3.30.14: Politicians Pushing The Fragile Reality

Today's Meet The Press, guest moderated well by Chuck Todd, ran through a series of differing yet important topics, which we'll discuss individually, however, the phrase that comes to mind as an overriding theme is that 'politics is all about perception.'  What makes that phrase relevant to the discussion about Mr. Putin and Russia, Governor Chris Christie, and President Obama and the Healthcare law is that all three characters are big on the offensive right now, portraying confidence.  In observing their respective statements and posture, all of them are in a much weaker position than they let on.

First look at Mr. Putin, who called the U.S. president to discuss a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with Ukraine; the result of which is Secretary Kerry turning his plane around to meet with his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Paris.  The call between the two leaders shows that amid all the militarily aggressive moves from Mr. Putin he knows that he's in a very vulnerable position.  If the second round of sanctions that President Obama is pushing for with the U.S.'s European Allies are agreed upon, Russia's fragile economy is going to get much worse very quickly and in places like Crimea, such as in South Ossentia, they'll be thinking caveat emptor.. for sure. 

With that said, the negotiations that Mr. Putin wants are a stall tactic to put off the sanctions.  The Obama Administration should recognize this and impose the sanctions anyway. 

And before going on, it's worth noting that Rick Santorum's assessment during the round table that this would not have happened and that the relationship is in 'tatters' due to  the Obama Administration 'resetting from a position of weakness,' just shows his simplistic lack of depth of the subject.  

Mr. Putin played his hand in Crimea, and is using the military build-up along the Ukrainian border as an attempt the broaden his leverage.  Mr. Obama should now impose sanctions immediately to provide counter-pressure, and then negotiations should begin.  As former ambassador to Moscow Mike McFaul said, Mr. Putin can not be given the leverage to start negotiating other countries' sovereignty.  He phrased it, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."  That's the perception, but it isn't the reality unless the west makes it so.   When Mr. Lavrov says that Russia has no intention of moving into Ukraine, but what he means is that they will not move unless given an excuse to do so.

Another politician, on the more local front, that's also making aggressive moves despite being in a very fragile position of legitimacy is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who has been on a media offensive this week, showing off his old Christie-style bravado again to the press.   He's on the offensive because he indeed knows the fragile reality, and that is his political career hangs in the balance.

When a lawyer, hired by Mr. Christie, issues a report this week that the governor commissioned which did not contain any interviews of any of the five key witnesses in the case, you know it's a purely political document that could in effect only raise suspicions of what really happened and who knew what when even more.  And this is what Mr. Christie is hanging his hat on, but the big donors in Las Vegas, like us, aren't totally convinced.  Mr. Christie's lawyer called it a vindication, but that's hardly the case at all.  Even former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani admitted the report wasn't complete or conclusive, and he's been Mr. Christie's biggest defender. (After Mr. Giuliani admitted that fact, he spent the next few minutes ineffectively nuancing that answer.)

So to use our own forum to answer the Facebook question - Can Chris Christie's presidential prospects recover from the Bridge Scandal? - We'll say that he will to a degree, but this scandal (even if it doesn't blow up any further, which it will) along with other attacks will prevent him from ever getting the nomination.

Lastly, that brings us to the fragile potential success of Mr. Obama's signature healthcare law, the ACA, as we come to the registration deadline.  Mr. Todd was spot on when he commented that Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic and Avik Roy of Forbes magazine had a very thoughtful policy debate and that he wished more were like that.  Those are the types of debates that should be the standard of Meet The Press, and it's a shame you don't see them as much anymore. 

Mr. Cohn, advocating for the law, noted that 6 million sign-ups is a promising sign and that it's too early to tell what the total is since young people tend to wait as long as possible.  If the number were to stay at 6 million to start, you would still have to concede (if you oppose the law) that it was successful.  However, to Mr. Roy's valid point, if not enough young people sign up, many people could see their premiums go up without receiving any benefit from the ACA.  It could in fact end costing much more than Democrats let on, which will be politically disastrous. 

Mr. Roy also didn't think the law was beyond repeal, and if you take any stock in the analysis Mr. Todd did on the races for Senate, it's a definite possibility.  If Republicans gain control of the Senate to go along with control of the House, you know that a full repeal vote is the first thing on the agenda.  But wouldn't that present its own fragile reality?  You repeal the law, to the euphoria of the Republican base, but have no real alternative to replace it with in effect taking away insurance from millions of people.  How well is that going to go over?


