12.29.13: Benghazi and the State of the World

As is the standard in Washington these days, it turns out that both sides (Democrats and Republicans respectively) were wrong on what happened in Benghazi, Libya.  As The New York Times reported today, the attack in Benghazi was neither the work of Al Qaeda nor was it spontaneous in nature. 

The former Secretary to the UN, now National Security Adviser, Susan Rice's notorious battery of interviews in which she said that the attack was motivated by a video that insulted Islam turns out to be true according to the report.  However, local militias certainly planned and coordinated it as opposed to being a spontaneous event. This incorrect second part speaks to the Administration's (of which Ms. Rice was a spokesperson) misreading of the overall security situation not only in Benghazi but in all of Libya and that is not to be taken lightly.  Never mind that it was obvious to the locals that the mission in Benghazi was a CIA outpost instead of a diplomatic U.S. mission - spies exposed are obviously vulnerable, any movie would tell you that.

We're not as apologist as Mr. Gregory in citing early stages and fog-of-war reasons for getting the information wrong because it puts into question the validity and trustworthiness of the statements, but there is a disparity between the time it takes to get the information correct and when it needs to be delivered.  The Administration had to speak before it had all the facts.

On the other hand, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) sat in the studio contesting the report's investigated conclusion that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack.  We did not expect Mr. Issa to reverse his position after holding extensive hearing on the matter of whether the terrorist organization was behind the attack that occurred on September 11th, 2012, in which he concluded before the hearings were even held that they were responsible, the video played no part and that there was a cover-up at the highest level of government - opinions that he maintained this morning. 

"No chance" were the words that David Kirkpatrick, who reported the story for The Times, used for the claim that Al Qaeda was involved, but Mr. Issa seems to only want to see the select facts that support his interpreted conclusion, and this morning dismissing the report as after-the-fact and therefore not accurate. Not to dishonor the memory of those who died in Benghazi, but Mr. Issa's partisanship is so blind that when the date of September 11th is uttered, he immediately thinks 2012 instead of 2001.  That's not to say that the date was coincidental, but more like convenient.  Benghazi should have never been a partisan issue, but he contributed to it being one more than anyone else.  We agree with Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) that Mr. Issa created an unnecessary distraction for a year, but he shouldn't have used the word 'crusade' to describe Mr. Issa's position.  Of all words, it perpetuates our cultural insensitivity to Islam.  Not realizing the historical significance of that word for Muslims speaks to the underestimation of the reaction to a video that insults Islam, something Mr. Issa said the Administration used as a talking point.  

It was a local terrorist attack on a poorly disguised and defended CIA outpost, but not an Al Qaeda one as Mr. Issa has claimed.  This is a clear illustration of both sides acting of the consequences of political prosecution instead of what they should have done which was simply get to the bottom of what happened and to make sure it didn't repeat itself.

Professor of History at George Mason University, Dr. Peter Stearns called Washington's political paralysis an embarrassment to the United States around the world.  Well, so is the way our political leaders handled what happened in Benghazi, more concerned with political blame than the fact that 4 Americans died.  It's speaks definitively to the round table's discussion about the 'state of the world' in 2014 and the position of the United States.

Despite all the in-fighting, the United States is in relatively good economic shape comparatively to many other countries, and this is what the U.S. should leverage more for influence.  That along with robust diplomacy is the boldness that the panel was referring to.  As other countries advance, Robin Wright mentioned Brazil and Iran, they'll want a say in a more and more integrated world economy that's why in the long game, it's smart to engage Iran. Image 10 to 15 years from now, Iran potentially being a reliable market for American products.

However, where the U.S. falls short with Iranian diplomacy is not thinking more regionally, and what we mean is also openly discussing Iran's proxy army called Hezbollah and the funding for it.  That would be bold diplomacy, something we believe Secretary Kerry is capable of.  Let's face it, if Hezbollah weren't involved in the Syrian civil war, there would be a lot more clarity on a quicker outcome.

The Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Elliott Abrams, said the U.S. is receding in the Middle East and it would seem that way with the Saudis and Egyptians becoming more and more indifferent toward U.S. relations.  However, we see it more of a regrouping while changing strategy in the region.  For the past decade-plus, we've been lighting it up militarily and where has it gotten us?  Beside, what have the Saudis given the United States lately?  Some would answer, 15 of 19. 

But that's not the answer, the Saudis have given the U.S. the leverage to get everyone to the table.  Should the U.S. trust the Saudis; perhaps not but they also shouldn't let the alliance drift and instead use it diplomatically to achieve first a civil coexistence in the region before you can even discuss sustained peace.

The issue of income inequality not only in the U.S. but throughout the world will become an even bigger issue in 2014 than it started to be this year.  In The New York Times Benghazi article, there is even mention that the attack was also motivated, be it a small part, by the reluctance of American business investment.  Economic opportunity or the lack thereof plays at the core of tragedy and it took Pope Francis to bring it front and center. 

The other issue that will continue to grow in stature in terms of global debate will be surveillance. Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union who also serves as Edward Snowden's legal advisor pointed out the one for sure thing that Mr. Snowden got right, which was that he brought the American people into the conversation; it's how he 'won.'  Also, Mr. Wizner made the important distinction between the Constitutionality of surveilling one American versus all of them, which we should all keep in mind.

Despite what Justice William Pauley of the U.S. District Court ruled, it's clear to a majority of Americans that the NSA has run amok, and something has to be done to curtail unchecked surveillance power. 

With all this talk about being down economically and big brother continually looking over your shoulder, we're optimist for 2014 because we are in fact collectively more in the know about these major issues and having more information about something always leads to a positive.

Happy New Year


Round Table: Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Elliott Abrams; Woodrow Wilson Center Senior Fellow Robin Wright; Provost and Professor of History at George Mason University, Dr. Peter Stearns 

12.22.13: Managing Healthcare and the NSA

Rationality creates certainty and from the interview with the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde, certainty is what the world economy is relieved to see from a U.S. Congress that acted rationally when it created a bi-partisan budget deal. 

As the world's richest country (the economic leader), the United States has to eliminate fear, as Ms. Lagarde put it even though as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) noted Congress agreed to raise spending and raise taxes in this budget deal.  If you're a conservative that sounds bad, but remember that the budget deal has net deficit reduction.  Also, Congress working together along with the Fed buying less and less debt are indicators, as Ms. Lagarde noted leads to predictions of a stronger 2014 economically because it will lead to corporations investing and hiring more.  In the United States, the last economic quarter showed a 4.1% growth and unemployment is at a 5-year low at 7% (still not good enough).

Anecdotally, there is Senator Jim Imhofe (R-OK) who recently, tragically lost a son in a plane crash.  This column rarely agrees with Mr. Imhofe's policy positions, but he has our sincerely condolences.  In the interview, Mr. Imhofe said that he might get in trouble for saying so, but admitted that more of his Democratic colleagues reached out to him than did Republicans.  A sad byproduct from a sad story is that this is 'surprising.'  But what Mr. Imhofe concluded was that listening to his colleagues on the other side of the aisle and trying to work together is a good thing; this coming from one of the most partisan politicians in the Senate.

It all sounds like good news with the economic indicators noted above along with a Stock Market that is closing at record levels, but these indicators are not applying to the majority of Americans or citizens of the world for that matter because the income inequality gap is continually widening.  It's a topic that United States politicians simply will not touch.  Republicans believe for the most part that it doesn't exist or is simply luck-of-the-draw and Democrats hate being accused of class warfare and don't have enough political muscle, which limits their desire to give more support to low-income families through raising taxes.

The United States isn't close to it, but there is a breaking point where the fabric of society is at stake as Ms. Lagarde said.  You see already happening now in many countries where civil society is breaking down because of lack of economic opportunity and furthermore a fundamental lack of hope that it will get better.

Where Americans keenly have a lack of hope is in the confidence that the United States can positively move the country ahead in a competent and trustworthy manner.  When we say 'competent,' think healthcare, and for 'trustworthy,' there's the NSA of course.  Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Administration has no choice but to get it right, but really the whole United States government has no choice to get it right, and that means that no matter how many changes need to be made to get it right, it simply has to happen.  As Senator Coburn stated, the government can not run one sixth of the economy (approximately 17 percent).  Fine, but it is the government's job to lower that percentage.  There was lots of talk of other countries' healthcare costs comparatively to the United States, and the reason that they are considerably lower is because they are government-run, single payer systems. 

That's not what Americans want, unless you're 65 or older and on Medicare.  Without single payer, you keep the insurance companies (the private sector) profit in place, but to do that you have to create a mandate to get everyone insured while keeping those companies viable.  As Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rightly noted, the individual mandate is tied to accepting people with preexisting conditions in as much as you can not have one without the other.  So fixes are needed, or a better option, which Republicans haven't come up with.  And given the lack of a viable alternative Republicans, like Anna Navarro, can not complain that an aspect of the healthcare act doesn't work when they don't want the entire thing in the first place. 

