If you are a senior citizen in the United States, we think you'll find this very interesting. We've been noticing more and more in senior households a copy of AARP's magazine so we thought it important to highlight something. Also, we know that seniors have a very high voter turn out so we felt it important to add to your perspective with regard to how one party is treating the U.S. citizens who have indeed spent their lives working for this country.
This is from Roll Call, the United States Congressional Newspaper:
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_103/AARP-Is-Next-on-GOP-Target-List-204487-1.html
To break some things down for you, here's the headline:
AARP Is Next on GOP Target List
(Next meaning after Planned Parenthood, NPR, and the Environmental Protection Agency)
Some key quotes:
"The Ways and Means panel [House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee ] will hold an oversight hearing Friday on AARP’s organizational structure and finances."
"AARP was instrumental in killing President George W. Bush’s proposal to create private retirement accounts as part of Social Security reform."
Now, imagine if part of your Social Security savings was tied into the market, and then it tanked like it did in 2008. You would have lost at least 35% of your total Social Security.
This is happening because AARP believes it is in the best interest of seniors to support the Affordable Healthcare Act, and endorsed it. Think about that, but also think about this. Because Republicans do not like the AARP now, they are investigating them to defund them and and then end the AARP. Imagine if you were in the supermarket and got into an argument with a man who turned out to be the town's District Attorney. And now because he doesn't like you due to the argument, he decides to investigate you. How would you like that because that's what's happening.
Yes, the AARP is powerful, because they are the strongest lobby for seniors citizens... who look out for you and your Social Security. Just saying.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
3.27.11: It's Secretary Clinton's Time
As Mr. Gregory said at the top of today's program, we're nine days into the established no-fly over Libya, but what is the plan, the end game if you will, that Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked about in his interview with the moderator?
That's still the big question that needs to be answered, but our actions were clearly articulated by Secretary of State Clinton, who appeared with Defense Secretary Gates at the top of the program. Even though Secretary Gates said that Libya was not in the vital interest of the United States, which then Mr. Gregory took out of context the rest of the program, he went on to explain that is in our interest to assist with the U.N. resolution and to help our allies. Then Mrs. Clinton further explained that in Afghanistan, NATO troops (French and English) are there with us and we need to join with them in the Libyan operation because it is in their vital interest.
With Mr. Lugar, David Gregory brought up the cost of this operation and where the funds would come from to support it. This is the Republican's opportunity to play politics with our international policy and as Savannah Guthrie pointed out later during the round table that the main grievance is the process by which the President went about the operation. Frankly, we find Republican budget objections without substance, because they are selective when it comes to who gets it. Without too much digression, the corporate tax cuts that Republican state governors are doling out, while making cuts and increasing the burden on the middle class is the essentially the same as to what is happening at the federal level. The funding is there, but the Republicans, inexplicably, can not be seen aligning with the President on any measure, including foreign policy.
Mrs. Clinton, as she's apt to do, made another good point in that Libya borders Egypt and Tunisia, two countries going through their own revolutions. And here's where Libya is in the vital interest of the United States, to which the Madam Secretary alluded. Egypt is squarely in the United States vital security interest, and for that matter Israel's, and to have a mass slaughter where refugees would go pouring into that country would cause further destabilization in the region. Additionally, as the Secretary also mentioned, if the United States had stood by and did nothing, we would have been criticized that much more.
However, Tom Ricks, senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security, said it is sort of like 'give war a chance,' citing, extremely interestingly, Obama taking an Eisenhower type approach in that he should not get stuck in a conflict, but try and effect the outcome. But the anecdote Mr. Ricks described when rebels lined up to shake the hand of a downed American pilot and embraced him is very telling commentary on how President Obama, and, equally, Hillary Clinton are conducting American foreign policy in a more responsible manner, by world perceptions, than the Republicans could hope to do. And as Ted Koppel summarized, Republicans right now have the luxury and the wait and see what happens and then take a hard position.
Mr. Lugar did definitively say that we should not be involved in the Libyan civil war, and we would agree. That is a narrow slicing of a position - enable the rebels by bombing the dictator - is getting involved. But by not getting involved, the humanitarian would have been grave. Mr. Koppel reminded us of the 1982 protests in Syria where Assad killed approximately 80,000 people to suppress an uprising. Consensus would say that we can not allow that to happen again, especially now, with the African Union calling for change, the Arab League urging for this action, and with the aforementioned UN resolution. With this in mind, there is some insidiousness going go that we'll get to in a minute.
