5.31.09: Justice Needs Cataracts Surgery

The controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is due to a speech she made in 2001, which contained a statement that could be interpreted that a Latina woman, as a judge, could make a more informed decision than a white male. The second 'worrisome' statement is that she will use the perspective of her race and heritage in making decisions. We have screen-captured the statement from today's program to ensure accuracy.






The concern amongst Republicans is that this statement suggests that Judge Sotomayor will not be an impartial justice, once again, because of her heritage and race. First, in this excerpt, there seems to be a context missing when Ms. Sotomayor refers to 'that life.' To whose life is she referring? This is fair game for questioning and if a satisfactory answer isn't given, then there can be legitimate concern. justice should be blind - fair and impartial. As far as using her heritage, in other words her background, in decision-making it would suggest that she is inclined to activism instead of unbiased interpretation.

However, let's look at this through a different lens. If a justice were presiding over a case that involved malpractice and a cancer patient, and had previously had cancer or had a family member with the disease then wouldn't experience come into play in the decision making process? Regardless of the ruling, if the justice has had a personal experience with cancer, wouldn't that justice want to know as much as possible to make the correct decision? Experience is affecting the decision-making process.

Or simply, maybe Ms. Sotomayor gave the speech to a predominantly Latino crowd, and feeling particularly proud with others in the room voicing their approve, she played it up a bit. Who knows?

But racist? Consider the source of these most vocal attacks - Rush Limbaugh. In a defensive and wounded position, an animal can be at its most dangerous. From this stance, Mr. Limbaugh is achieving his goal - to focus and get more of the attention on him. That's it. Not to mention, but it must be, that Mr. Limbaugh makes many veiled racist statements daily on his program so this sort of hypocrisy can not even be cut with a knife.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking Republican on the Judicial Committee and its chair, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) were on the today's Meet The Press. What is mystifying to this column and I'm sure many others, is why can't an elected official from The Republican Party, a leader, step up and echo Mr. Sessions' measured statements of today and his call to stop labeling Ms. Sotomayor as a racist. More than anything, the absence of an elected Republican leader is what is holding the party back. Ideologues such as Mr. Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, have insufficient experience to truly affect positive change. The lens, from which they view the world, is too narrow and limits one's perspective. Republicans are becoming fond of saying that justice should be blind, and a justice to just call balls and strikes, but that's not how it is in the real world, the changing human condition demands that the law be given perspective. Relentless dogma is what we should strive to avoid. Instead, Justices should keep their eyes wide open to the changing reality to apply the law most accurately.

By the way, Ms. Sotomayor will be confirmed as a United States Supreme Court Justice. Barring some sort of Larry Flynt type evidence, she will be confirmed.

Also, as a side note, doesn't Senator Sessions look an awful lot like Defense Secretary Robert Gates? Having more fun with pictures this week, see below and decide for yourself.

5.17.09: The Wrong Debate

For us wonks at the MTP Opinion, the anticipation for the program is only growing at the moment with all the talk during the week of the rating challenges, which Meet The Press has dominated forever... Now, it's a toss up so we were anxious to see how David Gregory would respond. Today's first two guests, the respective chairmen of our two major political parties, Tim Kaine (D) and Michael Steele (R) discussed the positions from the party perspective and how they were at odds with individuals in each party.

It's amazing how this country can't seem to get past things without being able to maintain a perspective on history. What that means is that we collectively keep going back to the same old debates that, frankly, cripple progress in this country, and today's first topic has wrongly come to be one of the defining pillars in each of the party's platforms - abortion, referring to Mr. Obama speaking at the Catholic university Notre Dame today.