And as for the NSA, that is just one big ball of ugly. Just consider what Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said about the agency that collects all of our private data and conversations that a subcontractor stole all of their secrets, the extent of which they don't even know.  David Gregory noted that the Constitution prohibits the government from being put in a position of abuse.  This is clear where the NSA sits, despite Congressman Peter King saying that no abuse by the NSA has been found.

Clearly, no one is looking.


Round Table: New York Times columnist David Brooks, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Republican strategist Ana Navarro

12.15.13: Compromise and Privacy

Republicans in Congress are not yet ready to utter the word 'compromise,' but most have finally realized that unless they act in the spirit of that notion, their long-term prospects for winning national elections will continue to look more like a long shot.

The Washington Post's Katleen Parker said that there isn't much public interest in the budget, and nor should there be.  It should be something that Congress simply gets down without much fanfare. The reality is that it had gotten to a point where they couldn't even compromise enough to do budgetary housekeeping.

However, with the support of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Budget Committee Chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) anchored the creation of a bi-partisan budget deal with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). The compromise budget served as a small, but very significant, step in body's attempt to reestablish trust with the American people and elevate a nine percent approval rating.

In more practical terms, what is does do is eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown for two years, a legislative stick in the eye of the tea party caucus who no longer have leverage to irrationally tank the world economy if they do not get everything that they want. We get at least two years of peace as far as shutdowns go; call it a well-needed extended break.  Merry Christmas to us.

At the end of this clip, a reporter asks Mr. Boehner if he's telling these Tea Party Outside Interest Group to stand down, and he replies, "I don't care what they do," meaning that whatever they do, he'll challenge the credibility of it.



But let's not get too excited that this is going to start some new era of cooperation... please. We have a long way to go before this civil war in the Republican Party plays itself out.   The next major battle will be the Republican Congressional primary races in 2014.

Tea Party groups, as it has been reported, have heavily criticized the budget deal and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that 'as an American he could not vote for it,' something that Mr. Gregory had to correct himself on, because the compromise with Democrats was that there would be some sequester relief.

But in the end, the deal is a Republican win because even though it's modest. There is a net deficit reduction as Mr. Ryan pointed out.  This helps Establishment Republicans because now they can say we worked with the other side and we got more of what we wanted than Democrats did.  And Democrats should be more than willing to do these kinds of deals right now to help Establishment Republicans regain rationality within their party. Something that will move this process along that was mentioned by Governor Richardson during the round table discussion was that Jon Podesta, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff, has been working in the White House and communicating with Congress to facilitate these kinds of compromises, and to straighten out a disfunctional operation that is the Obama Administration.

As Senator Murray pointed out, Congress had created some much uncertainty in the business community with a governing-by-crisis approach that it rendered the prospects for real growth very dim.  With all interested parties knowing all too well of this reality, Mr. Ryan, under cover fire from the House Speaker, worked out a compromise.

However, speaking about what Congress knows and doesn't, it doesn't seem like it knows much when it comes to surveillance, spying, and the NSA's data gathering. 

Former head of the NSA and CIA, General Michael Hayden said that he agreed with the proposal to overhaul the parameters in which the NSA can gather information on U.S. citizens, but how do you put that genie back in the bottle?  He said that he hasn't seen any abuse in the NSA's gathering of information, but could see the potential for abuse.  The General is speaking in terms of what the courts have authorized, but what about the abusive nature of the intelligence gathering itself that has been brought to light by Edward Snowden?  A debate as to whether the NSA should have this authority couldn't have happened due to the power of the Patriot act so really there is no dismantling of the surveillance state at this point.  And to regulate it, legislators have to know the full extent of the program which they do not... Plausible deniability is political bliss.

General Hayden talked about the need for a discussion on the cultural understanding of privacy, but what he was really saying is that we need to redefine what, in fact, privacy is.


Round Table: Former New Mexico Gov. and ambassador Bill Richardson, TIME magazine Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker and Nation Public Radio’s Steve Inskeep

12.8.13: Nelson Mandela: Freedom and Equal Opportunity

South African President Jacob Zuma said, "Our nation has lost its greatest son. Our people have lost a father." Though he was solely referring to South Africans when he used the phrase 'our people,' we'd like to think that he was talking about all of humanity.

If inspiration were measured like gold, we'd all live in big houses from the courage and patience Nelson Mandela showed us.  No one who is a true symbol of something, never aspires to be such, but Mr. Mandela will forever serve as a symbol of freedom and equal opportunity for the world.

We can offer little, if any, insight with regard to the life of Nelson Mandela and what he meant to the world; we wouldn't to presume to insult your intelligence and diminish his memory.

But Mr. Mandela's death makes us think of the very essence of what it means to have freedom and equal opportunity.  We see the latter of the two systematically being replaced, or abridged, to only 'opportunity.' The lack of simple opportunity is chronically plaguing country's all over the world, and it's getting worse exponentially.  When people around the world should be demanding an equal opportunity, we've been reduced to asking for any one, equal or not because the notion of opportunity is becoming more scarce.  And if we keep going on in this direction, we'll bottom out in a place where we'll only have to hope for another individual to act and lead on the inspiration given to him or her by Mr. Mandela

Nelson Mandela
1918-2013


Postscript (a lighter note - sort of):  We can say that the song "Sun City," written and produced by Steven Van Zandt for United Artists Against Apartheid, 1985, is the best mass-all-star collaboration recorded in pop music, much better than its contemporary rival "We Are the World," which has all the genre-varied artist conforming to one structure whereas "Sun City" incorporates several divergent music styles to complete one generous whole of a song.

12.1.13: Process of Difficulty

We start today's column with something that New York Times columnist David Brooks said, which was (and we're paraphrasing here) that government can not run something as complex as healthcare, and that there are certain things it's meant to do, just not healthcare.  However, is it that governments simply can not do it, or is it just that the United States government can not do it? It seems as though the latter is the answer because in most other industrialized nations, there is universal healthcare.  In the United States, implementation is difficult because insurance companies have to stay in the healthcare business. 

With all the cancellations of policies, it hasn't been enough for the insurance companies to keep getting paid, but now it's also a matter of how much, and that's why it's difficult for the government to engineer a healthcare plan. Government is not going to confiscate your healthcare as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) emphatically stated. Insurance companies now have to commit 85% of their collected premiums to care, which means less profits due to the Affordable Care Act.  The cancellation of policies is retribution for that financial hit.

The reason that other countries' governments have made healthcare work is because they've taken the profit motive out of care.  The Affordable Care Act will eventually work and the eventual consequence is that the United States will either move toward a single payer system or to the eventual end of employer-based healthcare.  If you're calculating the American government as a whole getting more conservative (because of big monied interests) like we do then you have to figure on employer based insurance going away sometime in the future. Not in the next year but possibly 10 to 12 years down line is well within the realm of possibility.  Those are all the 'pink slips' that Congressman Rogers was referring to.

[And is it just us that finds Congressman Rogers' entire complaint about the sites security readiness a completely joke, or what?  Mr. Rogers, a former F.B.I. agent, endorses the NSA's data collection and surveillance activities - essentially spying on Americans, so we find it disingenuous that he would bring this up as a point of concern.]

It's a 'process of difficulty' as the Washington Post's Erza Klein described it.  Case in point is the interview with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York.  He said that initially the bishops and the Catholic Church were in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but now are opposing the Obama Administration on it.  One of the reasons the Cardinal cited was that the Affordable Care Act did not cover undocumented citizens.   When President Obama took to the House floor to explain that the undocumented would not be covered, he was famously called a liar by Congressman Joe Wilson.  It's a silly rhetorical argument that Father Dolan was making, but when in reality, it's all about birth control and limiting access to it for women.  Father Dolan eloquently reiterated how Pope Francis wants to move beyond those debates but it's clear that the Church does not.

Today's real topic was 'Obamacare,' and whether it will work or not, but if government can be an agent of change.  Unfortunately, the only one who thought government could have a positive effect was Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and sadly she sounded naive saying so.  However, when someone sounds naive, it's because the person is emoting sympathy, and in this case sympathy for those who do not have healthcare.  In today's America, sympathy isn't taken seriously.  Fortunately for all of us whether we know it or not, Father Dolan's boss disagrees.


Roundtable: New York Times Columnist David Brooks; Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; and Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent for NBC, Chuck Todd.

11.24.13: The Iranian Nuclear 'Agreement'

Never mind that "Meet The Press" is dark this week - good call there - instead of going dark next week after the holiday, take off this week and miss the biggest diplomatic story of the year. 

Iran has agreed with a coalition of countries - the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia and China - to freeze parts of its nuclear program for the next six months while a permanent deal can be reached. 