Savannah Guthrie called what happening in the Middle East the 'Arab Spring,' but Bob Woodward called this President Obama's '9/11.' Ms. Guthrie's terminology is hopeful, which is something we remain, but the realists we are here at the column would call this a cultural shift, the equivalent of a 9.0 earthquake. Mr. Woodward explained it as a huge management problem, the size and scope of 9/11, and factoring in the relief effort in Japan, and our own domestic troubles, it becomes much more than that. And again, to touch on our domestic troubles, Republican policy initiatives seem petty when set along aside what is going on in the world. Corporate tax cuts? Busting unions? Limiting women's rights? Cutting education? Going in the opposite direction on every one of those initiatives would actually strengthen our country and while the world outside of ours is experiencing seismic shifts, natural and man-made, it is what we need to do most right now.
So with Libya, it's day to day as Secretary Clinton described, and the President will explain it all to the country on Monday night. We can only hope that Mrs. Clinton has her hands all over the explanation. Mrs. Clinton has shown responsible leadership, the type in the air of our finest Secretaries of State, and we do not say that lightly. In simply hearing her and the Defense Secretary describe the scope of our responsibilities in the world, you realize the our domestic problems are quite solvable, don't you? And where's the responsible, reasonable leadership on that in the House of Representatives?
So we conclude that the United States' actions, though not desired, were responsible given the world consensus, and by no means should there be boots on the ground... unless those boots are special ops people or the CIA, which will be the case. However, we do like it when someone like Tom Ricks explains that there are tight restrictions on the military with close watch against 'mission creep,' which indeed connotes U.S. personnel in some aspect on the ground there.
Panel: The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the BBC's Ted Koppel; senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security and author, Tom Ricks; and NBC News White House Correspondent, Savannah Guthrie.
That's still the big question that needs to be answered, but our actions were clearly articulated by Secretary of State Clinton, who appeared with Defense Secretary Gates at the top of the program. Even though Secretary Gates said that Libya was not in the vital interest of the United States, which then Mr. Gregory took out of context the rest of the program, he went on to explain that is in our interest to assist with the U.N. resolution and to help our allies. Then Mrs. Clinton further explained that in Afghanistan, NATO troops (French and English) are there with us and we need to join with them in the Libyan operation because it is in their vital interest.
With Mr. Lugar, David Gregory brought up the cost of this operation and where the funds would come from to support it. This is the Republican's opportunity to play politics with our international policy and as Savannah Guthrie pointed out later during the round table that the main grievance is the process by which the President went about the operation. Frankly, we find Republican budget objections without substance, because they are selective when it comes to who gets it. Without too much digression, the corporate tax cuts that Republican state governors are doling out, while making cuts and increasing the burden on the middle class is the essentially the same as to what is happening at the federal level. The funding is there, but the Republicans, inexplicably, can not be seen aligning with the President on any measure, including foreign policy.
Mrs. Clinton, as she's apt to do, made another good point in that Libya borders Egypt and Tunisia, two countries going through their own revolutions. And here's where Libya is in the vital interest of the United States, to which the Madam Secretary alluded. Egypt is squarely in the United States vital security interest, and for that matter Israel's, and to have a mass slaughter where refugees would go pouring into that country would cause further destabilization in the region. Additionally, as the Secretary also mentioned, if the United States had stood by and did nothing, we would have been criticized that much more.
However, Tom Ricks, senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security, said it is sort of like 'give war a chance,' citing, extremely interestingly, Obama taking an Eisenhower type approach in that he should not get stuck in a conflict, but try and effect the outcome. But the anecdote Mr. Ricks described when rebels lined up to shake the hand of a downed American pilot and embraced him is very telling commentary on how President Obama, and, equally, Hillary Clinton are conducting American foreign policy in a more responsible manner, by world perceptions, than the Republicans could hope to do. And as Ted Koppel summarized, Republicans right now have the luxury and the wait and see what happens and then take a hard position.
Mr. Lugar did definitively say that we should not be involved in the Libyan civil war, and we would agree. That is a narrow slicing of a position - enable the rebels by bombing the dictator - is getting involved. But by not getting involved, the humanitarian would have been grave. Mr. Koppel reminded us of the 1982 protests in Syria where Assad killed approximately 80,000 people to suppress an uprising. Consensus would say that we can not allow that to happen again, especially now, with the African Union calling for change, the Arab League urging for this action, and with the aforementioned UN resolution. With this in mind, there is some insidiousness going go that we'll get to in a minute.
