2.26.12: Everything You Wanted to Know About Connecting with People (but Were Afraid to Ask)

We lead with this... Former Congressman Harold Ford made a good point in that the most interesting answer Former Senator Rick Santorum gave during his interview was on Afghanistan and not on the separation of Church and State.

Mr. Santorum said that the President should not have apologized for the U.S. Military inadvertently burning Korans in Afghanistan; Mr. Ford disagreed. However, in addition to making the point that if the situation were reversed and an Islamic Army burned Bibles here, would Mr. Santorum want an apology because it is a matter of faith, Mr. Ford pointed to this as a barometer of how Mr. Santorum would negotiate with other nations in times of conflict. Mr. Ford rarely delivers during his guest spot, but today he certainly did because what he was getting at is the major flaw of Rick Santorum as a Presidential candidate. He only see the world through his very narrow prism and is unable to figuratively step outside the situation and see it from all perspectives, and that means everything from contraception to foreign policy.

Yes, the President did apologize and should have as he understands the delicate nature of other people's faith, especially in Afghanistan. Senator Santorum did when it came to the Administration's decision on contraception, which angered the Catholic Bishops, but not this? Is a blatant disregard, a sense of arrogance toward other nations and faiths under the cover of the idea of American Exceptionalism? On another point, which we'll get to later, Mr. Santorum called the President a snob so either in the above point, he's either arrogant or stupid. The question, as Mr. Ford rightly brought up, is not whether to apologize or not, but how will Mr. Santorum negotiate with other nations in instances like these?

And we'd be remiss not to mention Senator Santorum's answers with regard to faith playing a role in governing. In referencing the Kennedy video (see below), Mr. Santorum said that Kennedy's stance on the separation of Church and State was too rigid and disagreed with Kennedy that it should be absolute. He quickly said that it wasn't the founders vision, but that's not true at all. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

So how could President Kennedy's stance be too rigid if he followed the above tenant? Mr. Santorum cited the slave movement and the civil rights movement as ones that were rooted in faith. In fact, he said that it's a "Dangerous idea to take faith out of the decisio in making process." Given that more people die in the name and because of religion, we'll refer back to the First Amendment for our stance. But beside leaving that to interpretation, what raised eyebrows is how he referred to slavery, as a movement. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant anti-slavery. Movements usually are called so because they advocate for something, and Mr. Santorum isn't advocating for slavery. Given that, the anti-slavery movement? More Americans died in the civil war, a war fought over slavery, than in all other American wars combined, not to mention the merciless oppression with all its ripples and echoes. It wasn't simply a movement as Mr. Santorum labeled it... Just saying.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This entire discussion points to the fact that Mr. Santorum, as Washington Post Columnist Kathleen Parker said, overshoots. He always takes his argument too far to the right, and as Ms. Parker also pointed out, it's troublesome to people who know Mr. Santorum well. He's just never going to get enough people behind his views and agenda.

However, as the argument has been, at least he has views, convictions, and an agenda as opposed to Mitt Romney who apparently does not. Mr. Santorum said that Mr. Romney's speech earlier this week at Ford's Field was timid, insider, and nothing new. Mr. Santorum just needs to be careful with that rhetoric because as he admitted as much in the Arizona debate earlier in the week, his vote on No Child Left Behind. That vote was along party lines, he was the Whip (the person responsible for getting the votes) at the time, and the law advocated for standardized testing (some thing he opposes).

But Mr. Romney can be insufferable. That he said his wife drives a 'couple of Cadillacs' during said speech just creates another layer of separation between him and the people whose votes he's trying to court, like a bad onion. Cut to Kathleen Parker again - who said that given that he is a dork, Mr. Romney's persona should be shaped as the doctor with no bed side manner, with the bottom line being that he has the cure. This is good, it could work for Mr. Romney given all of his verbal catastrophes [Corporations are people, I'm not concerned about poor people, the trees are the right size (one we'll never understand)].