The other Sunday talk shows are blowing with debate as to whether this pause is one that is beneficial for furthering safety and security in the region.  The first thing one has to say is that any diplomatic agreement between Iran and the West is a positive sign, but beyond that we don't find ourselves getting too excited.

In exchange for lifting about $6 billion in sanctioned assets, Iran will agree to stop building centrifuges, equipping a 'heavy water' nuclear plant, and dilute some of its highly enriched uranium. However, during this time the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium at lower levels for non-military use.  All of this only serves as a temporary positive for both sides because for Iran, it's a small part of their nuclear program, and for the West the money is a small fraction of frozen Iranian assets.  Make no mistake, do not call this accord 'historic.' 

There is still much reason to be skeptical, not to trust, and to insist on verification.  Beside, if the sanctions were severely crippling then Iran would not have been able to keep building centrifuges and enriching uranium - obviously not crippling enough to have an effect.

Anything short of Iranian dismantling their military nuclear program doesn't warrant a more permanent agreement, and maybe the Iranians do not realize it yet but its in their interest to not have a nuclear weapons program.  We can't help but think of the bigger picture for Iranians.  The citizenry, mostly young and educated, have a natural inclination and acceptance toward many aspects of Western culture and have the intellect to create a balance between that and their own.  Being more integrated, these people will want a better life for themselves and the tide of this will eventually overcome all resistance.  And the West and China, frankly, each want the business. 

Given what we've just said about the Iranian people, we do not think they would actually launch or set off a nuclear weapon, however, Hezbollah would, and there's the rub.  If the long-term goal is to have better relations and have Iran rejoin the international community then their ceasing of state-sponsored terrorism has to be part of the overall negotiations.  Economic sanctions haven't stopped the Iranians from funding Hezbollah extremists who wouldn't have the moral intellect to understand why employing such a weapon is destructive beyond their comprehension.

And the 'resistance' we mentioned, inside Iran, is not going to go quietly meaning that hardline leaders do not want to capitulate to the West in any way on either support for Hezbollah (and Assad in Syria) and the nuclear question. Knowing this, its understandable that Prime Minister Netanyahu is condemning the agreement, but there has to be a first step of engagement that has to be diplomacy instead of a military first-engagement option.

A great agreement?  Certainly not, but we would call it a good act of non-denominational faith.


Also part of the even larger picture for Iran, is why would they, being located on one of the most major active fault lines in the world, want a nuclear anything.  Think about Fukushima [in Japan] and then think about an Iranian earthquake and a nuclear plant.  Just saying.

11.17.13: The Affordable Care Act Needs a Fixer

There is no doubt that the start for the Affordable Care Act has been a mess, mechanically and politically.  Going into the interview with Nancy Pelosi, we were thinking that she would say the things to clarify what is going on that the President doesn't seem to be able to articulate.  However, that was not the case at all on today "Meet The Press."

When you don't have a straight answer, the best way to go is to get technical, which is what we saw from Ms. Pelosi.  She spoke about how people who had plans before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, back in 2010, wouldn't have their policies cancelled, grandfathered in, if you will.  Most people aren't thinking back to 2010 when the law was passed and then signed by the president.  They're thinking of a month ago when the exchanges were supposed to be up and going as the real start of the law.  That's incorrect but that is the perception.

It brings to mind another point, that the worst premise of the Affordable Care Act is that it relies on the insurance companies to do the right thing, but in reality what they'll really do is examine the law to find loopholes and exploit those loopholes.  Nancy Pelosi said that the insurance company needs to issue another letter following a cancellation letter explaining that the exchange offers more coverage for a lower rate.  Why would the insurance companies have any interest in doing that?  They would not send a letter saying basically that they charge too much and don't give you enough cover so when you go to the exchange please pick us again.  It's not going to happen.  Also, if we're going back to 2010 to the initial enactment of the law, why hadn't these letter gone out sooner?  It's convenient timing for the insurance companies to deflect blame about inadequate insurance and simply point to 'Obamacare' and how seemingly awful it is.

And when the former House Speaker says that there is nothing in the law that says you'll keep your policy, as noted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, that doesn't help especially now that it is all we can remember President Obama saying about the law in the midst of a flood of soundbites.

Ms. Pelosi corrected noted that the state exchanges work very well, which is good news if you live in a state with a Democratic governor, that's just where we are politically.  But maybe that makes Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R-NH) suggestion about being able to buy health insurance over states lines a good one.  Give the 'red' states the opportunity to mitigate the ill-serving national healthcare site for one of the states' web sites that work.  Otherwise, Ms. Ayotte's one and only concrete suggestion about what Republicans would offer is a stupid idea.  If you live in New York and you buy an insurance plan in Alaska because its cheaper, you can pretty much guarantee that your doctor will be 'out of network.'

Other than that, Ms. Ayotte, very indicative of Republicans at large, had no alternative solutions to insure more Americans and curb costs.  Doing a 'time out' on the Healthcare Law is not an alternative idea; that's a vote for nothing.  The Republicans would be wise to offer a series of amendments, 'fixes,' to the law and this way, they can get some things they want out of it while politically looking like the compromising problem solvers.  However, Republican political ranks are so fixated on ideological purity and opposition that they will not take that tact.

The bottom line is if the Affordable Care Act is going to work, the web site has to work.  As Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor, Daniel Henninger, and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein agreed, with younger adults relying on and relating to connectivity, if the web site doesn't work, you will not have their support, they will not sign up, and then it's a complete disaster. 

And we appreciate that Mr. Obama is willing to take responsibility for this disastrous role out, but it is very indicative of Chris Matthews' point that the Administration doesn't have a chain of command; not his cabinet but his White House Staff.  Who in the Administration can the president assign to come on the Sunday programs and make the case?  This only contributes to Mr. Obama's less than stellar performance and character poll numbers, which he could restore a bit if he were able to get a real 'fixer' in the administration.  No one is filling that role.

And speaking of a fixer, the key is fixing the web site, because once the people who have had their plans cancelled see the better plans that are offered, then the outrage will subside.  There will still be problems but they won't be for lack of communication.

We would also guess this an inappropriate time to ask about the possibility of an app.

*****

On this 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the perspective offered by Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is important to note because it was a particular generations' before and after moment, just as 9.11 is for us now.  One can not fully negotiate today's complexities without having the historical reference to put it in perspective, or so we'd like to think so.

Then the program went off the rails again with speculative discussion of presidential politics.  This was the time to further examine the President's handling of other issues, but this is a current failing of "Meet The Press" right now as they go for the political gossip instead of furthering examining what is important at the moment.  Viewers tune out because of this.  Tom Brokaw mentioned Mr. Obama's handling of Syria, and how the Russians basically bailed him out.  Why not explore that topic further.  What about discussing jobs?  But no, instead we have to hearing nothing new about Hilary Clinton's prospects if she decides to run for president.  Mr. Brokaw also said that with three years to go before the election, we'll offer no answer here today.  To which Kathleen Parker quipped, "well, we have to fill up the hour," which pretty much summed it up.


Roundtable: NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews.

11.10.13: Stay Firm At The Table with Iran/ Chris Christie

The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in a prerecorded interview that he did not get the sense that the Iranians were playing games at the negotiating table. However, it apparently seems as though they were, with Mr. Gregory reporting before the interview that the Iran President Hassan Rouhani stated that, in fact, Iran would not stop enriching uranium. Should we be worried about Mr. Kerry's ability to read the room during negotiations?

It's a bit of a jab we will admit, not to be confused with a criticism, as Mr. Kerry has overall acted on and defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy effectively, doing what he can where he can, a solid fill-in for Mrs. Clinton, but we do have questions about some of the policy.  He didn't have the knowledge of the Iranian statement, but that didn't render the interview an entire loss.

A criticism would be that the program is meeting the standard of its heritage right now and doesn't have the clout to get a live interview with the Secretary.  We understand that there may have been scheduling problems; however, they should have had a more in-depth interview on multiple topics.

Basically, the deal is that there is no deal between Iran and the West.  If Iran is not going to stop enriching, a decision by the way that Rouhani certainly does not make, then the sanctions will remain in place.  As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) noted, meetings about reviewing sanctions have been cancelled. There's the question of whether the sanctions should be ramped up even more, in light of the Iranians' decision, but if you have them at the table, punitive at this moment is not the way to go.  We agree, in sentiment but not in tone, with the Tennessee Senator that the Administration should not deal away its leverage.  Right now, you stay at the table, but stay Gibraltar firm.  Mr. Corker referred to North Korea diplomacy where the Bush Administration got burned in an attempt to increase normalization of relations.  It looked bad politically but you have to at least make an attempt, however with that said, the Obama Administration should heed that lesson amongst their attempts to increase overall communication.

