Is it a consolation that Gen. Hayden is an improvement over the former C.I.A. Director George Tenet? There is little doubt that he is. Mr. Tenet was always politically expedient, following the pack at the top of the administration, a group thinker. Gen. Hayden is an improvement despite this column's continued concern that a military man is heading our most high profile, civilian intelligence agency. This interview should have taken the entire hour - that' what the producers should have pushed for; it is the man's first interview as C.I.A. Director and you do not take an entire hour, hopefully there is an explanation.
For lack of a better description, the entire interview left this writer uneasy. Several points contribute to this feeling. First, Mr. Russert was asking Gen. Hayden about the surge in Iraq. Again, the 'surge' is an escalation - make no mistake. However, this is traditionally not within the realm of expertise for the C.I.A. director. Is it because he is wearing the uniform? It just seemed that this line of questioning would have been better suited for Gen. Petraus and not the Director of the C.I.A.
However, when the subject turned to Basra and the Iraqi government going in into the city to route militants, Gen. Hayden said he didn't know anymore about it beforehand then Gen. Petraus did. This is a problem. Isn't the point of the C.I.A. to know things before they happen? What's called advanced intelligence. We don't seem to have much of that in Iraq, if any. Again, it leaves this writer uneasy.
And this seeming lack of advance [or you can read: current] intelligence also relates back to the National Intelligence Estimate following September 11th with regard to Iraq's WMD program. Though Gen. Hayden was not the C.I.A. Director at the time, he stated that he was in the room and blamed the lack of an honest assessment of Saddam Hussein's current WMD program on momentum. What?! He said that the momentum gained by the past intelligence trumped current information. This insight into the discussion that was happening in that meeting leaves us frightened. Nowhere in his answer can you point to one thing intelligent. Gen. Hayden said that they have learned vital lessons because of it, but the cost has been devastating to this country.
Also, this column wonders why Gen. Hayden, on today's program, could weigh in with his personal opinion with regard Iran's nuclear program (whether it is active or not) and not give his personal opinion on water boarding as torture. He defers to the Justice Department to decide whether it is torture or not. He would not give his opinion, he said it doesn't matter what he thinks, but it does. He is the Director of the C.I.A. Does this mean that he condones it? And deferring to the Justice Dept. for anything right now is a joke. The justice department under the Bush Administration has shredded the Constitution. We wish this was an overstatement, but unfortunately, it is not critical enough.
Lastly, Gen. Hayden spoke about giving his operatives liability insurance so that they don't have to think about the legality or morality of their actions that they take on behalf of the U.S. Government. We understand that this is designed to relieve the external (political) pressure on the operative, but giving them liability insurance implies that they need it and that they are engaging in illegal activity. The program cut to the clip of V.P. Cheney talking about working on the dark side, in the shadows. Intelligence is all about working in the shadows - to see where the rest of us can not. But going to the dark side, that leaves us no better than the people determined to do us harm though atrocious means.
For the second half of the program, which again there shouldn't have been, the guests were David Brooks, NY Times columnist and editor-at-large Peter Beinart to discuss whether Sen. Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and what the repercussions are if she stays in.
Without the continual back and forth, here are the answers to these specific questions.
Should Hillary Clinton drop out of the race? No, she has the right to continue on since she has won some major primaries. She shouldn't drop out despite the mathematic improbability of her winning.
Is her campaign's current strategy hurting the Democratic Party? Yes, as long as Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates bitterly discuss race and gender, the Democratic Party will become more divided by the day. There is a real lack of leadership in the Democratic Party - Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean (to just name a few) have done nothing. They are ineffective and frankly, should be removed. Who can lead this party - Senators Obama and Clinton. However, their collective discourse is becoming more and more poisonous and that poison is trickling down throughout the party collective. And as a side note, Bill Clinton should just shut up. We used to love to see him at the forefront, but now we cringe every time we see him on the television. Talk about deflating the Party. From a distance, doesn't it just seem childish?
What should be their campaign strategy? We would have to agree with David Brooks - a rarity we realize, but he suggested that Mrs. Clinton just run a dignified campaign about ideas and policy, not using baiting tactics centered around race and gender. Wow, What a novel idea!
