Unlike last week's program, which needed another hour, this week's Meet The Press could have ended a little early. The final infomercial for the film Lincoln was unnecessary. [For the record, The Opinion also saw the film this weekend and we think it a must see.] The program should have been more flexible with it's segments as the subject of the Middle East should have been delved into much deeper. As we are at a crossroads with our domestic economic issues, our stance and strategic leverage in the Middle East is also at a precipice.
Mr. Gregory asked the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) whether the Morsi government of Egypt was a partner or a problem, to which he answered 'both.' However, the problem side of the scale outweighs the partner side by a significant amount. First, Morsi, by government decree, is consolidating power. They have since clarified that it was temporary to route out corruption, but the Egyptian people are staging massive protests, not buying the 'clarification.' So you have more civil unrest while additionally facilitating weapons shipments from Iran into Gaza.
David Brooks said that the president's support of Israel was handled well, and it is important that Mr. Obama, at this time, keep showing that unwavering support because right now they are more isolated than at any time since the Sinai Peace Agreement. While Russia and China will join the U.S. in sanctioning Iran because of the nuclear issue, those two countries are willing to look the other way when it comes to Israel and the conventional self-destruction of the region. Both will work with the party that is in control of the oil, no matter what the politics. So that leaves the United States to support the Israelis while trying to racket down their tension with Hamas. That's where the focus should be and not on the politics, yes the politics, of Benghazi.
Benghazi is something that Republicans simply won't drop and in today's interview, Congressman Peter King's (R-NY) reasoning seemed selective and hypocritical. Mr. King said that Ms. Rice knew the briefing was incomplete and that there was classified information that she didn't share, stating that she should have not been a 'puppet.' This is coming from the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee. If Ms. Rice had gone off message and given classified information, at the time, to the public, Mr. King would have condemned that. Not to mention that the logic of his statement is short sighted in as much as Condoleezza Rice not having all the facts on WMD in Iraq. Certainly some puppeteering was going on then.
Speaking of Ms. Rice, Mr. Gregory referred to an op-ed in today's Washington Post, in which the former Secretary of State argued that the United States must act now on Syria. And what be the fact? That's the kicker, isn't it? They didn't explain during the program and if you read the piece, you'll see that Ms. Rice calls for a no-fly zone over Syria, but it short on details of what else should be done. a familiar pattern. It's a pattern Republicans, by their own record, have seemed to follow these past 15 years when assessing what to do in terms of foreign policy and that is not to evaluate the best weapons for the job, just to grab the biggest one.
Conversely, in a welcomed unfamiliar pattern, and despite CEOs like Honeywell's David Cole not being bullish on a debt deal, Republicans have been sending conciliatory signals working something out with Democrats. What has been a significant consequence of President Obama's reelection is the diminishing stature of Grover Norquist and his tax pledge, as evidenced today by Mr. King and Saxby Chambliss noted via video clip. It makes this column optimistic that a deal will be made because as David Brooks stated, "We're one deal away from being the hot spot in the world." He was talking economically, but it's true on a few levels. The people of the United States voted for their government to work together and it looks as though our federally elected officials want to do that. The signal that that sends to the rest of the world is that our democracy can come together to solve big problems in a time when consolidation of power dominates the news. This deal will also strengthen and steady the U.S. economy in a time when many others are faltering. And economic strength is what this country craves most.
In getting a deal done, Carly Fiorina believes that there will be an increase in tax rates for millionaires, but that the increase level will be upped to $1 million from $250,000. There's one point of potential compromise though we're thinking that will shake out at about $500,000. Another could be on which tax loopholes to close - foreign tax shelters would be a good start. Yet another, as Mr. Brooks mentioned could be on capital gains taxes. The point is that we remain optimistic because there are lots of good points for give and take to give Republicans what David Brooks called a 'pathway to yes,' our new national motto of unity we guess.
