The only potential positive with regard to the political, possibly military, stand-off with North Korea is that it gives the United States the opportunity to speak with one unified voice. And that one unified voice needs to stand with South Korea. If Richard Engel, who was interviewed at the top of the program, is correct that this situation is to solidify Kim Jung Il's son's (Kim Jung Un) position as North Korea's military leader of strength, which will also sure up the dictatorial succession, then it is imperative that the United States continue the high road using dialogue with China to keep this situation under control.
It essential, in the mind of Kim Jung Il that his son take full control before the dictator passes, because one can conclude that if he passes before his son takes power, his son will not take power - the generals would challenge for power possibly in a coup. So as preposterous as Mr. Engel may sound that this is all for a 27 year-old, it is the warped reality that exists in North Korea. No in-fighting on our side in terms of communicating on this issue is essential.
Speaking of foreign policy and a unified voice, one of today's first guests was Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who said there is not enough time to ratify the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty because the Democrats, singling out Harry Reid, have an agenda for the lame duck session that doesn't allow time for S.T.A.R.T.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mr. Kyl's foil for the interview, said that Congress has three weeks to address 3 or 4 key issues and questioned Mr. Kyl why Congress couldn't get those few things done in that time. We know why - because Congress can not walk and chew gum at the same time.
This always baffled us here at The Opinion - Congress's inability to tackle issues in a timely manner. Just the fact that one Senator is holding up the treaty ratification sends a bad message and in the end is bad politics. Among Mr. Kyl's concerns is the modernization of our nuclear facilities, to which Mr. Obama has promised more money to renovate than was originally set aside. This is something that Republicans can join in on but refuse not to. And according to Mr. Kyl, the United States Congress can not address the Bush tax cuts, the S.T.A.R.T. treaty, and unemployment benefits at the same time during the lame duck session. When the productivity of the American worker is at an all time high while that individual's wages haven't budged, it's inexcusable that Congress can't get even a few things done. The only way to put is that is total bullshit. Everyone would agree. In a world where multi-tasking is required because of not enough time in the day, Mr. Kyl is conceding that Congress can't do that.
From today's interview, if there was any doubt before there is none now that Mr. Kyl is purely a smug political animal who doesn't seriously consider what the effects of his actions have on the American people. Case in point, the Bush taxes, which he said that they are not cuts. Current tax rates are now the standard structure,in place for ten years, and would hence just be an increase. Each one of his positions is compartmental political posturing, not caring how one position effects another.
For example, the most critical point that Mr. Durbin made, to keep Mr. Kyl in check, is that if the Congress enacted everyone of the recommended spending cuts but keep the Bush tax cuts for the richest one percent, there would be no reduction in the debt or the deficit - a zero-sum change. Mr. Kyl knows this and it's offensive that he doesn't acknowledge this. Mr. Kyl, as all Republicans do, mentioned small business feeling the burden of a tax increase. Again, good politics, but simply not true. President Obama has given many tax breaks to small businesses, so much so that going back to previous tax levels would not hurt them like the Republicans would have you believe. Within that position, Mr. Kyl wants to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but doesn't want to extend benefits to the unemployed. You be the judge of that.
So when Mr. Kyl says that there isn't time to tackle some critical issues, don't believe him. It's simply that he and other Republicans don't have the political inclination to cooperate on any legislation. [Rome ruined by the Senators.]
________
The Panel: The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Republican Strategist Ed Gillespie, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
The panel discussions have become increasingly frustrating, but for a few moments/statements because more and more whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative it's about staking out turf and dictating a political unreality. Peggy Noonan, talking as the President, says, "I've heard your [American electorate] and I'm going to make a lot of concessions." Not going to happen. Mr. Ed Gillespie, one individual we think we'd be better as a country if he were not in politics - in other words he's part of the problem, said, "The Democrats have their finger on the pulse of the country, I just don't know which one," a conversation stopper. Mr. Dionne stated that the President has already made too many premature concessions in regard to taxes. So who do we listen to, Mr. Dionne or Ms. Noonan? Managing expectations - Nutter.