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
3.23.08: Simple Physics
First, this column would like to say that it great to be back after a two-week layoff. The life of one mired in the middle class gets in the way sometimes of such minor endeavors, one of which is keeping a blog.
With that said, let's get on with it.
In the past few posts, this column has expressed concern that Meet The Press was not addressing anything else but the numbers of presidential election politics. This week faith, oddly enough on Easter Sunday, was restored. Presidential politics was discussed, but in the past week, too many significant happenings has gone, highlighted by open discussions of race, economic meltdowns, foreign policy blunders, and endorsements. Today's guests included Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett discussing the economy. In the context of MTP, this is overdue as some perspective needed to be given. Ms. Bartiromo maintains an optimism about the economy that it is cyclical and that with the Bear Sterns meltdown, we've seen the worse. However, in this particular cycle, Ms. Burnett pointed out that Alan Greenspan said it is the worst since WWII. And in this cycle, we're seeing people being wiped out. Foreclosures and stagnant wages, the former being an understated constant tragedy of the Bush Administration, make it difficult for a middle class worker to feel optimism that struggles are only cyclical.
Also, Ms. Burnett, who has been interviewing CEOs of companies that interact directly with consumers (she mentioned Little Ceasar's, Papa John's, Rainforest Cafe), see this economic downturn lasting for at least the next 18 months or more. A daunting prospect to say the least. At least exports are booming, right? Well, yes, but that props up the confidence of foreign consumers, it doesn't do much for the confidence of American consumers.
However, this column agrees with Ms. Bartiromo in that the FED chairman, Mr. Bernake is doing a good job in employing whatever tactic he can to keep the economy from running down a sink hole. If you're forced into a position in which you have to cut interest rates, you'll do it to maintain the minimum collective health of ordinary workers and consumers.
This week it has been pointed out that America is no longer focused at all on the Iraq war/occupation and that the economy dominates. What people need to remember is that Iraq is the central virus that creates all of America's ills. A projected cost of 3 trillion dollars sucked out of the U.S. economy doesn't serve any good purpose here in The States. Again, Iraq is the virus that cripples us, and in some aspects it will be permanent.
This is tied directly to the start of the discussion in the second portion of the show, which focused on the comments of Rev. Wright and Barack Obama's 'race' speech addressing it. After seeing the clip ad nauseum of Rev. Wright's comments, would we say that his tone was inflammatory? Yes. Would we question whether they were well thought out? Also, yes. Would we say that they showed a limited understanding of the real politik? Definitely. But we can also say that some of the comments were accurate in their essence. One of those points is simple physics. We put troops in Saudia Arabia and Muslim extremists found it intolerable. Any action will cause an equivalent reaction. Although assessing equivalents in politics is a matter of perspective. And Eugene Robinson was correct to point out, and it should be repeated, that this clip does not sum up the entire ministry of Rev. Wright. Do we know this first hand, you ask. No, but nor can we condemn learning of this second hand.
And it should also be pointed out that the comments didn't concern race as much as it did politics, yet it has been spun that way and Iraq is the backdrop for all of this.
With that said, Barack Obama felt that it was a necessity to give that speech in Philadelphia. Most of the media agrees, as they should, that the speech was a good first step in maturely discussing a problem that permeates throughout our 'great experiment' of an American society. This column's concern is that we, as a society, will only fixate on the speech itself and no one will pick up the ball per se. We'll have to wait and see.
All of this should not negatively affect Barack Obama's campaign, but as Jon Meacham pointed out, it does show that if Sen. Obama does walk across Lake Michigan, he might sink. (Leave it to Mr. Meacham to use the most appropriate of analogies on an Easter Sunday.)
And speaking of divisive comments, Bill Clinton is two steps away from permanently, critically damaging his legacy as President. He has been the single most divisive force in the Democratic National Primary. We will not speculate on the psychology of Mr. Clinton's thinking and whether he 'owes' it to his wife for any past embarrassments, etc. What is significant is the clear and present embarrassment he is becoming to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. This is projecting out to be classic political crash and burn - legacy damaged, lost nomination, political clout looking like the U.S.'s present moral standing in the world. How will all this affect Mrs. Clinton's determination in the Senate. Again, we have to wait and see.