Savannah Guthrie called what happening in the Middle East the 'Arab Spring,' but Bob Woodward called this President Obama's '9/11.' Ms. Guthrie's terminology is hopeful, which is something we remain, but the realists we are here at the column would call this a cultural shift, the equivalent of a 9.0 earthquake. Mr. Woodward explained it as a huge management problem, the size and scope of 9/11, and factoring in the relief effort in Japan, and our own domestic troubles, it becomes much more than that. And again, to touch on our domestic troubles, Republican policy initiatives seem petty when set along aside what is going on in the world. Corporate tax cuts? Busting unions? Limiting women's rights? Cutting education? Going in the opposite direction on every one of those initiatives would actually strengthen our country and while the world outside of ours is experiencing seismic shifts, natural and man-made, it is what we need to do most right now.
So with Libya, it's day to day as Secretary Clinton described, and the President will explain it all to the country on Monday night. We can only hope that Mrs. Clinton has her hands all over the explanation. Mrs. Clinton has shown responsible leadership, the type in the air of our finest Secretaries of State, and we do not say that lightly. In simply hearing her and the Defense Secretary describe the scope of our responsibilities in the world, you realize the our domestic problems are quite solvable, don't you? And where's the responsible, reasonable leadership on that in the House of Representatives?
So we conclude that the United States' actions, though not desired, were responsible given the world consensus, and by no means should there be boots on the ground... unless those boots are special ops people or the CIA, which will be the case. However, we do like it when someone like Tom Ricks explains that there are tight restrictions on the military with close watch against 'mission creep,' which indeed connotes U.S. personnel in some aspect on the ground there.
Panel: The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the BBC's Ted Koppel; senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security and author, Tom Ricks; and NBC News White House Correspondent, Savannah Guthrie.
Friday, March 25, 2011
3.25.11: Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Gadhafi, Kadafi, Qadhafi... Moamer Khadafi
A variation of this title appeared on Boston.com so we should give credit where credit is due, but what we'd like to touch on is not just the different spellings of a despot's name, but what it represents. (We'll get to that in a moment.) And yes, we're writing this column late in the week, forgive us our indulgences for the timing of this post.
Much has happened since the Sunday Meet The Press interview with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but there are still some significant questions still lingering from said interview. Namely, what is our policy on Qadhafi? The Admiral outlined that the military mission is not to oust the dictator and that one of the outcomes of our actions is that Qadhafi stays in power. However, President Obama has said that U.S. policy is that Qadhafi must go.
And this these are the kinds of contradicitons that we entrap ourselves in when we are dealing with a dictator who represents as close to a Machiavellian ideal as you can have on the world stage. Depending on which spelling you assign to what phase of Qadhafi (we're being consistent in the post for the sake of sanity), you get a different play.
In 1986, President Reagan dropped 60 tons of bombs on Tripoli in response to a Libyan terror attack in a Berlin nightclub. In 1998, Pam Am Flight 103 goes down over Lockerbie, Scotland in a terrorist bombing larger believed to be the responsibility of Qadhafi. Later, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi is convcted of mass murder for the act. In 2004, the Bush Administration normalizes relations with the dictator as he vowed to give up in nuclear ambitions (now our concerns focus on the chemical weapons he may have). In August 2009, said bomber is released back to Libya on behalf of medical mercy. In September 2009, Qadhafi makes his first appearance at the U.N. and gives a 90 minute rambling diatribe about all his perceived enemies. In 2010, a Libyan official confirms that it was Qadhafi who personally ordered the Lockerbie Bombing. In 2011, Qadhafi fires rockets on his own people. The various lives of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. There's your two-bit history.
So Operation Odyssey Dawn is another in a list of military conflicts we've had with him over the years so we understand that Qadhafi must go, but we have to completely stop giving him any rope. However, with this operation, there is no going back, no recognizing him as leader of Libya. The long term is that we'll have to use our resources to isolate him, and unfortunately the people of Libya, in a way that rivals North Korea. The extended term strategy is not clear at all that has to be addressed.
The other big issue is the double standard of what's going on in Bahrain, with the protesters there being fired upon by the Monarchy, and also the Saudi Army. When the United States has to not longer turn a blind eye to the actions of Saudi Arabia, it will be a liberating one. The Administration's response about our position with regard to stopping the violence in Bahrain is basically non-existent.
