Senator's Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) debate the most prevalent of topics among Americans on today's program and to paraphrase Warren Zevon, there were lawyers debating guns and money. However, the debate was substantive in that when you heard from both, particularly on the issue of gun safety, the effective of what President Obama is proposing based of Vice President Biden's task force is certainly questionable. Senator Cruz offered a lukewarm endorsement of the idea of universal background checks but was quick to point out that it wouldn't have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, CT, which is true, but would an assault weapons ban prevented it. Maybe, maybe not because what's to say that the weapons used wouldn't have been different than a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle?
Mr. Cruz was astute in his political rhetoric today in that on the gun safety issue, he stated that the 1994 assault weapons ban was the least success bills passed. There is little evidence that it did have a significant effect - that's true and what he smartly left out is perhaps because there were many loopholes in the law (what is and is not an assault weapon) or that the Congress legislated against doing studies on gun violence (something that President Obama has changed via executive order).
Senator Schumer was not on his game here, especially when the Texas senator said that the loophole of buying weapons at gun shows without a background doesn't exist when in fact that it does. The fact is, something that Mr. Schumer could have noted, is that 40 percent of all guns purchases occur without a background check. The secondary market (illegal because of the lack of background checks) is approaching half the total of sales. For universal background checks to be effective, those sales have to not only be checked but have to also have to be able to be traced back to the seller.
Rhetorically, Mr. Cruz may have won the argument but it wasn't without its significant exceptions. First, in response to the NRA's ad that talked about President Obama's children receiving armed protection and calling him a hypocrite because it doesn't endorse it for everyone, Mr. Cruz attempted to brush it off say that people can run the ads they want, but it's deplorable that he did not denounce the ad. He wouldn't bite on the question when Mr. Gregory pressed him for a second time to address whether or not it was over the line. Also, his reticence to endorse anything meaningful in the wake of this latest tragedy clearly shows through and speaks to the perception of Republicans' indifference to these mass killings. Additionally, in this vein, Mr. Cruz would not offer any insight with regard to Gen. Powell's comments last week on the program, in which he talked about the 'dark vein of intolerance' in the Republican party, only citing the vice president's comment address a predominantly an African-American audience about if the Republicans obtain the office of the presidency, they will be put back in chains. Mr. Cruz called that the most racist statement of the 2012 campaign, which is completely disingenuous given that many Republican politicians and political figures [read: Donald Trump] indulged in systematic coded racism for an extended period of time against Mr. Obama with comments of birtherism, 'Food Stamp President, shuckin' and jivin',' etc.
Senator Schumer, however, is correct in that there has to be reasonable common sense limits to gun ownership, and most Americans agree, because clearly there are too many guns in circulation and there are too many people dying from gun violence in this country. We agree with Mr. Schumer that we ignore the role guns play to our general welfare at our peril.
Speaking of general welfare, Doris Kearns-Goodwin reminded us that we can not project strength abroad if we are not in a strong position at home and that's certainly the case. If we're not careful, the petty squabbling in the face of a big debt problem will be our undoing. It was politically imperative that Republicans took the debt ceiling
threat off the table in general going to their 'fallback' position of increasing the limit for a three month period. Mr. Cruz was correct that the
Democrats continue to want the specter of default hanging out there, and
why? Because it's a political winner given the fact the it's wide
perceived that Congressional Republicans are willing to tank the world
economy to prove a political point - something everyone sees. Republican Joe Scarborough explained that most of the American people are not with Republicans when it comes to fiscal issues and boldly admitted that the only reason Republicans have control of the House is because of gerrymandering. To say it another way, they have to rig the districts because they're not broadly winning elections with their approach.
And the reason Mr. Cruz didn't comment on Mr. Schumer mentioning the McConnell amendment is that it gives the president to authority to raise the debt ceiling while requiring a two-thirds majority of the Senate to deny the increase is because hard right conservatives are strictly against giving the president that kind of authority even though it puts the responsibility squarely on the president's shoulders. This is just another example piece of evidence that the Republicans can not get together on their own ideas within the party.
We can not solve big issues when we're only tallying small political wins and losses, and our democracy is failing us if we can not come up with a long-term compromise. If we can not move beyond this, we will not move forward. The panel discussed the various ways in which the President, on the cusp of his second term, can improve the environment such as reaching out more to his Democratic colleagues as well as Republican. That would be the inside game, but Ms. Goodwin also stated as she has before that the president needs to use his bully pulpit and take his case to the people - the outside game. They make it seem like Mr. Obama is not good at either, despite getting a lot done in his first term. The reason the bar is so high for Mr. Obama's second term is because he himself set it there. As Joe Scarborough noted, the president's approval rating is at 52% while Speaker Boehner's is at 18% so he must be doing something right despite feeling that the President came into the White House ill-prepared.
Where most people feel the president has fared better is in foreign policy. But again, we have some intern housekeeping as it relates to foreign policy and that is with the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Senator Schumer outlined the questions and concerns that he had with the nomination and after speaking with Mr. Hagel, he was satisfied with the answers. Just on the stupidly simplistic surface of it all to a layman, it seems odd that the Democratic president would nominate a Republican and Senate Democrats would in favor while the Republicans would be, not just against, but adamantly against the nomination. Especially since that when it comes right down to it, both parties are ultimately equally hawkish. Mr. Schumer, in fact, noted that most all the antagonism was coming from the hard right, to which Mr. Cruz interjected that he had serious concerns about Mr. Hagel, basically confirming Mr. Schumer's point.
The reinforcement for all this politically squabbling is frankly coming from significant voices in the media starting with most of today's panel in their generally dismissive attitude to their colleague Richard Engel's statements, which we found to be the most significant of the program due to their sobering nature. When Mr. Engel said that the Chinese model looks better to the developing world, he was correct, but we feel he misspoke in making his point, which was that it's not the citizenry that thinks it's better but the people in control are resorting to that model because it's the easier route vs. U.S. style democracy. He noted the chaos that it has brought to the Middle East - Syria, Egypt, Libya. However, to be frankly, we're not sure if we agree Mr. Engel on his interpretation of President Obama's decision not to side with former President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak and its significance. He postulated that it could turn out to be the president's most important, which came under a general objection from the rest of the panel. But if you extrapolate it out, the point is quite clear explaining that the anarchical state of Syria could spark conflicts in both Iraq and Lebanon inflaming the entire region, which would include Israel taking some sort of direct action on Iran and its nuclear facilities, and us becoming deeply involved.
The greater point being, is that our Congressional leaders haven't even come close to collectively looking at itself in the mirror and making an honest assessment. Because if we did, we'd notice that fewer countries around the world are looking at and to us. Mr. Engel is correct in a way, they're looking at China's and it's economic strategy, and they're not looking at ours because we don't have one.
Mr. Schumer defensively said that the Senate will have a budget this year... that will include revenues, but whether House Republicans go for it is a whole other headache that awaits us in the president's second term. Right now, it's halftime America. Happy Inauguration Weekend.
David Axelrod; MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough; Presidential Historian Doris
Kearns Goodwin; and three of NBC’s finest: Special Correspondent Tom
Brokaw; Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and Chief White House
Correspondent and Political Director Chuck Todd
No comments:
Post a Comment