We've been hard on President Obama lately with regard to his foreign policy because we see it as a blown opportunity entirely if he achieves no dramatic effect.  On domestic policy, there is no confidence in Congress and the Administration to collaborate on anything, obviously, so where the Administration can more effectively chart its own course.  Success is fleeting more quickly for Mr. Obama on this front because of daily N.S.A. revelations causing the slow death of credibility by a thousand cuts. 

Secretary Kerry did say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' which echoes previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... purposefully and prudently.  He contested Mr. Gregory's question about broader criticism on the Administration not exercising power in the region.  But that's not what we're referring to.  Exercising power for the sake of it is short term thinking. We're talking about influence and the long term.

[Note: The format for the program has been all over the place lately so we're reserving the right to not include a comment about every aspect of the program.  To this point, it seems as though the producers have lost a little confidence in their moderator using special reports (Harry Smith), book promotions (Joe Scarborough), and various news segments with Chuck Todd to fill up time.  Case in point is Mr. Gregory focusing on Mr. Kerry's Kennedy comment more than focusing on his answers about Iran. And why not ask about Syria?  We were almost going to fire missiles into this country, as the Secretary noted.  It feels like "Meet The Press" loses its concentration from week to week.] 

On Governor Chris Christie...

There is no doubt that the citizens of New Jersey like the way Mr. Christie (R-NJ) runs the state.  It would seem that Mr. Christie is a moderate conservative because fiscally he is very much a Republican and on social issues, he's liberal.  However, that is not entirely accurate.  Mr. Christie is conservative on social issues, but a Democratic state congress is responsible for that perception because they push a more tolerant, open social policy that overrides a veto.  This dynamic creates a political center with which most Americans are comfortable. Mr. Christie doesn't share the attitude of an extreme ideologues in his party that the opposition party is not to be collaborated with or that it's the 'enemy.'  Mr. Christie's success is the result of his pragmatism, unlike Mark Halperin's asinine gushing saying that Mr. Christie is 'magical.' The fiscal conservative/ social liberal (what most Americans want) is the result of a dynamic that consists of a Democratic congress and a Republican as the executive. As Ms. Kearns-Goodwin noted, American politics today consists of simply rooting for the other side to fail.  But if the other side fails, it's common knowledge that we all fail... or is it?


Presidential Historian and author of the new book “The Bully Pulpit,” Doris Kearns Goodwin; Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD); co-author of the new book “Double Down,” Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin; and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of the new book “The Right Path,” Joe Scarborough. 

11.3.13: The Mitt Romney Interview

The former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, had some harsh words for President Obama today, with a sort of 'I told you so' temperment to his answers, which in some cases was justified. It was a quality that Mr. Romney was taking comfort in during his talk with Mr. Gregory on today's "Meet The Press." He repeated that the president had been dishonest all along in his promises about the Affordable Healthcare Act in that people who already have insurance will not have their policy affected by the new law in anyway.  That is turning out to not be the case because what the law demands is that there is a baseline of what must be covered, and in many cases, the policies that people already have do not cover those minimum requirements.  The consequence is that people's policies are being cancelled and they have to buy a new policy that meets those requirements.

However, another quality that came through during the interview is that Mr. Romney, while correctly pointing out a negative effect of the Obamacare law, is that Mr. Romney would have not been the right choice to be the President of the United States.   Nevermind that Mr. Romney can not rise above the pettiness in his attempt to discredit Mr. Obama's entire second term as illegitimate because of this 'dishonesty' (a sure sign he is still bitter about the lose), but more telling is that he has never once touted the accomplishment of what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, getting 97% of the state's population insured.

Instead, he only stated that the president had failed to learn the [harmful] lessons of the Massachusetts healthcare law, yet never explained what those were. One of those lessons could be that the law actually worked, and as he had previously said that it could be a model for the country as the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (D-MA) said later in the program. 

What we're trying to reconcile from the interview is something in particular that Mr. Romney said.  He explained that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach that can work in the U.S., and that each state has to come up with a system that best works for them.  However, he went on to explain that if he had been elected president, he would have left it to the states but with the requirement that they had to find a way to insure all their citizens and not reject someone based on a preexisting condition.  By saying that, he's put a bottom line federal mandate in place for the states to follow.  What seemed lie a reasonable state is essentially rendered baseless because it runs directly counter to what his party, the Republican party, believes in. As we said many times before, simply letting the states individually figure what to do with healthcare is not a plan, and is not the answer. In the "Meet The Press" clip from 2007, Mr. Romney says in it that he thought the Massachusetts model - the individual mandate model (same as the ACA) - was the best one for the country.

[As an aside, we detest the whole political rhetorical game of repeatedly calling someone dishonest while at the same time refusing to say the person lied.  It's a semantic game that no politician wants to get trapped in, but it's also a clear illustration of not having any political backbone and no genuine leadership quality.  If you state that the president 'destroyed the foundation of truth' or that there is a 'fundamental dishonesty' with the American people, then just say he lied.  Those are very strong disparaging remarks, 'charges' if you will, which also speak to a person's character.  Mr. Obama hammered on Mr. Bush's political record, but neither man has ever said anything negative about each other personal character.  It's worth considering.]

With all that said, we're not absolving the Obama Administration of fault.  There are too many 'should-have-knowns' about the healthcare law.  For example, touching on something Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard said about any big piece of legislation, which was 'follow the money,' the Administration should have had a better idea of how the insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law to charge people more money.  In this case, covering mental illness treatment is a minimum requirement so instead of adding to people's policies and doing the due diligence to review individual cases as to weather there is a history that would dictate an increase in monthly costs or not, the insurance companies in a blanketed way cancel policies and require people to buy a new one.  It's not the 'right' thing to do, that we all know.  We also all know that the insurance companies probably won't do the 'right' thing.  The Obama Administration should have known this.

Another quick example that would run counter to what Governor Patrick said, which was that the Healthcare web site was a 'convenience.'  We disagree completely, the web site is essential.  It's the face of the entire program and the biggest driver of its success.  If you want the young and healthy to sign up, then you have to make the main method of this generation's communication, work well. Period. The Obama Administration should have known.

Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said that the president's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare - is failing and that it will fail while also looking forward to the day that he returns to "Meet The Press" to say 'I told you so.'  Despite the most probably truth of David Axelrod's rebuttal that Mr. Kristol speaks like a man who has already had good health insurance, that's not why we disagree with his statement.  We disagree with him because he roots for failure. Remember when in Abu Ghraib United States soldiers humiliated, abused, and tortured prisoners?  People blamed the Bush Administration, but that was a failure on all America.  When the president's administration fails, that means that the law failed which translates to Congress failing as well.  And that means we all have. Why ever be on the side of that.


Roundtable: former Senior Adviser to the president when health care reform became law, David Axelrod; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard; editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol; and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay. 


Postscript: Why the United States has 5% percent of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population is because this country has instilled a profit motivation to the prison system.  When private companies own the prisons and are driven by increasing profits for shareholders, the number of individuals incarcerated will only increase.  More prisoners means more profit - follow the money.

10.27.13: NSA's Long Term Damage to U.S. Foreign Relations

Indicative of how America can only focus on itself, the first topic (Obamacare) on today's "Meet The Press," in the grand scale of things, was less important than the second (NSA wiretapping and U.S. foreign policy).  In an age where information is the true power, the United States' ambition of remaining the sole superpower in the world is fully intact.  The newest round of revelations provided by Edward Snowden show that the NSA is monitoring and collecting information on French and German citizens along with 35 world leaders including the apparent tapping of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone for over the past decade. 

We should all just suffice to say that the NSA is collecting digital data across the globe, on everyone; it would be foolish to think otherwise.  However, ultimately this could leave the U.S. more isolated as it alienates long-time allies who will now be less prone to assist the United States in gathering information about real terror networks.  Trying to achieve peace and safety through distrust really isn't permanent proposition.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that the president should stop apologizing for the NSA activities as he explained that many lives have been saved because of their activities.  But what does that have to do with tapping a world leader's phone, especially Ms. Merkel's who has been one of the strongest allies of the United States over her tenure as German Chancellor?  Mr. King used a WWII analogy to explain why the United States should continue its eavesdropping spy activities; something that this column stays away from doing and here's why.  Mr. King explained that if the United States were able to monitor communications in Germany in the 1940's, think of all the lives that could have been saved from slaughter.  Maybe that could have been the case, however what we also know about the Nazis is that they cataloged millions of people.  Some would protest that the NSA is committing a twenty-first century version of that.  See the slippery slope an analogy like that presents.

The point is that the Obama Administration set out to regain the trust of our allies around the world after the Bush Administration committed to a series of decisions that left the judgement of the United States in question.  But the Obama Administration has not succeeded in its goal and has in actuality has presided over a period that has seen international trust erode even more.