The Senatorial panel of John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levins (D-MI), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) all seemed measured in their responses, but Senator Kerry clarified that this is not a war with another Arab country. It's a debatable point based on what constitutes war these days, but what it does do is show support for the President, which Senator Levin showed as well even though he's being watchful for mission creep. For clarification, this is when ulterior military motives are indulged within the depth of another mission, something we certainly can not have in the case of Libya. Even Senator Sessions, who rightfully questioned what the endgame is for this action would be, was supportive of the President's actions. Where he is at time of this writing, we can only speculate.
In extricating ourselves from the front lines of these coalition strikes against Colonel Qadhafi and his military quickly, we're doing the right thing. Before anyone settles into a consistent line of thinking that we're at war with another Arab country, we need to get out of there. This doesn't mean that the President shouldn't explain what happened, what's going on, and what's coming down the line.
Panel: NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, and the New York Times’ Helene Cooper. Plus insights on what the conflict could mean for the U.S. militarily and the president’s agenda from former CIA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.
Much has happened since the Sunday Meet The Press interview with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but there are still some significant questions still lingering from said interview. Namely, what is our policy on Qadhafi? The Admiral outlined that the military mission is not to oust the dictator and that one of the outcomes of our actions is that Qadhafi stays in power. However, President Obama has said that U.S. policy is that Qadhafi must go.
And this these are the kinds of contradicitons that we entrap ourselves in when we are dealing with a dictator who represents as close to a Machiavellian ideal as you can have on the world stage. Depending on which spelling you assign to what phase of Qadhafi (we're being consistent in the post for the sake of sanity), you get a different play.
In 1986, President Reagan dropped 60 tons of bombs on Tripoli in response to a Libyan terror attack in a Berlin nightclub. In 1998, Pam Am Flight 103 goes down over Lockerbie, Scotland in a terrorist bombing larger believed to be the responsibility of Qadhafi. Later, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi is convcted of mass murder for the act. In 2004, the Bush Administration normalizes relations with the dictator as he vowed to give up in nuclear ambitions (now our concerns focus on the chemical weapons he may have). In August 2009, said bomber is released back to Libya on behalf of medical mercy. In September 2009, Qadhafi makes his first appearance at the U.N. and gives a 90 minute rambling diatribe about all his perceived enemies. In 2010, a Libyan official confirms that it was Qadhafi who personally ordered the Lockerbie Bombing. In 2011, Qadhafi fires rockets on his own people. The various lives of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. There's your two-bit history.
So Operation Odyssey Dawn is another in a list of military conflicts we've had with him over the years so we understand that Qadhafi must go, but we have to completely stop giving him any rope. However, with this operation, there is no going back, no recognizing him as leader of Libya. The long term is that we'll have to use our resources to isolate him, and unfortunately the people of Libya, in a way that rivals North Korea. The extended term strategy is not clear at all that has to be addressed.
The other big issue is the double standard of what's going on in Bahrain, with the protesters there being fired upon by the Monarchy, and also the Saudi Army. When the United States has to not longer turn a blind eye to the actions of Saudi Arabia, it will be a liberating one. The Administration's response about our position with regard to stopping the violence in Bahrain is basically non-existent.
The Senatorial panel of John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levins (D-MI), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) all seemed measured in their responses, but Senator Kerry clarified that this is not a war with another Arab country. It's a debatable point based on what constitutes war these days, but what it does do is show support for the President, which Senator Levin showed as well even though he's being watchful for mission creep. For clarification, this is when ulterior military motives are indulged within the depth of another mission, something we certainly can not have in the case of Libya. Even Senator Sessions, who rightfully questioned what the endgame is for this action would be, was supportive of the President's actions. Where he is at time of this writing, we can only speculate.
In extricating ourselves from the front lines of these coalition strikes against Colonel Qadhafi and his military quickly, we're doing the right thing. Before anyone settles into a consistent line of thinking that we're at war with another Arab country, we need to get out of there. This doesn't mean that the President shouldn't explain what happened, what's going on, and what's coming down the line.
Panel: NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, and the New York Times’ Helene Cooper. Plus insights on what the conflict could mean for the U.S. militarily and the president’s agenda from former CIA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
3.13.11: How Would We Do? / Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN)
What we've been thinking about most since the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan is the resolve of its people. It is in the days to come, a year or two from now even when people in this country should be taking instruction from the Japanese people. And what do we mean by that? Well, if there is one thing we know about, it is the Japanese will to overcome a great disaster and recover strong than before. It just makes us wonder if the United States would be able to do the same. And we actually have our answer, it's no. Think about New Orleans and how 5 1/2 years later, there are still areas dilapidated and in disrepair. How about Ground Zero? It's been ten years and there is still no sign of a building.
