2.10.13: Death From Above Diplomacy?

Republicans sounding like Democrats and Democrats sounding like Republicans?  Well, not quite, but if you dissect today's program you'll see that it's as close as we've come in good bit of time.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) had to say what Mr. Cantor couldn't about the Virginia Congressman's position on immigration, which is that he is for the Dream Act.  He couldn't, for political purposes, say it directly but essentially that's what he said.  "Children shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of their parents," Mr. Cantor said.  That's saying that these children should have the opportunity to earn their citizenship.  Despite saying that he didn't know what the specific provisions of the Dream Act were, Mr. Cantor is for the notion.  Mr. Durbin did make the correct point in that immigration reform shouldn't be exclusive to children only, asking what about everyone else?  Unlike the budget, immigration is not an issue where you can achieve a goal in bits and pieces.  It has to be done big and comprehensively taking everyone into account.  Mr. Cantor didn't address the 'everyone else' part of the equation, but we have to give him some credit for at least taking a more nuanced and sympathetic position than his fellow Republicans.  We would not go as far as Mike Murphy did, calling Republicans who are for a more compassionate approach to immigration 'heroes.' Give us a break.

On the other hand, Mr. Durbin gave a huge pass to the president on his unilateral use of drones, very reminiscent of Republican hawkishness during the Bush years.  In fact, Democrats collectively have been quite conciliatory toward the Administration's use of unmanned aircraft in going after who we have deemed terrorist, among those are American citizens, with the vocal exception of Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).  Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed did not offer any vocal objection to the president's policy.  Additionally, Mr. Gregory did, in fact, nail down Mr. Durbin on the matter of federal spending, in which the Senator did admit, what many Republicans have been saying, that the United States does have a spending problem.

It all begins to sound a like coming together of the parties, but keeping the budget in mind, let's not get too excited about some sort of compromise.  Even though both guests, Mr. Cantor and Mr. Durbin respectively said that sequestration ($1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts as Mr. Gregory accurately distilled it) and the indiscriminate cuts that it will bring is not something they want to happen, they both seemed resigned to the fact that they will happen.  No one wants this to happen yet it is going to.  It doesn't make any sense, however, this is the course of business that we've come to accept in Washington.  And why will it happen, because "you can't be raising taxes every three months in this town," as Mr. Cantor explained.

Aye.

The tax increase, modest within the total scope of things, that the President got was the first in over fifteen years.  What they have asked for additionally is a closing of tax loopholes in the code as to generate more revenue as part of what is described as a balanced approach to balancing the budget.  The closing of loopholes to generate revenue is what prompted Mr. Cantor's comment.  However, you have to know that it was the Republicans in the first place that suggested closing loopholes.  The rub has always been that they have never identified which ones.  That goes back to even before sequestration, but on that, it was President Obama who came up with the idea that both sides would feel equal pain politically even these indiscriminate cuts go through.  Mr. Durbin said today that the president meant the sequestration to be a budget threat not a budget strategy.  That's a little less than a shrewd move, don't you think?

The President should have known the climate well enough by then to know that the Republicans, or many of them, would see this as an overall good thing, and then let it happen.  In all the talk about an inside Washington game versus an outside Washington game, this is clearly an example of the President not having an inside game in at least knowing his opponent better.  Granted the Republican party has become completely unpredictable as far as what moderation, if any, they'll show on any given issue, but the President should have also taken that into account.  Then again, even Mr. Durbin is on record as saying that he could live with the sequestration.

Mr. Cantor given all his previous positions, is principally for sequestration, but as Mr. Gregory pointed out, Virginia would be hit harder by it than any other state with the exception of California.  You could see the discomfort in Mr. Cantor's facial expressions as the moderator concisely took him through the grim economic statistics.  The BBC's Katty Kay, using her native Britain as a keen reference, noted that austerity was not the way.  And we found it very telling that the House Majority Leader would use the term, 'manage down the debt and deficit' because that definitely doesn't say deep or drastic cuts, but says compromise.

And here's that compromise - despite the hardheadedness of both sides and how they saw the outcome of the election.  First, you have to start with the acknowledgement that Republicans and their ideas were soundly defeated, hence all the talk and questions, including in today's program, about Republican re-branding.  However, Republicans still control the House and they're the key for the President.  The Senate for it's part, beside the occasional temper tantrum from Lindsay Graham; angry outburst from John McCain; or illustration of complete idiocy of Rand Paul, seems to be moving beyond extreme partisanship and are coming together of issues.  Mike Murphy said that President Obama has to do a 'Nixon to China' move with Republicans while Mayor Reed countered  that president should keeping digging at Republicans. Actually, neither have to happen.  Republicans should clearly identify what loopholes in the tax code should be closed putting the burden on them to raise revenue, while the Democrats need to propose cuts - here's the compromise in acknowledgement of election results - a 1 to 1.5 ratio revenue to cuts - this would be on top of the tax increase that the President already got.  This way, Republicans still save face that they extracted more cuts than revenue in this deal while also saying that they raised revenue without increasing the individual tax rate again.  It will all come out about even in the wash, which will subtlely suit Democrats. Overtly (to the public) the Republicans will see some benefits for their overall image, because no matter what, they're going to be seen as the ones to blame.  

This is something Mr. Cantor is beginning to realize.  He'd like to go with his colleagues, ones of the Tea Party persuasion, on the budget and sequester but it's not his reality - because of the information he has, it dictates he also must take responsibility.  That last bit was a paraphrasing of what Katty Kay said about Americas use of drones, but it can certainly also be applied here.

Which brings us to that very subject...

And Mr. Gregory's question - what is the [drone] debate?  Michael Isikoff, who broke the story, on today's program described it as one of legal, moral, and strategic difficulty.  It's all those things but it just seems odd that many politicians and pundits have given answers to drone use and the killing of enemy combatants who happen to be Americans that are conciliatory or noncommittal.  Today's program was no exception - Dick Durbin said the "policy is unfolding."

Mr. Isikoff pointed out that the language in the memo that discusses use of drones is very elastic in definition and open to many interpretations.  For example, what constitutes an imminent threat?  But when Mr. Gregory posed the hypothetical about the potential use of drones in a manhunt as is happening right now in Los Angeles, no one on the roundtable showed any kind of commitment.  Dick Durbin framed it as that the president was coming up with a framework, a legal architecture as he put it, for the use of drones with the need to achieve a 'constitutional balance,' what ever that means.  He's admitting that there is no clear policy, but yet the president has used drones strikes in abundance.  Mr. Cantor was complicit saying that the policy now is the same as it was before, referring to the Bush Administration years where he didn't have a problem with it then. 

Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, who frankly offered little to the conversation and came across as a David Brooks in need of Ritilan, said that President Obama's drone usage was a policy of disengagement because he didn't want to get involved with a 'messy' counter insurgency operation with boots on the ground suggesting that sending in a number of ground troops into an area is a better idea.  That's just stupid, not insightful in the least.  What president wouldn't opt for drone usage over the politically disastrous deploying of ground troops, especially now?

If anything, with the use of drones, the U.S. State Department needs to re-double it's efforts of engagement - something the new Secretary should consider.  As the panel agreed that there is a set back for our security with collateral damage so how do we explain ourselves in this context to other countries while trying to persuade them to do what we want?  One thing is for sure, we definitely need some oversight if not for anything else but for accountability because 'Death from Above' should not be the United States calling card on foreign policy.


Round Table: Democratic Mayor of Atlanta Kasim Reed, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush now columnist for the Washington Post, Michael Gerson; GOP strategist Mike Murphy and the BBC's Katty Kay. And NBC’s Michael Isikoff