The first topic posed to today's round table, as expected, concerned this week's episode of the misrepresented video of Ms. Shirley Sherrod by Breitbart and the fall out of the media and, stupidly, the Administration's knee-jerk reactions.
But with regard to today's Meet The Press - it's first guest, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and the panel, Ms. Sherrod had it absolutely correct, if you watched the entire video of the story she told. It's not about black and white, it's about the poor, the haves and have-nots.
Sec. Geithner most important message is that the Administration feels it is good policy to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the top two economic percent of the population. As part of these tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year, middle class Americans also enjoy some relief, but it is nothing in comparison to what the wealth reap in relief. As we've stated before in this column, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest of this nation is at its highest level in over 80 years. If that disparity doesn't shrink, it will eventually lead to the destruction of the American capitalist society. We say this thinking about the myth of the former Soviet Union, where before its end, it appeared powerful and in tact, but in reality it was just a fresh coat of paint over a rusted out infrastructure.
We digress, but the point is that what Geithner is saying is that someone has to pay for something, it can no longer be put on the credit card. Capital needs to be self-generated and Mr. Gregory, who brought it up again today, asked what hard choices are going to be made so that for every dollar the government spends, it doesn't have to borrow forty-one cents of it (from China). Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is a necessary step to generate tax revenue and understandably, it difficult to get people to go backward on their income, no matter how much they make. But politically, the Administration will again fail to communicate clearly that when the tax cuts expire, the result will not affect the middle class.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. A trite cliche, yes, but cliches are what they are because they are true. There's no confidence in the economic chain of this country, there are simply too many weak links and as Mr. Gregory rightfully reiterates, difficult choices need to be made.
Mr. Dionne distilled the Shirley Sherrod saga accurately, saying that it was using race for political gain. Mr. Santelli - the spark plug for the Tea Party movement - equates this usage of race to spending and it's ripple effect on entitlements. But his spending-based assessment implies that entitlements are synonymous with minorities. They are synonymous with the poor.
The meta-narrative, that Ms. Dunn referred to, is that it is in fact President Obama who is the cause of problematic race relations according to the right. But the question that posed was that shouldn't they be getting better with the election of the nation's first black president. Vindictiveness is a powerful motivation, and there is an element... of the Tea Party Movement... let's not pretend that are white and feel like they have been cheated somehow and are now going to have what they have taken away from them. It seems naive when you write it in the context of a piece, but it is spurred by fear. This, coupled with the economic uncertainty we face, and its not surprising that the side that is out of power would use the sharpest bone from our skeletal past to cut the other anew. What makes this episode of Ms. Sherrod's misfortune particularly unseemly is Mr. Breitbart's statements after the full story was reveled. He said the NAACP was racist for essentially denouncing certain elements of the Tea Party - subtly burrowing deeper into the reverse-racist argument And what he didn't offer was an apology, and no recognition of the ripple effect his actions will have down the road.
Roundtable
The New York Times' David Brooks; The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; National Urban League President Marc Morial and a man often credited with helping to spark the tea party movement, CNBC's Rick Santelli.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
7.18.2010: Pure Politics
Cut right to the round table discussion on today's Meet The Press for some pure politics with the following guests: Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).
The talk was all about political control and which party has the better ideas to fix an economy suffering from financial pneumonia. Where we are right now, and what these gentlemen proved today is that we're definitely in a state of limbo. If you've just seen the movie Inception, you'll know this is not good. Democrats have passed and want to pass initiatives, namely Healthcare and financial reform, but on both points, the American people don't have a clear idea of how these two bills will benefit them. In particular with Healthcare, the benefits that Democrats talk about have not all taken affect so the spin that Americans are left with is that all the bill has done is add to an already crippling deficit and over debt. Senator John Cornyn stayed with his party's line in that we should repeal and replace the Healthcare bill, citing that the cost is outrageous (2.6 Trillion) and that the American people don't want it. The Republican worry here is that once the new healthcare benefits kick in, there will be no way to repeal it because Americans will like the benefits, and then hence we'd be stuck with these costs. However, the cost is not the main concern with Republicans. How could they be given how much was put on the Chinese credit card under the prior administration. It's the political success for Democrats that this bill may bring it that trouble Republicans the most. However, we must keep in mind that Republicans may have a point with costs. It's simply impossible with a bill of this size how much it will ultimately cost. 'Repeal and Replace' is a nice easy notion to run a campaign on, but the reality is that this is a false promise. It will take more political leverage than the Democrats had in passing it then Republicans will be able to ganer for some time. Senator Menendez pointed out the child healthcare benefit that the bill brings and, more importantly, not being denied insurance for a pre-existing condition. The latter is where the insurance companies make a ton of revenue. And that's what it is all about, not denying any revenue to corporations. So conservatives will oppose any measure in any bill that impedes the furthering of corporate profit.