Here's the rub, Mr. Romney doesn't have the cure, and Mr. Santorum pointed out it out. Mr. Romney was for bailing out the banks, but not for bailing out the auto industry. It's the very reason why the Michigan primary polls are so close. But larger than that, it is well established in people's minds that the jobs that were saved by the auto bailout were in the millions, think of the supply chain to those car makers. If this people's perception, but Mr. Romney doesn't understand that, how is he going to implement economic policies that positively effect those people?

A positive effect is not what college campuses are having on our youth according to Mr. Santorum. As we mentioned, he called the President a snob for saying that every one go to college even though he has encouraged all his children to attend. But we understand Mr. Santorum's point that every kid isn't meant for college, but that the opportunity should be there for them. That's fine but to go on to say that college campuses are indoctrinating students with secular thought is a wrong-minded generalization that seems to imply that university professors should not engage their students in critical thought.

Rick Santorum's positions are appealing to a small sliver of the American populace so hence Mr. Romney (who has yet to come to Meet The Press for an interview) still remains the safe bet for the nomination. And speaking of safe bets, Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ), on the program today, officially endorsed Mr. Romney for President, who is way ahead in Arizona primary polls. As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted, Mr. Romney also has momentum because Mr. Santorum has to continually answer questions about social issue positions, like the content of this column.

In the joint interview with Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA), Ms. Brewer was vocally frustrated when discussing immigration. She said that Texas goes a good job, California does a good job, but Arizona doesn't because it doesn't have the support of the Federal Government. In fact, the state is being sued for its immigration policy that says it can check an individual's citizenship, 'show me your papers,' if they are stopped by police, for example, for something else. The decision will come from the Supreme Court in April. The Federal Government helps all three states with border control so if Texas and California both do a good job as Ms. Brewer said, but Arizona does not, isn't that a reflection more on the governor's performance than anyone else's? Governor Brewer, in fact, framed it in such a way that the responsibility for poor border security should rest on her. Governor Brown, whether you agree with his agenda or not, he does have a clear one, which is the Dream Act in California giving students a path to citizenship. He said that it would also include scholarship opportunities. His reasoning being that you simply can't just round up 12 million people and deport them. Whether or not you agree with him, he didn't whine about it, he brought what he thought was the best solution. Not no solution.


Round table: McCain '08 senior strategist Steve Schmidt, Fmr. Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., Washington Post's Kathleen Parker, and NBC's Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.

2.12.12: The Bishops Are Disqualified

What is clearly evident, as E.J. Dionne pointed, is that the President had sufficient warning that mandating free contraception from Catholic institutions issuing insurance, who would object as a matter of conscience, would cause a controversy.

Was it, in fact, overreach? Politically, yes, but constitutionally perhaps not since the Constitution says that we shall make no law with respect to religion, meaning that a religious belief should not factor into the law. But we get it, Republicans framed the argument as oppressing religious freedom and having the right to object to something based on those grounds. Should the President mandate the Catholic Church to do something? Well, the President granted them an exception, presented a compromise, essentially placing them outside the law that other insurance agencies have to follow. The Board of Catholic Bishops rejected the compromise.

Frankly, this discussion is ridiculous - that in 2012 we're debating a woman's right to contraception. Not to mention (and let's put some already used phrases together a little differently), that it's the Catholic Bishops that are leading the objections. Really, the Catholic Bishops? Talk about above or outside of the law. How are we supposed to take seriously a council that looked the other way and actively covered up sex crimes committed around the world over decades by priests under their watch? We simply should not.

However, given the state of the debate and the ease in which you can conflate any mention of sex and religion to something controversial, the President offered a concession. The real concession should be that if you want to sell insurance on the exchange being set up, and the coverage has to be comprehensive to include contraception, but you don't want to comply, you should have your tax exempt status revoked. That the Catholic Bishops are still a voice on conscience is a notion that should be dead. Peggy Noonan said that it was about more than contraception, but religious freedom. The notion that religious freedom is in any danger in this country is a silly notion. Fighting for your freedom from one entity so you can be oppressed by another aside, the debate should be that if a religious organization gets government subsidies, shouldn't it compromise with the government?

With all that said, the White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, didn't help the President's cause that much in his interview today. Despite noting the the Administration has the support of the Catholic Health Organization (and why isn't that good enough), the administration would move ahead with implementing the Affordable Health Care Act. We agree the Administration's stance on the issue, but not with its political handling of it. Although, as Mr. Scarborough noted, if the debate is about contraception, it's a loser for the Republicans.