In addition to the NSA revelations, this week the Saudis declined their temporary seat of the United Nations' Security Council, a protest over the United States' handling of the Syrian civil war and its outreach to Iran.

The Obama Administration talked tough on Syria and then they backed away.  As Mr. Gregory pointed out, people will be inclined to think that if Syria is 'defanged' of its chemical weapons, then the Administration can call its strategy a success.  That's a big 'if.'  With regard to dealings with Iran, the Administration must take a tactic more like that of say Vladimir Putin where it is willing to listen to conciliatory statements but only with the clear understanding that trust has not been established.  At this same time, the United States would be making transparent overtures to Israel and other allies in the region for deepening ties so much so that Iran gets the message.

The Obama Administration has been very good at capturing and killing Al Qaeda leaders, there is no doubt.  However, on the wider scale, the administration hasn't been successful in rebuilding trust and this will most certainly come back to bite the U.S. if it can not course correct, despite what Congressman King would tell you.

Where we have some sympathy for the president is in the fact that he's getting no help from the Republican party members, because of petty politics.  In a wired world, everyone can see the infighting of the United States Congress so people understand that the U.S. is having trouble speaking with one voice, and hence it renders the United States distrusted and unreliable.

In addition to not getting help on foreign policy, the administration and its disastrous opening of  Obamacare isn't gaining any friends at home.  We cut the administration some slack when it comes to the roll-out of the Affordable Healthcare Act because the aim of the law is to provide healthcare to as many people as possible while at the same time lowering costs overall, and that makes the law worth trying.  The other reason is that we just can not get on board with Republican criticisms because conservatives have offered no alternative, none at all. 

And even though today's panel was basically a frivolous waste of time as each member simply tried to talk over one another filling the air with empty ideological rhetoric, we do agree with Republican strategist Alex Castellanos when he said that if the Republican party continues to be lead by the 'oppose everything' philosophy of Ted Cruz - being the party of 'no' - then they will go nowhere.  Mr. Cruz has yet to present an alternative idea to the country's healthcare troubles, and going to back to how it was with costs continually rising is not the answer.

However, Mr. Castellanos was definitely not the point of reason on the panel, but the object example of why we should take what all of them had to say with a grain of salt.  Mr. Castellanos explained the Obamacare is the result of old-Washington philosophy that the government can create a top-down program and it will work.  He went on to say that programs work with they come from the bottom up.  It sounds real nice, but it's completely disingenuous when you realize that this is an individual who has been instrumental and a continuing advocate for trickle down economics, an economic philosophy that is based a top-down direction. 

Fixable web site glitches aside, here's what you have to keep your eye on with regard to Obamacare: In the states where they have decided to embrace the law and accept the federal money, is the program working?  The answer is that yes it is working right now like in Governor Beshear's state of Kentucky.  The other question that Mr. Gregory kept bringing up that no one could answer is what happens if not enough young and healthy individuals enroll - a key to the program's success? That's an unknown that needs to be considered.

We should take Governor Beshear's advice and just chill out over Obamacare. America is all about trying, tinkering, and fixing new things, an attitude that shouldn't be sacrificed because of the fear of a few politically motivated individuals.

The computer program problems that Americans should be most worried about are not the ones caused by Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health & Human Services but the ones emanating from the National Security Agency.


Roundtable: 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; former Michigan Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm; President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden; and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.

10.20.13: Republicans and Iranians

Today's "Meet The Press" didn't really tell you anything you already didn't know if you've been paying attention.  That's not to say it was bad per se, on the contrary as it served as a sufficient 'status update' on where we are on this road of  political fiscal foolishness we're driving down.

We know that the economy will take a hit and when Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo agree (two individuals with distinctly different philosophies on the economy) that the fiscal uncertainty created by Washington is causing corporations to continue to sit on cash and not hire, you need little more evidence.

We also know that the Republican party took a huge hit as well in its approval ratings for the shutdown because in the end their run-for-the-exits strategy didn't save any face, as it were.  Divided they fell.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) didn't mince words when he explained that Republicans didn't do anything but make a big mess, and then pointed the finger of blame at outside interest groups [read: Heritage Action] and individuals who took advantage of it as well [read: Ted Cruz]. 

Though this column finds some of Mr. Coburn's positions too far to the right, if the Republican party had more people that stuck to their conservative principles but constantly looked for common ground, don't you think Americans would have higher esteem for government as a whole.  But Tea Party Republicans have little interest for common ground.  Because of the shutdown, Republicans are in the midst of an internal fight for the future of their party - all on open display. 

Everyone at the roundtable had the same hope that this government shutdown would result in an reemergence of moderate Republicans and bipartisan solutions.  They all agreed that this episode has been a reckoning not only for Republicans, but the Tea Party in particular.  So much so, that  Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne seems to think that the Tea Party movement was effectively over.  That is just being unrealistic. As long as Ted Cruz and the rest can fund raise off of false hope, the Tea Party will have a presence. 

And as for the moderate Republicans stepping up, we have to first see them walk the walk.  Until a majority of Republicans in Congress can show that they can work in a bi-partisan manner on a regular basis, then license will continue to be given to Democrats to lump all Republicans in with the Tea Party types.  Now, it's all about their actions going forward.

Speaking of hard right conservatives and action, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has it correct in what he said today about Iran. There shouldn't be easing of sanctions until the Iranians walk the walk and take genuine action in dismantling their nuclear weapons program, there shouldn't be easing of the sanctions.  We disagree with Mr. Netanyahu and his view that military action is necessary, and his general Cheney-like hawkishness toward the rest of the region.  However, on this point, he is correct.  The appropriate reciprocity for doing nothing is giving nothing in return.  At the very least, the moderates in Iran are beginning to speak up.

The obvious point here is that taking the extreme position gets you nowhere in the end, which isn't something you didn't already know.


NY Times Columnist David Brooks; Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne; host of CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” Maria Bartiromo; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell. 

10.13.13: Holding Back the American People

On this Sunday, the 13th day of the shutdown, Congress is in session, which has enabled Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rob Portman (R-OH) to appear on 'Meet The Press' today, but given what we heard  they are definitely not earning their respective $174,000 a year salaries, which by the way are unaffected by the shutdown.  If any group of government employees should be furloughed but also forced to return to work and do their jobs, it's members of Congress.

By the way, he shutdown costs America $160 million per day, as reported by CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin, so there is no need to continue paying nonessential governmental personnel, as many would deem Congress.

In their joint interview, both Senators admitted that the two side talking was a breakthrough, and it seems as though neither side really understands how utterly ridiculous that sounds to the American people.  As former Defense Secretary and White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton Leo Panetta said, this is weakening America - at home and abroad.  Because of the shutdown, 56,000 kids are kicked out of the Headstart educational program, cancellations of clinical trials, cancellation of military training, 800,000 federal employees furloughed, fleets not being deployed and Medicare payments delayed; and those are just the ones mentioned on today's program.  And we have to mention the program's best anecdote of the day, provided by Judy Woodruff, that 4 out of 5 U.S. scientists who have won the Nobel Prize this year have been furloughed, only in the United States.

The Tea Party caucus in the Republican party initiated this shutdown with it's demand that Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, be defunded completely in order to have a budget agreement.   The entire Republican party altered that position a bit with a one-year delay, and then argued that the president and Senate Democrats were not compromising.  But today, Senator Portman did not cite Obamacare as the reason for the impasse, but instead shifted the argument to spending in general.  He did go on record saying that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced, and this column would be for that notion as long as they can meet this one basic criteria first: the presentation of an alternative plan, which Republicans have yet to do in any degree. Harold Ford, once again hollowly trying to play the voice of reason, said the president should negotiate on Obamacare, but there is no point to that if there is no alternative.

And if the real cause of the shutdown is, in fact, spending then why can't this discussion happen with the government open and without the threat of default on U.S. loans?  Even if you don't believe Senator Durbin when he says that a default will have a "dramatic negative impact" on the economy, according to the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, that's  what the rest of the world's top economic leaders think.  Economic growth, what all parties want, isn't only based on the amount of dollars on hand, but confidence and trust as well, which is established in knowing that Congress on behalf of the American people will honor the country's financial obligations.

Ms. Lagarde, in New York for an economic world summit who called the United States' economy the 'safe haven in all circumstances,' (there's your American exceptionalism if you were wondering) explained that one thing is certain - the degree of disruption and lack of trust would affect the world economy bringing on incredible risk and uncertainty - all of which is not good.  Is the United States aiming to have its currency devalued and negated as the world reserve?  Congress doesn't seem to see or understand the world outside its own echoing hallways, never mind outside U.S. borders.  Even if you find Ms. Lagarde herself not credible, she is reiterating the sentiments of the rest of the industrialized world.