Why we think some are not so optimistic is because of entitlement reform featuring the usual trio of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Just as the President and Democrats have to give Mr. Boehner and the Republicans a pathway to yes on taxes, the Republicans must do the same on entitlement reform and that starts with letting the issue of Obamacare and Republican repeal end. If Republicans want anything on Social Security, they'll have to stop threatening Obamacare and just work with it. Because Republicans are usually better negotiators, especially when they're in the minority, they could get a year increase of eligibility on Social Security simply to stop threatening repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Again, the point is that there are many entry ways to getting a deal done, and all they have to do is remember that in America we remember to hold the door open for each other.
Guest List:
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Rep.
Gregory Meeks (D-NY), and Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep.
Peter King (R-NY).
Documentary filmmaker and historian Ken Burns; Vice Chair of the
National Republican Senatorial Committee, Carly Fiorina; MSNBC’s Al
Sharpton; New York Times columnist David Brooks; and NBC’s Andrea
Mitchell.
One more thing: In the discussion with reference to the film Lincoln, Ken Burns did talk about something that is certainly worth noting and that is the issue of race in America. No pithy nor solemn statement from this column can serve as an adequate statement of justice, figuratively or literally, on the issue of race except to say the mere acknowledgement that it is still an issue is one moment closer to it ceasing to be an issue.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
11.18.12: Not Enough Time
David Gregory summed it up accurately today at the end of the program that they needed a second hour to cover everything that is going on with General Petraeus, Libya, the fiscal cliff, the future of the GOP, and not least of all the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians that is exponentially getting worse as we write this column.
In cutting to the quick of foreign policy matters, there are few sources better that Meet The Press can tap as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who quickly outlined that this conflict is very beneficial for Iran, of course, and Syria who is now escaping world scrutiny. The President has said that the United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself (and they do), but what we're about to see is a ground campaign against against the Palestinians. It's assured because the Netanyahu government will not negotiate with Hamas especially since they are lobbing Iranian rockets into Tel Aviv. Because of all this, analysts are saying that the peace process will be set back years and years. If a ground campaign does in fact happen, the peace process will come in the form of a cease fire with the Palestinians calling for mercy. The reason is that the proxy players in the region will be loath to become directly involved. If Egypt lead by the Muslim Brotherhood becomes directly involved, they're aid from the U.S. will be immediately cut as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) warned. This would decimate their economy and send them into a tailspin. The result, however, will incentivize the Muslim Brotherhood to instill a more Islamic fundamentalist approach to government.
Unlike Americans, citizens of the Middle East region have a more long range view of history and the 1967 6-Day war is not a distant memory. Israel will exercise its strength as a message/reminder to the others in the region, putting Iran on notice. The prospects are ugly for certain.
What's also ugly is this politicization, as Senator Feinstein (D-CA) described it, of the tragedy in Benghazi, and we agree with Tom Friedman that it is NOT a scandal but a tragedy. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) raised some very provocative questions about who knew what when, but as fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton John Podesta pointed out, there is zero evidence to support the assertion that the White House was misleading the American public about what happened in Benghazi.
Look at it this way, do we believe that Condoleezza Rice purposely mislead the American people about WMD in Iraq? No, she was communicating the information that was given to her (VP Dick Cheney? Well, that's a different story.). We do not believe that UN Ambassador Susan Rice purposely mislead people about what happened in Libya - no more than we believe that Condoleezza Rice was misleading. However, we understand why the White House put Susan Rice in the position of spokesperson on the issue. They wanted to give her the opportunity, given the pending departure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, to be out front on a diplomatic issue. The fact is it didn't go well and now people understandably don't feel confident in her ability to be the head diplomat for the United States. The Obama administration is going to have to move on and nominate some one else for the post.
If there was a change in the language on how to address this tragedy as Representative Rogers stated then that has to be flushed out but our sense is that there are politicians, such as Lindsay Graham and specifically John McCain who have misdirected their ire (don't even get us started on continuing grudge that Mr. McCain still holds from 2008). For example, Senator Graham was putting blame on the President for saying that Al Qaeda has been dismantled. The President has never said that Al Qaeda has been eliminated, but it is a fact that they are at its weakest point since September 11, 2001. Mr. Graham would say that we shouldn't re-litigate the past, but let's face it, the Bush Administration's strategy, tactics, and instincts were all wrong after that day. And how do we know? Because everything they asserted to be true came out to be incorrect. Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right when he said that we need to shutdown this partisan witch hunt and fix the intelligence gaps. The finger pointing needs to stop because it is impossible for the United States to adequately cover every danger zone where we have diplomats, and the suggestion from the South Carolina Senator that the President delayed information for political reasons to win reelection is appalling, especially coming from someone who is open-minded and willing to work with the other side of the political aisle.