Finally, Mayor Nutter, at one point citing his Philadelphia as an example, said that people feel that things are getting better. Our general sense is that he is right to an extent. Things are getting slightly better, but new realities are also taking shape at the same time, namely a continual 9% unemployment rate and a shrinking middle class.
The 'economy' is one subject that has many moving parts (taxes, benefits, incentives) that require many different, specific conversations and solutions. The new reality, if we are to listen to Mr. Kyl, is that Congress can not even multi-task within a single issue. Congress continues to refuse of themselves what they demand from the American people - to get more than one thing done at a time.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
11.21.10: Defer and Declare
One thing is for sure, Hillary Clinton sounds incredibly relieved to be the Secretary of State where the Clinton reputation is solid because she has the capability to stay beyond the fray of what has really become trivial politics. One can only imagine what political opponents of Mrs. Clinton would throw at her if she had won the Presidency. Both in tone and in content, you could sense during today interview that the Madam Secretary has had enough of the finger-pointing politik. When Mr. Gregory asked the sophomoric question as to how she felt about the mid-term election, the Secretary could laughingly decline to answer.
She stated, in response to Mr. Gregory's inquiry about Republicans lead by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) blocking that ratification of the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty, that their questions deserved to be answered and that everyone in the Administration is ready to answer them. She went on to say that once those questions are answered that she feels there will be the two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Mr. Gregory mentioned the possibility of simply political posturing by the Republicans, to which Mrs. Clinton reminded us of the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "Trust but verify." She obviously concluded that there is no verification without the treaty.
We agree with all that she said in as much as if there are questions, they should be answered, but again what is disappointing is that whether it was the Republicans themselves or the Press, the connotation is that it is a stall tactic to make political points. We sincerely hope this is not the case. There used to be a mentality in this country particularly in the Reagan era that no matter what the problems and differences were at home, we spoke with a unified voice on the international stage. We can't even get that together now, and you would think that since all the American people want is some compromise to get things done, international relations would be a good place start. We believe that ultimately we will and the treaty will be ratified by the Senate.
Conscientiously, Mr. Gregory discussed Afghanistan with Secretary Clinton and she said that 'hopefully' we'll be able to transition to Afghan lead security by 2014. What that says to us is that we're there in some capacity until at least 2020, and that's being hopeful, but we have no illusions that our involvement in Afghanistan is nothing but long term. Mrs. Clinton also said that permanent bases haven't even been considered yet, so let's do a little considering.
Having a permanent base there means a sustained military presence after all the major combat operations have left the country, so 2,000 troops...less? The military would advise to have such a base and it's understandable. From their point of view, the Taliban orchestrated by Al Qaeda is a grave threat to security in Afghanistan. It's the closest continually touch point that the Pentagon and the C.I.A. would have to this lawless region.
However, unlike any other base we have, even the ones we have in Iraq, permanent bases in Afghanistan should also be considered a continual streaming of the fighting there. Those bases will be under constant torment from the Taliban and assorted others. So what to do?
Well, we first have to concede that we're going to be there long term in a significant capacity, but by 2030 we should have no permanent base there at all. By that time, either Kabul has pulled the country up and there are signs of progress to enter the world community or it will remain destitute and corrupt. Either way, this is one place we should not stay permanently, like South Korea. No way.
But what's funny is that as silly as it seems, if we were able to kill or capture the Al Qaeda leadership, that would give The United States the political cover to get the hell out of there sooner, but it's not a priority.
Speaking of priorities, we're still trying to figure out where Governor Bobby Jindal's reside. What really bothered us about today's interview is that Governor Jindal (R-LA) came off as though he studied for it. It goes back to that disastrous Republican rebuttal to President Obama's first State of the Union address. He didn't articulate any point or message. By contrast, his answers we clearer and more concise. Believable or reassuring is another story. Mr. Jindal because of that one stumble is on the outside looking in when it comes to political relevance in the Republican party hierarchy.