However, two points that Mr. Lew did make that begins the Administration's new attempt to pivot the conversation back to the economy and off of social issues, is that the Congress should extend the payroll tax cut, which expires at the end of February. Additionally, Mr. Gregory brought up the budget and the Obama Administration hasn't had one in over one thousand days. It is ridiculous, but Mr. Lew correctly pointed out that the Congress has to approve the budget so we're in a cycle of the President drawing one up, the Congress rejecting it, and then the President going back to new drafts. It's something that neither side should mention, but it's a question that Mr. Gregory should ask because the only ones who have the right to complain about this is the American people. Both sides share in the responsibility of this failure of not passing a budget.

As long as Senator Rick Santorum is the front runner for the Republican nomination, social issues will be the focus. Mr. Santorum explained that the Obama Administration is acting in a way that they feel they know best, can give you a right but also how you can use that right. Mr. Obama is taking away people's rights, Mr. Santorum continued, by making decisions for individuals. He wants government to stay out of people's lives. And that's where the problem comes in with Mr. Santorum. He says that government should stay out of people's lives, but if he were President he would look to control women's bodies through reproductive law. The basic hypocrisy is troubling, especially since his stance on women's reproductive rights and gay rights seeks to set law according to a religious belief.

Another contradiction is what Mr. Santorum called 'judiciary tyranny' referring to the decision of the 9th circuit court in California overturning Proposition 8 which denied gay couples to marry. The court declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, and this decision overturns a majority vote by the public. Mr. Santorum objects to the court taking this kind of action, but he is the same person who lead the fight in the Terry Schiavo case where he wanted the court to intervene and lead a prayer on the floor of the House. To be fair, Mr. Santorum did say that as a matter of public policy, women should have access to contraception (despite the obstacles that would be politically created).

It can not be said that Mr. Santorum waivers on his extremely conservative social views, which is more you can say for his opponent in this now 'two-man race,' as he described it. When Mr. Santorum referred to it as a two-man race we could help but think that it was a direct dig at Mr. Gingrich. As today's panel entertainingly noted, Mitt Romney is the loser in this argument because there's nothing he can say about it with conviction as he's been on both sides of many social issues, though now he is hard right. When it's common knowledge/general consensus that you'll say anything to get elected as it is for Mr. Romney, your candidacy is ultimately doomed.


Round Table: Head of the Super PAC supporting Pres. Obama, Bill Burton; Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan; Washington Post's EJ Dionne, and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.

2.5.12: Mr. Romney, Lonely at the Top

With a win by Governor Mitt Romney in Nevada (48% meaning 83 delegates), he has strongly seized control of the race, and it showed on Newt Gingrich's face and in his oratory during his interview on today's program. Mr. Gingrich's stated goal is to make it to super Tuesday and the Texas primary where he believes true conservatives will come out for him. The truth is that the Texas political fat cats will throw their dollars in with Romney and he'll take the state. Mr. Gingrich was once again consistent in his attack of Mr. Romney saying today that he is pro-abortion, anti-gun, for more taxes. All indicators from Mr. Romney himself lead us to the conclusion that we're not sure where he actually will stand on many issues if he were elected President.

The key notion that Mr. Gingrich ignores and really has to ignore is that Republican primary voters are voting for Mr. Romney because they think he has the best chance to beat President Obama. However, they're proverbially holding their noses while casting that vote. How does a candidate win a Presidential election, not to mention lead the country, when no one on any side trusts him on what's he's going to do. Yet, he keeps winning primaries. Mr. Gingrich states many more policy positions than Mr. Romney (not difficult since Mr. Romney never states any) such as what he said today. He wants to create private savings accounts for Social Security for future recipients, have school choice for the very poor, a zero capitol gains tax. However, when a seasoned Republican strategist like Alex Castellanos says in the same program that Newt Gingrich has no path to the Presidency because he has now illustrated his instability and that in Nevada Mr. Romney won everyone exception divorce lawyers and narcissists. A sufficiently harsh critique. From here, if the Romney campaign keeps attacking hard on Mr. Gingrich, the former Speaker could go nuclear and try to smear Mr. Romney as much as he possibly can, damaging him to the point where a general election win is certainly less probable. However, if they secede the negativity, Mr. Gingrich could gain momentum.