That's why sixty percent of Americans say that every member of Congress should be thrown out of office, and someone should be elected in his or her place.  As unrealistic as that notion is, Congress should take the message to heart.

As Mr. Panetta outlined, everyone in Washington knows that the shutdown is hurting ordinary Americans and has to end, the debt ceiling has to be raised, and then there has to be a negotiation on spending... However, when he said everyone he wasn't referring to the Tea Party, the group most responsible for this overall failure to govern.  Frankly, the Republican party has to figure this out - their internal fighting (50% leans Tea Party and 50% moderate) is bringing down the entire country. Chuck Todd said that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker Boehner can't even bring a compromise idea  to their caucuses because the Tea Party 'won't go it.'

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said that President Obama and poor Speaker John Boehner were being driven by other parties - in the case of the president, Harry Reid and the Tea Party for Mr. Boehner, but we would disagree with that.  The fact that Speaker Boehner can put a clean budget resolution, with the sequester in place, on the table, and it will pass with Democratic and moderate Republican's support, but not Tea Party support means that the outside influence is disproportionately negative in the direction of the Republicans.

Every guest on today's program said they he or she thought there would be a deal this week on the debt ceiling, whether long or short term: the logic being that cooler heads will prevail, but you would have to question where those are exactly.  To be blunt, a short term deal just sucks. What that would mean is that we would wake up from the nightmare with the full fact that we will have it again.   Some could say that it will give time for Congress to work things out, but this Congress has killed any confidence in that prospect.

However, everyone also thought that if Congress could get past their stupidity, that the American economy is ready to take off; the American people are ready to go if Congress would just stop holding them back. This column advocates arguing, it's what keeps us all honest so when Democrats and Republicans keep arguing it's all part of the process, but not at the expense of the citizens you're there to represent.  President Obama is on record as saying that he would negotiate with Republicans on spending, but not under the threat of national debt default, and chances are that if the government reopens and the debt limit is raised, he'll concede to many Republican spending demands (outside of Obamacare), more than Democrats will be comfortable with, but that is a topic for another today.

In the meantime, Congress needs to do what they get paid to do - keep the government/ country open and paying its bills.



Roundtable: Co-anchor and managing editor of the PBS Newshour, Judy Woodruff; Washington Post Columnist Kathleen Parker; former Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN); and NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director Chuck Todd.

10.6.13: An Irresponsible Congress & the Economic Nuclear Bomb

Today on "Meet The Press," America's top accountant, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, clarified that the United States had actually reached its debt limit in May and has been employing 'extraordinary measures' to keep the country solvent for the past four months.

Savannah Guthrie, sitting in for David Gregory, threw hard questions like wrenches at Mr. Lew on the fact that the president will not negotiate with House Speaker John Boehner and Republicans at all on all on a budget that defunds or delays the Affordable Care Act.  This has shutdown the government, now in its sixth day, and now this irresponsibility is quickly bleeding into the issue of raise the debt ceiling, which frankly shouldn't be an issue at all.

Mr. Lew didn't have an adequate answer for the question, except to say that Congress needs to do its job.  He is correct on that, but it is not sufficient for many Americans who are opponents of Obamacare.  To those people we'll provide this analogy: If instead the Republican House Members sent a spending bill to the Democratic-controlled Senate that stated the government would shutdown and we'd default on our debt if you did not defund Social Security, most everyone especially seniors would be outraged, yelling expletives at legislators.  But Social Security isn't perfect, one could say and therefore has to be eliminated.  To that, people would say 'just fix it then.'  It's the same with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which has now been enacted (more on this in a minute).

What was equally disappointing is that Mr. Lew had no answer when it came to how crappy the roll out of the program has been with healthcare.gov being down for most all of this first week.  Totally unacceptable. This is President Obama's legacy piece of legislation, we all know what date it starts, yet when it's time to hit the gas, the engine stalls out... wah wah....  How can a country with a computer spying agency like the NSA possibly not have the capability of creating the web site expecting a huge amount of traffic on a daily basis?  Not good, and it certainly helps add fuel to the fire of Mr. Obama's opponents.  At least during the roundtable, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D-OH) didn't spin the fact that it has been disappointing, to say the very least.

However...

As we've said before, the president should not negotiate on the Affordable Care Act.  The genie is out of the bottle, the program is operational, no matter how bad a start, so at this point the Affordable Care Act is equal to Social Security.  If Republicans want to cut spending that's fine, but they'll have to find other places from which to rid dollars, which Democrats have agreed to in the form of the sequester totaling $150 billion over ten years.

Republicans do know this, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) knows this, who also had difficulty answering Ms. Guthrie's  direct questions.  Mr. Paul is clever, especially when he explained that the budget is a series of appropriation bills and that Republicans are voting to pass all of them except for one.  When phrased like that, it sounds reasonable, but that's not how it works, something the Senator also knows.  Yes, the budget consists of a series of appropriation bills, but all of these bills have to be resolved in both Houses of Congress, hence they are passed all together as one.  Cliche and true, you can not cherry pick which parts of the government you can fund based on one's personal taste, despite what The National Review's Rich Lowry would tell you.

Mr. Paul also said that the United States' credit was downgraded by Standard & Poor's because the country carries too much debt, which is not completely accurate.  It had been assessed that yes, in fact, the U.S. does carry too much debt, but the reason for the downgrade was because of the unpredictability of the current Congress to responsibly continue to pay the bills.

Half way through the interview, Senator Paul stopped answering questions and just continually threw blame at President Obama and Senator Reid.  There's plenty of blame to go around for this mess, but two things with that; 1, the American people have it right to put more of it on Republicans and 2, how disingenuous is it when you keep repeating the same answer on the program ("President Obama won't compromise.") immediately after your shown a video of yourself telling someone else to just keep repeating yourself?  This appallingly illustrates your attitude toward to the intelligence quotient of the American people, who also have it right in not using a shutdown as a negotiating tactic, as Republican strategist Mike Murphy later pointed out.




Something like this prompts Ms. Guthrie to ask, "Do you have any idea how disgusted the American people are at these antics?"

Senator Ted Cruz obviously has no idea and/or simply doesn't care, whereas Senator Paul does but simply chooses to compartmentalize it.  And as for Speaker John Boehner, he knows but is in denial.  Mr. Boehner could bring a clean spending bill to the floor of the House without taking the Affordable Heathcare Act hostage and it would pass because of the silent majority of moderate Republicans, but he won't.  And the reason is that Mr. Boehner knows if he sides with the moderates, he'll be run out of Washington like Newt Gingrich was in 1996, with the Tea Party leading the charge.

Then you read an article like this in today's New York Times that explains how this shutdown has been months in the planning by Conservative groups simply due to their hatred of the Affordable Care Act and are troubled: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?hp&_r=0

As NPR's Steve Inskeep explained, Mr. Boehner and Republicans misjudged the Democrats, who are actually cting like Republicans in their show of unity, thinking that they would fold.  Ultimately, Tea Party Republicans back by their donors (see above article link) who represent three percent of all Americans are going cause the country to go into seriously dangerous uncharted territory by potentially defaulting on our national debt. 

Mr. Lew quoted Ronald Reagan in how bad it would be to default on our debt - 'impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate.'  Clumsy as he did it, Mr. Lew clearly illustrated that it's been the consensus amongst politicians and business leaders for the last 30 years  - that the United States should never even be this close to default.  Is the United States really going to drop a potential economic nuclear bomb on itself? If John Boehner continues to let the Tea Party control the button, it could certainly happen.



Roundtable: Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH); Republican strategist Mike Murphy; Host of NPR’s Morning Edition, Steve Inskeep; and editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry. 

Note: We just want to acknowledge, as reported at the top of the program, that the United States, after a 15-year man hunt caught the mastermind of the the U.S. embassy bombing in Africa in 1998, - Anas Al-Liby in broad daylight in Tripoli, Libya - He was one of the Al Qaeda originals, with Bin Laden at the very beginning in the Sudan.   The reports also illustrated how the United States' military presence in the continent of Africa is only going to increase.

9.29.13: Ted Cruz's Weak Argument

Yesterday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted for a budget that continues to fund the government, but that delays the implementation of the Affordable Care Act for a year and repeals a medical device tax. 

The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), has already said that he will strip out those provisions and send it back to the House, thus creating the stalement, stare-down shutdown situation we're all facing on Tuesday.

Enter star Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Mr. Cruz needed to make this appearance on "Meet The Press" today because his arguments have required tougher questioning for some time.  He needed to explain his position (and we say his position because it is not shared by many of his Republican colleagues) to an audience outside of the conservative echo-chamber so we can understand his perspective.

However, in the face of these tough questions, the Senator, known as a skilled debater, fell flat in front of the logic of his opposition.  He explained the Senator Reid was being unreasonable in his unwillingness to compromise on delaying the Affordable Healthcare Law by a year.  He said that Senator Reid has told the American people to 'go and jump in a lake,' and that Mr. Reid's position was absolutist.