Here's why we have to move on from this. First, the President actually has lead on this debate in discussing ways of preventing unwanted pregnancy. That should be the real focus instead of weather it should be illegal or not, and it shouldn't be. Most people would say that they would hope that the circumstances don't drive a woman to an abortion - the sympathy. However, it is a woman's individual right... signed into law. It should be taken out of the political debate. Take the two chairmen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat, is pro-life. And Michael Steele, though he says he's pro-life as well, he has made some statements that contradicted that position. Given this division, when the subject of abortion is brought up, the first thing that should be talked about is the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and what can be done to reduce it. It's the harder road to go down and that's why the debate remains 'legal or illegal.' It's the easier road and you crash either way.

And speaking of crash, this column, on many occasions, has cited Nancy Pelosi as the major train wreck of the Democratic Party leadership. Part of being a good politician is knowing what questions are going to be coming at you and having an answer prepared before you're hit with it. Ms. Pelosi needs to work on this. 'Dazed and confused is not good way for the speaker of the house to look,' Peggy Noonan (Wall Street Journal) aptly stated on today's panel. Ron Brownstein from the National Jounal postulated that arguments made of the past are used to shape the future.' If this is the case for Ms. Pelosi then it is an argument that is lost because she unnecessarily escalated the argument as Mr. Brownstein also observed.

If she was not told about waterboarding, just say so without making accusations. As soon as she did that, Republicans pounced and effectively changed to focus of the debate. Michael Steele's answer on today's program with regard to the subject is a clear illustration of the conservatives' cavalier attitude to one of the platforms of this nation's moral fiber, which is that we, The United States, does not torture. First, his focus, he admits, is not weather we should torture or not, but what did Speaker Pelosi know and when she knew it. 'She stepped in in big time,' he said. Great for 'gotcha' politics and nothing else.

But Mr. Steele also said that we used techniques that we're appropriate at the time. What does that mean exactly? This is where Mr. Gregory as moderator needs to address that, but this column gets the feeling that unfortunately, where Mr. Russert listened, Mr. Gregory simply waits to talk. So 'appropriate at the time,' but according to whom? A lawyer instructed by the Bush Administration to craft a memo? And when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Steele what his personal view is to torture, he didn't answer and said his personal opinion did not matter. Rarely does this column use such verbiage but Michael Steele is a bullshitter; he rarely gives a straight answer and given he takes that tack too much he instills no confidence or trustworthiness. That's the case for any political animal that does that. Hypothetically, if he 'personally' disagrees with torture, but tows the party line that it is all right in some circumstances, doesn't that speak negatively of his integrity?

And one last thing on this for today. Mr. Steele, when asked about a truth commission, said that we should put it on the table. This would be another dog and pony show that would result in nothing. Instead of a commission, there should be an investigation and until the latter word gets swapped out for the former, we'll never know what happened.

OK, one more thing... speaking of not knowing what happened, an extension of the whole torture issue is the debate on whether or not the additional pictures of military misconduct from the Abu Ghraib prison. One today's program (part of the panel), Richard Haass, Council on Foreign Relations and author of War of Necessity, War of Choice felt that President Obama made the correct decision in not releasing the photos. Mr. Obama's primary reason was that it would further endanger the American military personnel. This angered the left and those whose goals is to use such things to press for Bush Administration indictments. However, in this instance we do know what happened and we have already seen many pictures and unless they show something further that we don't know, then it's just sensationalism, and this column commends the decision not to release them because even the whiff of sensationalism is not anything this administration needs.

Switching topics, the ever popular 'State/Fate of the Republican Party' came up again, but we'll be a bit forgiving here because this is certainly a topic that has to be addressed when you have the chairman of the party on the program. We'll start with a flurry of quotes and phrases from today's program...

'I want both Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh,' Michael Steele.

'I didn't know Colin Powell was still in the party,' Former VP Dick Cheney via videotape from Face The Nation.

'Great Parties Evolve, and this one is still rocking from the hits it took,' Peggy Noonan.

'Cycle of contraction,' Ron Brownstein.

'Closer to a purer base,' Jon Meacham, Newsweek.

'What about Charlie Crist, Republican Governor of Floriday, campaigning with Mr. Obama on the stimulus?' David Gregory.