However, it's not for lack of trying. Where Secretary Clinton deferred, Governor Jindal declared. Are the airport security measures excessive? Yes. Administration incompetent during the BP oil spill disaster? Absolutely. But let's wait one second...
Among these more-than-sure-of-himself statements, he said that this Administration has been lucky we haven't been hit with a major terrorist act from overseas, as if lucky has been the sole factor. Also, when he says that the Administration is more concerned about the Miranda rights of terrorists than American citizens' rights, who's he talking to? There is a limited amount of time during the interview, why waste our time with statements like that? Also, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Jindal sparred about whether sand berms worked, who did or didn't do what, but they never got to talking about what the current state of affairs is with the damage and the clean-up.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal reiterated the current Republican mantra, that they've learned from their mistakes and they deserve to be the majority party again... Really?
She stated, in response to Mr. Gregory's inquiry about Republicans lead by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) blocking that ratification of the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty, that their questions deserved to be answered and that everyone in the Administration is ready to answer them. She went on to say that once those questions are answered that she feels there will be the two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Mr. Gregory mentioned the possibility of simply political posturing by the Republicans, to which Mrs. Clinton reminded us of the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "Trust but verify." She obviously concluded that there is no verification without the treaty.
We agree with all that she said in as much as if there are questions, they should be answered, but again what is disappointing is that whether it was the Republicans themselves or the Press, the connotation is that it is a stall tactic to make political points. We sincerely hope this is not the case. There used to be a mentality in this country particularly in the Reagan era that no matter what the problems and differences were at home, we spoke with a unified voice on the international stage. We can't even get that together now, and you would think that since all the American people want is some compromise to get things done, international relations would be a good place start. We believe that ultimately we will and the treaty will be ratified by the Senate.
Conscientiously, Mr. Gregory discussed Afghanistan with Secretary Clinton and she said that 'hopefully' we'll be able to transition to Afghan lead security by 2014. What that says to us is that we're there in some capacity until at least 2020, and that's being hopeful, but we have no illusions that our involvement in Afghanistan is nothing but long term. Mrs. Clinton also said that permanent bases haven't even been considered yet, so let's do a little considering.
Having a permanent base there means a sustained military presence after all the major combat operations have left the country, so 2,000 troops...less? The military would advise to have such a base and it's understandable. From their point of view, the Taliban orchestrated by Al Qaeda is a grave threat to security in Afghanistan. It's the closest continually touch point that the Pentagon and the C.I.A. would have to this lawless region.
However, unlike any other base we have, even the ones we have in Iraq, permanent bases in Afghanistan should also be considered a continual streaming of the fighting there. Those bases will be under constant torment from the Taliban and assorted others. So what to do?
Well, we first have to concede that we're going to be there long term in a significant capacity, but by 2030 we should have no permanent base there at all. By that time, either Kabul has pulled the country up and there are signs of progress to enter the world community or it will remain destitute and corrupt. Either way, this is one place we should not stay permanently, like South Korea. No way.
But what's funny is that as silly as it seems, if we were able to kill or capture the Al Qaeda leadership, that would give The United States the political cover to get the hell out of there sooner, but it's not a priority.
Speaking of priorities, we're still trying to figure out where Governor Bobby Jindal's reside. What really bothered us about today's interview is that Governor Jindal (R-LA) came off as though he studied for it. It goes back to that disastrous Republican rebuttal to President Obama's first State of the Union address. He didn't articulate any point or message. By contrast, his answers we clearer and more concise. Believable or reassuring is another story. Mr. Jindal because of that one stumble is on the outside looking in when it comes to political relevance in the Republican party hierarchy.
However, it's not for lack of trying. Where Secretary Clinton deferred, Governor Jindal declared. Are the airport security measures excessive? Yes. Administration incompetent during the BP oil spill disaster? Absolutely. But let's wait one second...
