We can appreciate Senator Rand Paul's (R-KY) honest answer with regard to Edward Snowden and his mixed feelings about what he did, and we agree that the death penalty should be taken off the table. And Mr. Paul brought up a good reason as to why; and that is because Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, we know for a fact perjured himself in front of Congress when he stated that there was not mass collection of data on the part of the N.S.A. What happened to him? Nothing.
However, the notion that Mr. Snowden has suffered and been punished enough, according to Jesselyn Radack, one of Snowden’s legal advisers, is a bit too far for the simple reason that this is a choice that Mr. Snowden made himself.
One question hanging out there from last week is whether Mr. Snowden acted alone or not. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff buttressed Congressman Roger's comments from last week saying that there are questions about how Mr. Snowden knew where to go and what to do making it difficult to understand how he acted alone. However, Ms. Raddack did point out that the FBI believes that Mr. Snowden acted alone, and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said he had seen no evidence that he had help. Mr. Paul also said he hadn't seen any details of that. It begs the question of whether or not our Senator's are as fully informed as they should be, but that's a whole other topic.
All this speaks to the complicated nature of what Mr. Snowden has done, and we still contend that he did the right thing in the wrong way. We're glad that Mr. Snowden has brought this illegal N.S.A. spying to our attention, but we just can't bring ourselves to say he's a hero, not quite. However, what Mr. Durbin said just seems implausible to us which was that the N.S.A. program has to be changed so that it keeps the American people safe but doesn't overreach - practically impossible. There shouldn't be amnesty or clemency for Mr. Snowden as Attorney General Eric Holder said, but there's just no way that a deal is going to be struck if the minimum penalty for what he did is 25 years in prison as Mr. Chertoff said.
And where Mr. Paul has to be careful, by the way, is in the type of libertarianism he advocating for in the United States because his libertarian philosophy is what leads people like Edward Snowden to think that it's good to break the law, complete flout the government and then think there shouldn't be any penalty. You can't have it both ways.
Speaking of having it both ways, one can not disqualify Hillary Clinton from the presidency because of Bill Clinton's actions as Mr. Paul did. He said that Mrs. Clinton should be judged on her own merit, but then said that Mr. Clinton's past actions should factor in. Well, what is it? If he's making that call, then he would have to make the same call against Senator David Vitter (R-LA) who has announced that he's running for governor of his state and had openly admitted that he broke the law by soliciting prostitutes, for which he received no punishment.
With regard to presidential politics, Chuck Todd outlined an interesting notion that will be considered, which is if voters are thinking of the 'Hillary' brand (our word) instead of the 'Clinton' brand then she'll have a better chance of winning if she runs, which is very true because of the notion of looking toward the future, which the round table also brought up. Does Mrs. Clinton represent the future, being progressive enough for today's changing Democratic party? Of course the answer, as with everything, is yes and no. Progress in this country would certainly be having a woman as president and in our humble opinion, a really good idea, but it is also true that Mrs. Clinton is not the most progressive of Democratic politicians. This seeming conundrum is one solved by the 'party' that most Americans belong to, which is Independent. Both of those seemingly at-odds notions with regard to Hillary Clinton work for independent voters, and it speaks to another truism about the American people which that they are more socially liberal, but also more fiscally conservative - otherwise known as the center.
Mr. Paul is trying to get to the center but the way in which he's going about it will take a longer time than he has to be a viable presidential candidate. Instead of shaping his views to fit into the mainstream - the center, right of the country - he's trying to get the mainstream to see it his way. With that comes a lot of scrutiny; with scrutiny comes clarity, and it's clear that on many issues Mr. Paul's views are well outside the mainstream, especially his cavalier attitudes toward race in this country.
This leads us into what to expect from Mr. Obama in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night. In the wake of another deadly mall shooting, not to mention another recent school shooting in South Carolina, unfortunately the president will not talk about gun control as he had last time around.
We agree with Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy who basically said that this is the last State of the Union address that counts for Mr. Obama in as much as setting an agenda to get things done. One of those things will be immigration because both Republicans and Democrats alike know that something has to be done; it's more politically advantageous for Republicans because of their dismal numbers with minorities and Hispanics.
Another topic will certainly be income inequality and helping the poorest Americans. There is not question that the distance between the richest and poorest is widening rapidly but also just as important is the fact that the middle class in America is being thinned out. In this vein will also be discussion of the farm, which plays across the issue of the poor and tax reform as the farm bill address the SNAP program ('food stamps') and corporate welfare in the form of subsidies that go to big agri-business.
Contrary to popular thought, there is still a lot for the president to do and things that he can get done. Does he still command the stage, as Carolyn Ryan questioned. The answer is yes, but only if he decides to take it... without compromise, and that's not to say that he shouldn't compromise to get things done. Sure, it's important to pay attention to the laws being broken, but it's equally important to get laws passed for the betterment of the most amount of people. That's what it's all about anyway.
Round Table: Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA); former FCC Chairman, now President
and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association,
Michael Powell; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; New York Times
Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan; and NBC's Chuck Todd.
No comments:
Post a Comment