In terms of reviewing what was reported on today's Meet The Press, and the commentary that went with it, we're compelled to discuss how this relates to foreign policy and the politicians who should and do weigh in on big events occurring outside of our borders.
The Tunisian protests were the appetizer for the main course for the Egyptian unrest we're seeing now. The U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, making her rounds on the Sunday political forums said that what the U.S. wants in Egypt, among other things, are free and fair elections. She also mentioned that the Egyptian government needs to be more responsive to their people now. And when Mr. Gregory asked and then stupidly reiterated the question, Secretary Clinton didn't take the bait of whether President Mubarak should lose power or not.
The Obama Administration has been smart publicly about Egypt and what is going on in the region as a whole. What we're seeing is actually something very hopeful, but dangerous. The peace protests that are spreading through out the Middle East are the result of a growing middle class of people who are frustrated to the point of protest that they have education but no opportunity to utilize it, and struggle each day to feed their families. The Obama Administration has done well to state its position, maintain a vocal engaged stance without overstating, which can have the consequence of overreaching. It's really the only thing you can do, but it's not just that you do it, it's how you do it.
However, the looting and the basic collapse of law and order, as NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent, Richard Engel, reported is of grave concern and there was the suggestion that the Mubarak government was letting it happen to show the people what the alternative is to them not being in charge. But President Mubarak is on the way out, also reported was that he feels personally threatened by the protests, as he should feel. An absence of leadership and the breakdown of law and order create a huge power vacuum, which is an invitation for the radical Muslim Brotherhood to take control and an Islamist government.
Even Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said that he had nothing to add to what Secretary Clinton said and had no criticism of how the President was handling the situation. This says two very important things. The first, was touched on at the very end of the program during the panel by Harold Ford. Yes, he finally made a good point, which was that no Republican in their leadership has stepped up on the foreign policy challenges we face.
The 'us vs. them' mentality that is taken up by both parties on domestic issues doesn't work when it comes to international affairs, and it is a tactic that Republican employ with more effectiveness to advance their ideas.
The second important point is that President Obama, shortly after being elected, went to Egypt and delivered a speech, basically to the Muslim world, as to how the United States under his leadership would now address the people of the region. This speech was widely criticized by Republican politicians and pundits as placating terrorists... being soft on terrorism... apologetic for the wars.
But this very speech can be pointed and referred to when addressing the people on the streets of Egypt and Tunsia and Yemen and Jordan as to say that United States stands with them and stands for democracy. How public opinion on these streets of the United States is ultimately shaped will not be the result of a single speech, but as it turns out, it was the right thing to do, even though, as The New York Times Tom Friedman pointed out, that we enabled President Mubarak and tolerated his government because of our 'war on terror.'
During Mr. Gregory's brief interview with former Mideast negotiator and Ambassador to Israel for President Clinton, Martin Indyk who said we're experiencing a twenty-first century revolution, the two men were surveying the Tweet Deck, which we honestly did find fascinating as it tracked a live feed of tweets coming out of Egypt. Let's be reminded that innovations that have originated in the United States that are NOT guns, are the tools being used to fuel revolutions. Those were the types of things that President Obama referred to in his State of the Union speech. Let's not praise the celebrity of those ideas but humbly appreciate the impact they have on people's lives.
What the Administration needs to continue doing is working the back channels and the phone lines with all the leaders in the region. Mike Murphy, on today's panel, was right, we can not afford to have another 1972-type situation, in which Israel is completely surrounded by governments hostile to them. That is obviously not in the best interest of the United States.
We'll give domestic squabbles a rest this week save for one. During Mr. Gregory's interview with Senator McConnell, he asked him about the potential of a government shutdown due to a fight on governmental spending. For as much criticism this column gives to Mr. McConnell because of the stances on various policies, we did like the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked the question as second time, as he always does (completely unnecessary in our opinion), Senator McConnell was firm in his answer that there are two places in which Republicans and the President can work together - a spending resolution and the debt ceiling vote. Without going into implications of both here, his tone and verbal framing of his answer were genuinely helpful.
Mr. Gregory, please stop asking a question the same exact way twice if you don't get the answer you want. Either at least rephrase the question or better yet, ask a good, related follow up. Much appreciated.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
1.23.11: Not The Leader We Need
Today's exclusive guest, the House majority leader, Eric Kantor (R-VA), stressed that investment should come from the private sector and not from government, and on the face of it, that's the way we want it to be. Even Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC), on today's panel, said that government should not create jobs. Where the difference comes in is that Republicans do not believe that government should do anything when it comes to the business sector. Conversely, Democrats believe that government can set the climate that serves as the impetus for the private sector to create jobs. What Mr. Kantor describes, and what most of his Republican colleagues want, is the trickle down economic model. This is to say that corporations and business owners should be given the most latitude and/or leniency in terms of regulation and taxation and thus that money will filter through the economic system to the rest of the country.