Among these more-than-sure-of-himself statements, he said that this Administration has been lucky we haven't been hit with a major terrorist act from overseas, as if lucky has been the sole factor. Also, when he says that the Administration is more concerned about the Miranda rights of terrorists than American citizens' rights, who's he talking to? There is a limited amount of time during the interview, why waste our time with statements like that? Also, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Jindal sparred about whether sand berms worked, who did or didn't do what, but they never got to talking about what the current state of affairs is with the damage and the clean-up.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal reiterated the current Republican mantra, that they've learned from their mistakes and they deserve to be the majority party again... Really?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
11.14.10: It's a Gut Thing
We have to start with today's column with this question: Is David Axelrod, The President's Senior Adviser, part of the problem? Because today, like every previous visit to Meet The Press, he comes off as defensive instead of being sure of himself and the Administration, in which he works.
At the top of the interview, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod about the challenges and rejections the President faced at this past week's G20 summit. He immediately called Mr. Gregory on highlighting the negative instead of the positive, which was The President's India Trip, securing $10 Billion in Trade in turn creating 50,000 jobs. Looking at this on the face of it, one would say, "Well, that's what he should do when asked a question like that." Well, many in the press and on cable agree that a big part of the problem for the Democratic loses this election season were due in part to The Administration not communicating its achievements effectively to the electorate. If you continually answer questions from the press in a defensive posture, like Mr. Axelrod does, no wonder people have doubts.
It's a gut thing. Americans like people who sound sure of themselves, and if the individual who's speaking doesn't, it earns skepticism from the people... it's a feeling in the gut. Now, it's too the point where sometimes the American people don't even realize the content of what's being said by politicians, as long as it comes out confidently.
With regard to the Bush-era tax cuts, Mr. Axelrod said there was no bending on the President's stance that they should not be extended for the wealthy. But this finally came after haggling over of the question. He initially said that he wasn't going to debate it with Mr. Gregory on today's program. He is the President's senior adviser. State the President's position, he knows what it is, and move on.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked about the 'draconian document' (Mr. Gregory's term) that it the Debt Commission's co-chair analysis that came out this week. Mr. Axelrod wouldn't even say if everything was on the table, probably afraid of future questions about whether that includes social security, which would then be spun as the Administration wants to cut your Social Security, afraid of being attacked.
We simply don't feel that Alan Simpson is a credible voice for the debt commission, though he was appointed by President Obama. Erskin Bowles is also suspect because the appointment of both these men automatically sets the agenda on a pro-corporate stance. If every is, in fact, on the table then it can not just be about one aspect.
Now, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could attack and upset people with the best of them, but the problem was not that he pissed off Republicans, but he also didn't have a lot of Democrats on board along the way. But like Republicans, he wasn't afraid to piss people off and to answer Mr. Gregory's question for Mr. Axelrod, the answer is 'no,' The President should not campaign for him, just focus on the bigger picture. The Democrats should take some of Mr. Emanuel's example.
Speaking of tempers, Senator John McCain is just getting plain weird. The farther to the center that his wife and daughter go, the more right he goes. Something is going on there, no matter what document you put in front of him, he wants 'THE' comprehensive study of D.A.D.T. and then hearings, despite what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to. Basically, Mr. McCain is doing everything he can to block or delay the end of this policy. This runs directly counter to what his wife and daughter advocate. We're not going to speculate as to why, several theories could be put forth, but what we do know if that Mr. McCain has backtracked on the progressive thinking that he was once known for and that's the disappointment. Even with that in mind, he stills holds credibility in the press when it concerns the reality on the ground of Afghanistan and Iraq.
One key point that he did make on today's program was that India, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan are all in a state of uncertainty as to whether the U.S. is going to stay the course in the region. It's a vital notion to consider because uncertainty breeds instability... just think about our economy. If anything needs to be achieved in Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan, it's some sort of stability. Unfortunately, as Mr. McCain also pointed out, the Afghanistan government is incredibly corrupt, which makes it doomed to fail. And yes, we agree that it is prudent to have a withdrawal timetable based solely on conditions on the ground. The one big problem with that is we only have an idea of what the conditions on the ground are, so it's difficult to have an idea of where they should be.