And speaking of the other side of the political aisle, Mr. Romney's comments about the President giving 'gifts' to the electorate to obtain their votes, in our opinion, has disqualified him altogether from the political discourse. Mr. Romney can no longer be considered a helpful part of the process. As Mr. Graham said, the GOP is in a hole and Mr. Romney keeps digging and needs to stop. Not only does he need to stop but he needs to get out of the way altogether because he has shown that he can not be a positively constructive part of the wheel to move the country forward.
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); NY Times columnist Tom Friedman; fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton, John Podesta; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
In cutting to the quick of foreign policy matters, there are few sources better that Meet The Press can tap as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who quickly outlined that this conflict is very beneficial for Iran, of course, and Syria who is now escaping world scrutiny. The President has said that the United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself (and they do), but what we're about to see is a ground campaign against against the Palestinians. It's assured because the Netanyahu government will not negotiate with Hamas especially since they are lobbing Iranian rockets into Tel Aviv. Because of all this, analysts are saying that the peace process will be set back years and years. If a ground campaign does in fact happen, the peace process will come in the form of a cease fire with the Palestinians calling for mercy. The reason is that the proxy players in the region will be loath to become directly involved. If Egypt lead by the Muslim Brotherhood becomes directly involved, they're aid from the U.S. will be immediately cut as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) warned. This would decimate their economy and send them into a tailspin. The result, however, will incentivize the Muslim Brotherhood to instill a more Islamic fundamentalist approach to government.
Unlike Americans, citizens of the Middle East region have a more long range view of history and the 1967 6-Day war is not a distant memory. Israel will exercise its strength as a message/reminder to the others in the region, putting Iran on notice. The prospects are ugly for certain.
What's also ugly is this politicization, as Senator Feinstein (D-CA) described it, of the tragedy in Benghazi, and we agree with Tom Friedman that it is NOT a scandal but a tragedy. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) raised some very provocative questions about who knew what when, but as fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton John Podesta pointed out, there is zero evidence to support the assertion that the White House was misleading the American public about what happened in Benghazi.
Look at it this way, do we believe that Condoleezza Rice purposely mislead the American people about WMD in Iraq? No, she was communicating the information that was given to her (VP Dick Cheney? Well, that's a different story.). We do not believe that UN Ambassador Susan Rice purposely mislead people about what happened in Libya - no more than we believe that Condoleezza Rice was misleading. However, we understand why the White House put Susan Rice in the position of spokesperson on the issue. They wanted to give her the opportunity, given the pending departure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, to be out front on a diplomatic issue. The fact is it didn't go well and now people understandably don't feel confident in her ability to be the head diplomat for the United States. The Obama administration is going to have to move on and nominate some one else for the post.
If there was a change in the language on how to address this tragedy as Representative Rogers stated then that has to be flushed out but our sense is that there are politicians, such as Lindsay Graham and specifically John McCain who have misdirected their ire (don't even get us started on continuing grudge that Mr. McCain still holds from 2008). For example, Senator Graham was putting blame on the President for saying that Al Qaeda has been dismantled. The President has never said that Al Qaeda has been eliminated, but it is a fact that they are at its weakest point since September 11, 2001. Mr. Graham would say that we shouldn't re-litigate the past, but let's face it, the Bush Administration's strategy, tactics, and instincts were all wrong after that day. And how do we know? Because everything they asserted to be true came out to be incorrect. Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right when he said that we need to shutdown this partisan witch hunt and fix the intelligence gaps. The finger pointing needs to stop because it is impossible for the United States to adequately cover every danger zone where we have diplomats, and the suggestion from the South Carolina Senator that the President delayed information for political reasons to win reelection is appalling, especially coming from someone who is open-minded and willing to work with the other side of the political aisle.