Frankly, we've tried that, more than once, and it hasn't had the desired effect. The factual result is that the income gap between the wealthiest and the poorest keeps growing. The major flaw of this political thinking, which this column believes the Republicans fully understands but does not concern the party greatly, is that corporations are not held to a standard of having Americans' best interests in mind, the government does. A country needs economic borders as well as physical ones, and the government has to set those borders so that multi-national corporations who create jobs all over the world do not do it at the expense of The United States and its citizenry.
We think we can all agree that spending cuts need to be made, but that one, Republicans are looking in the wrong places and two, the Democrats do not have the political will to cut where it best serves the country in terms of our debt. It was interesting to hear CNBC's Erin Burnett say that Wall Street was very concerned about the debt and that there needs to be reduction measures. We believe that this is a concern of Wall Street because they hear that Republican politicians flirt with the notion of not extending the debt ceiling, which would then send The United States into default to its creditors, which would obviously be bad for business. We're not naive in thinking the government works this way, but it would be helpful for Congress to keep in mind that when an individual gets that notice in the mail that their credit limit has been increased, it doesn't mean that they have to them automatically max out his or her card. Point being, the government can extend the debt ceiling and still make cuts to dramatically slow the increase in borrowing.
So what cuts? Realistically, defense needs to be looked at first, which goes back to our point above about the respective parties. Mr. Kantor said that everything is on the table, but if you follow Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Road Map," which Mr. Kantor does believe in, defense is off the table for cuts, but Social Security and Medicare are subject to big cuts so everything is not on the table.
Republicans haven't been specific about what they would cut, and we didn't expect Mr. Kantor to give Mr. Gregory any specifics on today's program. When will the Republicans give specifics? When Frank Lunz has figured out a syntactically clever way to sell it to the American people. Then you'll get the announcement by Speaker Boehner at a podium surrounded by Mr. Kantor and many Republican colleagues. [A little cynical here - yes, but this is how it's been going.] Simply the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked about Social Security, Mr. Kantor framed his answer in terms of 'entitlements,' which is being spun as a bad thing. When he refers to entitlements, he's referring to Social Security. Depending on how you frame the question - Are you for cuts to entitlements for people? Most people would say yes. Are you for cuts to Social Security? The answer would be no.
There was mention of Speaker Boehner's health plan which would add 3 million people to the rolls, but this falls far short of any significant dent in the total number of the uninsured. During the panel, the good point was made that health care reform passed this time after so many failed tries was because so many groups understood that the status quo was no longer viable. Again, Mr. Kantor, as he did with the answer to spending cuts, explained that Republicans will break up into their respective committees to come up with an alternative health care bill.
But really what this interview told us, in our gut, is that Mr. Kantor is a good politician, but he is no leader... He tags on. He tags on to Congressmen Boehner and Ryan, but we've never heard him make a declarative with authority. And the case in point is the silly question of President Obama's citizenship, on which Mr. Gregory pressed Congressman Kantor. Body language says a lot as Mr. Kantor leaned back in his chair, looked upward at the lights instead of at Mr. Gregory and gave a resigned agreement that yes, Mr. Obama is a U.S. citizen - a weak display of strength in belief and leadership, even in the face of ridiculousness.
We were a little salty in this week's column but there is a reason. Karen Hughes, former advisor to George W. Bush, made some statements that need to be rebutted, because none of the other individuals on the roundtable today did. The very professional decorum of Meet The Press is one of the reasons why we write this column. Ms. Hughes said that we lost 800,000 jobs in the month Barack Obama took office, completely discounting and downplaying her former boss's instrumental role in causing that. She also said that the Bush tax cuts saved a massive tax increase on the American people. This is simply a false equivalent. The tax deal was for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, NOT the American people.
Frankly, we've tried that, more than once, and it hasn't had the desired effect. The factual result is that the income gap between the wealthiest and the poorest keeps growing. The major flaw of this political thinking, which this column believes the Republicans fully understands but does not concern the party greatly, is that corporations are not held to a standard of having Americans' best interests in mind, the government does. A country needs economic borders as well as physical ones, and the government has to set those borders so that multi-national corporations who create jobs all over the world do not do it at the expense of The United States and its citizenry.