Mr. Gregory also asked Mr. McCain about the economy... why? Most of America is in consensus on the idea that if Mr. McCain were President, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now.
This brings us to today's panel: Fmr. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and Co-Author of "All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis”, Bethany McLean of Vanity Fair.
Dr. Greenspan, as Mr. Gregory addressed him, said that the high uncertainty in the business community is like he has never seen it before. Whether you agreed with his decisions as Fed Chair or not, he's been around and is an accurate judge. That is very worrisome but that statement should also not be interpreted as that President Obama is anti-business, something Mr. Gingrich contradicted in his first statement during the panel.
In his opinion, President Obama's view on the economy is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people we referred at the top of the column, one who sounds sure of himself that people will listen to despite the content.
But you know who was worse? The man sitting to his right, Harold Ford. Mr. Ford, in our opinion should continue to be denied access to regaining a position in Congress simply for the fact that he stands for so little. He runs as a Democrat but his business stance is Republican-right. One may site the Clinton model, but remember that Clinton went 'right' for business when he was already in office, his second term, in the name of expediency, but he didn't run on that initially to become President. He commended Mr. Gingrich's effort for a new American majority. Didn't we ultimately reject the Contract with America. What does Harold Ford stand for?
He continually agreed with Mr. Gingrich on several points, namely loosening regulations on business and cutting corporate tax. Voters don't know what to get from him going in as he portrays himself as the calm, middle voice, which in some circumstances is ok, but in his case it is a bit of pandering.
But let's get back to Mr. Gingrich and his content, just on today's program. He said that one way in which the government can cut costs without asking any sacrifice from the American people is Medicare fraud, which he said was to the tune of "$70 to $120 billion dollars a year." Yet, he would endorse a candidate like the now Governor-elect Republican Rick Scott who before political life was the C.E.O. of Columbia HCA, which was charged with Medicare fraud and had to pay the largest fine in history, $1.7 billion dollars. And then to top it off, Mr. Gregory gave him the last word and he said that he thought we would see the economy marginally improve over the next year.
However, the star of today's program was author, Ms. Bethany McLean who spelled out the hard reality, to which no one at the table could answer. First she challenged that in the face of the government being 90% of the housing market, she didn't know of anyone who had the guts to end government involvement without sending the economy into another tailspin.
Telling like it is, no matter who is at the table goes a long way, don't you think?
See clip:
At the top of the interview, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod about the challenges and rejections the President faced at this past week's G20 summit. He immediately called Mr. Gregory on highlighting the negative instead of the positive, which was The President's India Trip, securing $10 Billion in Trade in turn creating 50,000 jobs. Looking at this on the face of it, one would say, "Well, that's what he should do when asked a question like that." Well, many in the press and on cable agree that a big part of the problem for the Democratic loses this election season were due in part to The Administration not communicating its achievements effectively to the electorate. If you continually answer questions from the press in a defensive posture, like Mr. Axelrod does, no wonder people have doubts.
It's a gut thing. Americans like people who sound sure of themselves, and if the individual who's speaking doesn't, it earns skepticism from the people... it's a feeling in the gut. Now, it's too the point where sometimes the American people don't even realize the content of what's being said by politicians, as long as it comes out confidently.
With regard to the Bush-era tax cuts, Mr. Axelrod said there was no bending on the President's stance that they should not be extended for the wealthy. But this finally came after haggling over of the question. He initially said that he wasn't going to debate it with Mr. Gregory on today's program. He is the President's senior adviser. State the President's position, he knows what it is, and move on.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked about the 'draconian document' (Mr. Gregory's term) that it the Debt Commission's co-chair analysis that came out this week. Mr. Axelrod wouldn't even say if everything was on the table, probably afraid of future questions about whether that includes social security, which would then be spun as the Administration wants to cut your Social Security, afraid of being attacked.
We simply don't feel that Alan Simpson is a credible voice for the debt commission, though he was appointed by President Obama. Erskin Bowles is also suspect because the appointment of both these men automatically sets the agenda on a pro-corporate stance. If every is, in fact, on the table then it can not just be about one aspect.