The Japanese Ambassador for the United States showed that resolve with great grace on today's program, thanking the United States Military for its rescue and relief efforts. It's unfortunate that it is only a massive natural disaster that shines a positive light on the American military in other countries. Accompanying the military are nuclear experts because of concern that there could be a meltdown to the reactor core, something for which the Japanese have prepared but you can never know until something happens.
And to that point, Marvin Fertel, President of our Nuclear Energy Institute, said that post-9/11, we have put in safe guards at our nuclear plants in case of something unfortunate. It's good to know that we have taken these steps with our reactors, but it would be reassuring to know if we've redoubled those efforts. There are mentions constantly in the news about the strict building codes and safety regulations in Japan that probably prevented even more fatalities, and it makes us wonder about what we're thinking in this country where we (Republican politicians) want to ease regulations to make it better for business. But making everything better for business isn't always better. Making a little less money so that we're all safer isn't really considered in this country and it shows where our priorities are, and frankly, where we're headed.
It was this point that Chuck Todd, weakly filling in for David Gregory this week, posed to Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) who was reminded of his advocacy for expanding nuclear power. Mr. Schumer reiterated the obvious fact that The United States needs to free itself from foreign oil dependency, something we hear a lot of from both sides of the isle. The Republicans want more drilling here, which doesn't address our addiction to the fuel, and the Democrats 'greener' suggestions don't yield enough energy to make it cost efficient. It's this sort of problem and all the politics that go with it that we feel can not be solved by today's American political leaders. The Japanese would make it there mission to solve this problem. You see the difference here?
In the matter of the budget, is a metaphoric tsunami coming in this country? It is a hopeful sign when Mr. Schumer pointed out that a number of riders (non-budgetary related items like same-sex marriage amendments that have nothing to do with the budget) were taken out of the budget to raise its chances of being passed. This is good news but how many continuing resolutions to keep the government going are they going to pass? With all the energy put into this, other important matters will fall out of focus.
And speaking of non-budgetary issues, Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) wanted a truce on such things, but conservative Republicans won't have it. To defend his position, Mr. Daniels asked, "Are you more committed to results or rhetoric?" Right now, it's the cultural warriors in the Republican party who are exerting the most influence there. Our cultural wars revolve around religion and frankly, there's no place for it in our governing system according to the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, religious conservatives have been the ones, as of late, who have been throwing this document in everyone's faces, especially the Tea Party Republicans.
What we've seen from them is that their compromise is 'their way or nothing,' as in Wisconsin. Govern Daniels mentioned that the government shouldn't go after collective bargaining, but also said that public employees shouldn't have collective bargaining rights. We would respectfully disagree for among other reasons, this one: Collective bargaining in the public sector is necessary because it is an essential vehicle in which the people of this country have leverage to stand up against it's government at a time when an election is not pending. Rights are a continual process that has to been diligently looked after and not only in election years. Taking away public sector collective bargaining eliminates a necessary check in the check-and-balance system, on government to safeguard against abuse.
And why didn't they have that discuss today on Meet The Press? Because the show is continually, stupidly obsessed with Presidential politics. Instead of delving more in depth to what is happening in Wisconsin and how these same issues are playing out in the Governor's state of Indiana, Mr. Todd needed to ask him about a potential run for President, to which he said he agreed to consider it. Remember that Mr. Daniels used to be the budget director for George W. Bush so he talks a good fiscal game, but when Mr. Todd asked him about Medicare Part D and that it shouldn't have been enacted because we couldn't pay for it was that it cost a lot less than most people thought. That was his answer? Remember that the budget director is also responsible for keeping two wars off the books.
And when Mr. Todd questioned Mr. Daniels on the wisdom that shrinking the government will produce jobs, which has not been the result, he stated that that is what a catastrophic recession will do - stagger job growth. It was caused by the policies of the Administration, for which he worked.
It's difficult, and unlikely, to advise that we would choose Governor Mitch Daniels for President because of the fact that his fiscal rhetoric doesn't at all match with the results he's produced as a part of the Bush Administration or as Governor of Indiana. However, most people don't know or realize these facts, which brings us to a point that NPR's Michelle Norris made during the roundtable with regard to the potential Republican nominees not having declared yet as it is getting late comparatively to the last election.