We think we can all agree that spending cuts need to be made, but that one, Republicans are looking in the wrong places and two, the Democrats do not have the political will to cut where it best serves the country in terms of our debt. It was interesting to hear CNBC's Erin Burnett say that Wall Street was very concerned about the debt and that there needs to be reduction measures. We believe that this is a concern of Wall Street because they hear that Republican politicians flirt with the notion of not extending the debt ceiling, which would then send The United States into default to its creditors, which would obviously be bad for business. We're not naive in thinking the government works this way, but it would be helpful for Congress to keep in mind that when an individual gets that notice in the mail that their credit limit has been increased, it doesn't mean that they have to them automatically max out his or her card. Point being, the government can extend the debt ceiling and still make cuts to dramatically slow the increase in borrowing.
So what cuts? Realistically, defense needs to be looked at first, which goes back to our point above about the respective parties. Mr. Kantor said that everything is on the table, but if you follow Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Road Map," which Mr. Kantor does believe in, defense is off the table for cuts, but Social Security and Medicare are subject to big cuts so everything is not on the table.
Republicans haven't been specific about what they would cut, and we didn't expect Mr. Kantor to give Mr. Gregory any specifics on today's program. When will the Republicans give specifics? When Frank Lunz has figured out a syntactically clever way to sell it to the American people. Then you'll get the announcement by Speaker Boehner at a podium surrounded by Mr. Kantor and many Republican colleagues. [A little cynical here - yes, but this is how it's been going.] Simply the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked about Social Security, Mr. Kantor framed his answer in terms of 'entitlements,' which is being spun as a bad thing. When he refers to entitlements, he's referring to Social Security. Depending on how you frame the question - Are you for cuts to entitlements for people? Most people would say yes. Are you for cuts to Social Security? The answer would be no.
There was mention of Speaker Boehner's health plan which would add 3 million people to the rolls, but this falls far short of any significant dent in the total number of the uninsured. During the panel, the good point was made that health care reform passed this time after so many failed tries was because so many groups understood that the status quo was no longer viable. Again, Mr. Kantor, as he did with the answer to spending cuts, explained that Republicans will break up into their respective committees to come up with an alternative health care bill.
But really what this interview told us, in our gut, is that Mr. Kantor is a good politician, but he is no leader... He tags on. He tags on to Congressmen Boehner and Ryan, but we've never heard him make a declarative with authority. And the case in point is the silly question of President Obama's citizenship, on which Mr. Gregory pressed Congressman Kantor. Body language says a lot as Mr. Kantor leaned back in his chair, looked upward at the lights instead of at Mr. Gregory and gave a resigned agreement that yes, Mr. Obama is a U.S. citizen - a weak display of strength in belief and leadership, even in the face of ridiculousness.
We were a little salty in this week's column but there is a reason. Karen Hughes, former advisor to George W. Bush, made some statements that need to be rebutted, because none of the other individuals on the roundtable today did. The very professional decorum of Meet The Press is one of the reasons why we write this column. Ms. Hughes said that we lost 800,000 jobs in the month Barack Obama took office, completely discounting and downplaying her former boss's instrumental role in causing that. She also said that the Bush tax cuts saved a massive tax increase on the American people. This is simply a false equivalent. The tax deal was for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, NOT the American people.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
1.16.11: Reality Change
Make no mistake, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is hard right in his political views, but also know that in the midst of the burning health care debate, he said that Nancy Pelosi was nice person and that he liked her. He took considerable heat for that as if he committed a mortal sin. The op-ed column written by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in today's Washington Post, that David Gregory referred to, called President Obama a patriot. Talk radio hasn't given up the defensive and finger-pointing, but where it counts the most, with the elected officials, civility exists within politics.
In today's discussion with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the aforementioned Senator Coburn centered around guns and mental health, the latter prompted the raising of the larger health care issue.
One can not help have the solidified notion that gun control laws, such as renewing the assault weapons ban, are completely off the table, even in the wake of the Tucson shooting. The NRA has a lock on politicians that no one seems willing to break. It's not sad that Senator Coburn doesn't feel that anything is wrong with our gun laws. It is sad that one lobby can have a disproportionate amount of influence on our government. This makes us think of the much larger question about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rights... The Bill of Rights was written by men, contained within the document is not God-given. Are rights something to be earned? And if so, in our humble assessment, is that the American citizenry has not earned the responsibility of owning a gun, in what ever form they want to own one. What we mean by that is that there have to be restrictions put in place. Americans haven't maintained the right to own assault weapons. This column doesn't advocate taking away people's guns, we actually find hunting to be a noble American tradition, but where do assault weapons fit into that equation?