Now, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could attack and upset people with the best of them, but the problem was not that he pissed off Republicans, but he also didn't have a lot of Democrats on board along the way. But like Republicans, he wasn't afraid to piss people off and to answer Mr. Gregory's question for Mr. Axelrod, the answer is 'no,' The President should not campaign for him, just focus on the bigger picture. The Democrats should take some of Mr. Emanuel's example.
Speaking of tempers, Senator John McCain is just getting plain weird. The farther to the center that his wife and daughter go, the more right he goes. Something is going on there, no matter what document you put in front of him, he wants 'THE' comprehensive study of D.A.D.T. and then hearings, despite what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to. Basically, Mr. McCain is doing everything he can to block or delay the end of this policy. This runs directly counter to what his wife and daughter advocate. We're not going to speculate as to why, several theories could be put forth, but what we do know if that Mr. McCain has backtracked on the progressive thinking that he was once known for and that's the disappointment. Even with that in mind, he stills holds credibility in the press when it concerns the reality on the ground of Afghanistan and Iraq.
One key point that he did make on today's program was that India, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan are all in a state of uncertainty as to whether the U.S. is going to stay the course in the region. It's a vital notion to consider because uncertainty breeds instability... just think about our economy. If anything needs to be achieved in Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan, it's some sort of stability. Unfortunately, as Mr. McCain also pointed out, the Afghanistan government is incredibly corrupt, which makes it doomed to fail. And yes, we agree that it is prudent to have a withdrawal timetable based solely on conditions on the ground. The one big problem with that is we only have an idea of what the conditions on the ground are, so it's difficult to have an idea of where they should be.
Mr. Gregory also asked Mr. McCain about the economy... why? Most of America is in consensus on the idea that if Mr. McCain were President, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now.
This brings us to today's panel: Fmr. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and Co-Author of "All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis”, Bethany McLean of Vanity Fair.
Dr. Greenspan, as Mr. Gregory addressed him, said that the high uncertainty in the business community is like he has never seen it before. Whether you agreed with his decisions as Fed Chair or not, he's been around and is an accurate judge. That is very worrisome but that statement should also not be interpreted as that President Obama is anti-business, something Mr. Gingrich contradicted in his first statement during the panel.
In his opinion, President Obama's view on the economy is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people we referred at the top of the column, one who sounds sure of himself that people will listen to despite the content.
But you know who was worse? The man sitting to his right, Harold Ford. Mr. Ford, in our opinion should continue to be denied access to regaining a position in Congress simply for the fact that he stands for so little. He runs as a Democrat but his business stance is Republican-right. One may site the Clinton model, but remember that Clinton went 'right' for business when he was already in office, his second term, in the name of expediency, but he didn't run on that initially to become President. He commended Mr. Gingrich's effort for a new American majority. Didn't we ultimately reject the Contract with America. What does Harold Ford stand for?
He continually agreed with Mr. Gingrich on several points, namely loosening regulations on business and cutting corporate tax. Voters don't know what to get from him going in as he portrays himself as the calm, middle voice, which in some circumstances is ok, but in his case it is a bit of pandering.
But let's get back to Mr. Gingrich and his content, just on today's program. He said that one way in which the government can cut costs without asking any sacrifice from the American people is Medicare fraud, which he said was to the tune of "$70 to $120 billion dollars a year." Yet, he would endorse a candidate like the now Governor-elect Republican Rick Scott who before political life was the C.E.O. of Columbia HCA, which was charged with Medicare fraud and had to pay the largest fine in history, $1.7 billion dollars. And then to top it off, Mr. Gregory gave him the last word and he said that he thought we would see the economy marginally improve over the next year.
However, the star of today's program was author, Ms. Bethany McLean who spelled out the hard reality, to which no one at the table could answer. First she challenged that in the face of the government being 90% of the housing market, she didn't know of anyone who had the guts to end government involvement without sending the economy into another tailspin.
Telling like it is, no matter who is at the table goes a long way, don't you think?