And speaking of the other side of the political aisle, Mr. Romney's comments about the President giving 'gifts' to the electorate to obtain their votes, in our opinion, has disqualified him altogether from the political discourse. Mr. Romney can no longer be considered a helpful part of the process. As Mr. Graham said, the GOP is in a hole and Mr. Romney keeps digging and needs to stop. Not only does he need to stop but he needs to get out of the way altogether because he has shown that he can not be a positively constructive part of the wheel to move the country forward.
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); NY Times columnist Tom Friedman; fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton, John Podesta; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
11.11.12: The Election Hangover
When it comes to the aftermath of elections, the word mandate is always the first thing to be debated. Of course, the winning side will come out and say that they have one, see George W. Bush's quote noted on today's program, "I've earned political capital and I intend to spend it." Never mind that he didn't spend it wisely, a discussion for another day. However, Speaker of House John Boehner (R-OH) has already come out an said that the President's reelection is not a mandate for higher taxes, something that the President has been pushing for for the past few years, heavily during the campaign, essentially a return to the Clinton tax rates - 39.6% for individuals' earnings over $250,000. Anything under $250,000, the rate stays the same. It's an important point that hasn't been adequately relayed by Democrats because it doesn't have a good soundbite quality to it, but people understand how it is laid out, approval numbers for the plan go up.
So does the President, in fact, have a mandate, which means he has the full authorization from the electorate to implement his agenda? Not really. What the President does have is clear and distinct leverage, especially when it comes to the upcoming fiscal negotiations. The President's reelection coupled with the Democratic gains in the Senate and the rejection of a number of Tea Party candidates, the country has spoken that the President's plan - tax increases and spending cuts together - is the course to be taken.
And as Jim Kramer pointed out in his very brief segment during today's program, a deal has to get done so that Wall Street and big business feel some sense of security in how the government will more forward financially. He has a point in as much as the country needs big business to do more hiring because without a deal, as he noted, they'll just lay people off. We find it ironic that Wall Street has the undying need to know that the government's finances are stable so that it can then go ahead to make risky bets. What that says is that the scale of fairness is weighted in the favor of business. It's just how this country operates at this point and that's why you hear some people suggesting that Mr. Romney, though defeated in the election, could play a role in the United States getting its fiscal house in order. This would be a bad idea as all it would do is give people second thoughts about their choice for President. There are plenty of other Republicans, more sensible ones, that the President could collaborate with to come up with a mutually beneficial, or equally painful, as the case may be.
Senator Coburn said that he saw more of the Republicans demonstrating what they were against during the election instead of what they were for and it was this messaging that needs to change if the Republicans want to take back the Oval Office. This may be true, but it also seems to play into the larger widely spread denial that the Republicans have about the overall electorate. The Republican party must become more sensible when it comes to minorities, immigrants, and women. Frankly, the Republicans are seen as anti all of that and they only have themselves to blame. If right-wing talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh are going to continue of have unfettered influence on the party, then their long-term prospects are dim.
The party perceived as the one of old white men has to modulate with the times, especially on immigration and women's issues, the latter of which was not discussed on the program today in depth, but everyone knows the depth of the hole the Republicans has dug for themselves - see Todd Akin and Richard Murdock as case studies. However, immigration, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needs to be addresses right away and comprehensively. Oddly enough, immigration reform in the long-term could benefit Republicans as well as Democrats if, and only if, they embrace the change because as Chuck Todd pointed out, the white vote in declining as an overall percentage, a big factor in the election.
In the post-mortem of the election, essentially Doris Kearns-Goodwin had it right. This election was lost by the Republicans in the primaries. The only moderate candidate, Mitt Romney, did emerge the victor but he had to go so far to the right because the others were so far out there that he could never get back to the center to make people feel comfortable. It's not the fault of the media or the Democrats; the Republicans have to own their views and understand that they were not in line with mainstream America.