We strongly disagree with Senator Coburn's notion that if more people had guns, everyone would be safer. There's no empirical evidence to support that notion and we can only conclude from last week's episode that more guns on the scene could have escalated the situation unnecessarily. He also said that criminals will find a way to get guns if they want to use so why put restrictions in place. To which we would ask, but why make it easy and not more difficult to get them? Mr. Loughner went into a Walmart to buy bullets and he was refused. He left and went to another one, where he was indeed able to buy them.
Senator Schumer said that something needs to be done about guns, but seemed resigned that nothing significant would altered in the law. We hope that the legislation introduced to ban the sale of extended magazine clips with go through Congress, but we have no illusions.
The other aspect of the discussion, mental health, which, frankly, in the context of civil discourse, is used by Republican politicians as a diversion issue away from any substantial gun debate, can not stay within its sole context without raising the issue of health care reform. In the new health care law, there are provisions for the coverage of mental health.
We find it so curious that Senator Coburn, a doctor, doesn't feel that there are any aspects of the health care bill that are good, at least he won't say. One would think that in a 2,500 page bill, there would be something he would like. Instead, he stated clearly on today's program that he is for full repeal.
Senator Schumer suggested that the vote was good as well as it would give Democrats 'a second chance to make a first impression,' meaning they have the opportunity to point out all the good things in the bill. Frankly, that's not reassuring for Democrats who need their representatives to get it right the first time or nothing is ever going to get done.
The panel elaborated on the health care, specifically mental health, in which David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, suggested that in some cases someone has to step in a be able to remove some one who is mentally unbalanced out of society to get help. To which, Rev. Al Sharpton asked, "Who is the someone?" If this were the gun debate where someone decides who gets one and who doesn't, the Republican and Democratic roles would be reversed. On the discussion of 'death panels,' same thing. Financial reform, same logic applied. Ultimately the key notion to be taken away about suffers of disabilities, mental or physical, was summed up best by the Tim Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics, that those who suffer live in isolation without an sense of community - that's where it starts. Everyone needs to feel a sense of community.
Lastly, Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, waxed that she appreciated that Dr. King always spoke in the larger context [we're paraphrasing] and that the strength and seriousness of his tone made people listen. She had a romantic air reflecting on the powerful words of Martin Luther King Jr., but Rev. Sharpton clarified something very vital in our memory of him. While he spoke of the larger context, it came with specific, concrete goals - gaining assess to better education and equal opportunity.
That last notion needs to be re-instilled in all the citizens of this country. Mental health issues and isolation and fear are all exacerbated by that lack of access, which more and more Americans are feeling. The lack of access added to the stress of making ends meet are taking its toll - you can almost feel. What would change this? Strengthen the middle class. If Congress enacted policies that were all aimed at that, the wealthiest would still get theirs and then some. Strengthening the middle class will lead to access and instill hope for the largest number of people in this country. As Rev. Sharpton noted, what we need now is for someone to do what Dr. King did, change reality.
In today's discussion with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the aforementioned Senator Coburn centered around guns and mental health, the latter prompted the raising of the larger health care issue.
One can not help have the solidified notion that gun control laws, such as renewing the assault weapons ban, are completely off the table, even in the wake of the Tucson shooting. The NRA has a lock on politicians that no one seems willing to break. It's not sad that Senator Coburn doesn't feel that anything is wrong with our gun laws. It is sad that one lobby can have a disproportionate amount of influence on our government. This makes us think of the much larger question about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rights... The Bill of Rights was written by men, contained within the document is not God-given. Are rights something to be earned? And if so, in our humble assessment, is that the American citizenry has not earned the responsibility of owning a gun, in what ever form they want to own one. What we mean by that is that there have to be restrictions put in place. Americans haven't maintained the right to own assault weapons. This column doesn't advocate taking away people's guns, we actually find hunting to be a noble American tradition, but where do assault weapons fit into that equation?
We strongly disagree with Senator Coburn's notion that if more people had guns, everyone would be safer. There's no empirical evidence to support that notion and we can only conclude from last week's episode that more guns on the scene could have escalated the situation unnecessarily. He also said that criminals will find a way to get guns if they want to use so why put restrictions in place. To which we would ask, but why make it easy and not more difficult to get them? Mr. Loughner went into a Walmart to buy bullets and he was refused. He left and went to another one, where he was indeed able to buy them.
Senator Schumer said that something needs to be done about guns, but seemed resigned that nothing significant would altered in the law. We hope that the legislation introduced to ban the sale of extended magazine clips with go through Congress, but we have no illusions.