With With regard Financial reform, the fight goes even though the bill has passed on with Democrats wanting to make changes to regulations and the Republicans contending that things should not be altered as they will stifle business. Along with this, are the Bush tax cuts. What to do with those?
Mr. Sessions stated that the Bush economic policies doubled the size of the economy, essentially asking - why change that? However, what Mr. Sessions failed to note is the telling statistic that the disparity between the wealthiest one percent of Americans and the rest of the population is the highest it has been in the last 80 years. Additionally, Mr. Sessions said that we should live within our means. Mr. Cornyn reiterated this notion. Translated, it means pay as you go, which is something that President Clinton had instituted, and it's also an idea that the Bush Administration blew up, enabled by a Republican controlled Congress. This is simply 20-20 hindsight. Republicans, in actuality, want to return to the Bush era of financial philosophy, this was something that Representative Chris Van Hollen made a point to illustrate.
Unlike Healthcare, the Democrats have the upper hand with financial reform. Mr. Sessions could not give one specific example of what hard choices Republicans would make to turn the economy around. Then when pressed about it again by Mr. Gregory, Mr. Sessions still couldn't come up with anything. Mr. Gregory, sensing the bullshit, cut off the Representative from Texas and tried to get it out of his Senate counterpart - Mr. Cornyn - to no avail. Mr. Sessions stated emphatically that we need to balance the budget. Mr. Gregory simply asked him how and he could even answer that question. Easy to state the problem, coming up with the solution, not so much.
This is the Republicans main problem. They want to kill all the Democratic initiatives and maintain Bush Administration fiscal policies, and the underlying truth is that they don't know how to do it. Or, at the very least, they aren't saying because they know the consequences. In the news this week was the question of how Republicans can be for maintaining the Bush tax cuts, but no for extending unemployment benefits. It's something they simply don't want to grapple with and it seems that if they just stay on message that it will all align in their favor. Could work, but it won't if the Democrats can make compelling arguments against this, which they have yet to be able to do.
All of this is prelude to the uncertainty of the November mid-term elections - which way will the House turn? Lastly, Mr. Greogory steered the conversation to the Tea Party and how this group will affect the aforementioned outcome. Republicans have downplayed the far right, out of the mainstream statements that the candidates have made and really the jury is still out on how the establishment Republicans want to embrace this movement, if at all. Especially when you have a candidate like Sharon Angle in Nevada. She is just simply unhinged, a wack-o, who really doesn't understand the gravity of the statements she makes. One in particular is quite disturbing, which is to use Second Amendment remedies against her opponents. Second Amendment remedies? This is the biggest load of crap euphemism. What it means is to take up a gun and shoot the people who oppose you. And this is an insightful contribution to the national discourse? Republicans want Harry Reid to lose for sure, but how do they get on board with that?