Lastly, a word about David Petreaus, which in the post election hangover, it's one of those things where you're saying, 'Huh? What?' In resigning his position of the head of the CIA, General Petreaus did the right thing. We agree with Mrs. Kearns-Goodwin that it is a shame that a personal matter should be the demise of a professional career that has benefited the country so much. However, we also agree with Bob Woodward in that the CIA Chief is an exceptional position and from what we've researched, Gen. Petreaus' biographer may have had access to the Colonel's e-mail. Additionally, there may have been the potential for a blackmail situation, which can not stand for a person in the position of Gen. Petreaus. Great patriot but he has to go.
Rep.-elect Joaquìn Castro (D-TX); Republican strategist Steve Schmidt; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
So does the President, in fact, have a mandate, which means he has the full authorization from the electorate to implement his agenda? Not really. What the President does have is clear and distinct leverage, especially when it comes to the upcoming fiscal negotiations. The President's reelection coupled with the Democratic gains in the Senate and the rejection of a number of Tea Party candidates, the country has spoken that the President's plan - tax increases and spending cuts together - is the course to be taken.
And as Jim Kramer pointed out in his very brief segment during today's program, a deal has to get done so that Wall Street and big business feel some sense of security in how the government will more forward financially. He has a point in as much as the country needs big business to do more hiring because without a deal, as he noted, they'll just lay people off. We find it ironic that Wall Street has the undying need to know that the government's finances are stable so that it can then go ahead to make risky bets. What that says is that the scale of fairness is weighted in the favor of business. It's just how this country operates at this point and that's why you hear some people suggesting that Mr. Romney, though defeated in the election, could play a role in the United States getting its fiscal house in order. This would be a bad idea as all it would do is give people second thoughts about their choice for President. There are plenty of other Republicans, more sensible ones, that the President could collaborate with to come up with a mutually beneficial, or equally painful, as the case may be.
Senator Coburn said that he saw more of the Republicans demonstrating what they were against during the election instead of what they were for and it was this messaging that needs to change if the Republicans want to take back the Oval Office. This may be true, but it also seems to play into the larger widely spread denial that the Republicans have about the overall electorate. The Republican party must become more sensible when it comes to minorities, immigrants, and women. Frankly, the Republicans are seen as anti all of that and they only have themselves to blame. If right-wing talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh are going to continue of have unfettered influence on the party, then their long-term prospects are dim.
The party perceived as the one of old white men has to modulate with the times, especially on immigration and women's issues, the latter of which was not discussed on the program today in depth, but everyone knows the depth of the hole the Republicans has dug for themselves - see Todd Akin and Richard Murdock as case studies. However, immigration, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needs to be addresses right away and comprehensively. Oddly enough, immigration reform in the long-term could benefit Republicans as well as Democrats if, and only if, they embrace the change because as Chuck Todd pointed out, the white vote in declining as an overall percentage, a big factor in the election.
In the post-mortem of the election, essentially Doris Kearns-Goodwin had it right. This election was lost by the Republicans in the primaries. The only moderate candidate, Mitt Romney, did emerge the victor but he had to go so far to the right because the others were so far out there that he could never get back to the center to make people feel comfortable. It's not the fault of the media or the Democrats; the Republicans have to own their views and understand that they were not in line with mainstream America.
Lastly, a word about David Petreaus, which in the post election hangover, it's one of those things where you're saying, 'Huh? What?' In resigning his position of the head of the CIA, General Petreaus did the right thing. We agree with Mrs. Kearns-Goodwin that it is a shame that a personal matter should be the demise of a professional career that has benefited the country so much. However, we also agree with Bob Woodward in that the CIA Chief is an exceptional position and from what we've researched, Gen. Petreaus' biographer may have had access to the Colonel's e-mail. Additionally, there may have been the potential for a blackmail situation, which can not stand for a person in the position of Gen. Petreaus. Great patriot but he has to go.