The other aspect of the discussion, mental health, which, frankly, in the context of civil discourse, is used by Republican politicians as a diversion issue away from any substantial gun debate, can not stay within its sole context without raising the issue of health care reform. In the new health care law, there are provisions for the coverage of mental health.
We find it so curious that Senator Coburn, a doctor, doesn't feel that there are any aspects of the health care bill that are good, at least he won't say. One would think that in a 2,500 page bill, there would be something he would like. Instead, he stated clearly on today's program that he is for full repeal.
Senator Schumer suggested that the vote was good as well as it would give Democrats 'a second chance to make a first impression,' meaning they have the opportunity to point out all the good things in the bill. Frankly, that's not reassuring for Democrats who need their representatives to get it right the first time or nothing is ever going to get done.
The panel elaborated on the health care, specifically mental health, in which David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, suggested that in some cases someone has to step in a be able to remove some one who is mentally unbalanced out of society to get help. To which, Rev. Al Sharpton asked, "Who is the someone?" If this were the gun debate where someone decides who gets one and who doesn't, the Republican and Democratic roles would be reversed. On the discussion of 'death panels,' same thing. Financial reform, same logic applied. Ultimately the key notion to be taken away about suffers of disabilities, mental or physical, was summed up best by the Tim Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics, that those who suffer live in isolation without an sense of community - that's where it starts. Everyone needs to feel a sense of community.
Lastly, Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, waxed that she appreciated that Dr. King always spoke in the larger context [we're paraphrasing] and that the strength and seriousness of his tone made people listen. She had a romantic air reflecting on the powerful words of Martin Luther King Jr., but Rev. Sharpton clarified something very vital in our memory of him. While he spoke of the larger context, it came with specific, concrete goals - gaining assess to better education and equal opportunity.
That last notion needs to be re-instilled in all the citizens of this country. Mental health issues and isolation and fear are all exacerbated by that lack of access, which more and more Americans are feeling. The lack of access added to the stress of making ends meet are taking its toll - you can almost feel. What would change this? Strengthen the middle class. If Congress enacted policies that were all aimed at that, the wealthiest would still get theirs and then some. Strengthening the middle class will lead to access and instill hope for the largest number of people in this country. As Rev. Sharpton noted, what we need now is for someone to do what Dr. King did, change reality.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
1.9.11: Second Amendment Remedies
As we sit to write this column, medical reports of the condition of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) keeping rolling through along with commentary from the spectrum of members of Congress, five of whom appeared, visibly shaken, on today's Meet The Press.
[Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), and newly-elected Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID).]
At this point, Ms. Giffords is in critical condition and has been slightly responsive, but has also been put into a coma to relieve some pressure on the brain. And there are also 6 people dead including a Federal Judge and a 9-year old girl along with 14 wounded.
The representatives on the program had nothing but gracious statements for Congresswomen Giffords, with whom we admittedly weren't too familiar. There was reflection on the state of our political discourse, which to use the word everyone uses is toxic. At the top of the program, Lester Holt (reporting) said that there didn't seem to be a concrete political agenda at work in the shooting. What he meant was that there was no political agenda at work that could have been cut nicely into either Republican or Democrat.
This column isn't going to sit here and just be cynical, however, what all the members of Congress on the program admitted is that there is a problem with the discourse in this country. Newly-elected Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) reminded us that there are extremists on both sides, which is true, but to not be honest and to not say that "The Right" is more to blame isn't acknowledging an ugly truth.
The title of today's column is not to shock but to illustrate the power of words that our prospective leaders utter and to show that those words do have consequences. It starts with our leaders and what they say and what they don't repudiate.
The sound bite going around is from We have become the mecca for prejudice and biogotry - Clarence Dupnik, PIMA Country Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who said, "We [Arizona] have become the mecca prejudice for and biogotry." This was an angry, upset, and honest response, and those negatives are stoked by the rhetoric fear, this country's greatest destroyer of progress.
There will be a truly triumphant day when Congresswoman Giffords walks back onto the floor of the Congress - it will happen.
And though we will remain ever hopeful for that day, we sadly acknowledge what ultimately will not happen. Those who hope for stricter guns laws, won't get them. Vitriolic speech coming from right-wing talk show radio will not become more civil. [We call out 'the right' here because they outnumber liberal talk 9 to 1 in hours.] The demonizing of President Obama will not cease, may be from politicians for a while, but not from hateful commentators.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that this is a moment. This Congress now has to seize this moment with this mandate: To lead all of us to a better future, not just 'their side.'
[Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), and newly-elected Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID).]
At this point, Ms. Giffords is in critical condition and has been slightly responsive, but has also been put into a coma to relieve some pressure on the brain. And there are also 6 people dead including a Federal Judge and a 9-year old girl along with 14 wounded.