'Scary,' Mr. Steele's comment with regard to Democratic Party consolidation of power.

It is true that the Republican party is becoming purer to its base, hence they are contracting. With the population demography changing in the country, how could it not when a purer base means solidifying identification with big business and the Christian right? It seems as though the Republican Party will look the other way for Mr. Crist because of his popularity in a state that is a perpetual election battleground, but not with Arlen Spector, a 'traitor,' according to all Republicans. However, Mr. Brownstein did point out that Mr. Spector did vote with Republicans two-thirds of the time. Yes, Senator Spector's move was for self preservation, that is to be expected - he's a politician. But why this feeling on his part that his survival was in jeopardy? A less inclusive party perhaps could be the reason.

Michael Steele wants both - conservative and those a bit more moderate - but other forces in the party are dictating that you have to choose. This speaks to a philosophical problem in the Republican party, alluded to above in this column. The Republican party wants all its individual members to be on the same point on every page. Whether it be torture or abortion or taxes, it must be lock-step, but the world doesn't work like that and nuance is required in the face of complexity. This philosophy is unrealistic.

And what's really scary is that Mr. Steele's goal, as chair, is for Republican Party dominance and opines a sense of loathing at the possibility of Democratic Party dominance, but expresses this with seemingly no regard or recollection of recent history, namely the past eight years of Republican control and the disastrous outcomes due to their policies.

5.14.09: From Todays Huffington Post

David Gregory's "Meet The Press" Ratings Hit New Low — The Sunday Morning Horse Race Is On


If the Sunday morning TV throne is empty, then the race for the crown is on.

NBC's "Meet the Press" suffered its lowest ratings since David Gregory became moderator last week, dipping below the 3 million viewer mark for the first time since August 19, 2007*.

"Meet" averaged 2.97 million total viewers for the May 10 broadcast, which featured Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, Steve Coll and Andrea Mitchell.

Meanwhile, CBS' "Face the Nation," which featured an interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney, averaged 2.74 million total viewers, and ABC's "This Week," which featured interviews with National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Senator John McCain, averaged 2.62 million total viewers.

Compared to this same week last year, "Meet the Press" is down 28% in total viewers, while "Face the Nation" is up 17% and "This Week" is up 4%. And compared to the May 3 show, "Face the Nation" has slashed its viewing gap with "Meet" by 69% (230,000 viewers compared to 740,000 viewers), while "This Week" has cut its viewing gap with "Meet" by 38% (350,000 viewers compared to 560,000 viewers)

In the Adults 25-54 demographic, all three shows were down compared to the same week last year, with "Meet the Press" averaging 1 million viewers (-35%), "This Week" averaging 800,000 viewers (-16%), and "Face the Nation" averaging 760,000 viewers (-6%).

Last month, Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace (who averaged 1.32 million total viewers last week) told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "the throne is empty" (in regards to Tim Russert's successor as the Sunday morning TV king). The LA Times that same day focused on Stephanopoulos as the main threat to NBC's ratings dominance. Last week, the LA Times wrote that "Meet the Press" may soon lose the top spot in the Sunday morning ratings.

*"Meet the Press" did average 2.17 million total viewers on June 8, 2008, but it was only at 86% coverage then and thus is not a fair comparison.

5.10.09: Talk The Game

With Pakistani officials claiming they've killed 200 Taliban militants as this morning's Meet The Press was airing, it's safe to say that the meetings President Obama had with Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai were productive at the least. The Obama Administration performed damage control for the Afghans and offered incentives for damage against the Taliban for the Pakistanis. The respective heads of state said agreed when agreements were needed and declared when declarations were called for. Once again, this column's praise goes to MTP Executive Producer, Betsy Fischer, for securing exclusive interviews with the two middle east heads of state. Despite that, the Program of Record faces a ratings challenge and it is directly tied to the moderator David Gregory [see appendix article]. The two respective pre-recorded interviews give an indication as to the reason's why his reception by the public is muddled.