Round Table former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; national editor of the Cook Political Report Amy Walter; Peter Baker of the New York Times; and the youngest mayor in the history of Ithaca, NY, Svante Myrick


 A Couple of Questions...


We're proud of Senator Ron Wyden's (D-Ore) stand in opposition to the N.S.A.'s mass data collection, but isn't odd that the Senator doesn't have a straight forward answer on the question of whether or not Edward Snowden is a criminal?  What ever his answer, no matter, but he doesn't have one?

And when you see Meet The Press produce a new segment "Meeting America," doesn't it make you ask why they don't just bring back the "Meet The Press Minute?" keeping the content more directly relevant to the program itself.  It does have the history that the other programs do not.

3.23.14: A Threat to the New World Order

"A threat to the new world order," is how New York Times columnist David Brooks described Russian President Vladimir Putin.   Rich Lowry explained how when German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Putin, she thought he was 'living in a different world.'  The new world order that Mr. Brooks was referring to is one in which economies are integrated and governments don't go invading other countries.

But it can be said that Mr. Putin is living very much in this world because taking that explanation at its face, the United States has also been in violation of what it quote-unquote civilized with its 2003 invasion of Iraq.  We're not going to re-litigate that decision for the up-teenth time her today, but there needs to be clarification. What Mr. Brooks is referring to is an ideal, and it is certainly not the reality, but what he's saying is that a G8 country shouldn't be acting in this fashion.  There are better ways to achieve power than how Mr. Putin is doing it, but let's face it - a self-absorbed greed is what permeates in this integrated world economy, and given that, anything is possible.  And greed is not only relegated to monetary wealth and that's what we're seeing from Mr. Putin.

However, where he is making his biggest mistake is in his hubris that all of these aggressive moves that he has been making will stand without consequences.  Not only will the west react as they have already begun to do with sanctions, but what happens as time goes by and all these people newly embraced by Russia realize that there lives have become no better because monetary help from the Kremlin is not coming.  Nationalism is a very potent political aphrodisiac, as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, but it's only going to get you so far.  Just ask the people of South Ossentia. 

Mr. Putin respects the bully mentality and as he looks around the room at the other world leaders, there is no one stepping up that he thinks can slap him down so to speak, and unless President Obama does substantial as Mr. Brooks described, the Russian president will keep annexing resources.  However, where we disagree with Mr. Brooks, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and National Review editor Rich Lowry is in outright arming the Ukrainians.  If Mr. Putin continues to be aggressive and western Europe doesn't stand up to him in a unified manner, which they are reluctant to do, willing to have Ukraine's back as it were, then it won't matter how much weaponry you give them, they'll be rolled by the Russia army and you'll give Putin justification for doing so, however flimsy it may come off.

Rep. Rogers, speaking to Mr. Gregory in a prerecorded interview from the Republic of Georgia, presented an interest tidbit for all you conspiracy theorists out there that Edward Snowden who is under the control of Russian intelligence services has provided information to the Russian government that has made it easier Mr. Putin to make aggressive military moves.  Mr. Gregory asked what evidence there was for thinking Mr. Snowden has cooperated with the Russians and all Mr. Rogers could offer is that it is a consensus belief in the intelligence community.   His non-answer renders this theory as a bit of a stretch, but in a technologically integrated world its already been shown that one individual can cause an 'order changing' amount of chaos.

 
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times columnist David Brooks, National Review Editor Rich Lowry and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter 

On Another Note: 

Obamacare is four years old this week and two things that were said within the round table discussion struck us: 1) that Rich Lowry was correct that if Republicans control the government in 2017, which is certainly possible, Obamacare will be repealed so it's not a definite that it's here to stay.  David Brooks, on the other hand, said that while it's a good thing for many that they now have insurance, the cost controls touted by the president and Democratic officials will not happen.  Obamacare is going to end up costing us a lot more than we all anticipated.

And yes, that's worrisome but it wouldn't be if the government did spend so many other dollars in the wrong places, just like the debate on today's program about whether or not college athletes should be paid or not.  For us, the answer is no because as NCAA President Mark Emmert said, then they would cease to be students.  We kept hearing this general notion that college sports is big business (we all know this as Reggie Love noted) and that universities are profiting heavily on the backs of these athletes.  It seems to us that universities are just another place where they're spending big money in the wrong places.  We don't claim to be experts but it seems obvious that this is the case - all these millions being made in the big business of college sports yet student loan debt in this country tops $1 trillion; why is that?