The representatives on the program had nothing but gracious statements for Congresswomen Giffords, with whom we admittedly weren't too familiar. There was reflection on the state of our political discourse, which to use the word everyone uses is toxic. At the top of the program, Lester Holt (reporting) said that there didn't seem to be a concrete political agenda at work in the shooting. What he meant was that there was no political agenda at work that could have been cut nicely into either Republican or Democrat.
This column isn't going to sit here and just be cynical, however, what all the members of Congress on the program admitted is that there is a problem with the discourse in this country. Newly-elected Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) reminded us that there are extremists on both sides, which is true, but to not be honest and to not say that "The Right" is more to blame isn't acknowledging an ugly truth.
The title of today's column is not to shock but to illustrate the power of words that our prospective leaders utter and to show that those words do have consequences. It starts with our leaders and what they say and what they don't repudiate.
The sound bite going around is from We have become the mecca for prejudice and biogotry - Clarence Dupnik, PIMA Country Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who said, "We [Arizona] have become the mecca prejudice for and biogotry." This was an angry, upset, and honest response, and those negatives are stoked by the rhetoric fear, this country's greatest destroyer of progress.
There will be a truly triumphant day when Congresswoman Giffords walks back onto the floor of the Congress - it will happen.
And though we will remain ever hopeful for that day, we sadly acknowledge what ultimately will not happen. Those who hope for stricter guns laws, won't get them. Vitriolic speech coming from right-wing talk show radio will not become more civil. [We call out 'the right' here because they outnumber liberal talk 9 to 1 in hours.] The demonizing of President Obama will not cease, may be from politicians for a while, but not from hateful commentators.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that this is a moment. This Congress now has to seize this moment with this mandate: To lead all of us to a better future, not just 'their side.'
Sunday, January 02, 2011
1.2.11: Happy New Year
We're happy and thankful to be moving forward with the Meet The Press Opinion in 2011, and we hope this post finds everyone well. So let's get down to business and even though it's a new year, we're getting the same stories, be it there is a slight bit of hope for cooperation, but make no mistake the divisions remain deep between the Republicans and the Democrats.
Today's first guest, an exclusive with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), showed that Republicans have no intention of compromising their positions for what is perceived as the greater good to bring everyone of board with consensus ideas to move the country forward. Mr. Graham banally predicted that the recovery would be slow in the coming year. Certainly not an intellectual stretch to say that because of the conditions that have been set through the tax cut deal.
There was much talk of sacrifice during the panel discussion and the concept of what that actually means, but the sacrifice of the tax revenue given up in the tax deal isn't going to help with the murky problem of state pensions as Yale law professor and author Stephen Carter (first time on Meet The Press) pointed out.
Mr. Graham emphatically stated that entitlement reform is essential to get spending under control and it's not that we disagree with that stance, it's just that when you push for tax cuts for the richest 2% of citizens and then tell us that we have to raise the retirement age to receive the benefits. And who does that effect the least, the people with the most money, to which Mr. Graham also mentioned a 'means test' for benefits among older citizens.
What does that mean exactly? If you don't need it, you don't get it? Also, who will determine who has the means and who doesn't, the government? What Mr. Graham is suggesting here goes directly against Republican principles that staunchly advocate for government to get out of the way. A what point in one's life will it be determined that you no longer need the benefits?
That hint of cooperation could come through reform of the Prescription Part D benefit put in place during the Bush Administration, where it is accepted common knowledge that it was a big give away to the pharmaceutical companies. Hopefully, everyone can agree that closing the doughnut hole is in the best interest of all seniors to keep their individual costs down, but we fear that the ability to negotiate prices for drugs with these companies will be taken off the table.
Mr. Graham said that Republicans have been given a new lease on life by the electorate. He also stated that he hope the party have learned the lessons the Democrats' mistakes from the last Congress. He didn't articulate what those lessons were, but given his answers leading up to that point, we have to conclude that he means government overreach. Mr. Graham wasted no time in his interview to remind viewers of the battle coming over health care, and the Republicans' new domestic boogieman deemed 'Obamacare.'
And here's where Republicans organize much better than Democrats. The House will vote to defund the new law, one which goes straight down party lines. The first thing Mr. Graham mentioned, 'defund and start over.' The second course of action would be for the states to opt out of the individual mandates, like the ones in place in Massachusetts. With 33 Republican governors running the states, most will opt out, making for unanimous party philosophy at all levels. What the proposed solutions are is anyone's guess at this point, but as with past Republican-controlled Congresses, they'll only say what they are going to do when they are in a position of solidified strength. So we'll wait and see.