Rep.-elect Joaquìn Castro (D-TX); Republican strategist Steve Schmidt; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
11.4.12: Steering the Ship - Barack Obama
Well, we have finally arrived at the last installment of Meet The Press (from Rockefeller Plaza in New York) for the election, and there is still some commentary to take care of and some other, be it important, housekeeping. First, Mr. Gregory asked both solo interview guests, David Plouffe and Eric Cantor repsectively what the political effects of Hurricane Sandy has had on the race. Can we just say that two days before the election it was good to hear these two individuals try and deflect the politics from it as much as possible. Mr. Cantor praised both Governor Christie (R-NJ) and Newark Mayor Corey Booker (D-NJ), a round table guest, for their work in the aftermath. There are definite implicit political effects from Sandy that were touched on during the panel - the President looking and acting presidential and for Mr. Romney a late stall in the campaign - both of which benefit Mr. Obama - an October surprise where no one can take credit. But for all intents and purposes and polls, the race is 48% percent for Mr. Obama and 47% for Mr. Romney.
And with that in mind, Chuck Todd outlined that the President will be in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio tomorrow and Mr. Romney will be in Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire. All of those states will play out thusly: Mr. Obama will win in four of the six, leaving Mr. Romney to win New Hampshire and Florida. Florida should go Democratic strictly on the Medicare issue, but the senior transfers and non-Cuban Hispanics do not measure up to what is otherwise dominated by very conservative white Floridians - think Alabama type of conservative - and Catholic Cuban Americans. In the post-mortem of the election, the Democrats will conclude that their DNC Chair, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) came up short for them. She didn't deliver her home state and the Democrats didn't really pick up any seats in the House. The Democrats would do themselves well to have a dedicated Chair like the Republicans have in Reince Preibus. We're not saying the same calibur as Mr. Preibus, who we find buffoonish and too fixated on lowest common denominator politics, but some one nonetheless who has the sole responsibility of trying to win elections, and not his or her own.
The 'Jeep' issue is quite contentious as mentioned on the panel but the people of Ohio know the score on that, and it is for that reason Mr. Obama will win the state. Wisconsin is conservative, but not when it comes to labor and their view of the federal government when it comes to funding so they're not ready to give the nod to a Republican. And despite what Mr. Cantor said today, Virginia will go for Mr. Kaine for the Senate and vote for Mr. Obama's reelection.
The consensus on the round table with regard to the impact of the first debate and what it may mean for the outcome of the race concerns us greatly because though it is a reality that Mr. Romney has made it a close campaign, in which his performance played no small part, it's sad that our collective short attention span now dictates a snap judgement on the candidates.
One has to look at each candidate through the broader lens and consider in the case of Mr. Romney his statements in the Republican primary campaign and then throughout the general up to and including the debates. For Mr. Obama, you have his record of the last four years to make your judgement.
It is within those respective contexts that we have based our decision on who to endorse and how the election will turn out. Despite our concern for lack of bipartisan consensus building by this administration, we believe that Barack Obama should and will be elected once again to the Oval Office. We hope that given his reelection, the Republicans will conclude that they have to make a compromise with this President, something they have been staunchly opposed to doing to the detriment of the entire country sometimes. More specifically, Mr. Cantor was wrong today when he said that Mr. Romney has a plan to better the economy. That fact is that Mr. Romney has offered no details, only platitudes in this area. Mr. Obama on the other hand does have a second term agenda, but its not as 'grand' it seems. We're fine with that. One thing is for sure in the American electorate, we talk as though we want to take big steps, but don't really want to take them. But you can't turn a cargo ship like a speed boat because if you do you'll tip it over, and the cargo is us. After the election it is clear that both parties' priority will be taxes and spending, which is big enough. We hope that the Republicans will also come around on infrastructure, which sorely needs improving.
We've discussed many times before in this column how the President's first term policies, to affect change, have to be seen through with a second term and we believe Mr. Obama deserves that second term. Despite unprecedented opposition and disparaging (many times racist in nature), Mr. Obama has had a successful first term. A country involved in two wars should not show bluster for more conflict, and the administration's tone has been solid, Libya withstanding. We strongly feel that a return to a neo-con type of foreign policy, which Mr. Romney would bring, is the wrong course international for the United States.
We do not want a pure ideologue as President so columnist David Brooks' endorsement of Mr. Romney because he is a more flexible flip-flopper makes no sense to us. A poor rationale. What we do want is a President that has shown conviction in what he believes and Mr. Obama's message has been far more consistent than Mr. Romney's. With that, it comes down to a matter of trust and who you believe can navigate the ship more effectively through stormy seas. As was illustrated this past week, Barack Obama has a much firmer command of the controls.