Before we get to that, one of the analyst on the program today - NBC's Andrea Mitchell - summed it up best. "Afghanistan and Pakistan don't realize how weak their governments are." That's what you have to continually keep in mind when reviewing what they said. The New Yorker's Steve Coll (today's other guest journalist) buttressed that observing that the two leaders are very good analysts of the crises in their respective countries, but have no strategy as to how they will combat extremist forces and stabilize democratic government control, especially in Pakistan. These two leaders talked a game but we can't say it was good or bad, because they were both talking the wrong one. They should be talking proactively (strategy) and not passively (analyzing after the fact).

When Mr. Gregory asked the Pakistani President about a strategy to combat the Taliban he explained that he is lobbying Washington, trying to bolster support for the spread Democracy in the country. That's not reassuring in the slightest and what we have observed over the week and again on today's program is that when President Zardari says, for example, 'the nuclear arsenal is very secure,' our reason for concern doesn't drop below the red level. He was surprising forthright about the fact that there is a war in Pakistan with the Taliban, citing 135K troops in the mountains, and you could see the conflict over the weekend coming over the pass. Well, there's your strategy - shot them. However, the President then explained that there are military decisions outside of the parliament.

[At this point, here is an example of how Mr. Gregory 'turns people off' because his questions are asked in an effort to make a headline more often than say to explore the topic deeper and get a better understanding for all of us. It's a quality that subconsciously doesn't instill confidence, conversely illustrating petulance, hence the trust between moderator and audience brakes down. ]

Mr. Gregory asked if the military controlled the country since they control the nuclear weapons. It's a frivolous question in fact. The head politician in any country is never going to admit that anyone else except him or herself is in charge of the country. Also, if asked if your country is on the verge of collapse, the answer is also 'no' obviously but this is more nuanced. If it is an absolute emphatic 'NO,' like the one President Zardari gave today, that means trouble. A more reasoned 'no' suggests fragility, but extreme effort to make that disaster come to fruition... if you get our meaning. One of the counterpoints to this something that both men relied on today when faced with a tougher question - the excuse that it is not a decision the president makes, it a parliamentary one is a sure sign of an ultimately weak leader. He disagrees with his parliament with regard to negotiating with the Taliban, but the parliament approved it so they did and now they are into a military phase - no one direction forward.

President Karzai of Afghanistan doesn't have many strategies either to improve his country, but when he comes to Washington, he inevitably collects about 10 kilos in apologies from the U.S. Government. This time because the U.S. Military conducted airstrikes that killed close to 100 civilians. Not our first time, not our last either. With that said and with the elephant of charity in the room, President Karzai can only cite small isolated successes (roads in Kabul) but offers little when it comes to macro issues such as 60% of Afghanistan's GDP is poppy cultivation and exportation. What the United States could do to stem the production of 90% of the world's heroin is set up a governmental contract to buy the poppies from Afghanistan. Most, if not all, of the processed poppy the U.S. buys for pharmaceuticals is grown in Turkey. Give some of those contracts to the Afghans because It's easier to work an alternative trade deal with Turkey to supplement the lost revenue. Why shouldn't Mr. Karzai lobby for that?

And his true influence over the direction of his parliament and hence his country is the issue of the law recently passed in Afghanistan that permitted men to rape their wives. Mr. Karzai signed this into law and then had some international explaining to do. When Mr. Gregory asked how he was correcting the law, the President deferred to the fact that it is a parliamentary decision and that he consulted with various officials concluding that there are some elements of the law that need to be examined. Here is another point where Mr. Gregory went for the reiteration of an answer instead of probing deeper. Who specifically did Mr. Karzai consult with... his Minister of Health? Who? What specific aspects need to be amended? Specifics of what he disagreed with that he didn't see before when he signed it into law. Instead Mr. Gregory throws out a declarative summation - so rape is against the law in Afghanistan. "Absolutely, like hell!" Mr. Karzai belted.

He got the sound bite.