I am not sure why it is exactly, but lately on MTP they have been booking guests for 3 and sometimes 4 different segments in the hour. The guests have all been good but obviously the content of these interviews has suffered. Since Mr. Russert passed there have been subtle little changes like these and it is the opinion of this column that they are the result of Tom Brokaw being a poor moderator.
Again, credit goes to Betsy Fischer, the executive producer, of MTP for securing David Axelrod (chief strategist for Sen. Obama) and Steve Schmidt (chief strategist for Sen. McCain) for their first joint appearance. In a surrogate discussion such as this, the attacks come in hard and pointed, but it ends up being a zero-sum gain for both sides. "John McCain never said 'middle class' in the debate," from Mr. Axelrod. "Senator Obama never used the word 'victory' once," countered Mr. Schmidt. The two men went back and forth this way through out and Mr. Brokaw's contribution were as follows: Gen. Petraeus would use the word 'victory' to describe Iraq's end game. Also, he showed a poll that had Senator McCain leading in the 'who is more ready to be commander-in-chief."
First, Mr. Schmidt's own demeanor and presentation was eerily similar to that of Senator McCain's - stiff and defensive. With Mr. Schmidt as his top advisor, it is no wonder that Senator McCain's answers are detached and veer away from what the public actually knows the truth to be. This says a lot about the entire tone of their campaign. For the Republicans, it should be all about tone because given the current political climate (meltdowns in domestic AND foreign policy), substance is not something that the McCain campaign can claim as their own.
With regard to 'victory' in Iraq, this concept is a myth in terms how this conflict will end. What does victory mean? The Republican definition consists of our troops returning home, leaving behind a fledgling democracy in peace. But does this include a payment stoppage to the Sunnis in Anbar Province? Does this mean leaving a government that is elected by Iraqis or one the most suits the U.S. Administration? Then there is the essential point that this is no longer a war in Iraq, it's an occupation, and in all occupations there will be insurgent elements. Why not consider that if U.S. Troops were to re-deploy to the borders, insurgent elements may subside. Most cynically, victory could be defined, in like of our financial crisis, as to stop spending $10 Billion per month in a country half way around the world.
And speaking of victory being hazy, the first installment of the Senate Debate Series took place today between Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R) for the seat in Colorado. The predictable (not necessarily a bad thing) topic is the $700 Billion Bail. The general, correct consensus is that no one wants to do it, but it's absolutely necessary, which instantly switches the argument as to who is to blame. Simply, years and years of curtailing trading regulations eventually stripped all these institutions of real capital, beginning from the Reagan years. De-regulation has been a pillar of Republican financial philosophy since those days. However, even given this indefensible position, Mr. Schaffer won the debate by excusing himself from the last six years (he left Congress in 2002) and then blaming his opponent's party (in power for the last two years) for our current situation. Astounding... but what's more astounding is that I can sit here with my little blog and have a counter argument at the ready, and these politicians do not.
Case in point: Shouldn't Sarah Palin have known that she was going to be asked by Katie Couric about how Alaska being next to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. She should! But she was like a moose in the headlights and all she could do was spew gibberish.
By the way, in the past two years, the Democratically controlled Congress has had to hold an untold number of hearings to unravel all the unethical doings of the Republicans and their lobbyists while trying to implement new regulations.
Also, the question needs to be asked why did President Bush wait on this bail out plan when he had the proposal on his desk two months ago? The answer is simple: He didn't want to give congress any time to react and he foolishly thought that everyone would just OK $700 Billion to the Treasury Secretary without any oversight in place. 'Shrewd' is another adjective forever taken off the table when describing President Bush.
However, that word can most certainly be applied to the week's last guest - Bill Clinton, who choses his words very carefully. Mr. Brokaw, in another typical baiting question, asked President Clinton if he would give the same praise to Barack Obama that he gives to John McCain. Clinton is too savvy to fall into a pothole like that. They're two different men and President Clinton has the vocabulary and state of reason to give each man is distinct due. There are still people out there who feel that President Clinton will try to subtly derail Senator Obama's campaign so that Hillary Clinton can pick up four years from now where she recently left off. But just know that on all levels, you can surmise that Bill Clinton is a party guy and should be taken at his word that he is going to do everything asked of him by the Obama campaign.
As for this week's post, I will leave you with this: It's not important who won the debate, even though most pundits give it to Obama. What is important is which candidate has the best 360 degree knowledge of the challenges that face this country and what they do with that knowledge. With that in mind, Senator McCain presented to the country on Friday that he is set in his ways and is going to carry out a pre-determined agenda in spite a potentially changing circumstances. The world moves and changes too quickly to be dogmatic. Senator McCain still prides himself on being a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Well, frankly, he's dead and all the army's guns blew up in their collective faces this week.
No comments:
Post a Comment