Round Table: Mayor Cory Booker(D-Newark); MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; TODAY co-host Savannah Guthrie; and NBC Special Correspondent, Tom Brokaw.
And with that in mind, Chuck Todd outlined that the President will be in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio tomorrow and Mr. Romney will be in Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire. All of those states will play out thusly: Mr. Obama will win in four of the six, leaving Mr. Romney to win New Hampshire and Florida. Florida should go Democratic strictly on the Medicare issue, but the senior transfers and non-Cuban Hispanics do not measure up to what is otherwise dominated by very conservative white Floridians - think Alabama type of conservative - and Catholic Cuban Americans. In the post-mortem of the election, the Democrats will conclude that their DNC Chair, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) came up short for them. She didn't deliver her home state and the Democrats didn't really pick up any seats in the House. The Democrats would do themselves well to have a dedicated Chair like the Republicans have in Reince Preibus. We're not saying the same calibur as Mr. Preibus, who we find buffoonish and too fixated on lowest common denominator politics, but some one nonetheless who has the sole responsibility of trying to win elections, and not his or her own.
The 'Jeep' issue is quite contentious as mentioned on the panel but the people of Ohio know the score on that, and it is for that reason Mr. Obama will win the state. Wisconsin is conservative, but not when it comes to labor and their view of the federal government when it comes to funding so they're not ready to give the nod to a Republican. And despite what Mr. Cantor said today, Virginia will go for Mr. Kaine for the Senate and vote for Mr. Obama's reelection.
The consensus on the round table with regard to the impact of the first debate and what it may mean for the outcome of the race concerns us greatly because though it is a reality that Mr. Romney has made it a close campaign, in which his performance played no small part, it's sad that our collective short attention span now dictates a snap judgement on the candidates.
One has to look at each candidate through the broader lens and consider in the case of Mr. Romney his statements in the Republican primary campaign and then throughout the general up to and including the debates. For Mr. Obama, you have his record of the last four years to make your judgement.
It is within those respective contexts that we have based our decision on who to endorse and how the election will turn out. Despite our concern for lack of bipartisan consensus building by this administration, we believe that Barack Obama should and will be elected once again to the Oval Office. We hope that given his reelection, the Republicans will conclude that they have to make a compromise with this President, something they have been staunchly opposed to doing to the detriment of the entire country sometimes. More specifically, Mr. Cantor was wrong today when he said that Mr. Romney has a plan to better the economy. That fact is that Mr. Romney has offered no details, only platitudes in this area. Mr. Obama on the other hand does have a second term agenda, but its not as 'grand' it seems. We're fine with that. One thing is for sure in the American electorate, we talk as though we want to take big steps, but don't really want to take them. But you can't turn a cargo ship like a speed boat because if you do you'll tip it over, and the cargo is us. After the election it is clear that both parties' priority will be taxes and spending, which is big enough. We hope that the Republicans will also come around on infrastructure, which sorely needs improving.
We've discussed many times before in this column how the President's first term policies, to affect change, have to be seen through with a second term and we believe Mr. Obama deserves that second term. Despite unprecedented opposition and disparaging (many times racist in nature), Mr. Obama has had a successful first term. A country involved in two wars should not show bluster for more conflict, and the administration's tone has been solid, Libya withstanding. We strongly feel that a return to a neo-con type of foreign policy, which Mr. Romney would bring, is the wrong course international for the United States.
We do not want a pure ideologue as President so columnist David Brooks' endorsement of Mr. Romney because he is a more flexible flip-flopper makes no sense to us. A poor rationale. What we do want is a President that has shown conviction in what he believes and Mr. Obama's message has been far more consistent than Mr. Romney's. With that, it comes down to a matter of trust and who you believe can navigate the ship more effectively through stormy seas. As was illustrated this past week, Barack Obama has a much firmer command of the controls.
Round Table: Mayor Cory Booker(D-Newark); MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; TODAY co-host Savannah Guthrie; and NBC Special Correspondent, Tom Brokaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)