harry and Meghan walking into this event, this charity benefit, and it was raining and he's holding this dark umbrella and she has this electric blue dress. I know this picture. And you saw the flash coins and you can see this other picture. There's a picture of the two of them,

this other picture of Meghan, just a Meghan looking back at the paparazzi who clearly, like she believes, harassed her and are part of the reason why they decided to make this break. Looking glowingly beautiful, not a care in the world. Like, you got one last chance at me and I'm out of here. And I thought it was just sort of like an amazing, like, I'm back, but this is your last shot at me.

Yeah, I mean, so and what do they say? Like, the best revenge is to live a good life, be happy. Of course, the best revenge is to get your paper. But, you know, it's all in the same vein. I think they're going to get the paper too. Right. As long as they seem happy, right? Yeah, I thought the other one sort of tweak at the royal family was they came back, but they didn't bring baby Archie.

And royal family kids are always so popular in the UK. So they sort of denied them that last chance to see Archie. They didn't want him around the bad vibes. Or maybe the coronavirus. Sue, what can't you let go of this week? I think you both might have a hint of an idea of what this is because I did make you do something to help me out before we came to studio. But the thing I can't let go this week is Hillary Clinton is out promoting her new documentary. So she's doing all different kinds of media. And she did watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen. He's a host on Bravo, which is home to the Real Housewives franchise. And he always asks questions that other questioners don't ask. And there is this part, if you ever watch the Real Housewives,

in which in the beginning of each season, when The Real Housewives introduced themselves, they all have a tagline to sort of say what their drama is. I've always had opinions, but now people know it. I'm living the American dream one mistake at a time. I am a taste for luxury and luxury has a taste for me. And Hillary Clinton did this for Andyy cohen people wanted to know what your housewives tagline would be i heard that you came with one okay okay i'm neither as good or as bad as some people say so you have to like she was right she kind of turned around in her chair and like dramatically turned around and looked at the camera because that's kind of what you have to do for it too.

Yeah. So I can't let it go because it got me wondering what would my tagline be? What is it? What would it be? So I went to the internet. So you had to go get some, you had to kind of cheat a little bit. It's supposed to be internal. But I went to the internet and literally just typed in real housewife tagline generator.

And it exists. As it should. As it should. So not only do I have a tagline, but I asked my friends in studio here to figure out what their taglines are. And I don't know what they are, but we're going to read them as we say goodbye to the podcast this week. So do you guys have yours ready? I do. I'm Susan Davis.

You don't need beauty sleep when you have a great makeup team. I'm Deirdre Walsh. Caring about what others think is just as exhausting as counting my money. And I'm Aisha Roscoe. No amount of Botox

can fix a frown, so you might as well smile. All right, that's a wrap for us today. But if you want us to know your tagline, tweet it to us at NPR Politics. We'll be back on Monday at 5 p.m. with a preview of the next round of primaries coming up on Tuesday. Until then, head to N.PR slash politics group to join our Facebook group. It's a place for you to meet other fans of the podcast, talk about the latest political news and ask us your burning questions. I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. I'm Deirdre Walsh, congressional editor. I'm Aisha Roscoe and I cover the White House.

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. © BF-WATCH TV 2021