One of the greatest things about America is that there is an adverse effect on society, hence action taken to remove an entity that is perceived to have too much control over something. It may seem that Americans do not act enough in this capacity, we really we do. Our first great lesson of the 21st Century is that we shouldn't have remained complacent when we witnessed the Bush Administration consolidating power. We bring this up because today's discussion touched on a perception that the Clintons control the Democratic party and wield all the influence, a 'magic voodoo' as Peggy Noonan put it. If they, in fact, did have this control, we are now seeing cut off at the knees.
If there is an endorsement that really does matter, it was Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama. That was a significant chop. Not only is it a former presidential contender endorsing another, but it serves as a significant rebuke of Mrs. Clinton. Remember that Gov. Richardson served the Clinton administration in various significant capacities. And for Mrs. Clinton's part in this rebuke, it is unfortunate that well... Mrs. Clinton doesn't necessarily lie, but she exaggaerates and alters past events and statement greatly, playing the Dick Cheney game of what I'm saying now is the truth and no matter what you think I said or recorded I said or did in the past simply isn't so because I say.
Lastly, Eugene Robinson surmised that the superdelegates should aline with the elected delegates and for the sake of the Democratic Party they should. However, as Mr. Meacham pointed out, it is rare that a primary election would affect the general election, but in this political cycle, it could happen. If this is to be the case, it could very well ruin the Democratic Party.
chick todd scrubs the numbers very well...
do with the pledged delegates - the supers - according to Gene Robinson
primary battle rarely effectsa general election but it could happen here...
War and the econony...
With that said, let's get on with it.
In the past few posts, this column has expressed concern that Meet The Press was not addressing anything else but the numbers of presidential election politics. This week faith, oddly enough on Easter Sunday, was restored. Presidential politics was discussed, but in the past week, too many significant happenings has gone, highlighted by open discussions of race, economic meltdowns, foreign policy blunders, and endorsements. Today's guests included Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett discussing the economy. In the context of MTP, this is overdue as some perspective needed to be given. Ms. Bartiromo maintains an optimism about the economy that it is cyclical and that with the Bear Sterns meltdown, we've seen the worse. However, in this particular cycle, Ms. Burnett pointed out that Alan Greenspan said it is the worst since WWII. And in this cycle, we're seeing people being wiped out. Foreclosures and stagnant wages, the former being an understated constant tragedy of the Bush Administration, make it difficult for a middle class worker to feel optimism that struggles are only cyclical.
Also, Ms. Burnett, who has been interviewing CEOs of companies that interact directly with consumers (she mentioned Little Ceasar's, Papa John's, Rainforest Cafe), see this economic downturn lasting for at least the next 18 months or more. A daunting prospect to say the least. At least exports are booming, right? Well, yes, but that props up the confidence of foreign consumers, it doesn't do much for the confidence of American consumers.
However, this column agrees with Ms. Bartiromo in that the FED chairman, Mr. Bernake is doing a good job in employing whatever tactic he can to keep the economy from running down a sink hole. If you're forced into a position in which you have to cut interest rates, you'll do it to maintain the minimum collective health of ordinary workers and consumers.
This week it has been pointed out that America is no longer focused at all on the Iraq war/occupation and that the economy dominates. What people need to remember is that Iraq is the central virus that creates all of America's ills. A projected cost of 3 trillion dollars sucked out of the U.S. economy doesn't serve any good purpose here in The States. Again, Iraq is the virus that cripples us, and in some aspects it will be permanent.