The talk was all about political control and which party has the better ideas to fix an economy suffering from financial pneumonia. Where we are right now, and what these gentlemen proved today is that we're definitely in a state of limbo. If you've just seen the movie Inception, you'll know this is not good. Democrats have passed and want to pass initiatives, namely Healthcare and financial reform, but on both points, the American people don't have a clear idea of how these two bills will benefit them. In particular with Healthcare, the benefits that Democrats talk about have not all taken affect so the spin that Americans are left with is that all the bill has done is add to an already crippling deficit and over debt. Senator John Cornyn stayed with his party's line in that we should repeal and replace the Healthcare bill, citing that the cost is outrageous (2.6 Trillion) and that the American people don't want it. The Republican worry here is that once the new healthcare benefits kick in, there will be no way to repeal it because Americans will like the benefits, and then hence we'd be stuck with these costs. However, the cost is not the main concern with Republicans. How could they be given how much was put on the Chinese credit card under the prior administration. It's the political success for Democrats that this bill may bring it that trouble Republicans the most. However, we must keep in mind that Republicans may have a point with costs. It's simply impossible with a bill of this size how much it will ultimately cost. 'Repeal and Replace' is a nice easy notion to run a campaign on, but the reality is that this is a false promise. It will take more political leverage than the Democrats had in passing it then Republicans will be able to ganer for some time. Senator Menendez pointed out the child healthcare benefit that the bill brings and, more importantly, not being denied insurance for a pre-existing condition. The latter is where the insurance companies make a ton of revenue. And that's what it is all about, not denying any revenue to corporations. So conservatives will oppose any measure in any bill that impedes the furthering of corporate profit.
With With regard Financial reform, the fight goes even though the bill has passed on with Democrats wanting to make changes to regulations and the Republicans contending that things should not be altered as they will stifle business. Along with this, are the Bush tax cuts. What to do with those?
Mr. Sessions stated that the Bush economic policies doubled the size of the economy, essentially asking - why change that? However, what Mr. Sessions failed to note is the telling statistic that the disparity between the wealthiest one percent of Americans and the rest of the population is the highest it has been in the last 80 years. Additionally, Mr. Sessions said that we should live within our means. Mr. Cornyn reiterated this notion. Translated, it means pay as you go, which is something that President Clinton had instituted, and it's also an idea that the Bush Administration blew up, enabled by a Republican controlled Congress. This is simply 20-20 hindsight. Republicans, in actuality, want to return to the Bush era of financial philosophy, this was something that Representative Chris Van Hollen made a point to illustrate.
Unlike Healthcare, the Democrats have the upper hand with financial reform. Mr. Sessions could not give one specific example of what hard choices Republicans would make to turn the economy around. Then when pressed about it again by Mr. Gregory, Mr. Sessions still couldn't come up with anything. Mr. Gregory, sensing the bullshit, cut off the Representative from Texas and tried to get it out of his Senate counterpart - Mr. Cornyn - to no avail. Mr. Sessions stated emphatically that we need to balance the budget. Mr. Gregory simply asked him how and he could even answer that question. Easy to state the problem, coming up with the solution, not so much.
This is the Republicans main problem. They want to kill all the Democratic initiatives and maintain Bush Administration fiscal policies, and the underlying truth is that they don't know how to do it. Or, at the very least, they aren't saying because they know the consequences. In the news this week was the question of how Republicans can be for maintaining the Bush tax cuts, but no for extending unemployment benefits. It's something they simply don't want to grapple with and it seems that if they just stay on message that it will all align in their favor. Could work, but it won't if the Democrats can make compelling arguments against this, which they have yet to be able to do.
All of this is prelude to the uncertainty of the November mid-term elections - which way will the House turn? Lastly, Mr. Greogory steered the conversation to the Tea Party and how this group will affect the aforementioned outcome. Republicans have downplayed the far right, out of the mainstream statements that the candidates have made and really the jury is still out on how the establishment Republicans want to embrace this movement, if at all. Especially when you have a candidate like Sharon Angle in Nevada. She is just simply unhinged, a wack-o, who really doesn't understand the gravity of the statements she makes. One in particular is quite disturbing, which is to use Second Amendment remedies against her opponents. Second Amendment remedies? This is the biggest load of crap euphemism. What it means is to take up a gun and shoot the people who oppose you. And this is an insightful contribution to the national discourse? Republicans want Harry Reid to lose for sure, but how do they get on board with that?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
7.11.2010: Expectations
Guests: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs; Roundtable - New York Times columnist David Brooks; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN); Republican Strategist and Fmr. Counselor to President George W. Bush, Ed Gillespie; and msnbc's Rachel Maddow.