See clip:
Sunday, November 07, 2010
11.7.10: Wait and See
Jim DeMint says he's not the leader of the Tea Party, and he may be telling the truth. On today's program, he explained that he doesn't think Americans want to change the health care system we have now. He means the one that consumes 17% of our total GDP and is steadily increasing. The one that keeps the insurance and the pharmaceutical companies on their current obscene profit trajectory; he sounds like a regular Republican to us.
However, he does say that he would vote against increasing debt ceiling, which is very much a consideration of the Tea Party. They could filibuster the increase in the Senate, to which some pundits say would complete crash the economy. Thank you very much for another doomsday scenario.
And let's face, Jim DeMint didn't have to answer any of the 'lay up' questions that Mr. Gregory posed to him today, and he has every right to be smug. The Democrats got 'schlacked,' in the President's words. Where we all need to wait and see is where the Republicans intend to make cuts to the budget.
Given what Governor Chris Christie said in the following interview that he cut New Jersey's state spending 9% across the board in every program. The Republicans will probably look to that, but Jim DeMint also mentioned Paul Ryan's (R-WI) plan for the 'way forward,' which does in fact call for the privatizing of the Social Security system, which wonder in fact render it no longer 'social' nor 'secure.' It should be interesting.
Mr. DeMint also said that he also wants to 'defund' the new Healthcare legislation, try to repeal it, but in the meantime slow the implementation of it. Fundamentally, this is not the correct thing to do. Granted when Democrats do in fact do something, they do it messy, but in the end Americans seem to look back at those initiatives and think, how could we have done without this, like Medicare for example. However, Republicans are corporatists so it stands to reason why they would want to completely scrap the new law.
And the other cuts, Senator DeMint talked about earmarks, which could be a deal-breaker between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans as Mr. Gregory proposed. Actually, that should be their official moniker - Tea Party Republicans, there aren't any Tea Party Democrats in office.
The Republicans won the day last week and now they feel like they have a mandate despite anyone saying anything to the contrary. The President, last Wednesday, gave a concession press conference, almost literally confirming that he's not in touch with the American people. He better get his act together or frankly, the President is going to get his ass handed to him in the next two years.
Where Senator DeMint truly does represent the far-right of the Republican party, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) comes off as a moderate Republican, to which of course, Mr. Gregory asked him about the Presidency. Ugh, enough already with the asking everyone if they are running for President on Meet The Press. Mr. Christie, as we said above, is slashing spending across all municipalities for the most part, which includes things like teacher pensions, hence taking money out of retirees' pockets. [And as these are just words on a page and you can say to yourself, "well, that's not me," it's becoming more and more likely that it is or will be you.
So it all sounds and in some case is all sensible, but make no mistake that it makes life for the individual much more difficult. And speaking of sensible, we agree with Governor Christie with regard to the tunnel project in as much as that it can't be a blank check of overruns in costs. He also mentioned that New York City nor state is contributing to the project, which we believe they should. Let's wait and see.
The Panel: Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; Former Adviser to Pres. George W. Bush Karen Hughes; President of the National Urban League, Marc Morial and Republican Strategist Mike Murphy.
With regard to the panel, it breaks down like this: Anita Dunn, please... she's one of the reasons why the message didn't get out. She confessed to assume some responsibility for that. You think? Her lack of responsibility translates directly into a lack of credibility so she had nothing to offer.
Karen Hughes, former adviser to President Bush, said the election was a complete repudiation of President Obama's agenda. "Turn that baby around," she repeated. Do the American people dislike the direction the country is going and did their vote confirm that. All yes, but it should not be characterized in the way Ms. Hughes did it. You know that person who is always convinced he or she is always right, but no matter what the person says it's always wrong? That's Karen Hughes. Marc Morial, the only valid voice on today's panel, was correct in refuting that on air.
As for Mike Murphy's opinion today. He admitted that he ran Meg Whitman's campaign in California. He's so DQ'ed from the conversation.