She pointed out that in the last election, people had a long time to vet the candidates, especially Barack Obama, and that this time around people won't have as much time. She missed the real insight to her own point, which is that the Republican nominees do not want to be vetted for any period of time. They know that the less the people know, the better it is for a successful election. The more people find out - for example seniors who would consider voting for Mr. Daniels because he's conservative but may not realize that he's the one whose causing their hardship with prescription drugs - the less likely one would be to get the vote. For the Republicans in this case, less is more.
***
Two last things we'd like to touch on. One, David Broder was never our favorite on Meet The Press, but 401 times on the program does make him The Dean. And more times than not, he was the voice of rationality in the face of stupidity [example: rebutting Robert Novak].
Secondly, NPR and public funding. As Ms. Norris defended, it about more than just NPR, PBS and Sesame Street and all the other information services where in some areas of the country it is the only source of information. Yes, those areas she's referring to are... you guessed it... the poorest areas of the country. James O'Keefe got his 'gotcha' moment, and it in the end it means nothing because it was only destructive, not constructive in any way, which relegates him to being part of the problem and not the solution. NPR should continue to be funded.
The Japanese Ambassador for the United States showed that resolve with great grace on today's program, thanking the United States Military for its rescue and relief efforts. It's unfortunate that it is only a massive natural disaster that shines a positive light on the American military in other countries. Accompanying the military are nuclear experts because of concern that there could be a meltdown to the reactor core, something for which the Japanese have prepared but you can never know until something happens.
And to that point, Marvin Fertel, President of our Nuclear Energy Institute, said that post-9/11, we have put in safe guards at our nuclear plants in case of something unfortunate. It's good to know that we have taken these steps with our reactors, but it would be reassuring to know if we've redoubled those efforts. There are mentions constantly in the news about the strict building codes and safety regulations in Japan that probably prevented even more fatalities, and it makes us wonder about what we're thinking in this country where we (Republican politicians) want to ease regulations to make it better for business. But making everything better for business isn't always better. Making a little less money so that we're all safer isn't really considered in this country and it shows where our priorities are, and frankly, where we're headed.
It was this point that Chuck Todd, weakly filling in for David Gregory this week, posed to Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) who was reminded of his advocacy for expanding nuclear power. Mr. Schumer reiterated the obvious fact that The United States needs to free itself from foreign oil dependency, something we hear a lot of from both sides of the isle. The Republicans want more drilling here, which doesn't address our addiction to the fuel, and the Democrats 'greener' suggestions don't yield enough energy to make it cost efficient. It's this sort of problem and all the politics that go with it that we feel can not be solved by today's American political leaders. The Japanese would make it there mission to solve this problem. You see the difference here?
In the matter of the budget, is a metaphoric tsunami coming in this country? It is a hopeful sign when Mr. Schumer pointed out that a number of riders (non-budgetary related items like same-sex marriage amendments that have nothing to do with the budget) were taken out of the budget to raise its chances of being passed. This is good news but how many continuing resolutions to keep the government going are they going to pass? With all the energy put into this, other important matters will fall out of focus.
And speaking of non-budgetary issues, Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) wanted a truce on such things, but conservative Republicans won't have it. To defend his position, Mr. Daniels asked, "Are you more committed to results or rhetoric?" Right now, it's the cultural warriors in the Republican party who are exerting the most influence there. Our cultural wars revolve around religion and frankly, there's no place for it in our governing system according to the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, religious conservatives have been the ones, as of late, who have been throwing this document in everyone's faces, especially the Tea Party Republicans.
What we've seen from them is that their compromise is 'their way or nothing,' as in Wisconsin. Govern Daniels mentioned that the government shouldn't go after collective bargaining, but also said that public employees shouldn't have collective bargaining rights. We would respectfully disagree for among other reasons, this one: Collective bargaining in the public sector is necessary because it is an essential vehicle in which the people of this country have leverage to stand up against it's government at a time when an election is not pending. Rights are a continual process that has to been diligently looked after and not only in election years. Taking away public sector collective bargaining eliminates a necessary check in the check-and-balance system, on government to safeguard against abuse.
And why didn't they have that discuss today on Meet The Press? Because the show is continually, stupidly obsessed with Presidential politics. Instead of delving more in depth to what is happening in Wisconsin and how these same issues are playing out in the Governor's state of Indiana, Mr. Todd needed to ask him about a potential run for President, to which he said he agreed to consider it. Remember that Mr. Daniels used to be the budget director for George W. Bush so he talks a good fiscal game, but when Mr. Todd asked him about Medicare Part D and that it shouldn't have been enacted because we couldn't pay for it was that it cost a lot less than most people thought. That was his answer? Remember that the budget director is also responsible for keeping two wars off the books.