David Gregory's topics and questions all circled back around to the politics of the situation. Unarticulated political stance continues to plague this administration. Every answer White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave was further testament to this fact.
Our notion of the Administration becomes further solidified with each passing day. It consists of very talented and smart individuals, all of whom do not know how to communicate their ideas effectively to the American people to show them that the measures being taken to correct the various disasters that we're facing. Frankly, in most interviews, Administration officials sound defensive... like wimps. This was capped off, pardon the pun, of Mr. Gibbs acknowledging that the Republicans could potentially take the House this fall. There's confidence for you.
First, and foremost, the oil spew is a bullet wound for this country and we just can not stop the bleeding. For most people, this catastrophe is not in the collective daily consciousness but the ripple [read: wave] effect of this will be felt for decades. Mr. Gibbs stated that we're containing 25,000 barrels a day at this point, but this is in light of the fact that BP took the cap off the well and at this moment the oil is flowing freely into the Gulf. His reassurance is that Thad Allen is approving all of BP's methods for stopping the spew. What is he not going to approve? We're at the mercy of this oil company to stop this. However, what the Administration could and should do is stop BP from manipulating the entire situation with regard to press access, claim money distribution, and the scientific community assessing. BP does not have the right to essential quarantine areas of the United States coast. This is where the government should force a strong hand and we're just not seeing it.
What we hope doesn't fall into collective deafness is the program Mr. Gibbs outlined for the new battery plant opening in Michigan. By opening this plant, it will make fuel batteries for the Chevy Volt and has the potential to create 40% of the world's fuel batteries. We're one of the few nations to be able to facilitate innovation like this, which needs to be stepped up ten-fold.
The other overarching problem is that what everyone has to realize is that the problems that the Obama Administration inherited are going to take longer than two years to fix, longer than four years to fix. That's the reality that every politician knows and each party is trying to manage that unsaid truth. Obviously, this is harder on the Democrats since they're holding power. The result of course is very poor poll numbers.
Before moving on to Afghanistan, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Gibbs if expectations for the Administration were too high going in. Rightfully, he asked it twice and Mr. Gibbs never answered it. So we'll have to...
(By the way, we hope that viewers are settling in with Mr. Gregory as time goes by, as we are. We're glad to see that his style has evolved. At first, he was going at interview guests like he was still part of the White House Press Corps where you get two questions, maybe and you'd better make them good. But now, he's using tone and time much more effectively.)
And the answer is YES. Expectations on both sides, the people's and the Administration's, were very high. Going in, The Obama Administration had 67% of the people on board, but what the Administration underestimated was the fact they didn't have 67% of the Senate onboard. Factor in the shenanigans played by Democratic Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Landreau of Louisiana, and Lincoln of Arkansas and the potential, on which the expectations are build, is plundered.
Speaking of expectations, we'll be coming up on ten years in Afghanistan, matching the Soviets escapade there in its futility. No one expected that, but here we are. And we need to get out as soon as possible. Instead of nation building, which is a large part of what we're doing, we should be focusing on the elements - the Taliban - that needs to be defeated. The reality is that the nation building is a smoke screen for us using Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacks in Pakistan against Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists. We can not openly claim this as one of our objectives, but if we're going to be hawkish in this respect, go all the way with it, up the intensity and shorten the duration and then get out. We can all conclude that we're not going to determine the ultimate future of Afghanistan, and simply trying to shape it for a certain trajectory if an iffy proposition at best. The Administration is stuck in a morass here and hasn't articulated a clear purpose.
We haven't even gotten to the panel, which honestly, is barely worth mentioning because of the following: Harold Ford made the good point that it's all about jobs, but it's easy to be right when you're not on the hook for creating them. David Brooks today was more or less a Republican apologist, and rightly so. Ed Gillespie is still trying in futility to defend the Bush record. And lastly, Rachel Maddow just wants to make sure her opinion in this forum sounds like the right one.