Mr. Cruz called delaying Obamacare for one year a compromise, but is it really?  No, as Chris Matthews outlined, the Affordable Care Act passed through the House, through the Senate; the president signed it into law; and the Supreme Court upheld the passing of the law.  Given this, there is simply no reason why Mr. Reid should compromise. "When is a law [finally] legitimate?" Mr. Gregory later asked during the panel. In this instance, Mr. Reid is doing right by the American people by not compromising with the extremists in the House and Mr. Cruz.

The fact is that far-right Republicans are going to bring us all down because they refuse to uphold law.  It may be true when Mr. Cruz says that millions of Americans oppose the law, but on the other side of that the majority of Americans (that would be millions too) support the law and think that it should at the very least be upheld.  We agree with Dee Dee Meyers who said that it was an 'unreasonable avenue to pursue.'

And clearly illustrated in today's interview is that Republicans have no alternative plan to control healthcare costs in this country when Mr. Cruz said that the best way to get health insurance is to get a job.  That's simply a ridiculous answer, because having one doesn't beget the other.  That was an appallingly cavalier answer that says he doesn't understand the reality of healthcare distribution in America.  Instead, it speaks of an idealogue with no real solutions.

Mr. Cruz also weakly tried the populist argument, quoting union leaders who say Obamacare is destroying employer-based healthcare and citing how corporations are getting exemptions; then he turns around and says Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) is an inspiration to him, essentially killing the legitimacy of his populist stance.

Why?

As a Senator, Phil Gramm, as the Chairman of the Banking Committee, pushed through the end of the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept commercial banks separate from Wall Street Banks which in turn created an unregulated environment leading to derivatives and credit default swaps... Yes, remember these terms... They're the ones you had to familiarize yourself with when the world economy was in the midst of a complete meltdown in 2008.  Well, Mr. Cruz is inspired all right... Inspired to bring it all down again because he doesn't believe that we as a country should try and insure as many people as we can.

Senator Cruz also explained that Obamacare 'isn't working,' and it's important to note the grammatical tense here because the law hasn't been fully implemented yet - that starts Tuesday - so how can he say that it isn't working?  If he's speaking about provisions like parents keeping their kids on insurance plans until age 26, more Republican households take advantage of that than Democratic ones.  Overall, the provisions that went into immediate effect - another being no rejection due to a preexisting condition - are very popular. 

Former Governor Jon Huntsman, who tries to be the voice of reason (and whose opinions are constantly dismissed by other Republicans), said that politics aside, the 17 healthcare exchanges that will start on Tuesday will be an 'interesting experiment,' but it's politics that will dictate the success of the law.  And what you're going to see is that the states that have embraced the law, will be successful in the overall goal, which is to lower healthcare costs across the board. The states that do not will see their costs continue to rise.

Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) stated the Democrats and the president want the government to shutdown to make the Republicans look bad... No, Republicans don't need help from Democrats, they're making themselves look bad all on their own.

No more delays and no more kicking and screaming - fund and implement it and let's see where it shakes out.  If Republicans don't like it, then win back the Senate and the Presidency and repeal it.  If the law turns out to stink and everyone hates then that won't be hard to do.  In the meantime, take your medicine.



Roundtable: Republican Congressman from Idaho Raul Labrador; former Republican Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman; former White House Press Secretary during the Clinton administration Dee Dee Myers; and author of the new book “Tip and The Gipper,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. 


Note: With regard to President Obama speaking with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, talk is good in a Godfather sort of way. Until Iran dismantles its nuclear weapons ambitions and recognizes Israel's right to exist, the U.S. stance is 'keep your friends close, and your enemies on the defensive.

9.22.13: "Losing My Democracy"

Are we in the midst of a democracy lost?  It would certainly seem that way and one can not dismiss Tavis Smiley's statement that if this country doesn't  undertake a course correction soon, we're in jeopardy of losing our democracy.  Maybe it's not as dire as that sounds, but one can not help to think given what was said on today's "Meet The Press" that the United States is headed that way.

Take exhibit one, the interview with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in the wake of another mass shooting, this one in the nation's capital.  Mr. LaPierre focused on the lack of security at the base and that in a post-9/11 world should have had more layers of security and more people armed on the base.  His other focus was on the 'complete breakdown,' he called it, of the mental health system.

He explained that if someone is exhibiting dangerous behavior, with or without a gun, should be committed and 'entered into the system.' Mr. LaPierre railed against the release of criminals in California, despite deplorable conditions caused by extreme overcrowding.   He concluded that American society should not allow these people to have guns and for ordinary citizens to arm themselves to ensure safety.

However, it's a false sense of safety.  One could interpret his statements to conclude that the only way forward is more incarceration, more confinement, and more registering of individuals, except for when they buy guns.  Mr. LaPierre's unfortunate view doesn't play to an essential American characteristic, an optimistic view of the future.  Instead, he takes the easy path, that makes one uneasy, and plays on fear.

Sandy Phillips, mother of Aurora, CO shooting victim Jessica Ghaw, said that background checks, something favored by an overwhelmingly majority of Americans should not be a hard fix, but let's face it.  It's not because public outrage doesn't write a big check.

The conditions that create the violence and mental instability are never mentioned, which brings us to the debate over the U.S. economy and the looming government shutdown, which none of the guests on the program seemed to think would happen.  Mr. Gregory asked 4 members of Congress and all of them registered a 'no' - Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

But a shutdown is staring us in the face because Republicans insist on defunding the Affordable Care Act, and will not fund any part of the government unless this is done, Additionally, they are threatening to default on the country's debts by not raising the debt ceiling also because of the Affordable Care Act.  Essentially nullifying the democratic process, they're willing to tank the world's economy because they, as the minority, refuse to enforce a law that was passed by the majority of Congress and signed by the President.  Not only that, but Republican have refused to pass any appropriation bills unless the ACA is defunded.

Congresswoman Blackburn said that 7 million people are being cut from employer-based health insurance because of Obamacare and that premium costs are going up.  Mr. Gregory correctly leveled that playing field by noting that in the states that embraced the exchanges, costs have decreased while costs have increased in states that have not enacted the exchanges. [Interestingly, more Republican families have kept their children on parental health plans than Democratic families have - a major tenant of the ACA.]  However, Ms. Blackburn should celebrate this statistic because the ACA is an opportunity for the corporations to cut insurance and reap more profits - taking away people's insurance while not increasing their pay so that they can still afford it through an independent system. Senator Lee said the majority problem with the ACA is the enormous amount of uncertainty, which is another form of playing to people's fears.

The fact is that you could twist and pull the argument any way you want but like it or not, the law was passed then upheld by the Supreme Court so it's the obligation of Congress to make it work.  And if Republicans refuse to do this, it will be the last time the United States jeopardizes the world economy on such a scale because other countries (the world community) will shift from the dollar as the standard currency of exchange to something else.

On top of this, Republican have refused to pass any appropriation bill unless the ACA is defunded, an prime example being the Farm Bill because in that bill is contained funding for food stamps.  They did come about passing a bill in the House that cut another $20 billion in food stamps, something that will never make its way through the Senate.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty says in part 'give us your tired, your poor...'  In America today, the government seems to be saying, 'to hell with those people,' and that statue was given to the us by the French anyway.


Guests: Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

Round Table: Editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol; Wall Street Journal Columnist Kim Strassel; former White House Press Secretary, now MSNBC political contributor Robert Gibbs; and PBS’s Tavis Smiley. 

9.15.13: No Diplomatic Break Through in Syria

Of the fifteen... yes, fifteen individuals who appeared on the program today to discuss Syria and the U.S. economy respectively, the only one to not offer something constructive was Republican Strategist Ana Navarro.  If she's a strategist for the party, it's no wonder why Republicans are in disarray and lacking in a cohesive, sensible message.  Point being, fifteen people offering commentary in an hour is a lot so why have any one superfluous.

Ms. Navarro's lack of depth of knowledge on Syria can only invite sympathy for President Obama's dilemma, otherwise known as his indecisiveness on the matter.  She had a few empty ziggers for Mr. Obama - commander in confusion, offending the Keystone Cops - but she had her facts wrong and her analysis was reckless. 

She stated that the Administration had agreed to a 'no force' policy unless sanctioned by the United Nations, but the fact is that the United States hasn't changed in use-of-force policy toward Syria, which is the right to act unilaterally.  And as we've pointed out in previous columns, arming the Syrian rebels, even if they have a legitimate sounding name like the Free Syrian Army, is not the right solution.  To reiterate what we've referenced before, which Richard Wolfe cited today, is the Mujahideen and what that lead to.  When Mr. Gregory asked Senator John McCain (R-AZ) what the United States should sacrifice in the Syrian civil war, he answers was 'weapons.'  Hardly a 'sacrifice.'