This is tied directly to the start of the discussion in the second portion of the show, which focused on the comments of Rev. Wright and Barack Obama's 'race' speech addressing it. After seeing the clip ad nauseum of Rev. Wright's comments, would we say that his tone was inflammatory? Yes. Would we question whether they were well thought out? Also, yes. Would we say that they showed a limited understanding of the real politik? Definitely. But we can also say that some of the comments were accurate in their essence. One of those points is simple physics. We put troops in Saudia Arabia and Muslim extremists found it intolerable. Any action will cause an equivalent reaction. Although assessing equivalents in politics is a matter of perspective. And Eugene Robinson was correct to point out, and it should be repeated, that this clip does not sum up the entire ministry of Rev. Wright. Do we know this first hand, you ask. No, but nor can we condemn learning of this second hand.
And it should also be pointed out that the comments didn't concern race as much as it did politics, yet it has been spun that way and Iraq is the backdrop for all of this.
With that said, Barack Obama felt that it was a necessity to give that speech in Philadelphia. Most of the media agrees, as they should, that the speech was a good first step in maturely discussing a problem that permeates throughout our 'great experiment' of an American society. This column's concern is that we, as a society, will only fixate on the speech itself and no one will pick up the ball per se. We'll have to wait and see.
All of this should not negatively affect Barack Obama's campaign, but as Jon Meacham pointed out, it does show that if Sen. Obama does walk across Lake Michigan, he might sink. (Leave it to Mr. Meacham to use the most appropriate of analogies on an Easter Sunday.)
And speaking of divisive comments, Bill Clinton is two steps away from permanently, critically damaging his legacy as President. He has been the single most divisive force in the Democratic National Primary. We will not speculate on the psychology of Mr. Clinton's thinking and whether he 'owes' it to his wife for any past embarrassments, etc. What is significant is the clear and present embarrassment he is becoming to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. This is projecting out to be classic political crash and burn - legacy damaged, lost nomination, political clout looking like the U.S.'s present moral standing in the world. How will all this affect Mrs. Clinton's determination in the Senate. Again, we have to wait and see.
One of the greatest things about America is that there is an adverse effect on society, hence action taken to remove an entity that is perceived to have too much control over something. It may seem that Americans do not act enough in this capacity, we really we do. Our first great lesson of the 21st Century is that we shouldn't have remained complacent when we witnessed the Bush Administration consolidating power. We bring this up because today's discussion touched on a perception that the Clintons control the Democratic party and wield all the influence, a 'magic voodoo' as Peggy Noonan put it. If they, in fact, did have this control, we are now seeing cut off at the knees.
If there is an endorsement that really does matter, it was Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama. That was a significant chop. Not only is it a former presidential contender endorsing another, but it serves as a significant rebuke of Mrs. Clinton. Remember that Gov. Richardson served the Clinton administration in various significant capacities. And for Mrs. Clinton's part in this rebuke, it is unfortunate that well... Mrs. Clinton doesn't necessarily lie, but she exaggaerates and alters past events and statement greatly, playing the Dick Cheney game of what I'm saying now is the truth and no matter what you think I said or recorded I said or did in the past simply isn't so because I say.
Lastly, Eugene Robinson surmised that the superdelegates should aline with the elected delegates and for the sake of the Democratic Party they should. However, as Mr. Meacham pointed out, it is rare that a primary election would affect the general election, but in this political cycle, it could happen. If this is to be the case, it could very well ruin the Democratic Party.
chick todd scrubs the numbers very well...
do with the pledged delegates - the supers - according to Gene Robinson
primary battle rarely effectsa general election but it could happen here...
War and the econony...
Sunday, March 02, 2008
3.2.08: More No News
It is disappointing that this week's column will be an extension of last week's column in that there isn't much good to say about this week's program. It started with Friday's e-mail alert dampening our spirits in announcing Mike Murphy, Bob Shrum, Mary Matalin, and James Carville as guests. This column prefers not to pull technicality-type reasoning, but is this Meet The Press or Meet The Analysis. These four individuals are featured on MTP more than anyone else and they’re not even the press. This group needs a name - maybe the No New News Corps. Ok, we admit, a poor attempt, but that is exactly what they provide - no news. In the future if they decide to feature this group, they should air the group's 4-Mimosa Brunch that we presume happens after the taping. Now that would be entertaining.