David Gregory's topics and questions all circled back around to the politics of the situation. Unarticulated political stance continues to plague this administration. Every answer White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave was further testament to this fact.
Our notion of the Administration becomes further solidified with each passing day. It consists of very talented and smart individuals, all of whom do not know how to communicate their ideas effectively to the American people to show them that the measures being taken to correct the various disasters that we're facing. Frankly, in most interviews, Administration officials sound defensive... like wimps. This was capped off, pardon the pun, of Mr. Gibbs acknowledging that the Republicans could potentially take the House this fall. There's confidence for you.
First, and foremost, the oil spew is a bullet wound for this country and we just can not stop the bleeding. For most people, this catastrophe is not in the collective daily consciousness but the ripple [read: wave] effect of this will be felt for decades. Mr. Gibbs stated that we're containing 25,000 barrels a day at this point, but this is in light of the fact that BP took the cap off the well and at this moment the oil is flowing freely into the Gulf. His reassurance is that Thad Allen is approving all of BP's methods for stopping the spew. What is he not going to approve? We're at the mercy of this oil company to stop this. However, what the Administration could and should do is stop BP from manipulating the entire situation with regard to press access, claim money distribution, and the scientific community assessing. BP does not have the right to essential quarantine areas of the United States coast. This is where the government should force a strong hand and we're just not seeing it.
What we hope doesn't fall into collective deafness is the program Mr. Gibbs outlined for the new battery plant opening in Michigan. By opening this plant, it will make fuel batteries for the Chevy Volt and has the potential to create 40% of the world's fuel batteries. We're one of the few nations to be able to facilitate innovation like this, which needs to be stepped up ten-fold.
The other overarching problem is that what everyone has to realize is that the problems that the Obama Administration inherited are going to take longer than two years to fix, longer than four years to fix. That's the reality that every politician knows and each party is trying to manage that unsaid truth. Obviously, this is harder on the Democrats since they're holding power. The result of course is very poor poll numbers.
Before moving on to Afghanistan, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Gibbs if expectations for the Administration were too high going in. Rightfully, he asked it twice and Mr. Gibbs never answered it. So we'll have to...
(By the way, we hope that viewers are settling in with Mr. Gregory as time goes by, as we are. We're glad to see that his style has evolved. At first, he was going at interview guests like he was still part of the White House Press Corps where you get two questions, maybe and you'd better make them good. But now, he's using tone and time much more effectively.)
And the answer is YES. Expectations on both sides, the people's and the Administration's, were very high. Going in, The Obama Administration had 67% of the people on board, but what the Administration underestimated was the fact they didn't have 67% of the Senate onboard. Factor in the shenanigans played by Democratic Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Landreau of Louisiana, and Lincoln of Arkansas and the potential, on which the expectations are build, is plundered.
Speaking of expectations, we'll be coming up on ten years in Afghanistan, matching the Soviets escapade there in its futility. No one expected that, but here we are. And we need to get out as soon as possible. Instead of nation building, which is a large part of what we're doing, we should be focusing on the elements - the Taliban - that needs to be defeated. The reality is that the nation building is a smoke screen for us using Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacks in Pakistan against Taliban and Al Qaeda extremists. We can not openly claim this as one of our objectives, but if we're going to be hawkish in this respect, go all the way with it, up the intensity and shorten the duration and then get out. We can all conclude that we're not going to determine the ultimate future of Afghanistan, and simply trying to shape it for a certain trajectory if an iffy proposition at best. The Administration is stuck in a morass here and hasn't articulated a clear purpose.
We haven't even gotten to the panel, which honestly, is barely worth mentioning because of the following: Harold Ford made the good point that it's all about jobs, but it's easy to be right when you're not on the hook for creating them. David Brooks today was more or less a Republican apologist, and rightly so. Ed Gillespie is still trying in futility to defend the Bush record. And lastly, Rachel Maddow just wants to make sure her opinion in this forum sounds like the right one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)