So where does this all leave us? Well, President Obama has great words and he needs to lead with great actions, which he hasn't done. The Republicans don't say anything and that's what's scary, so you have no idea what they're really going to do. We're in a holding pattern. We really need to land this plane as we're running out of fuel so we can't just keep circling like this.
However, he does say that he would vote against increasing debt ceiling, which is very much a consideration of the Tea Party. They could filibuster the increase in the Senate, to which some pundits say would complete crash the economy. Thank you very much for another doomsday scenario.
And let's face, Jim DeMint didn't have to answer any of the 'lay up' questions that Mr. Gregory posed to him today, and he has every right to be smug. The Democrats got 'schlacked,' in the President's words. Where we all need to wait and see is where the Republicans intend to make cuts to the budget.
Given what Governor Chris Christie said in the following interview that he cut New Jersey's state spending 9% across the board in every program. The Republicans will probably look to that, but Jim DeMint also mentioned Paul Ryan's (R-WI) plan for the 'way forward,' which does in fact call for the privatizing of the Social Security system, which wonder in fact render it no longer 'social' nor 'secure.' It should be interesting.
Mr. DeMint also said that he also wants to 'defund' the new Healthcare legislation, try to repeal it, but in the meantime slow the implementation of it. Fundamentally, this is not the correct thing to do. Granted when Democrats do in fact do something, they do it messy, but in the end Americans seem to look back at those initiatives and think, how could we have done without this, like Medicare for example. However, Republicans are corporatists so it stands to reason why they would want to completely scrap the new law.
And the other cuts, Senator DeMint talked about earmarks, which could be a deal-breaker between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans as Mr. Gregory proposed. Actually, that should be their official moniker - Tea Party Republicans, there aren't any Tea Party Democrats in office.
The Republicans won the day last week and now they feel like they have a mandate despite anyone saying anything to the contrary. The President, last Wednesday, gave a concession press conference, almost literally confirming that he's not in touch with the American people. He better get his act together or frankly, the President is going to get his ass handed to him in the next two years.
Where Senator DeMint truly does represent the far-right of the Republican party, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) comes off as a moderate Republican, to which of course, Mr. Gregory asked him about the Presidency. Ugh, enough already with the asking everyone if they are running for President on Meet The Press. Mr. Christie, as we said above, is slashing spending across all municipalities for the most part, which includes things like teacher pensions, hence taking money out of retirees' pockets. [And as these are just words on a page and you can say to yourself, "well, that's not me," it's becoming more and more likely that it is or will be you.
So it all sounds and in some case is all sensible, but make no mistake that it makes life for the individual much more difficult. And speaking of sensible, we agree with Governor Christie with regard to the tunnel project in as much as that it can't be a blank check of overruns in costs. He also mentioned that New York City nor state is contributing to the project, which we believe they should. Let's wait and see.
The Panel: Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; Former Adviser to Pres. George W. Bush Karen Hughes; President of the National Urban League, Marc Morial and Republican Strategist Mike Murphy.
With regard to the panel, it breaks down like this: Anita Dunn, please... she's one of the reasons why the message didn't get out. She confessed to assume some responsibility for that. You think? Her lack of responsibility translates directly into a lack of credibility so she had nothing to offer.
Karen Hughes, former adviser to President Bush, said the election was a complete repudiation of President Obama's agenda. "Turn that baby around," she repeated. Do the American people dislike the direction the country is going and did their vote confirm that. All yes, but it should not be characterized in the way Ms. Hughes did it. You know that person who is always convinced he or she is always right, but no matter what the person says it's always wrong? That's Karen Hughes. Marc Morial, the only valid voice on today's panel, was correct in refuting that on air.
As for Mike Murphy's opinion today. He admitted that he ran Meg Whitman's campaign in California. He's so DQ'ed from the conversation.
So where does this all leave us? Well, President Obama has great words and he needs to lead with great actions, which he hasn't done. The Republicans don't say anything and that's what's scary, so you have no idea what they're really going to do. We're in a holding pattern. We really need to land this plane as we're running out of fuel so we can't just keep circling like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)