3.16.14: Ukraine, Like a Mystery Airliner, Begs More Questions

With the entire world still wondering what exactly happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the Malaysian government has now opened up a criminal inquiry, meaning that the plane was purposely diverted by the pilot who also turned off the transponders cutting off any tracking capability. The information out there only leads to more questions about what happened to the plane.  They can not find any wreckage debris but given the amount of time the plane was in the air after last contact, it had to be low on fuel.  Whether a terrorist act, an accidental crash, or commitment to suicide, everything is speculation until the plane is found.

Where there are just as many questions with no clear answer is with the crisis in the Ukraine. Today, the Crimean region, which is officially part of the Ukraine, is holding a referendum on whether they will secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.  White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer stated that the referendum is an illegal act that the United States would not recognize it.

Moderator David Gregory said that he was working on the assumption that Crimea is lost to Russia and none of his three guests - Mr. Pfeiffer or Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) or Jeff Flake (R-AZ) could say anything to counter that assessment.  And the fact is that President Putin, one way or another, is going to annex Crimea into the Russian Federation just as he had done with the Republic of Georgia.

All this leads to the question of whether Russia will then move into eastern Ukraine, emboldened by the lack of response from the west so far.  However, the Senators and Mr. Pfeiffer said that sanctions, from both the United States and western European countries, would be forthcoming in days.  The sanctions have been essentially approved by the United Nations security counsel that voted to condemn Russia's actions with regard to Crimea, with China notably abstaining.

We're of the opinion that the countries of the west should impose sanctions but we also think that the sanctions will provide the impetus for Russia to move into eastern Ukraine because at that point, Mr. Putin is going to care even less than he does now about what the west thinks or does.  It goes with the logic that once you've made someone mad at you, the increasing degrees of which matter less and less.  And what Putin, and everyone else for that matter, knows is that western Europe's appetite for a large scale military confrontation are nil.  Europe simply will not go there again, but Mr. Putin will not even risk that outside chance so he annex as much as he possibly can, stopping just short of risking an armed confrontation. 

Fresh off a trip in Ukraine, Senator Flake described the Ukrainian military as 'hollowed out.'  Mr. Pfeiffer said that there was an economic aid package on the floor of Congress for a vote, but there wasn't one for military aid to the country, nor will there be, which translates into more leverage for Mr. Putin.  With that, we found it refreshing that Mr. Flake, with a seemingly deeper understanding of the situation there, stated that there was nothing that President Obama said or did that further emboldened Mr. Putin to act the way he has - a concession that runs counter to what his fellow Republican colleague have been saying in criticism of the president.

But Senator Flake's candid observation runs tandem with something else that he said that we completely agree with, which is that there is nothing we can do to withstand a Russian move on the Ukraine.  That's just being non-politically honest.

Senator Durbin didn't concede ground as easily but it was more than evident that the two men were certainly on the same page, as it were, which despite the direness of the situation, lends itself well to the notion of the United States having more sound foreign policy, at least for this particular circumstance. 

That's certainly not the case on domestic issues despite Dan Pfeiffer thinking that there is still a window of opportunity for there to be immigration reform this year.  The round table declared it all but dead as well, and for good reason. It's the perfect conundrum for the president in the eyes of Republicans, a classic lose-lose as it stands right now.  For Democrats, as Mr. Gregory noted to the senior adviser, without immigration reform, Mr. Obama is becoming known as the deporter-in-chief while Republicans can rhetorically hammer away that the president wants to give amnesty to millions.  There's no reason why Republicans would want to change that dynamic, especially in an election year. 

Speaking to the overall trust issues the public has with the president and Washington in general,  it's easily to understand why.  You don't trust the president to get things done because you know that he will stiff opposition simply because of who he is, never mind the idea.

With the subject of truth in mind, the CIA spying on Congress?  For now, we'll reserve comment while this develops... #politically juicy.


Round Table:  NBC News Political Contributor Robert Gibbs, the Heritage Foundation’s Israel Ortega, Jon Ralston of “Ralston Reports,” and New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan 

3.9.14: Who's Teaching Whom?

President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken and Congressman Peter King (R-NY) both explained on today's program that the United States should impose 'iron-clad' sanctions on Russia and freeze the assets of the oligarchs that run the country.  But you know who's not on board with this strategy?  Andrea Mitchell pointed out that Germany and U.S. corporations are hesitant about this strategy.  For Germany, we understand because Russia is a major trading partner for them and a lot of natural gas from Russia is exported to Germany.  However, for U.S. corporations, all we can say is, "Suck it up."