And when Mr. Todd questioned Mr. Daniels on the wisdom that shrinking the government will produce jobs, which has not been the result, he stated that that is what a catastrophic recession will do - stagger job growth. It was caused by the policies of the Administration, for which he worked.
It's difficult, and unlikely, to advise that we would choose Governor Mitch Daniels for President because of the fact that his fiscal rhetoric doesn't at all match with the results he's produced as a part of the Bush Administration or as Governor of Indiana. However, most people don't know or realize these facts, which brings us to a point that NPR's Michelle Norris made during the roundtable with regard to the potential Republican nominees not having declared yet as it is getting late comparatively to the last election.
She pointed out that in the last election, people had a long time to vet the candidates, especially Barack Obama, and that this time around people won't have as much time. She missed the real insight to her own point, which is that the Republican nominees do not want to be vetted for any period of time. They know that the less the people know, the better it is for a successful election. The more people find out - for example seniors who would consider voting for Mr. Daniels because he's conservative but may not realize that he's the one whose causing their hardship with prescription drugs - the less likely one would be to get the vote. For the Republicans in this case, less is more.
***
Two last things we'd like to touch on. One, David Broder was never our favorite on Meet The Press, but 401 times on the program does make him The Dean. And more times than not, he was the voice of rationality in the face of stupidity [example: rebutting Robert Novak].
Secondly, NPR and public funding. As Ms. Norris defended, it about more than just NPR, PBS and Sesame Street and all the other information services where in some areas of the country it is the only source of information. Yes, those areas she's referring to are... you guessed it... the poorest areas of the country. James O'Keefe got his 'gotcha' moment, and it in the end it means nothing because it was only destructive, not constructive in any way, which relegates him to being part of the problem and not the solution. NPR should continue to be funded.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
3.6.11: Michelle Bachmann is Anti-American... There, We Said It.
Sterns, Benton, Washington, Anoka, Wright, and Sherburne. You might think that this is some high-powered law firm, sure sounds like it. But what these names comprise are the six counties that make of the 6th Congressional district of Minnesota. In all the sound bites over the last two years, It's a district that never gets mentioned by its representative, Michelle Bachmann. Seriously, we never heard her talk about her own district. And the reason we mention this because given some of her statements, it makes you wonder what the people in those counties are thinking.
Interestingly, Ms. Bachmann, dubbed the leader of the Tea Party [Republican] caucus in the House, said that the Tea Party was a broad-based coalition. However, how can a 'broad-based' coalition have such very narrow views? A real leader of a broad coalition would not refer to her own President as a gangster as she did not back down on her 'gangster government' statement when pressed by David Gregory. She further explained that the actions of the administration are corrupt, and referred to a specific $105 billion appropriation in last year's health care bill.
Today's first, and exclusive, guest Chief of Staff William Daley said that the health care reform would say over one trillion dollars of the next twenty years, to which Mr. Gregory dismissed as a perspective of accounting, but when Ms. Bachmann answer the first handful of questions with the same answer - $105 billion - he didn't confront her on that. And by not acknowledging her 105 billion point, it shows the he doesn't take her 'facts' seriously, so why should we? If you read this column then you'll know that we don't carry that much water for Mr. Gregory, but you get the point. [For the record, we do believe Mr. Greogory was the best NBC choice for Meet The Press.]
Ms. Bachmann's views are so narrow and her criticism of the Administration closed in perspective that she can not even see that when she says that, for example, on Libya we need to listen to General Petraeus. While Mr. Daley just said in the prior interview that to go in and use military force (a no-fly zone) simply doesn't understand the full risks of that. Why would the White House Chief of Staff say that if the Administration hadn't consulted with the Joint Chiefs of the Military. But Michelle Bachmann is convinced that President Barack Obama has anti-American views so no support for the President is acceptable in any form.
While we agree with Mr. Daley with regard to the extreme caution in considering any military involvement, naval blockades whatever, and the freezing of $30 billion of Gaddafi's assets, we agree with David Brooks today when he said that the Administration should have articulated the country's principles more clearly and with much more affirmation. Let's face it, that the President said this week that Colonel Gaddafi has to leave, is pretty weak when he should be out front of other countries, leading the dialogue.
