We've returned and our sincere apologies for skipping out on last week. We were in the midst of a much needed vacation, but that doesn't mean that we didn't watch last week and this week's show, which for the latter we'll comment in content in a moment (For those who want to skip this part and get right to the topics at hand, we've marked it with an asterisk (*).) For now, we'd just like to opine a bit on the new format of the program, which unfortunately impedes on the ease of providing an in depth thoughtful opinion as it stands, but we're plowing through.
First, there's the obvious awkwardness of introducing a panel at the top of the show and then having them sit for almost half of it seemingly without participating. We get it that they are listening to what the guests have to say, but they can do that off-set. When John Stanton of "Buzzfeed" asked a question to Grover Norquist we thought, yes, that's how "Meet The Press" was originally intended... Great, but then he was the only one to ask a question. It didn't help that everyone had to look over his shoulder around a camera to have the exchange. Hopefully a new set will fix that.
Mr. Todd should first interview the two individuals, in this week's case the aforementioned Mr. Norquist for the Americans for Tax Reform and author and columnist Thomas Frank, and then open up the questioning to the press. And they should all be press if you intend to legitimately drill down deeper into the subject so that viewers have a more thorough understanding of the topic. That's really what the program is all about. This means no activists/lobbyists or political consultants asking questions. Ramesh Ronnuru, Editor at The National Review could have asked one question to Mr. Frank as a counter to Mr. Stanton's. Four journalists asking Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have made for great television two weeks ago. If this really isn't their intention to do it this way, then throwing it out there as they did this week is silly. Just have Mr. Todd ask all the questions.
And what's with Mr. Todd running all over the set? And what was with last week's jazz groovy loop music while Mr. Todd stood at the touchscreen? And what was with this week's worse Marshall music? Let's just try no music at all.
[We also saw this column from Erik Wemple at The Washington Post about the 'Afraid to Say' segment - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/22/chuck-todds-afraid-segment-on-meet-the-press-must-be-killed/.]
And with all that said, the consolation is that the topics and the
amount of time spent of them, e.g. The U.S. conflict with ISIS, have
been spot on. And as we'll finally get to the discussion, the disjointed way in which the different individual's perspectives are being captured looks clumsy. Your Sunday "Meet The Press" moderator should have a calming, thoughtful presence, which is to say that you don't want to see him one minute up standing, the next down sitting, then standing again, to finally sitting.
Also, Mr. Todd, please stay on topic. Sometimes there is a bit of drift. You don't have to end every segment on a lighter note. There is no need to ask an NFL question after solely discussing only one other particularly serious topic, in this case ISIS with Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Christopher Murphy (D-CT).
Here is the one and only time we'll phrase something this way in this column. They got to work all that shit out!
Enough.
*
From the various answers with regard to combating ISIS from great guests, which included all the above and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers and Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Ret. Admiral Mike Mullen, we don't see it.
Senator Johnson captured it best in saying that he supports the president's decision to go after ISIS, but doesn't quite see a successful strategy. Ambassador Power said that for Saudi Arabia's part in the effort, they would allow the U.S. military to train 5,000 Sunni moderate troops - Free Syrian Army - in their country. In a year's time, after the training, they are going to go back to Syria and fight on two fronts - one against the Assad Regime and one against ISIS. There more than just 5,000 fighters in the Free Syrian Army, but they are still drastically outnumbered. Senator Murphy stated that he didn't vote for arming the moderate Sunnis because he didn't believe they could effectively be the ground force on two fronts. We would agree. The Free Syrian Army will get plowed if that's the case, even with U.S. air power supporting them.
The Free Syrian Army's focus is battling Assad, which ISIS supports. Who's to say that they don't cut a deal with ISIS. Turkey apparently has, which has refused to comment on how they got all their diplomats back from ISIS. Then the U.S. has wasted more money and resources, only to be duped; it's a possibility.
So does that mean the U.S. has to put troops on the ground. Admiral Mullen rightly dismissed the media driven disagreement between the military and the Obama Administration. Of course General Dempsey wouldn't leave anything off the table in making recommendations to the president, and that includes the idea of having troops on the ground, whatever it takes to complete the mission. That's just being prudent. It's for the president to decide whether to take that recommendation or not.
Senator Murphy also pointed out that it's the U.S. that is taking the lead and not the countries in the region. It's a point well taken, but who is there to really step up? The Saudis, an ally the U.S. doesn't need? The Jordanians? Admiral Mullen said they are capable, but they are dealing with keeping the country stable given the immense refugee crisis. The Iraqi army didn't measure up and the Kurdish peshmerga are going to defend the land that they want to make their country. Right now the Kurds don't have any more capability than that.
Technically, there are already U.S. troops on the ground, special forces and advisers; close to 2,000 to help the Iraqi army get back on its feet and to direct U.S. airstrikes. However, these are not ground forces, as in brigades. President Obama simply will not commit to that. Mr. Obama seems to prefer a more stealth, yet ruthless approach - drones and airstrikes along with covert forces. The problem with that is it won't defeat ISIS.
Training the Free Syrian Army, whose motives are not entirely clear, may turn beneficial for the U.S. but helping the Kurds and the Iraqi Army is really the best chance the region has of eliminating ISIS. But it's not an easy task, as Admiral Mullen alluded to in describing what the Maliki government did to the army - making it a sectarian force instead of an inclusive one.
As Amy Walter of the "Cook Political Report" pointed out, the U.S. public has security concerns, which is true. However, sending large numbers U.S. troops back to Iraq would be a mistake simply for the reason that perpetuity would then be required to maintain peace at a cost to the U.S. that can not be sustained in perpetuity.
Speaking of 'costs in perpetuity,' it's probably not the first time you've read about the economic situation in Kansas before this latest edition of "Meet The Press." Governor Sam Brownback cut taxes in his state so drastically that practically all public services have suffered, economic growth has been far behind other states surrounding it, and the state's deficit is way up.
Yet, Mr. Norquist can effectively explain why Governor Brownback made the correct decision and why economic growth will start moving in the right direction. He cited a number of states that are looking at what is happening in Kansas and are seriously considering doing the same. He also said that states with Republican governors have cut taxes by $30 billion and states with Democratic governors have increased taxes by $40 billion over the past decade.
Yes, the 'blue' states increase taxes, but they also subsidize the 'red' states in taxes to the federal government that gets redistributed to all the states. We can rebut each one of Mr. Norquist's assertions, but what would be the point. The fact, that Republicans frankly refuse to accept, is that big state governments work and the public likes that they work. The mistake Republicans make is that they equate state government action with federal government action.
Thomas Frank threw it down to Chuck Todd saying that Mr. Todd knows that the country is drifting toward being an oligarchy, but is he correct? It's undeniable that the U.S. is the closest to it as it has ever been given Citizens United and all the undisclosed millions that are funneled to candidates' supporting P.A.C.s, making a mockery (a deceitful ruse as it pertains to oligarchy) of the political system. And how do we know that Chuck Todd knows this? He proved Mr. Thomas correct when he analogized that the U.S. voting populace was divided into two groups - Chick-fil-a voters and Starbucks voters.
See you next week.
Round Table (Panel): John Station, Washington Bureau Chief, Buzzfeed; Amy Walter, National Editor, The Cook Political Report; Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor, National Review; Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress
No comments:
Post a Comment