Too many points of view and no good solutions.  And the discussed proposed deal between the United States and Russia to resolve the chemical weapons threat is unrealistic at best, cynically manipulative at the least on the part of Mr. Putin. Senator McCain did offer a succinct analogous example of what the United States is dealing with, describing how Mr. Putin did in fact blame the rebels for the chemical attack in and op-ed in this week's New York Times to only later say that Assad has chemical weapons and will get rid of them.  And the deal calls for the destruction of Assad chemical arsenal with in a six month time frame.  An independent verification process to make sure all the weapons are accounted for will take longer than that.  And no sanctions.  All this knowing that Russia a nuclear power that since its Soviet collapse has needed the United States' help in securing its nuclear material.  Mr. Putin simply doesn't have the track record for ensuring a legitimate process.

Mr. McCain's hawkish stance on the situation is of the kind that the American people do not have the stomach for right now, reflected in Senator Roy Blount's (R-MO) comments that he is not in favor of military action. However, after noting the president's deficiencies as a commander, he mentioned one of his proposals, which he said was to establish a safe zone for refugees in Syria.  Noble, but how could that be accomplished without having soldiers on the ground to enforce it?  However, Mr. Blount is right to ask the Administration what kind of military strike is small but consequential because it is difficult to understand what that would look like.

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) in a mild attempt to give the Administration some credit, called the deal a 'diplomatic break though' with the caveat that it is one fraught with danger. Given its parameters, one could hardly call it that. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker in speaking about herself was actually reflecting the position of most elected officials in that she opposed military intervention, didn't know what was best to do, and was glad she didn't have to make the decision.  Yet, go ahead and knock the president because he hasn't figured it out.  New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's assessment was more sympathetic of the difficulties the Administration faces.  The moderator noted one of Mr. Friedman's columns in which he says its difficult to face down dictators in the Middle East when there is an absence of organized charismatic leader on the other side (difficult to continue deposing a Hitler without a Churchill).  Vladimir Putin would not be the guy filling Churchill's shoes.  It speaks to the point that Robin Wright has made before on the program which is that a regional solution is needed for the Middle East.  Traditional thinking is that it all starts with the Israelis and the Palestinians, but with a plethora of bad actors in the region, we're not so sure anymore.  As long as the violence in the region is motivated by religion, there will be no reconciliations.

But maybe, just maybe the Churchill-type figure in the equation is United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.  It's a long shot but if he can garner support from the Security Council members to pursue his call for charging Bashar Assad with war crimes, that would truly be a diplomatic break through the world needs.


Program Guests:
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Armed Services Committee member Roy Blunt (R-MO).

New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman; Senior Fellow at the Wilson Center Robin Wright; National Correspondent for the Atlantic and Columnist for Bloomberg View, Jeffrey Goldberg; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Round Table: Associate Editor at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward; Executive Editor of MSNBC.com and author of The Message: The Reselling of President Obama, Richard Wolffe; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; and Republican Strategist Ana Navarro.

NBC Political Director Chuck Todd

former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Plus, the top lawmaker in the effort to regulate Wall Street after the crisis, Fmr. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo.


And speaking of what the world needs, here's something it doesn't need... and Americans don't need, and that is Republicans continually threatening to bring down the world economy with threats of shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling.  Chuck Todd noted a poll that showed 44% of Americans are not in favor of raising the debt ceiling (22% in favor), and that the president had a lot of work to do to change these opinions around.  What that poll says to us is that Americans simply don't understand what the debt ceiling is, why it has to be raised, and how their Congressional leaders are failing them in correcting its trajectory.

On the fifth anniversary of the 2008 financial meltdown, Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called on Washington to play a more constructive role in economic stability by cooperating (parties working together) and passing the big reforms needed - immigration, tax reform, et. al.  Great sentiment but is he going to be the one to talk to the Tea Party because they just don't seem to be listening.

9.8.13: Syria and Chemical Weapons

"Once we're in, we're in."
          Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX)

"It's not our problem, until it's our problem."
          Former Senior Adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod

If you boil down all the commentary from today's Meet The Press,  you're left with these two quotes as the arguments for the United States becoming involved in the Syrian civil war and why not.  We'll add one more adage to the mix:
         There are no perfect plans, only perfect intentions...

And that's where we begin, with the interview of White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough who said that the Administration's intention for airstrikes is that they will be 'targeted, limited, and consequential.'  Mr. McDonough continued with the argument that if we do not act in retaliation against the Assad Regime that it will send a signal to other players in the region that they can deploy chemical weapons, or in the case of Iran (as the Chief of Staff noted) the use of nuclear weapons without any retaliatory consequences.

However, no matter how good the intention, the plan that Mr. McDonough laid out is far from perfect, and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) warned that once a tomahawk missile hits the ground in Syria, the United States will become a full player in the civil war, this being accurately summarized by Mr. McCaul (see above). 

The argument that Mr. McDonugh is making on behalf of the Administration is that 1) America's credibility is on the line if we don't act, 2) using chemical weapons violates a 100 year ban on such action (since WWI), and 3) we don't want to see these weapons ever used on U.S. soldiers.

Worthy arguments, but one flawed piece of logic on the part of the Administration is that air-strikes will effect the balance in the civil war, something the Mr. McDonough did admit will be a consequence of getting involved, but that there will be no after effect for the United States for doing so.  This will not be the case as Syria is not Bosnia and that is what the Obama Administration is thinking - that we'll have a bombing campaign, like the Clinton Administration conducted in Bosnia in the late '90's - where the country's leader will cower under the pressure.  That's not going to happen with Mr. Assad because he has strong outside allies, allies that would like nothing better than to see the United States become bogged down in another conflict to cripple U.S. power abroad even further, limiting its leverage.  Our credibility has been long established in the region already and military involvement in Syria will only further damage it. Simply, the United States is viewed by countries in the Middle East as a bad actor, despite the United States' best intentions.

Another piece of flawed thinking on the part of the Administration is that by making Congress a 'full partner' as Mr. McDonough explained, will spread the responsibility for involvement amongst all of our political leaders in the hopes that it will cause the U.S. to act in a unified manner.  Again, it's just not going to happen, and it's a consequence of the United States body politic being so divided on domestic issues.

Case in point, Rep. Pete King's (R-NY) stated support of the president's plan to hit Syria while criticizing him for not being a Commander in Chief as much as a community organizer.  Republican politicians who support military action against Syria don't support the way in which Mr. Obama is carrying it out.  In this one sense, fmr Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was correct that politics are at work.  If the president goes to Congress for counsel, he is seen as weak because he can't make a decision on his own.  On the other hand, if Mr. Obama acts without Congress, he'll be accused of breaking with the Constitution for not getting Congress' approval first.

[Some would criticize the president for not reaching out enough to politicians on the opposite side of the aisle before such crises in an attempt to build some sort of rapport, but what would have been Mr. Obama's motivation to do so when an entire political party has tried to delegitimize his presidency from day one.]

What remains after all this back and forth is clear evidence that Bashar Assad's regime launched a chemical attack against his own people, killing over 1,400 - there's not other way to interpret this video released by the White House.

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

"Heartbreaking," as Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) described it.

With sixty percent of the American people against getting involved with the Syrian Civil War and Representatives such as Ms. Sanchez saying that they fail to understand how this affects America's national security, why would the administration be pressing so hard as Mr. McDonough was today?

We agree with David Axelrod who correctly said that the world is getting smaller and we're all becoming more interconnected (it's not our problem until it's our problem), and the reality of chemical and nuclear (or even biological) weapons is that they know no borders.  There are some types of chemicals and energy that if unleashed, there's no going back.  (There are now reports that the Japanese are going to build a $500 million mile-long ice wall in the ocean in an attempt to contain radiated water from leaking out of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant. Stopping the flow of water in the ocean is like trying to stop the wind.)

Point being, we simply can not stand by and let a dictator like Mr. Assad use such weapons without the international community coming down hard, and we find it very telling when Andrea Mitchell reported that the Saudis are advising on a delay of military action to go back to the United Nations Security Counsel.  As we've outlined in a previous column, there are more options and ways to punitively punish the Assad Regime beside the United States unilaterally firing missiles into Syria, which would only make the situation worse as a result. Those options, such as getting Russia and China to vote with you through the United Nations, is more difficult, but the better way isn't always the easiest way especially when it comes to diplomacy.

The world's major governments, including the ones that support Mr. Assad, ignore the deployment of such weapons at all our peril. However, for military action to be justified, there simply has to be more of an international consensus, and we say that with the United States' national interests primarily in mind.


Round Table: former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Director of the Wilson Center and fmr Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd

Congressional Guests:  Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX); Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA); and Rep. Pete King (R-NY)