Is the United States run by its corporations?  The answer is [should be] no, but what does it say that of ourselves as Americans that our corporations have so much influence on U.S. foreign policy?  If you consider that our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are essentially people and these 'people' with all the money have influence over the foreign policy of the U.S. government, we would call those people - you guessed it - oligarchs.

It was good to hear Mr. Blinken say that the president has been working the phones with foreign leaders over the weekend because this is really where it counts.  The United States is not going to get into an actually war with Russia, but the aggression Putin's government has exercised in Crimea can not stand.  All this means is that President Obama needs to get everyone on board with the idea of isolating Russia economically.  Energy supplies are the most significant point of leverage, as we know, and the United States should bully its way to a larger share of the European energy market, pushing Russia aside.  This along with sanctions would have a real impact on Russia's bullying behavior.

However, one very troubling development in this crisis is the upcoming referendum Crimea is having as to whether or not to break from the Ukraine and join Russia.  Mr. Blinken rightly said that the United States would not recognize the outcome if the people of the Crimean region decided to join the Russian Federation, which they technically can not do because they are part of the Ukraine, point of fact.  But where does that leave things.  Is the Ukraine going to throw itself into civil war where Ukrainian troops are basically fighting a war with Russia?  Given what Mr. Blinken said, the United States would side with Ukraine, which put the U.S. directly into the conflict.  The United States
 
Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director at the National Journal Ron Fournier asked the best question - where is the United States intelligence community (C.I.A./ N.S.A.) in all this?  With all the uproar about the N.S.A.'s capability to listen to everyone's conversations, you mean to tell us that no general in Russia made a phone call to tell the troops where to go?  The United States has the capability to act proactively, but it seems that they can only be reactive and as long as they are in that position, they'll not be able to stem Russia's aggressive moves.

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called Pope Francis a good teacher because he gets us asking questions that we don't necessarily know the answers to.  By that rationale, Mr. Putin has been a good teacher to the United States because he definitely has the administration asking questions.  As Mr. Fournier mentioned, the United States government needs to see Mr. Putin as he is (judging him by his actions) instead of how they expect him to be.  It's now painfully evident that Mr. Putin's government doesn't shared any of the same attitudes as the Obama Administration on anything foreign policy related.  As Mr. Gregory reported, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin are talking past one another. 

Even though Mr. Reed had unequivocal criticism of President Obama in the way he's handling the situation in the Ukraine, he said there are no real answers.  Then he went on to say that the president's option are indeed limited but what ever option he goes with, he must project strength.  As unhelpful and empty as Mr. Reed's criticism was, the strength will come from the United States rallying its allies and friends - it's the only way.  

While we're commenting on Mr. Reed's statements, we understand him to be a man of faith.  After all, he is the Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, but given that, we just can not put him in the same pious category as Pope Francis, or Cardinal Timothy Dolan for that matter.  Mr. Reed expressed that the poor is the center of the gospel and the Republicans' message needs to include them.  Fair enough but if you consider that the Republicans voted to cut food stamps for the poor while maintaining agribusiness subsidies, one would conclude evidence to the contrary.  Also Mr. Reed, with his statements and body language, comes off completely disingenuous to us, as evidenced when he untruthfully said that most millennials are pro-life, when 6 in 10 are in fact pro-choice.

And to not just call Mr. Reed's credibility into question, we have to call attention to something Cardinal Dolan said about his interpretation of what Pope Francis is trying to do while leading the Catholic Church.  He said that the Pope was trying to restore the luster of the Church, to bring back the romanticism and the mystery.  What?  

That's what he wants, but it's a complete misreading of what we've seen of this pope's actions and statements where he has expressed openness, compassion and contrition.  'Mystery,' Cardinal Dolan, translates into 'lack of transparency' which means 'stop asking questions.' Mystery is what got the Church into trouble in the first place, and yes, they should be singled out for their actions contrary to what the Cardinal said.  After all, they profess to be teachers, teachers of the word of God.

Jeez...


Round Table: California Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass; Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed; Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director at the National Journal, Ron Fournier; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

3.2.14: What Do Secretary Kerry's Tough Words for Russia Really Mean

Secretary of State John Kerry did not mince words on today's Meet The Press when discussing Russia's actions in the Ukraine saying at the start that Russia's sending of troops into the Crimean region of the Ukraine was 19th century behavior in the 21st century.  He then posed the possibility of the Putin government creating a phony pretext to annex the region, later calling it an invasion.  In between other statements, he called Russia a kleptocracy and Mr. Putin himself a tyrant.