Our discontent stems from the lack of insight that they provide. For example, one statement (it doesn't matter from whom specifically, it's hardly worth dissecting it that far) was that if Mrs. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, she could still come out behind in delegates - no news.
Bob Shrum said that if Mrs. Clinton does win those states that she could conceivably acquire the moral claim to the nomination. She could 'acquire a moral claim'? That is the type of speculation that, to say the least, makes you wonder and can only help one feel less enthusiastic about the process. This week's program has assisted in making the viewer less enthusiastic about the Democratic nominating process. Actually, and this is more no-news, the 20th Democratic debate in Austin, TX officially killed that enthusiasm. Shows like this week's program are just the pile-on.
This is not to discount everything that this particular panel says. For example, Mike Murphy is correct in saying that the Republicans would be high-fiving if the Democrats were to try and put the Barack Obama phenomenon back in the bottle. No matter what, that will not happen. As stated in last week's column, the people are always out front of the press on things like this. The other aspect that they bring to the table is that they have firsthand accounts of historical campaign precedent and one can never underestimate the importance of historical reference. History repeats itself because we overlook and underestimate historical precedent continually.
But ultimately, how insightful and analytical can these four individuals be to us? Unfortunately, not very. They are all so invested in the individuals that they have backed over the years that everything they say is funneled through that respective lenses. The second half of the program was to be devoted to the issues. They briefly touched on NAFTA and the economy, but then quickly digressed back to candidate personalities and prospective VP picks. And in speaking about those issues, we provide this one example as to why we think these guests' collective opinion is out of touch. A poll was flashed on the screen in which the vast majority of the American people feel that the economy is in fair to poor condition. Mary Matalin's answer to this was that 'if you were to ask individuals, they would mostly say that their finances are excellent and that the poll was conducted in such a way to show the opposite.' This comes from a close, longtime senior advisor to VP Richard Cheney. Talk about being out of touch. News to ONLY Ms. Matalin - it's tough out there and people are struggling economically.
Do we even have to point this out? Apparently we do, if these four individuals are going to constantly be on Meet The Press.
Our discontent stems from the lack of insight that they provide. For example, one statement (it doesn't matter from whom specifically, it's hardly worth dissecting it that far) was that if Mrs. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, she could still come out behind in delegates - no news.
Bob Shrum said that if Mrs. Clinton does win those states that she could conceivably acquire the moral claim to the nomination. She could 'acquire a moral claim'? That is the type of speculation that, to say the least, makes you wonder and can only help one feel less enthusiastic about the process. This week's program has assisted in making the viewer less enthusiastic about the Democratic nominating process. Actually, and this is more no-news, the 20th Democratic debate in Austin, TX officially killed that enthusiasm. Shows like this week's program are just the pile-on.
This is not to discount everything that this particular panel says. For example, Mike Murphy is correct in saying that the Republicans would be high-fiving if the Democrats were to try and put the Barack Obama phenomenon back in the bottle. No matter what, that will not happen. As stated in last week's column, the people are always out front of the press on things like this. The other aspect that they bring to the table is that they have firsthand accounts of historical campaign precedent and one can never underestimate the importance of historical reference. History repeats itself because we overlook and underestimate historical precedent continually.
But ultimately, how insightful and analytical can these four individuals be to us? Unfortunately, not very. They are all so invested in the individuals that they have backed over the years that everything they say is funneled through that respective lenses. The second half of the program was to be devoted to the issues. They briefly touched on NAFTA and the economy, but then quickly digressed back to candidate personalities and prospective VP picks. And in speaking about those issues, we provide this one example as to why we think these guests' collective opinion is out of touch. A poll was flashed on the screen in which the vast majority of the American people feel that the economy is in fair to poor condition. Mary Matalin's answer to this was that 'if you were to ask individuals, they would mostly say that their finances are excellent and that the poll was conducted in such a way to show the opposite.' This comes from a close, longtime senior advisor to VP Richard Cheney. Talk about being out of touch. News to ONLY Ms. Matalin - it's tough out there and people are struggling economically.
Do we even have to point this out? Apparently we do, if these four individuals are going to constantly be on Meet The Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)