In those aforementioned policy positions, Mr. Gingrich wants school choice for the very poor. It seems like a reasonable position, but our question is why can't we improve the local school so that the parents can choose that one. There's always talk, on the Democratic side at least, about the need for infrastructure rebuilding, but that must be narrowed to educational infrastructure rebuilding. This, literally, is where the future is, and we're seeing it crumble right in front of us. Furthermore, that Mr. Romney would say, in any context, that he's not concerned about the poor in this country because the school safety net works shows an unrecoverable distance between Mr. Romney's understanding of what's going economically and educationally and where people really are, way out of touch.

Also, making the capital gains tax 0% would do nothing (or very little) to create jobs. The disproportionate few with capital gains would be further enriched and sock away money that was simply made from having money. Not to mention that if you do that without closing some loop holes, a hedge fund manager for example can also claim his salary as a capital gain and then end up paying no taxes. Our debt would explode if capital gains was zero percent.

Crazy as it sounds, when Mr. Gregory half jokingly asked Mr. Gingrich about his comments with regard to space and bases on the moon, he made a good point. We've put billions into the space program and now we don't have a vehicle that could travel into orbit and back. It's not specifically that, but we agree with the general premise that gutting the space program is a mistake. We've unjustly diminished the contributions of NASA, from the technologies they bore that are now common place to the imaginative science it inspires.

But one last thing on Mr. Gingrich's interview - the Obama Administration's controversy with the Catholic Church and the rhetoric that went with it. Not that you would ever expect a minimum standard of discourse from a politician, it's not helpful when a figure like Mr. Gingrich emphatically states that the President of the United States has declared war on the Catholic Church without informing people what is actually going on. In the later round table discussion, they somewhat cleared it up, but here it is. When the Affordable Health Care Act goes into effect, all entities or companies that offer insurance coverage to individuals, they all must offer the same provisions. One of those provisions is contraception, that it should be covered. Here's the rub, the Catholic Church offers insurance through it's hospitals and they don't want to cover contraception because it's against their doctrine and institutional beliefs. The two sides of the argument follow these respective lines. Democrats, as articulated by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) today, say that if you offer insurance, all the standards have to be the same for everyone - no exceptions. The Republicans would argue that the Administration is trampling on the Church's religious liberties. It has the potential to become a very big issue and Mr. Gingrich framing it as secularism is crushing religious freedom is, in a word, ridiculous. First, demonizing the word 'secularism' is technically demonizing the constitution and the government's mandate to make decisions void of a religious perspective. Again, not helpful. If the Catholic Church is profiting from this insurance offering, then it must play by the same rules as everyone else. If the insurance offering is not for profit, then maybe it can be negotiated that they maintain their right to deny contraception coverage. That's a possible solution, though our general opinion is that banning contraception outright is not a good idea. If the Church decides to not obey the law, they'll come under debilitating fines. [Certainly, we don't weep for the Catholic Church on this front, and frankly, if they had practiced their own form of contraception and neutered some of their priests, they wouldn't have the financial problems they do.]

The 'Super Bowl' themed second segment featuring Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D), New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) struck us as a bit comical. When Mr. Daniels would say something, Mr. Bloomberg would say he agreed and then say completely contradictory. When Mr. Daniels called out President Obama regulations and taxes, Mr. Bloomberg agreed and then said we need to raise taxes on everyone, there's no way around it. That aside, Mr. Daniels stuck to his State of the Union rebuttal that President Obama has made the economy worse, that it is the worst recovery since we started keeping records on such things. This is a speculative argument and so is that if Mr. Romney were President the recovery would be better - something today's panel discussed. We would agree with Ms. Maddow that campaigning on that premise will hit a ceiling and is a thin argument. Mr. Romney needs to present more policy points on the trail instead of ugly renditions of 'America The Beautiful.'


Round Table: Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), NY Times columnist David Brooks, GOP strategist Alex Castellanos, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.