Also, we find it funny that Mr. Daley said that no one wants a government shutdown, but that's exactly what we're going to get if the Republicans follow Ms. Bachmann's lead on the debt ceiling and the impending need for an increase. Ms. Bachmann approaches this problem solely in ideological terms without considering the greater repercussions of that vote. And where Mr. Daley said he wouldn't presume to speculate as to whether the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, can control his caucus, but we will. The debt ceiling debate and impending vote is whether any civility between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republican caucus breaks down with the potential of the wheels coming completely off. Mr. Boehner knows that the United States should not default on its debt payments, which is what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised. A double dip on the recession would become real.
Ms. Bachmann, in a clip shown during the program, asked whether America would endure and she answered that she didn't think so. When Mr. Gregory asked for clarification on this, Ms. Bachmann explained that our debt has national security implications. Well, if that broad generalized statement is true, imagine what defaulting on that debt would do.
We could go on like this ad nauseum but to what end? Some good advice for Ms. Bachmann would be to not harp on a problem if you don't bring a solution to it with you. Ms. Bachmann has no solutions, or at the very least we wouldn't know because she never focuses her energy in that way, and that's not the American attitude. Americans are problem solvers. You're either part of the solution, part of the problem, or part of the landscape as Robert DeNiro once said. So until Ms. Bachmann can start offering solutions, she'll always be on the sideline and never in the game.
Interestingly, Ms. Bachmann, dubbed the leader of the Tea Party [Republican] caucus in the House, said that the Tea Party was a broad-based coalition. However, how can a 'broad-based' coalition have such very narrow views? A real leader of a broad coalition would not refer to her own President as a gangster as she did not back down on her 'gangster government' statement when pressed by David Gregory. She further explained that the actions of the administration are corrupt, and referred to a specific $105 billion appropriation in last year's health care bill.
Today's first, and exclusive, guest Chief of Staff William Daley said that the health care reform would say over one trillion dollars of the next twenty years, to which Mr. Gregory dismissed as a perspective of accounting, but when Ms. Bachmann answer the first handful of questions with the same answer - $105 billion - he didn't confront her on that. And by not acknowledging her 105 billion point, it shows the he doesn't take her 'facts' seriously, so why should we? If you read this column then you'll know that we don't carry that much water for Mr. Gregory, but you get the point. [For the record, we do believe Mr. Greogory was the best NBC choice for Meet The Press.]
Ms. Bachmann's views are so narrow and her criticism of the Administration closed in perspective that she can not even see that when she says that, for example, on Libya we need to listen to General Petraeus. While Mr. Daley just said in the prior interview that to go in and use military force (a no-fly zone) simply doesn't understand the full risks of that. Why would the White House Chief of Staff say that if the Administration hadn't consulted with the Joint Chiefs of the Military. But Michelle Bachmann is convinced that President Barack Obama has anti-American views so no support for the President is acceptable in any form.
While we agree with Mr. Daley with regard to the extreme caution in considering any military involvement, naval blockades whatever, and the freezing of $30 billion of Gaddafi's assets, we agree with David Brooks today when he said that the Administration should have articulated the country's principles more clearly and with much more affirmation. Let's face it, that the President said this week that Colonel Gaddafi has to leave, is pretty weak when he should be out front of other countries, leading the dialogue.
Also, we find it funny that Mr. Daley said that no one wants a government shutdown, but that's exactly what we're going to get if the Republicans follow Ms. Bachmann's lead on the debt ceiling and the impending need for an increase. Ms. Bachmann approaches this problem solely in ideological terms without considering the greater repercussions of that vote. And where Mr. Daley said he wouldn't presume to speculate as to whether the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, can control his caucus, but we will. The debt ceiling debate and impending vote is whether any civility between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republican caucus breaks down with the potential of the wheels coming completely off. Mr. Boehner knows that the United States should not default on its debt payments, which is what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised. A double dip on the recession would become real.
Ms. Bachmann, in a clip shown during the program, asked whether America would endure and she answered that she didn't think so. When Mr. Gregory asked for clarification on this, Ms. Bachmann explained that our debt has national security implications. Well, if that broad generalized statement is true, imagine what defaulting on that debt would do.
We could go on like this ad nauseum but to what end? Some good advice for Ms. Bachmann would be to not harp on a problem if you don't bring a solution to it with you. Ms. Bachmann has no solutions, or at the very least we wouldn't know because she never focuses her energy in that way, and that's not the American attitude. Americans are problem solvers. You're either part of the solution, part of the problem, or part of the landscape as Robert DeNiro once said. So until Ms. Bachmann can start offering solutions, she'll always be on the sideline and never in the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)