So that new lease on life that Mr. Graham referred to, we also have to conclude that doesn't mean that the Republican agenda/philosophy will change. We're trying to stay optimistic on the first Sunday of the year, but after listening to Mr. Graham's answers, it's awfully difficult.
David Brooks, during today's panel, said that the number that matters the most is the percentage of people who believe can be a positive influence in their lives. In the 60's and 70's, he said, that number was around 80%, but now it's down around 19%. Mr. Brooks still believes that his party's politicians (make the clear designation between party politicians and the common electorate) think there is a balance between government involvement versus them staying out of the way. However, Republican politicians are about limited government, period.
Senator-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA), on today's panel as well, said that there are things that both parties can agree on such as trade and tax reform, but said regulatory overreach will be tough. Mr. Toomey, a Tea-Party Republican, advocates for less government regulation of business and industry as part of the overall conservative philosophy of market freedom. A free market is what we want but not at the expense of the country as a whole. Lax regulation lead to the severe housing crisis that we still face, one in which Mr. Graham said today, could be helped by privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We're not for government ownership of the housing industry or the automotive industry or any industry for that matter, but what we've seen is that left to its own devices, the private sector will bend and break rules for the sake of profit.
All of these fiscal matters are going to be hashed out between establishment Republicans and the Tea-Party wing of the Republicans, and it will be difficult. Even if it's not articulated in this way by the pundits or the Democrats, what you are going to see is the Republican party enacting policies that in actuality go against the Tea Party Republican electorate's own best interest.
Mr. Graham that he needed to see an actual financial reform plan before he would vote for a raising of the debt ceiling, a veiled threat really. This vote comes up in the spring and there will not be a consensus plan in place by that time. This isn't the balance of philosophies, at which the panel was later driving.
What was missing from the panel was the Democratic party line guy, which we could say is Mr. Dionne from the Washington Post, but we're thinking an elected official. We harp on the Republicans pretty good in this column, but that doesn't mean the Democrats get a free pass.
Lastly, Senator Graham called for the United States to construct permanent military bases in Afghanistan, a declarative sentence. He said that these are required and if the Afghans want to have a serious relationship with the United States, they have to earn it. We find this second part much more misguided than the first part. How in the world could Senator Graham actually think that the Karzai Government of Afghanistan wants a serious relationship with us? President Karzai is waiting for us to get out of the way so he can then take to full dictator mode. Then we have to decide whether we want to support that dictatorship. Regardless, our embassy in Kabul might as well be the permanent base.
"What do you win if you win?" as Mr. Gregory asked. Mr. Carter: What counts as victory? The answer to these is nothing. We win nothing. Mr. Dionne summed it up by saying that the focus would go back to weakening the Taliban and fighting terrorism - the Biden approach. That should have been the mission all along, not to build some version of Afghanistan that we can tolerate at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of American and N.A.T.O. soldiers.
At this point, we should just state it for what it is. We're in Afghanistan so that we have a launching place for attacks we're conducting in Pakistan on Al Qaeda and Islamic Extremists. We're killing the Taliban, who are working with the Pakistani ISI, because they both are trying to prevent us from these operations. There it is.
If you want a time line, here's one: Deliver the heads of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on a stick [read simply: bring to justice in custody or... ok, verified dead] and that will give the U.S. a legitimate excuse to get out.
Today's first guest, an exclusive with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), showed that Republicans have no intention of compromising their positions for what is perceived as the greater good to bring everyone of board with consensus ideas to move the country forward. Mr. Graham banally predicted that the recovery would be slow in the coming year. Certainly not an intellectual stretch to say that because of the conditions that have been set through the tax cut deal.
There was much talk of sacrifice during the panel discussion and the concept of what that actually means, but the sacrifice of the tax revenue given up in the tax deal isn't going to help with the murky problem of state pensions as Yale law professor and author Stephen Carter (first time on Meet The Press) pointed out.
Mr. Graham emphatically stated that entitlement reform is essential to get spending under control and it's not that we disagree with that stance, it's just that when you push for tax cuts for the richest 2% of citizens and then tell us that we have to raise the retirement age to receive the benefits. And who does that effect the least, the people with the most money, to which Mr. Graham also mentioned a 'means test' for benefits among older citizens.
What does that mean exactly? If you don't need it, you don't get it? Also, who will determine who has the means and who doesn't, the government? What Mr. Graham is suggesting here goes directly against Republican principles that staunchly advocate for government to get out of the way. A what point in one's life will it be determined that you no longer need the benefits?
That hint of cooperation could come through reform of the Prescription Part D benefit put in place during the Bush Administration, where it is accepted common knowledge that it was a big give away to the pharmaceutical companies. Hopefully, everyone can agree that closing the doughnut hole is in the best interest of all seniors to keep their individual costs down, but we fear that the ability to negotiate prices for drugs with these companies will be taken off the table.
Mr. Graham said that Republicans have been given a new lease on life by the electorate. He also stated that he hope the party have learned the lessons the Democrats' mistakes from the last Congress. He didn't articulate what those lessons were, but given his answers leading up to that point, we have to conclude that he means government overreach. Mr. Graham wasted no time in his interview to remind viewers of the battle coming over health care, and the Republicans' new domestic boogieman deemed 'Obamacare.'
And here's where Republicans organize much better than Democrats. The House will vote to defund the new law, one which goes straight down party lines. The first thing Mr. Graham mentioned, 'defund and start over.' The second course of action would be for the states to opt out of the individual mandates, like the ones in place in Massachusetts. With 33 Republican governors running the states, most will opt out, making for unanimous party philosophy at all levels. What the proposed solutions are is anyone's guess at this point, but as with past Republican-controlled Congresses, they'll only say what they are going to do when they are in a position of solidified strength. So we'll wait and see.
So that new lease on life that Mr. Graham referred to, we also have to conclude that doesn't mean that the Republican agenda/philosophy will change. We're trying to stay optimistic on the first Sunday of the year, but after listening to Mr. Graham's answers, it's awfully difficult.
David Brooks, during today's panel, said that the number that matters the most is the percentage of people who believe can be a positive influence in their lives. In the 60's and 70's, he said, that number was around 80%, but now it's down around 19%. Mr. Brooks still believes that his party's politicians (make the clear designation between party politicians and the common electorate) think there is a balance between government involvement versus them staying out of the way. However, Republican politicians are about limited government, period.
Senator-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA), on today's panel as well, said that there are things that both parties can agree on such as trade and tax reform, but said regulatory overreach will be tough. Mr. Toomey, a Tea-Party Republican, advocates for less government regulation of business and industry as part of the overall conservative philosophy of market freedom. A free market is what we want but not at the expense of the country as a whole. Lax regulation lead to the severe housing crisis that we still face, one in which Mr. Graham said today, could be helped by privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We're not for government ownership of the housing industry or the automotive industry or any industry for that matter, but what we've seen is that left to its own devices, the private sector will bend and break rules for the sake of profit.
All of these fiscal matters are going to be hashed out between establishment Republicans and the Tea-Party wing of the Republicans, and it will be difficult. Even if it's not articulated in this way by the pundits or the Democrats, what you are going to see is the Republican party enacting policies that in actuality go against the Tea Party Republican electorate's own best interest.
Mr. Graham that he needed to see an actual financial reform plan before he would vote for a raising of the debt ceiling, a veiled threat really. This vote comes up in the spring and there will not be a consensus plan in place by that time. This isn't the balance of philosophies, at which the panel was later driving.
What was missing from the panel was the Democratic party line guy, which we could say is Mr. Dionne from the Washington Post, but we're thinking an elected official. We harp on the Republicans pretty good in this column, but that doesn't mean the Democrats get a free pass.
Lastly, Senator Graham called for the United States to construct permanent military bases in Afghanistan, a declarative sentence. He said that these are required and if the Afghans want to have a serious relationship with the United States, they have to earn it. We find this second part much more misguided than the first part. How in the world could Senator Graham actually think that the Karzai Government of Afghanistan wants a serious relationship with us? President Karzai is waiting for us to get out of the way so he can then take to full dictator mode. Then we have to decide whether we want to support that dictatorship. Regardless, our embassy in Kabul might as well be the permanent base.
"What do you win if you win?" as Mr. Gregory asked. Mr. Carter: What counts as victory? The answer to these is nothing. We win nothing. Mr. Dionne summed it up by saying that the focus would go back to weakening the Taliban and fighting terrorism - the Biden approach. That should have been the mission all along, not to build some version of Afghanistan that we can tolerate at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of American and N.A.T.O. soldiers.
At this point, we should just state it for what it is. We're in Afghanistan so that we have a launching place for attacks we're conducting in Pakistan on Al Qaeda and Islamic Extremists. We're killing the Taliban, who are working with the Pakistani ISI, because they both are trying to prevent us from these operations. There it is.
If you want a time line, here's one: Deliver the heads of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on a stick [read simply: bring to justice in custody or... ok, verified dead] and that will give the U.S. a legitimate excuse to get out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)