So let's just clarify that yes, indeed, Mr. Putin wants to annex control of the Crimean region, clearly, and while central governmental control in Kiev is haplessly weak, Mr. Putin is free to move in.  As was the general consensus amongst the round table guests, Mr. Putin is not a leader that cares in the slightest what other around the world think.  He is going to do everything he can within his power to restore Russian greatness, as he sees it.  Plus the Crimean region is mostly ethnically Russian so people can see annexation as something very different - protection.  And in Mr. Putin's mind, it's time for Russia to have complete territorial access to their Black Sea Fleet.  

Despite the tough words from Secretary Kerry, Mr. Putin knows that President Obama's response will be limited.  In fact, when the moderator, Mr. Gregory, asked the Secretary what the 'or else' would be when Mr. Obama warned Russia on Friday that they shouldn't act military against the Ukraine 'or else,' he didn't really have an answer.  Realizing this, he outlined the economic actions the United States could take to pressure Russia in pulling back.  He mentioned the G8 Summit that is supposed to happen in Sochi and its possible cancellation with the potential of expelling Russia from the G8.  However, we agree with Chuck Todd who said that the summit should already be cancelled, no more warnings that it might be.  In fact, in hindsight, the U.S. should have taken these steps with Russia because of their actions in Syria and their support of Assad.  

And does anyone see it as a good idea, in Russia or the United States, to have a hot war between the two countries?  Everyone's trying to avoid the reinstatement of a new cold war, however, if you take Secretary Kerry at his word, that's exactly what we're headed for.  The round table seemed in agreement that the U.S. should already be hitting Russia hard with economic sanctions, along with their NATO allies, they should isolate Russia economically.

Here's the rub, as was pointed out, Mr. Putin doesn't care what others think and given that he'll do business with whomever he wants whether or not the United States likes it or not; countries lie Iran, Syria, Nigeria, and North Korea come to mind.  His actions indicate that he has no problem moving completely away from the European Union and the West all together. 

With all the talk of the geo-political consequences for Russia's actions, it still is about the Ukraine and its people and the country is just that, a country that has sovereignty, it's not a province of Russia so Mr. Kerry was justified in calling the Russian troops moving into the Ukraine, an invasion.   With such talk from the Secretary of State, which followed Mr. Obama's Friday statements,  some definitive action must be taken, no more moving around the periphery.  Mr. Obama faces unprecedented hatred domestically and has tried to be well liked instead by all of the international community.  It's time to ruffle feathers and establish that the notion that Russia needs to be part of the international community more than the international community needs Russia to be included.  The means also forcing China to make a decision but that's a topic for another day.  

Given that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of Foreign Relations Committee, also appeared on the program to comment on the situation in the Ukraine, it must be noted that what hampers the president's credibility to act is the fact that Republicans do not have his back.  Senator Rubio said that he was encouraged by Mr. Kerry's statements, but went on to criticize the president's relations his approach to Russia.  What Republicans in Congress need to recognize that Mr. Kerry is speaking on behalf of the president and that they all need to get together - leaders of both parties to craft a responsible course of action.  

Remember that Mr. Kerry advocated sending missiles into Syria and when the President brought it to Congress because they constantly complained that the president wasn't consulting them, they rejected a military option, internationally making the president look weak, which was a stupid thing to do.

Having said that, Mr. Rubio's words for Russia were just as harsh as Mr. Kerry's, calling Russia a government of liars and going so far to say that Russia is an enemy of the United States.  Mr. Rubio isn't ready for prime time [read: He's not presidential material], but he is a Senator and a member of the Foreign Relations committee and as such he and other Republican leaders need to work with the president on a policy that is best for the United States as it relates to Russia, or these provocative moves by Mr. Putin will continue. 

The precedent was set with the military action Mr. Putin took in Georgia during the Bush Administration. Democrats, especially Senatorial ones, needed to help strengthen the president's hand then with Mr. Putin and didn't do it.    It was a diplomatic failure of inaction that is being played out again in the Ukraine.  On one degree though, we have to be fair to Democrats in saying that Mr. Cheney was a major impediment for cooperation between the two parities.  The United States government needs to get passed it because if they can talk all the tough words they can muster, either party, but they won't make a difference in changing rivals' behavior because the U.S. government can't ever seem to state them with one unified voice, hence they would mean nothing and emboldening Mr. Putin even more.

Round Table: Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, Founder of Women in the World Tina Brown, and Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg