12.27.15: Donald Trump Has 'Schlonged' Us All in 2015

"Things can break late," The Washington Post's Michael Gerson said of the run up to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary at the beginning of February, 2016.  What's funny is that he was saying it as a veiled plea to Republicans to have a moment of clarity before the vote and defeat the Donald Trump candidacy. But it's true, any candidate can get 'schlonged' at any moment, even Mr. Trump. (Btw - yes, a crude, crass and cross Yiddish term that would not be welcomed in any Jewish household as Rep. Wasserman-Schultz explained so of course we used it in the title of this week's column. As for Mr. Trump's usage, so much for presidential discourse...) Mr. Gerson is hoping it's him...

And here's where it could happen. Caucusing in Iowa, in February. Despite the extreme weather event we're experiencing right now with this unseasonably, unreasonably warm weather, it will be a long cold day when Iowans gather to pick their candidate, and whether Donald Trump can rally that kind of determined support is yet to be seen. Our guess here is that Mr. Trump's campaign is better organized on the ground than it appears, but despite that Ted Cruz's campaign is even better and he'll be this election cycle's 'Rick Santorum' of the Iowa caucus and win it. This leaves New Hampshire where it's just you and your conscious at the ballot box and that might not work out well for Mr. Trump either. The point of all this speculation is that it illustrates that it has certainly been a tiring year of Trump, and the only thing for certain is that he's not going to go quietly in 2016.

To Yahoo News' Matt Bai goes credit for pointing out that the press has been the biggest enabler of the Donald Trump candidacy and his campaign's success. That isn't going to change until or if he is no longer the front runner so moving forward we would suggest looking for other sources for the claims that Mr. Trump and and all the candidates make. Case in point: A joint interview with fmr. Amb. to Russia Michael McFaul and fmr. Under-Secretary of State Wendy Sherman commenting on Mr. Trump's praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Amb. McFaul stated, Mr. Trump's admiration is 'wrong on so many levels,' but what he specifically pointed out is Mr. Trump making the false equivalency of what the United States does abroad as part of its foreign policy to what Mr. Putin does at home to his own citizens.  But for Mr. Trump, he statements indicate that the ends are justified by the means and for him it's all about ratings. No matter how it's accomplished Mr. Putin has an 80 percent approval rating and that's all that counts in Mr. Trump's assessment.

On the more substantive matter, Mr. Putin is playing both sides in his support of the Assad regime and his bombing of ISIS as Amb. McFaul pointed out. He said that in a Russian bombing raid, a rebel leader supported by the United States was killed, as reported in The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebel-commander-reportedly-killed-in-russian-airstrike/2015/12/25/2db59b60-ab25-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html). However, in the article it describes this 'moderate' rebel leader as having made supportive statements of Al Qaeda, something that Mr. McFaul didn't point out. These are the type of contradictions that you would hope your president understands and considers when making decisions. As a voter, you would understand that Mr. Putin's statement endorsing Mr. Trump as a strong leader is not something you want to hear.

Pragmatic thinking should be the order for 2016 in your assessment of who should lead this country because the tasks at hand for the next president aren't going to get any less complicated, so cut to the conciseness of the candidates' answers.

Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) for example illustrates clearly where he stands on  economic issues but when it comes to foreign policy he speaks in much more general terms of what he'd like to see happen. Andrea Mitchell, the only fill-in moderator that should be used when Mr. Todd is out, pressed him on his lack of foreign policy acumen and it was duly noted by the panel - a large part of being president is how you project the United States' image to the rest of the world. And as for Senator Sanders economic policy proposals, we agree that universal healthcare is something we should have like the rest of the developed world, but it's a matter of American practicality... It just isn't.


Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post

One more thing...
Admittedly, we haven't seen Spike Lee's new film, "Chi-Raq," but the bottom line is that Mr. Lee is keeping the discussion of guns and gun violence top of mind and that we commend.

12.20.15: Setting the Bar Differently for Republicans and Democrats

We've really recalibrated the bar to the lower side. Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton was a liar, weak and didn't have the stamina to be president, a veiled reference to the fact that it took her longer to use the bathroom than her male counterparts in last night's debate.  He also said that Jeb Bush was a puppet of special interests and a disgrace to the Bush family.

And then conservative commentator Hugh Hewlitt said that he did a good job in the interview. This doesn't even consider the fact of how Trump went on about how he likes Putin and would get along with him. (If the people of eastern Europe - Poland, Lithuania Ukraine - are concerned about President Obama, you should be really worried about a potential Trump presidency.)

But Mr. Hewlitt seems simply blinded by his utter contempt and hatred of Hillary Clinton in his assessment of the Donald Trump interview because Mrs. Clinton during last night's debate declared that ISIS is using Mr. Trump's derogatory comments about Muslims as a recruiting tool, to which he liar label was applied to the former secretary. Even if it isn't true, it's an all too easy conclusion to come to, and today's round table seemed to agree that it would be trouble for her.   This can only lead one to conclude that the bar is set at different heights for each party in terms of hyperbolic rhetoric.

The legitimate debate is how the candidates differ on how to approach ISIS and the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. As Mr. Todd pointed out to Mr. Trump, he and Senator Bernie Sanders agree that ISIS has to be dealt with first and then Assad whereas Mrs. Clinton feels that both must be addressed at the same time - regime change and the elimination of ISIS. Senator Sanders repeated this position in his interview segment later in the program. However, what Mr. Todd didn't explain in pointing out the similarity of Mr. Trump's and Senator Sanders' position is the two vastly different motivations for this agreement. Senator Sanders explained that ISIS should be the first priority and then, when they are eliminated, the United States should lead a diplomatic coalition to remove Mr. Assad from power through a democratic process.  Conversely, Mr. Trump agrees more with Vladimir Putin that Assad should stay in power in perpetuity. Never mind the oppression of the people of Syria, it's favoring the strong man.

What today's program unknowingly pointed out is that with all this media drooling over the bombast, it's allowed new House Speaker Paul Ryan to fly under the radar a bit and actually get Congress to complete legislation that has required traditional compromise to pass. So there's a little consolation. Of course Speaker Ryan, while saying he has worked productively with President Obama on criminal justice reform and appropriations, has to then pivot and state that Mr. Obama has been the most polarizing president we've ever had. So much for good cheer.

Despite that, we want to wish all who read this column a very safe and happy holiday season.


Panel: Maggie Haberman, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian

12.13.15: Hey Knucklehead! Marco Rubio and the Other Two Stooges

Don't you wish that it was just time for everyone to just shut up and start voting? Thankfully, that time will be hear soon enough, but absolutely can not get here fast enough.  We can in no way imagine that this was the type of primary season that RNC Chairman Reince Preibus had in mind when he changed the primary schedule and balloting but you reap what you sew, as they say. With less debates and an early convention, an outrageous candidate like Donald Trump has been able command the race; one in which some one like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) sounds like (gulp) the voice of reason? Then there is the last of the Three Stooges, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his interview with Chuck Todd.

However, we should clarify something first. Of the aforementioned three names, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz we consider stooges because of the stupid things they say and them not having the slightest inclination that what they are saying is completely counterproductive, to say the very least. On the other hand, we consider Senator Rubio a stooge of a different sort, and it's the kind that is beholden to others (a select, few rich ones) and him not having his own stands. For us, this notion stems from what happened with comprehensive immigration reform where Senator Rubio was one of the key players in crafting the parameters of the legislation and then backed down and disowned his own proposals in the face of a conservative lobby challenge. He bends to special interest and he doesn't seem to always be present, hence all Mr. Todd's questions about him really wanting to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. And there is also that feeling that Senator Rubio just doesn't strike us as someone who is that perceptive, able to put all the pieces together to see the bigger picture.

Then you read articles like this from the front page of The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-drug-smuggling-ring-that-brought-anguish-tomarco-rubios-family/2015/12/12/473f3a2c-9db6-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_rubiodrugcase644pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

That aside, take his explanation on what to do with ISIS where he outlined the exact things that the Obama Administration is currently doing the only problem being is that particularly President Barack Obama is doing them. Building a coalition: What more can you do then have the U.S., France, England, Russia among others all bombing ISIS? Could we conduct more bombing missions as Senator Rubio stated the president isn't doing enough? The United States has conducted thousands of sorties, but the problem is a lack of precise targeting which would require troops on the ground and he should know that. And getting moderate Sunni governments to commit troops means nothing if you can not explain how you actually make that happen because it hasn't yet. We'd suggest that Senator Rubio be careful when criticizing Mr. Ban-All-Muslims and Senator Carpet Bomb because he doesn't seem to be all that more... what's the word? Perceptive.

Senator Rubio also mentioned that the Republican Party can not be isolationists, unless it comes to climate change which according to them may be happening but doubt man has anything to do with it and that it's certainly not a crisis.  Then there's the rest of the world.

We agree with Secretary of State John Kerry in his endorsement of President Obama's leadership that has brought the United States credibility at the Paris climate summit. The president's strength on energy policy is underrated because the reality is that under the Obama administration the country has become the world's top oil producer while taking serious steps to limit carbon emissions. On Keystone, his decision was unpopular but it was the right one. Call us sentimental, but for that few of permanent jobs that it would create, why risk an environmental disaster in the beautiful heartland of America?

And to Mr. Todd's question as to how the commitments would be enforced, aside from just a public shaming, we would answer that there is no way in fact to enforcement the parameters of the agreement, right now. But the operative word in the sentence was 'agreement.' And being in agreement is a good first step because treaties and biding resolutions and coalitions come into form.

If not for anything else, it's a sign of hope that the world sees it the same way on at least one thing.


Panel: Ted Koppel, author; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal

One more thing...
As Helene Cooper gleefully said, a contested convention is a political reporter's ultimate fantasy and no doubt it would be great viewing (not welcomed by the RNC for sure), but contested or not, the Republicans' down-ticket problem is serious. If there is a contested convention that could alienate a lot of Republican voters causing them to stay home, or break for a third party candidate like Donald Trump if he doesn't get the nomination. However, if Mr. Trump does get the nomination in a uncontested convention (unlikely) then in state-wide elections, down ticket could be a disaster for Republicans, not at the very least of costing them control of the Senate.


 

12.6.15: The Aftermath of the Worst U.S. Terrorist Attack Since 9/11

It's clear from Mr. Todd's interview with the Attorney General Loretta Lynch is that through this investigation, the F.B.I. is trying to figure out that the best way to stop this from happening again, let alone more frequently. All of her answered were tightly measured, but understandably since there are  so many outstanding questions. With that, two things seem certain: It was a terrorist attack and Tashfeen Malik's radicalization germinated in Pakistan, completely and acted upon here with the help of propaganda courtesy of Al-Nusra Front, Al Qaeda in Syria.

While the question of the overall motivation - terrorism - has been answered, the specific motivation as to why that day in that location still remains somewhat unclear, and by extension how to stop lone-wolf type radicalization. One of the questions that does not remain unclear of course is how could this couple acquire such a large, what is being called an arsenal, amount of weapons? Answer: Simply, it's very easy to legally buy guns in the United States. (We'll get into this more a little later.)

With regard to other measures that could be taken, the clarifying joint interview with Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) illustrated how complicated the matter is from the respective senators (and presidential candidates) differing on troop deployments and surveillance. Senator Graham declared Republican isolationism over, a critique of Senator Paul's position, but the South Carolina senator's idea of ending that isolationist stance is to send tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Raqqa, Syria. And in terms of the bulk collection of data by the NSA, Senator Graham advocates expansion while Senator Paul lead the fight to have the program discontinued.

We appreciate the serious debate between the candidates and these questions are obviously being asked in a timely manner. However, where we seeing a failing on the part of both Senators and the stupidity of partisan politics solely for the sake of partisanship is when Senator Paul mentioned that 40 percent of immigrants in the United States illegally comes from individuals overstaying their visas. Congress has squandered repeated opportunities to pass comprehensive immigration reform and has failed to do so. It's on them.

Interestingly, where there is wider agreement from Senator Graham to The National Review's Rich Lowry to author Asra Mosani is that it is upon the vast majority of moderate Muslims to spoke out against and combat this violent perversion of Islam. Because as activist/author Dalia Mogahed said, ISIS believes that they are prompting a legitimate strain of Islam. With that comes some heavy lifting. There are enough willing participants to perform bombing missions on ISIS targets but the troops have to come from the regional governments, the worst actor of which has been Saudi Arabia, to Ms. Mosani's point during the program. Saudi Arabia spends hundreds of millions of dollars to export Wahhabism, a very fundamentalist practice (a serious understatement) of Islam, in which ISIS pumps huge doses of steroids into in the form of arbitrary mass killing and terrorism via a wash of black market petro-dollars. In terms of troops, the Saudis are preoccupied with Yemen and containing attacks emanating from there directly targeting the the House of Saud.

Until that very delicate and complex strategy and coalition comes together in correct proportions, it leaves governments in a protect and contain posture which brings us back home and what we can do here. Despite your opinion on the The New York Times' front page gun control editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0), the paper's Elisabeth Bumiller poses a legitimate question, which is why is it necessary for Americans to own assault weapons? Rich Lowry's answer was that the AR-15 (semi-automatic assault rifle) is the most popular gun in America, as if to say how could you make it illegal? We find these kinds of intractable positions beyond reason and rationality, in which the answer is to arm more people with more guns more easily. There is no reason to have assault weapons on the market that are designed for killing military and police personnel, but maybe that's just us.

We concede that there is a lot that we don't know and what to do about all the other types of guns that are not assault weapons, but here's what we do. When you want to make a serious purchase in America, like buying a house or a car, there are a number of hoops you have to jump through. These are processes in this country that we all accept. You can not just buy a car and start driving it. First, you have to get the license; then the insurance; get the loan to buy it requiring a credit check (a financial background check); have the car registered with the state; have it inspected on a yearly basis. When buying a house, there's the interview with the bank, the credit check (again), the insurance, the house inspector, the listing on your federal tax return saying you own it. 

For serious purchases, we jump through hoops, it's what we do, and buying a firearm and bringing into the home, especially if there are children there, is a serious purchase. In our line of thinking if you really want a gun, that's fine, but you'll have to jump through these series of hoops to get one. We're not every saying that you can not have one, but if you really want it, here's what you have to do - a permit to own a gun, a waiting period, a background check.

The common element in all shootings is a gun, of some sort. At this moment, the question Mr. Todd asked of Attorney General Lynch of are we to now accept this as now the way we live, a part of our society is rhetorical. It is, in fact, a part of living in American society to we as a nation have to endure through mass shootings. Twenty innocent small children were gunned down at their elementary school and now in the worst terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, the perpetrators were able to easily build up an arsenal of weapons in their home. If these two incidents haven't or won't change our behavior and our laws, then nothing will.

So... good luck out there and stay safe.


Panel: Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review


One more thing...
"Meet The Press" has truly found its groove again, exemplified by today's top-notch program - the flow, tone, production, breath of different voices/opinions, depth of information delivered really uphold the traditions and intent of the original format. It's this type of programming that will see "Meet The Press" rise back to the top of the rates ranks on Sunday morning, in due time. What's helped, we think, is the daily version in as much as now the Sunday version does not have to scratch the surface of many topics, spreading itself too thin, always in search of the elusive, viral inducing quote and really only comes from more in-depth discourse (unless you're Donal Trump). 

The show never had to pretend to be something it wasn't. Welcome back, and thanks.

11.29.15: Donald Trump's Misinformation Age

It's a rare occurrence that we would even comment on Mr. Todd's 'Nerdscreen' feature, let alone lead off the column with it, but it serves as the most relevant base from which to comment on the rest of today's program.

The focus of the Nerd Screen concerned the opposing economic outlook between what is essentially blue-America (living in cities and suburbs around cities) and red-America (living in rural areas, more faith-based communities), and blue-America is much more optimistic about the future of the economy than red-America. In fact, red-America is depressed and pessimistic about their economic future. However, let's not mince words here, red-America is lead by conservative, Republican governors and legislatures. In states such as Kansas and Louisiana for example, ideological conservative economic principles are getting in the way of the practical needs of these states' citizens. Being conservative about fiscal matters is not a bad approach per se, but not at the expense of the majority of constituents.

As Joe McQuaid, publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, reasoned, governors have to understand the mechanisms of government and have to be real [read: practical] about solutions, and being real means being conservative in some areas and more progressive in others. This is how he essentially justified his paper's endorsement of the governor for president of the United States. What he wasn't describing are thegovernorships of Sam Brownback in Kansas and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. (see this Washington Post editorial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cleaning-up-bobby-jindals-mess-in-louisiana/2015/11/26/58cd4e2c-9231-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html).

These governors and others are economically running their respective states into the ground, and instead of being like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio who took the Medicaid expansion to help the state, there is unwillingness to bend even slightly away from a pure ideological line. But if people are still unhappy, purity for the sake of it, becomes plain cynical the more people suffer. Instead of changing the approach, it's much easier and politically expedient to do two things: point the finger at someone to blame and make people upset about something else.

And this is the approach of the Republican presidential front runners: Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. The most subtle: In response to his comment about comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs, Dr. Carson said that the Syrian people understood what he was saying that he was referring to extremists and that he found it interesting how the American media as a whole misunderstood him. Words do matter and Dr. Carson doesn't take responsibility for any of his, and what's really disheartening is that he's not the worst offender in the race, which of course is Mr. Trump.

The most outrageous example is his statements about thousands of people in Jersey City and Patterson, New Jersey (across the river) respectively were cheering when the Towers came down on September 11, 2001. Not only is he perpetuating and exaggerating a gross lie that has thoroughly been debunked by various news agencies, he's using the tragedy of that day solely for his own political gain while in the process denigrating the memories of the people who died that day but also demonizing an entire population of Americans.

To his credit, Mr. Todd tried to step up the argument with the Republican front runner but was unsuccessful - Mr. Trump barked louder, citing 'reliable' sources like Twitter. Mr. Trump insists that we take it on faith that he 'knows people' who told him that President Obama's real plan is to bring in 200K-250K Syrian refugees into the country, not 65,000 or even 10,000, which Trump called a potential Trojan Horse of terrorism. There is no basis or real source for his figures but it doesn't matter because it achieves the goal of making your hardships the fault of someone else - President Obama and Muslims. It's not so sad that Mr. Trump says these things - Molly Ball called it his political genius - but that people listen... and believe.

To this point, the biggest turkey on this holiday weekend goes to conservative commentator Hugh Hewlitt for passively aggressively defending Donald Trump's gross falsehoods by laying blame on the media for not going after Hillary Clinton as doggedly on her e-mails as they have gone after Donald Trump. We give him the turkey for being chicken.

And of course, all this roundabout talk of irresponsible rhetoric leads us to what happened this past Friday in Colorado Springs at a Planned Parenthood clinic where a mentally deranged man in possession of a gun (of course) terrorized the facility in what appears to be politically motivated.

As the panel understandably acknowledged, Republicans' responses have been muted because the incident speaks negatively to their positions on guns and abortion. The panel also had consensus on the fact that Democrats who have customarily staying away from these issues, are 'leaning in' to them as it was described. The issue of gun regulation, more so than the issue of abortion rights, is becoming trickier for the Republican party because when domestic terrorism and/or mass shooting happen, the NRA and 2nd Amendment absolutists eventually just ride out the storm letting time pass to forget about it. However, the growing frequency of such mass shootings is alarming and not allowing us to forget. We can only hope that there isn't a similar waiting game being played to the end where mass-shootings are a socially accepted consequence of living in America.

 But if that happens, we're sure that some 'political' leader like Trump will find something else for us to be afraid of and most certainly know who exactly is to blame. That's living in Donald Trump' age of misinformation.


Panel: Molly Ball, The Atlantic Monthly; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

One more thing...
We stayed away from ISIS this column despite the significant perhaps game-changing incident for Russia this week where one of their fighter jets was shot down over Turkey over its air space.  We'll hit it later in the week because talking about Donald Trump so much makes our brain ache.

11.22.15: Exacerbating the Threat To Public Safety

If we are in fact at war, as Tom Brokaw stated, then we're certainly not in a sufficient state of readiness, and we're not talking about our reactionary preparedness to a terrorist attack. We talking about political leadership here at home and abroad. There is no doubt that that serious people like New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson are working on keeping us safe, but President Obama, even though we agree with him on the substance of Republican presidential candidates speaking completely irresponsibly, can not make statements that smell of pettiness. Unfortunately for President Obama and the majority of Americans, Republicans have poisoned the well of this president's ability lead to us all so much that Ron Fournier's worry about how this country would react to another 9/11-style attack is real cause for concern.

President Obama hasn't been great, but in all due fairness he hasn't gotten any support either, and where he has been right is on not playing to the politics of fear like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. And for all his shiny new poll numbers, Marco Rubio is being completely irresponsible in saying that this 'war' is a clash of civilizations.  What is also very clear in the Republican presidential race is that these front-running candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) have the Republican electorate so washed in the paranoid politics that more reasonable voices such as Governor John Kasich's (How crazy is it when you say that the man who proposed a Judeo-Christian federal agency is a reasonable voice.) get no traction.



http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/gop-candidates-playing-on-the-politics-of-fear--572056131507

It's of little consolation that when candidates do speak up against Donald Trump's idea of registering and surveil Muslim Americans because these same candidates won't stand up to an NRA that doesn't support a bill to restriction gun purchases by individuals on the terrorist watch list, on which Commissioner Bratton called upon Congress to act on the program today. And in that clip, you listen to Mr. Trump and you can't help but think that he wants to run the country like he would want to run one of his companies, but companies aren't democracies. Everything he talked about directly flies in the face of American values, then cheered on by uninformed people. Senator Cruz does his best as always to stoke bigotry and division and what kind of doctor is Dr. Ben Carson that he would analogize Syrian refugees with rabid dogs. So much for the Hippocratic oath, which has a passage in it by the way that says, I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. Maybe Dr. Carson left that part out when it took it.

Enough of that... Because what happened in Paris and Bamako, Mali this week required serious-minded solutions and negotiations, not bluster, which only serves to exacerbates the threat to public safety. Helene Cooper's question to fmr. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta cut to the heart of the matter, which was how do you build a coalition with Russia and Iran, two governments with adversarial competing agendas to the United States in the Middle East? Secretary Panetta called Assad an international criminal yet Vladimir Putin supports him and wants him to stay in power as does Iran. Due to this, a coordinated effort to combat ISIS or Daesh (It's Arabic name) doesn't exist as Richard Engel pointed out in his report. Sec. Panetta pointed out that NATO should invoke Article 5, which means that if one member state is attacked, they all are and need to come to a common defense (loosely paraphrased), and he was surprised that this hasn't happened yet.

As we pointed out last week, it's reasonable that it would be but also it should be to put pressure on Turkey (a NATO member) to act more responsibly when it comes to ISIS because Turkey is has been a wildcard here playing it a bit on both sides. They tacitly assist in the fight against ISIS but goods flow from Turkey easily into ISIS territory because ISIS fights the Kurds who the Turks despise.

As Secretary Panetta said, eventually both Assad and ISIS have to go and that requires uniting leadership and nuance that we need to see more of from the President because frankly, it isn't coming from the loudest Republican voices right now.

In the case of ISIS, Sec. Panetta said that to defeat them we have to take their territory aware from them and to do that it's going to require send soldiers to Syria... U.S. soldiers. As long as Assad is in power, that can not happen - strategically not sharp let's face it not to mention that lack of enthusiasm the American people have for such an idea. The issue of the Syrian refugees and the divisive rhetoric coming from Republican candidates is too far gone to be settled at the primary ballot box (see our last column). However, on the issue of ISIS, American political leaders have to get on the same page, or at the very least reading the same book, for the good of us all because the squabbling and talking at each other instead of with each other puts our safety at risk.

Put your politics aside and give credit to the Administration, particularly Secretary of State John Kerry, for taking the small but significant step of getting stakeholders to the table to negotiate a ceasefire, which has ISIS worried.  David Ignatius from The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-surprise-in-syrias-civil-war-that-could-be-bad-news-for-the-islamic-state/2015/11/20/83fe3fd8-8fc6-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-alt1-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


Panel: Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Ron Fournier, The National Journal

11.18.15: Syrian Refugees - What Not To Do

This blog originates from New York City and we've been here long enough to have experienced what it was like to live here on that tragic September day a little over 14 years ago. The reason we mention this is because today there were rumors going around about not riding the subways and something could be going on in New York, which the police later verified as false. The first thing we did when we left our day job (shocker: we don't blog full-time), it was right to the subway. Because we refuse to live in fear and we're not going to alter our routines because of futile, hateful threats. Not going to happen. Maybe this is just us wearing the New York City badge on our collective sleeve, but that should not be how it goes in the United States.

So what does all that have to do with Syrian refugees?

It strikes us an odd that the same people who would be willing to send our soldiers back to the Middle East as a show of strength are afraid to take in Syrian refugees.  These people would send our troops back to a hotter zone where they're essentially a target for not just ISIS but Hezbollah, the Iranians, Al Qaeda among others. Yet, they are scared of carefully vetting refugees from Syria. And the ones who say that they don't trust this Administration to conduct the vetting process is simply trying to score dirty, cheap political points. If Congress insists that these refugees need to be screened more thoroughly, then so be it. We encourage it, but know it will still be the same people in the FBI doing the vetting no matter who's in the White House. And do you think that if they determine any one to be even slightly suspicious that person would be getting in? Please.

The governors, who really have no control over this, refusing to take in refugees are acting cowardly, frankly. They are living in fear and pessimism, and they're making you think that way as well. Where's the America that says, "You know what? We'll take them in and help them live their dreams here in The States until we defeat the nightmare that is you." Pardon the phrase, but these governors need to man-up.

If you've shown any support or sympathy for the people of France in the past few days (We all have.) then read this:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,

I life my lamp beside the golden door.

                                                                                                     -Emma Lazarus

Of course, that's the inscription on the statue of the big beautiful lady majestically standing in Upper New York Bay, but remember - it was a gift from the French.

11.15.15: Paris Changes Everything

The worst attack on Paris since WWII. Everything has changed, and it is going to get invariably worse before it can get better. The French president, Francois Hollande, declared the attack an act of war.

129 dead.
352 wounded.

We've always said that President Obama's weakness as president has been on foreign policy, and have been a little forgiving at times. We agree with the administration's initiatives in the Iranian nuclear deal, but putting that aside for now, his policy with regard to Syria and ISIS has been a disaster. Tell the French people that ISIS has been contained; that they are diminished.

On today's 'special edition' of "Meet The Press," NBC's Richard Engel outlined ISIS's plan very simply: First, establish territory control in Iraq and Syria then establish a presence in other countries. From there, the next expansion is to attack the west followed lastly by targeting the United States. The president's administration has failed to act adequately, for this there is little doubt. As national security expert Michael Leiter said, the president's policy has been "insufficiently robust."

Two key things are missing from the entire discussion of the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS: One, a coherent U.S. strategy for the region - combating ISIS, which should now be easier to put together if France invokes the NATO charter, which wouldn't be a bad idea. The second and more infuriating aspect is the absence of the richest Arab countries [read: Saudi Arabia] taking a strong stance against ISIS. How is ISIS at this point still flush with cash from black market oil sales? There is great appreciation for moderate Muslim clerics and dignitaries to condemn the attacks, but without a country such as Saudi Arabia lending actionable support, the condemnations then carry little weight.

However, as Andrea Mitchell correctly assessed, you can not have NATO and Russia fighting the same war at the same time, and that's what makes Jeb Bush's suggestion that there should be a no-fly zone so difficult. It sounds good, but it's not realistic as Russia is not going to shutdown their sortie missions.

Speaking of Jeb Bush, when Chuck Todd ask him about all his brother's military advisers (e.g. Paul Wolfowitz) who were the architects of the disastrous Iraq War that started all this on his team, he said that the times and conditions have changed significantly since 2001. That's true but here's the problem with that answer: The group of people that Gov. Bush has assembled for such situations operates with an agenda that would try to exploit the situation. They have never changed their thinking so while Gov. Bush said we need to focus on the future, the past history for some of these individuals isn't (shouldn't) be kind. For Mr. Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, the idea of going into Iraq was eventually to control the oil - a cynical agenda. In other simpler words, they can't be trusted. To be fair, at least Gov. Bush has a reasoned opinion and strategy points as opposed to Dr. Carson who said we have to make ISIS feel like losers.  But just know that Gov. Bush's foreign policy will cast shadows akin to Vice President Dick Cheney's. If that's something you're in favor of then Jeb Bush is the most rational actor of the lot.

The Iraq War, as the neocons hoped for, also created the conditions where the U.S. military would have to have a large presence in Iraq for decades, on the scale of South Korea where we've been for over 60 years. But an American public that felt duped had no appetite for such a long-term military expansion, especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East. This gave President Obama the political will coming from public opinion to remove troops from Iraq. Should those troops been removed so quickly as Republicans argue against the president? That was not the problem as much as the administration not staying heavily engaged with Iraqi politicians, putting pressure on Nouri al-Maliki much earlier.

As you can see, it's easy to get bogged down in the minutiae discussing the complicated conflicts in the Middle East, but the bottom line is that the United States now needs to act more assertively and decisively in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, standing with France, its oldest ally (as President Obama stated).  Supporting the people of France is an honor that the United States should never forfeit.

The political effect here in the United States should be that everyone's attention should be snapped into focus for this presidential campaign because surely the next president is going to have to have a strategy for combating ISIS and a workable proposal to end the Syrian civil war. For the Democrats, it's obvious especially given the clip of the focus group that Hillary Clinton is the consensus choice to lead on foreign policy and she will be more hawkish than President Obama. In the debate last night, however, she did tack to the left in abdicating U.S. leadership role in the fight, saying it was not ours. Surely, it is a moment she wish she could take back because she knows that to defeat ISIS, the United States has to lead. Russia isn't going to do it because Putin's primary agenda is to keep Assad in power.

For the other side, are the Republican front runners, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, up to the task of leading the nation through these perilous conflicts? When Chuck Todd asked Jeb Bush, he said that this is why we have elections. But clearly conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin and Jeff Greenfield simply wanted him to answer with a resounding 'no,' as he should have. As Ms. Rubin said, Gov. Bush needs to call these people out. As you're aware, we're on the record saying that Ben Carson would be downright dangerous for this country in how much his inexperience would jeopardize our national security. And don't be mad at us for saying it, but that's nothing compared what Donald Trump has been saying these past few days, calling the man pathologically diseased among other things, clearly going off the rails in his rhetoric. So before Donald Trump completely denigrates every other candidate in the race, Republicans need to decide who can rationally step up to the task because right now the only vote they're all qualified to get is 'no confidence.'


Panel: Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico contributor.

11.8.15: We Want It in Writing... With a Signature

One of our pet peeves is when people, especially in the press, use the phrase, "the devil is in the details." Our contention is that, "No! the devil is NOT in the details, the information is in details." (However, if you're Carly Fiorina, it's a case of the lack thereof.)

And within the details of what Dr. Carson said in response to what he has written, the retired neurosurgeon said that he had better things to do beside being president. We'll be honest in saying that it upset us throughout the program until Marc Caputo from Politico recognized this statement toward the end of the program. Hugh Hewlitt was spot on to say that, "You have to want it," and that the martyr thing doesn't fly (our words).

We agree with Bernie Sanders that these personal embellishments (if that's what they actually are) Dr. Carson is making don't really matter that much. The squabbling between Ms. Maddow and Mr. Hewlitt over the West Point scholarship offers was superfluous. But the fact that he doesn't believe that human activity plays a role in climate change and that is naive thinking. He wants to do away with Medicare, he has said. So yes, in that respect Dr. Carson is, as he stated, a threat to the secular progressive 'movement,' as if that is some evil organization that should be feared. He also said the 'personal' attacks on him go beyond anything seen by other candidates, even beyond the attacks about President Obama's birth certificate, which is simply ridiculous. But what does he expect? He has no record of voting, of taking positions, and is running on his biography so the press will ask him about it.

Speaking of asking questions, we like PBS's Gwen Ifil like the forum-type format for engaging with the candidates, but what could have been truly insightful became an infomercial for the Democratic candidates. And for the Republican side, the 'offense' that the candidates take at a question that contends with something they've said, like a 10 percent tax on everyone not adding up in terms of not exploding the deficit, candidates become 'offended.' Give us a break, this isn't a game show and we're not low-information voters hence requiring detailed information, taking nothing on faith which is how Dr. Carson would prefer us to take it.

And speaking of detailed plans, Ms. Fiorina has a lot of nerve in saying that she's not going to put any of her positions down on paper, that the written word is no more important than what she says. Sound bites are not the equivalent of a well thought out, detailed written plan.

Also, it's a matter of sourcing. The press could transcribe what she says as Rachel Maddow suggested but that leaves room for bucking responsibility for what you say. Anything less than a detailed written statement on a position is simply not serious and reflects disqualifying silly political games. Ms. Fiorina, Americans want it in writing... with your name signed to it.

****

We agree with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that the United States needs to have a joint strategy with Russia to combat ISIS, or ISIL as she referred to it, but how that would play out just makes the imagination run wild. And you can believe that it when Senator Feinstein says that there is a "strong probably" that it was indeed a bomb that downed that Russian passenger jet in Egypt. If the Islamic State is in fact as described, a state, then they have committed an act of war against Russia.

The FBI is on the ground investigating and if they conclude the cause to be a bomb then Russia will have a big choice to make, and unfortunately as you can deduce from the Senator's statements that we'll be a big factor in that decision. If the U.S. and Russia were to have a joint strategy, maybe it plays out that the two nations work cooperatively; creating two fronts in which to combat ISIL; meeting in the middle in defeating them; splitting up influence in the region; eventually setting up fierce competition for power and influence in a vital region in the world.

Haven't we already lived that history? Or is our imagination just running wild?


Panel: Gwen Ifil, PBS News Hour; Rachel Maddow, MSNBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Marc Caputo, Politico (Florida desk)


One more thing...

We owe a couple columns/opinions. We're on it, and thanks for reading!

10.25.15: Common Sense and the Lack Thereof

In defense of his inexperience, presidential candidate Ben Carson said that common sense (which he implies that he possesses) is more important than the collective political experience of the other candidates in the race, but in interviews Dr. Carson doesn't demonstrate that he has any of the common sense he's referring to.

And speaking of 'making no sense,' the Benghazi hearing need to end. Wrap it up... now.

After watching just a few hours (we have working lives that interfere with watching 11 hours of pointless testimony) of the hearings, it's clearly evident that the Republicans controlling the committee are just out to capture of soundbite from Secretary Clinton that they can use as indictable 'evidence' in the court of public opinion to damage her candidacy for president. At this juncture, these hearings are pointless, senseless, a waste of money and time.

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who heads the committee said that it concerns him that Secretary Clinton testified that she takes responsibility for what happened, but never really answered the question of what went wrong for which she takes responsibility. With all due respect to Congressman Gowdy, he had 11 hours to ask these questions and get that answer. If he's still asking the question at the point, then he hasn't done his job as committee chair. He said that he still didn't know what errors were made and who made them. That's on him and his committee!  Chuck Todd ask Mr. Gowdy why the committee didn't ask the secretary about Libya policy in general, and the reason is because Republicans are interested in that.  When will Republicans give up the pettiness and stop embarrassing themselves.

Which brings us back to Dr. Carson who must stop with comparing everything to Nazism and Slavery. First, it trivializes both and second, most importantly, the comparisons are offensive because his logic (his common sense) is so off-base that it disqualifies him to be president. If the Jews in Germany were armed, they would have stopped the Nazis from committing the Holocaust is one of Dr. Carson's statements, to which he said that Jewish leads said he was 'spot on.' No, not all. The Polish, French and Russian armies were armed and didn't fare so well.

Obamacare is the worst thing the U.S. government has done to its people since slavery is another one of Dr. Carson's gems. Never mind that he forgets about Native American genocide, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws. Just because Dr. Carson is soft spoken doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about because he clearly doesn't.

And what consideration does he show to women and their well-being when he says that they should not be allowed to obtain an abortion because of rape or incest? It's a complete disregard for women's health, specifically their mental health (if not for anything else). And doesn't this disregard constitute a breach of his hippocratic oath as a doctor?

Yet, mental health consideration should be a determination when purchasing a gun according the Dr. Carson whose interpretation of the Second Amendment as he outlined today is incorrect. He said that the second amendment assures that people have the right to the same guns as its government so that tyranny by said government could never occur. His is a dangerous reading because it discounts a critical word in the amendment, which is 'regulated.'

The Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Panel: Doris Kearns-Godwin, Presidential Historian; John Harwood, CNBC; Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Stephen Henderson, Detroit Free Press


A few more things...
Though we didn't quote the panel at all this week, we did notice the slight change in format for the program, stacking into the second half of the program - all sitting at a table. This pretty much reverts back to the format of one when Tim Russert was moderator. Much better use of the panel for sure.

And then there is Mitt Romney who even when he gets it right, he gets it wrong (the fatal flaw of his candidacy as John Harwood pointed out). Mitt Romney walked back a comment he wrote about Romneycare, which was followed by Obamacare making the inference that both in the end were good ideas. Mr. Romney is still unable to truly speak his mind so we'll take the gross liberty of doing it for him.  Yes, they were both good ideas.

And lastly, repealing Roe v. Wade is a non-starter for this column. We do not advocate for women to have abortions and we wish that they were only few and rare, including in cases of rape and incest unlike what Dr. Carson appalling said today. However, that decision ensures that and assures all women in the United States that they have complete control over their own bodies not to be dictated to by any government entity. In other words, freedom to decide. Personal freedom is important to all conservatives (emphasized because this group speaks loudest about the concept) and all Americans so to be true to that ideal then it has to be defended on all fronts.

10.4.15: Is Government Abdicating Its Responsibility on Guns?

Another mass-shooting in America - this time in Roseburg, Oregon at the Umpqua Community College, the 294th according the mass-shooting tracking data. What can we possibly say that hasn't already been said? This is an American failure, without question. How can one not say that we as a society have failed by endangering itself by not regulating deadly weapons. Some of the observations from today's panelists and the political soundbites stuck with us as key insights into the problem, the politics and the lack of a solution.

The National Review's Rick Lowry outlined the problem succinctly when he explained that doing things around the margins of the gun laws aren't enough the stem the problem or gun violence and anything beyond that infringes on people's individual gun rights under the constitution. Mark Leibovich of The New York Times noted that President Obama in his statement in reaction to the shooting accurately predicted everything that Republicans would say and how the media would cover it, and he really did.

Republican presidential candidates' statements ranged from Jeb Bush's lackluster "stuff happens" to Ben Carson and Marco Rubio saying that more gun laws don't protect us from the crazies and John Kasich said that gun control laws aren't a good idea because it takes guns away from law abiding citizens, which is conflating the problem with confiscation and that is not what should be done.

With all that laid out, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post was correct in saying that for the government not to do anything is an abdication of its responsibilities, and those responsibilities do not include confiscation, to be clear.  However, the car-gun comparison does make you do more than just scratch your head. You have to get a license to drive (all 50 states), you have to have insurance (all 50 states), register the car (all 50 states) and in some states have it inspected yearly. You can draw your own conclusion as to whether having a license to own a gun infringes on your rights to have one.  You can own a car and not have a license or insurance, but it's then unlawful to use it without those things.

And for Donald Trump's comments about Chicago having the strictest gun laws yet gun violence is out of control is to not understand the comprehensiveness of the problem. The only way to solve this comprehensive problem is to act nationally, through Congress, because leaving the problem to the individual states won't solve it. Debate away on that one. Another notion to chew one would be the result of any stronger gun laws would essentially slow the amount of guns being purchased, not limit the amount, but slow the pace of the number in society. The NRA can never go for that.

Using Mr. Trump as a pivot point in the conversation, we are leery of his statements on Syria in as much as he thinks its a good idea that Vladimir Putin has brought Russia into the conflict unmistakably on the side of Assad.  Fmr. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul explained that Putin is in Syria because he's been supporting Assad all along but now weapons and money are not enough and Russia has to become directly involved in the conflict. Putin is "doubling down," Amb. McFaul said.  And in that 'doubling down' Mr. Putin will certainly would mind having some proxy wins against its adversary the United States, like this week's bombing of rebel bases backed by the CIA. It's less likely that Mr. Putin will get bogged down in Syria as Mr. Trump described and more likely that in the midst of a practical power vacuum in the country, Mr. Putin sees the opportunity for a strategic foothold in the region, with an assistant from Iran.  Not to mention that it shows such a cynical and callous view of life and suffering for Mr. Trump to say that things are better with Assad, Gaddafi, and Hussein still in power.

However, even though Mr. Trump is ahead in the polls (the only thing that matters to him), he really has no interest in overthinking these things. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be when deciding your vote.


Panel: Mark Leibovich, The New York Times; Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Amy Holmes, Anchor on The Blaze Network; Rich Lowry, The National Review

One More Thing...
Mixed Emotions... about there being an hour-long "MTP Daily" program on MSNBC. It's completely understandable that NBC wants Mr. Todd on the air more. His strength as a good, fair questioner is paying dividends that David Gregory couldn't deliver which was to have political guests from both parties come to the table.  We also understand that Meet The Press is now Mr. Todd's brand and the two are hand in hand. We get it.

We not sure if it diminishes "Meet The Press" as the institution that it is or not, but here's the thing. Institutions, attitudes, and laws have to change with the times and we live in a different age where seeing you for an hour a week will lead to success, you 'gotta get it out there more,' as it were.  The formats are different in that the daily is typical cable news/talk format that differs from the Sunday edition, but even so it would be great to differentiate the Sunday a bit more - a portion of the program that is truly meeting the press.  Otherwise, more "Meet The Press?" Why not?!

(Whether we'll be commenting on it all remains to be seen, but it is giving us a reason to pause and think about our format as well.)

P.S. We'll be off for the next two weeks.

9.20.15: Respect and Compromise, the Next Political Trend?

Once again, this time through an interview lightning round of Republican presidential candidates, you see that John Kasich is one of them that the Democrats should be most worried about because he's the type that can draw Independents and conservative Democrats who don't like all of President Obama's policies. Unless the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders, their candidate is going to be an extend of President Obama's presidency.

 John Kasich's personal politics are pretty conservative but as a public figure, he's a centrist Republican equidistant on the opposite side of the middle axis as Hillary Clinton is a centrist Democrat. It's a rare breed these days to hear a Republican, especially one running for president, say that we have to 'respect the basic institutions.' Mr. Kasich seems to recognize that there is another political party present in the United States and that they have a say in how things work.

Contrast with the other two candidates interviewed today - Donald Trump and Ben Carson.  First off, the more we listen to Donald Trump the more quickly you get bored because he really doesn't say anything. He simply talks about the polls, what other people are saying about him, who he likes and doesn't like and the polls, again.  However, in his defense of his not refuting a questioners claim during a rally that the president is a Muslim and that we have a 'Muslim' problem here in this country, Mr. Trump said that it wasn't his obligation to correct him.  No, it is Mr. Trump's responsibility to correct him. Exactly what John Kasich was talking about in as much as Mr. Trump doesn't respect the office of the presidency.

As far as Ben Carson is concerned, his view that a Muslim should not be able to hold the office of President of the United States disqualifies him from holding the office himself because as Hugh Hewlitt described, he is putting a religious litmus test for holding the office which is unacceptable. It's safe to say that Dr. Carson would apply that very same test in hiring administration staff and that's against the law.  You see where we're going with this.

Conversely, Dr. Carson did have the most coherent ISIS policy, from a Republican perspective that is, that we've heard. We don't agree with ground forces, but he said that he would use ground troops to push ISIS out of Iraq and into Syria and then let them fight it out with Asaad, then clean up the mess from there. Politically there's a problem with sending troops back into Iraq. If that were to happen it would be it seem like Republicans want more war while the Democrats do not, and at this point the American people are weary of war.

How all of this stacks up against Hillary Clinton and her campaign woes, right now we agree with Maria Shriver that we need to take a step back. Think about it this way, the panel discussion focused on Mrs. Clinton not having the charisma of Bill, likability, etc. What they weren't focusing on was the handling of e-mails.  What Mrs. Clinton's apology did was subdue the press attacks a bit. This gives her the opportunity to move beyond it and perhaps change some of those opinions. Whether you like Mrs. Clinton or not, she is, by experience, the most qualified of all candidates. And for what it's worth, having Bernie Sanders in the race is key for Mrs. Clinton because it will pull her a little left [read: populace] on some issues, you're already seeing.

Lastly, and this is weird for us to say, but our initial reaction to the interview with Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase, is that we didn't have a problem with anything he said. The banks are going to do what they are going to do in terms of trading and creating financial products to sell that no one understands. It's up to government to properly regulate and see that they don't break the law - hold them responsible... And to have a contingency plan.  This is just our practical nature as to how we see it. Let's be honest, when the banks are booming and you have an IRA or 401(k), you're feeling pretty good.  And we appreciated his honesty about his bank getting involved with Detroit.  Mr. Dimon has that he was thinking that it's good for the bottom line of the bank, but at the same time, he sees a problem where the bank can help. That's the trade-off, the compromise. And speaking of that, Republicans should listen to his advice that 'my way or the highway' isn't thinking about America and a shutdown is bad management.  All makes sense, right?

And last of the lastlies, the shutdown over planned parenthood, exacerbated by Ms. Fiorina's graphic abortion description during the debate, is counter-productive at the least. Instead of working through each sides' concerns and issues, it says we don't want to work at all.  And make no mistake that Republicans will take the blame and rightly so.

America is so tired of tone-deaf ideological stance where no compromise is possible. The voices of mutual respect are starting to speak up. Hopefully, the momentum will build.


Panel: Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Hugh Hewlitt, Radio Host; Maria Shrvier, NBC; David Maraniss, The Washington Post

A few more things...

First, on the cusp of Pope Francis' visit to the United States, one quick take that we have is that the pope speaking about income inequality and climate change and current issues because he recognizes that in order to lead a billion people, you have to be in touch with what they are talking about and what there concerns are. He wants to make the Church relevant and he knows that if he can do that, the residual effect is more people in the pews.

And then...the best for last (we told you so).

Scott Walker better give the money to the Milwaukee Bucks to build a new arena because one thing is for sure, he's got no game. Ouch!

9.13.15: Blaming President Obama and Unrealistic Expectations

New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, clearly illustrated why he will not be the nominee for the Republican party and in doing so also answered why Bernie Sanders is ahead of Hillary Clinton in the first few Democratic primary polls. The reason is that as long as you are answering questions about questionable conduct, you can not state your ideas for moving the country forward.  Those ideas do not gain any traction.

Too many hanging questions about 'bridge-gate' for Gov. Christie to escape along with indictments of top staff, while donors are having trepidation about giving money wondering when the other shoe will drop and the feds will come after Mr. Christie himself, are the threatening campaign clouds that keep hovering about.  As the saying goes, "something just doesn't smell right." And it's the same with Hillary Clinton and the e-mail issue.  Even though, as Mr. Todd noted, the Department of Justice found that Sec. Clinton was within her legal right to delete personal e-mails.  "When you use phrases like "within her legal right," you know that's not good for a candidate. The residual effect is going to be negatively lasting, hence Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign is surging.

Keep this in mind, at this point in the campaign: Independents haven't weighed in yet and the polls in both parties are more of a reflection of the attitude of the respective bases. Right now, that thinking is being turned on it's head in the Republican party given that one of the topics on today's program covered the in-fighting within the party. Basically, the Republican electorate is disgusted with its leaders in Washington because they have broken so many promises. Gov. Christie let them have saying that there has been no "repeal and replace" legislation on Obamacare or any tax reform legislation put forward. The governor said the Republican Congress has "under-delivered."

And Governor Christie hasn't? When faced with what are just downright ugly economic statistics for your state, the answer of "you should have seen it when I got there" is an unacceptable answer, seriously. The governor turned down an opportunity to give his state's economy a shot in the arm by not doing a deal with New York state to expand the transit system between north Jersey and New York City. He said that New Jersey would be on the hook for too much money, but the real reason was more of a political nature and the governor not wanting to compromise. That's under-delivering.

Senator Tom Cole (R-OK) in his joint interview with head of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint blamed President Obama for none of the Republican agenda items passing, which is incredibly wrong-headed, and not being honest with yourself as to why none of your agenda is getting through. President Obama is not to blame for what he believes and then acting on those beliefs. The blame is on the Republican caucus and the Republican National Committee for setting the expectations too high in what they promised and employing the strategy of unilaterally opposing the president on every vote turning everyone into a partisan fight while he still maintains the power of the veto all the while never putting forward a clear plan of their own that the electorate can get behind. President Obama is not to blame for that.

As for Mr. DeMint who talked about "common sense conservative ideas" and supports a governmental shutdown over the continued funding of planned parenthood seems to live a a world that doesn't acknowledge the existence of Democrats or Independents - a majority of whom do not agree with him. If you can not compromise with people and continually make it a zero-sum game as Mr. DeMint does then you'll have to get used to disappoint because you're hardly ever going to get your way.  The Republican ideal (read: ideological purity) is being promised and reality keeps smacking it down. The booing of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senator Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) by Republican primary voters is well placed because they've perpetuated the paradigm. Reince Priebus should be included in that group as well.

With regard to the other side, Bernie Sanders, his argument to the contrary, would not see much cooperation from Congress for his initiatives if he were president. [Here we like to note that this stems from Mr. Todd asking Senator Sanders about the lack of co-sponsors on legislation that he proposes. We'd add that Mr. Todd is getting better at the friendly-but-tough tact of interviewing, reminiscent of Tim Russert. That's not to say that Mr. Todd is derivative but to say he getting better at facing people down in the moment while maintaining his innate enthusiasm in the topic. All good.] 
However, outside of that, Mr. Todd focused on foreign policy with Senator Sanders and on key votes, Mr. Sanders has made the correct decisions - not voting for the Iraq War, but for Afghanistan. He also voted for U.S. intervention in Kosovo, which was big as well. What we take away from all of this is that while his judgement on foreign policy matters is sound, he has no foreign policy agenda, which is to say that we're not sure how he would take the "world" leadership role. Decide for yourself as to whether actually having a foreign policy agenda is a good or bad thing.


Panel: David Brooks, The New York Times; Sara Fagen, CNBC Contributor; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Maria Hinojosa, NPR


One more thing...
Former Ambassador to Syria under the Bush Administration Robert Ford said that he disagreed with Richard Engel's assessment in his report that the United States' actions in the region have unleashed the brutality in the region causing the massive refugee crisis. Instead Amb. Ford said that instead the brutal regimes in the region are to blame. What he doesn't acknowledge in his answer is that those brutal regimes are being threatened by groups that want to set up their own brutal regime.  ISIS, hello.  So yes, the United States toppled a dictator that unleashed a sectarian civil conflict in Iraq that exploded in Syria.

9.6.15: Pragmatism of the Iranian Deal and the Responsibility for Refugees

On the one year anniversary of Chuck Todd's tenure as the moderator of "Meet The Press," he and the staff produced another well-rounded edition of the program. Leading off with ret. General Colin Powell is never a bad thing given his unique perspective relevant to his place in history and especially since foreign policy and political questions abound.

Gen. Powell certainly and consistently maintains a conservative pragmatist-in-chief reasoning when looking at the world, and he gave a most reasoned and reasonable opinion on the Iranian nuclear deal as everything stands at this time.  He said that Iran right now is on a 'superhighway' to obtaining a nuclear weapon and this deal stops it.  That's the flash analogy, but here are some facts that he pointed out. One, if the United States rejects the deal, the rest of the world (negotiating countries and the UN) is still going to move on with Iranian engagement. Gen. Powell further explained that after he weighed the consequences of doing the deal or rejecting it, he concluded that taking the Iranians off that superhighway, and at the very least delaying their nuclear capabilities for at least 15 years was better than the alternative. He also presented some more detail with the number of centrifuges and plutonium stores being reduced. 

He also said that he thought this deal would make Israel more secure, which stands in contrast to what most of his fellow Republicans are saying. However, we would agree with Gen. Powell in this case, and we'll give the most cynical reasons why, dispensing with the more hopeful, idealistic ones. First, while the entire world is hovering over the Iranians nuclear facilities for 15 years cutting off their way to a nuclear weapon, the Israelis, most probably with U.S. help, can build up their arsenal and defense capabilities to new heights. Also, when the world community becomes aware of freed Iranian funds going to Hamas or Hezbollah, there will much more international pressure to put a stop to it, not contingent of the nuclear deal, as Gen. Powell pointed out, but more of a residual effect. Essentially, instead of Israel having six months to plan and react to a nuclear Iran, this deal buys them at least 15 years and time to prepare if that day comes. And in it's most rudimentary form, go with what the general said, which was "to never trust and always verify."

Staying with the Middle East for a few more moments, despite the fact that ISIS is a movement as Gen. Powell reiterated today, the way in which Syria's civil war simmers down is the military defeat of ISIS and then negotiating a cease fire between the Assad regime and the rebels... that's a start. The military defeat doesn't eliminate the ideology but it eliminates a side in the war that will never 'cease fire.' (Actually, both could be coordinated to occur simultaneously.) The rub is that this joint military force has to consist of Arab countries who are simply not doing their part. The unfortunate but true circumstance.

Obviously, this brings us to the refugee crisis and many European countries scrambling to do something while the world watches. Richard Engel, again this week a key component of the program's success, reporting from the central train station in Budapest, Hungary where thousands of refugees are stranded, said that as Budapest is a focal point, it's Greece that is the front line of the crisis with Lesbos Island being the closest entry point to the EU where the government is trying to provide water and basic sanitation for 25,000 refugees.

You hear a lot of stories about religiously-motivated and xenophobic violence in the EU, but it is Europe that is taking these people in - 800,000 in Germany will be granted asylum. The reason we point this out is because it's astounding the intransigence on the part of the rich Arab nations in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, for not taking in any refugees but also for not stepping up on any of the issues facing the region.  The reason is that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates are all monarchies and the number-one goal of any monarchy is self-preservation. Everything is determined and acted upon in terms of that - taking in refugees doesn't help that cause.

Appropriately, Mr. Todd interviewed former British foreign secretary, David Miliband, and dramatically asked him who is responsible for Aylan Kurdi, the young boy found dead on a Turkish beach. Primarily Bashar Al-Assad, Mr. Miliband answered noting that it has been four years since Assad starting bombing his own people, which initiated the crisis. But he also said that Russia and the U.S. own responsibility for not 'coming to grips' with the devastation of the civil war. Will the U.S. take in 65,000 refugees? As Gen. Powell noted, a resolution depends in large measure as to what Russia is or is not doing. He also pointed out that since the citizens of Syria see Russia backing Assad they assess that the situation will not become any better so they are compelled to leave the country. The foreign secretary also laid some blame on the EU (given the pictures) then also on wealthy Arab countries.  We wouldn't have ordered them that way but the point is that there is enough blame for everyone to have a share. We should point out that only Jordan and Lebanon are taking in refugees and are severely feeling the strain.

Lastly, today's program was interspersed with the lighter, more comic topic it's required to cover - presidential politics, for which we'll say these few things. (the topic was actually needed a bit this week.) As outlined in the Republican primary polls, Scott Walker's campaign is sliding into the abyss and you know from our last column we don't think he has the moxy to pull it out.  However, it's clear that the front runners in both parties are face some serious challenges and in both cases, self-made.  Sec. Clinton's e-mail scandal is like one of those internet ads that follows you to every site you go to... she can't get rid of it and it's clearly hurting her campaign. The latest poll in New Hampshire has Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) up 49% to 38% for Clinton. 

The way in which Sec. Clinton will either subdue the e-mail conversation or not is during a prime-time debate where she answers all questions.  With that said, we don't think Clinton is as vulnerable as her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump. Never mind that Mr. Trump didn't know who the Quds forces in Iran were, that's not why he won't get the nomination. (By the way, Mr. Hewlitt's question to Mr. Trump was not a 'gotcha' question. It was simply a question Mr. Trump didn't know the answer to. If Mr. Trump would have said that he was not overly familiar with the Qud, that would have been an acceptable answer.) He will not get the nomination because ultimately the RNC doesn't see a way in which he can win in the general. But who steps up?

As Doris Kearns-Goodwin pointed out, Jeb Bush has had to step up, and fight. It wasn't the primary race that he envisioned but he has to do it. Gov. Bush is at six and eight percent respectively is Iowa and New Hampshire polls, trailing both Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump. The latter is consistently attacking him and his family's policies, to which he must respond. We give Jeb some credit for mixing it up because none of the other candidates seem to be able to. 

However, all that stuff we talked about in this column before mentioning presidential politics, the Bush name carries a lot of weigh and baggage with it. And now that's Jeb's problem.


Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, radio host and conservative commentator; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian

One more thing...

Kimberly Davis... the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky who wouldn't issue the marriage licenses...
She got what she deserved, and the jail time is more appropriate than issuing a fine. She swore an oath to uphold the law and she didn't perform that duty so she is to be held in contempt. Her religious views and beliefs are her own and that those of the state or the nation.

Here's the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.xI3kcp8X.dpuf

You can debate all you want, but the first two phrases clearly state that religion should play not part in the making of a law and that people's freedom to practice any religion will not be impeded.  However, syntactically there's a reason it's written that way. The law comes first.

8.30.15: A Worthy Week of "Meet The Press"/ Our Take On Gov. Scott Walker

We'll comment quickly here at the top that we seriously doubt anyone from "Meet The Press" actually reads this blog, but either someone really did listen to us or the scheduling gods are just placating us because this week's program was in much finer form.  In addition to an interview of one of the more intriguing candidates in the Republican field, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), the program covered New Orleans 10 years after Katrina and just as important, ISIS and U.S. strategy to fight them.  All three main topics provided insight and perspective which is why one should be tuning into "Meet The Press" in the first place.

With that...

Setting aside Gov. Walker's utterly stupid statement that there should be a wall on the Canadian border, there were topics that really caught our attention.  [A wall on the Canadian border, really? That would include increased security, and how would the good people of Wisconsin and Minnesota living on the border get their prescription drugs conveniently and cheaply if they can't cross the border easily?] It was Gov. Walker's answers with regard to the new arena deal he made for the Bucks and he comments on the deal with Iran that provided the insight.

He said that one of the reasons the new arena will be publicly funded is because the pro athletes on the Milwaukee Bucks payment $6 million a year in taxes for the state implying that that was money the state couldn't afford to lose.  Hmmm... The arena is going to cost $250 million, so if you do some quick math it would take that yearly tax revenue about 42 years to break even on the arena.  And when he was being asked the question he gave that politician, forced smile - the one where he knew the question was going to hurt, that he didn't want to answer it at all.  With the 'Canada' answer and this logic on the public funding, one has to wonder what in the world is Gov. Walker thinking, or is he thinking at all when answering these questions?  This brings us to the Iran deal where he said he'd tear up on his first day in office. The Iranian nuclear deal will be well in place by the time the next president takes office so what he's saying is that he would break the terms of the deal, essentially reneging on it which will cause a great fracture with our allies' allegiances when we start talking tough with military threats - it's a de facto green light for Iran to resume its nuclear program.

Or there's the more reasonable explanation that Gov. Walker is simply feeding 'red meat' to his Republican base attempting to score political points knowing full well that once this deal is in place, it has to go forward, while the United States has keep up the intensity of those inspections. Another promise that he would not be able to keep without eventually going to war with Iran.

Either way, Gov. Walker seems at worst, a poor performing 'yes' man, but certainly... ultimately... He's a follower.

We are self-aware enough to realize that that is quite a harsh take down of Gov. Walker's candidacy, but if he really wants to win, he has to stand firm on his answers and in doing so they first have to be thought out carefully. The better student example is Marco Rubio who understands this dynamic thoroughly and has it down. 

Even on Islamic terrorism, Gov. Walker's comments seemed canned, political and without serious depth. In the fight against ISIS, Gov. Walker explained that 'political' restrictions have to be lifted on the 3,000 U.S. troops that are in country and they need to be free to go out in the field to provide coordinates for air strike targets. Describing the decision to move those troops into a forward area where armed confrontation with ISIS would be inevitable as political doesn't seem to take into account the value of U.S. assets, namely our soldiers. Put the troops in a forward area and run the risk of one of them getting caught, ending up in an orange jumpsuit on Arabic TV. Again, Mr. Walker needs to choose his words more carefully; he's running to become the commander in chief.  Even given what The New York Times Helene Cooper said about her experience on an aircraft carrier where planes were returning from missions without dropping any munitions due to lack of targets.  To that we say, so be it.  But dipping your toe into a battle with ISIS with only 3,000 troops is a potential disaster.

And speaking of ISIS, the program provided perspective in understanding that the ISIS 'brand' (We have a distaste for that description, but what can you do?) and ideology is spreading globally more quickly than Al Qaeda ever could. That may be so but cutting off the head - the caliphate in Iraq and Syria - would go a long way in stifling that growth.  While the U.S. has to stay vigilant for its own protection, it is ultimately for the Muslim governments to act together to eliminate ISIS. It will happen but unfortunately the tipping point will not come until ISIS overreaches and attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon or Turkey in Ankara or something of that nature. As the man in Richard Engel's report explained, he left ISIS because they kill too many Muslims.

At this point, if anyone thinks the neoconservatives were right on Iraq and your name isn't Cheney, Bolton or Kristol, that individual shouldn't be running for president. Mr. Bush? Mr. Graham? Mr. Walker?

And while we're mentioning presidential candidates, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) is disqualified. If we haven't stated that already, we're making it official here. The poverty rate in New Orleans is 27%, Louisiana is 18.5%, both over the national average of 14 percent. The state ranks 49th in a list of 51, the second poorest, finishing only ahead of Mississippi. Our source - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate - so take it for what you will, but do you want to vote for the governor who presides over the second poorest state? Melissa Harris-Perry made a significant point. The governor dissolved the teachers union in New Orleans and two things are happening. One, despite Malcolm Gladwell's opinion on the size of the sample, New Orleans schools are performing poorer post-Katrina when the union was in place. And two, unions ensured a good wage for New Orleans teachers, predominantly African-American. So by getting rid of the union, people are making less money and the students' education isn't as good.  We're not saying that unions are perfect, by no means, but they can be a very positive force for working people. 

Today's program measured up to the standard.


Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times, Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist; Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC


A few more things...

Steve Schmidt was priceless during the program.  The visible contempt that he has for the incompetent Republican presidential field and the Republican-led Congress was on full display.  Mr. Schmidt explained that the Republican electorate has "complete contempt for Republican politicians in Washington." Speaking the truth right there.

Mr. Schmidt, sadly (our word), used the term 'intractable' when discussing the NRA hold on the Republican party, and many Democrats as well.  Once again, you could empathize with his disgust as we keep racking up mass shootings in this country, the latest killing a reporter and her camera man on live television.  Where does it end?

8.23.15: No Substance on Today's "Meet The Press"

Charlie Black, Chairman of the Prime Policy Group (a conservative think tank), said unequivocally that Donald Trump would not be the nominee of the Republican party for the presidency.  He and Alex Castellanos described him as a 'more likable Pat Buchanan' and a 'strongman,' meaning that his appeal has a ceiling that is only so high, many people thinking he has reached it already.  As Amy Walter pointed out, it's August over a year before the election, and those descriptors above are all Mr. Trump has to be because substance at this point isn't important. 

And honestly, there wasn't much substance to today's program. It was simply more 'Hillary e-mail' and 'Donald upsetting the Republican field,' dull presidential political fodder (no offense to the panel guests). There was nothing of the faltering stock market, China devaluing its currency, or the Iranian Nuclear Deal. 

Any substance of the program was pushed online, so Mr. Todd said explaining that more of the Carly Fiorina interview was online.  However, there it's all chopped up into clips, no full interview at the ready.  All the video clips skip around making for a very frustrating experience. And what are we talking about in politics? Birthright citizenship... Unbelievable. At least we got to hear Ms. Fiorina bring a common sense answer to the table. This political summer has been what Peter Hart, Hart Research Association, accurately described as one part anger and two parts anxiety. What gets our anger up that gives us a touch of anxiety is when you're frustrated in trying to come up with something original to say when the program you're commenting on has been talking about the same two things for an entire summer. 

Sure it's August and no one's paying attention, but we are. And you know, we're hot, we're bothered and today "Meet The Press," frankly, doesn't deserve that much of our time. 



Panel: Jon Ralston, "Ralston Live;" Susan Page, USA Today; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report;  Alfonso Aguilar - Former Bush Administration Advisor.

8.16.14: More Trump for Breakfast, with a Side of Sanders

"Meet The Press" is milking the interest in Donald Trump for all it's worth these summer Sunday mornings, there is no doubt. We would advise journalist Jeff Greenfield's analogy, drink some decaf and take it easy on the Trump show.

Frankly, we're tired of commenting on Donald Trump content on "Meet The Press," but we do have a few fresh thoughts given that his interview was followed by an interview with the Democratic Party 'outsider' candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT).

Mr. Trump's campaign slogan is 'Make America Great Again,' and Chuck Todd asked him when he thought the last time was when America was 'great.'  Mr. Trump's response was when Ronald Reagan was president. He talked about other subjects like immigration, for which he would end automatic birthright citizens and deport families who have American-born kids, but undocumented foreign-born parents even if they've been here for decades.  He stated that the Iranian Nuclear Deal would lead to a nuclear Holocaust and said the President Obama really let Israel down. And he commented that our national debt is so high that we're going to become Greece on steroids.  Maybe we do need to make America 'Reagan' great again.

However, in thinking about it for a moment, during President Reagan's two terms, the United States became a debtor nation when his administration drastically lowered taxes ushering in the go-go '80s for many, but a new kind of financial pain for many many more.  The Reagan Administration, as is well-documented, also traded arms with an embargoed Iran through Central American militia groups (the Contras) to free American hostages.  On immigration, President Reagan brought 11 million people in from the shadows; or taken from the reverse perspective, he granted amnesty to them.

But Mr. Trump who has said that we "don't have time for tone," must certainly focused on it in citing the mood and tone of the Reagan era, because we don't thinking he's referring to the policies.

Conversely, what Senator Sanders, not a big fan of the Reagan Administration, proposes is to take the United States back to a reflection of pre-Reagan tax policies where the wealthiest pay the most, percentage-wise, to bring down the yearly deficits that grow the debt.

Where it looks like the two polar-opposite candidates agree is on campaign financing.  Mr. Trump states that he's not influenced by lobbyists, special interests and big-money donors because he doesn't need the money. "I can't be bought," he said.  People understandably like this because they see the rest of the Republican field beholden to a small cast of lesser known billionaires (Marco Rubio, for example, gets most of his campaign money from Norman Braman, former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles.). Senator Sanders, for his part, gets his campaign money from 350,000 donors who have contributed an average of $31.20, not being beholden to the terrible consequences of a money-flooded campaign system created by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

Both are adamant about not being influenced by big money donors, but where they are drastically different is that one is saying that we need to change the system where the other is saying you have to beat it.


Panel: Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico and The Daily Beast

8.9.15: Keeping It Real and the Iranian Nuclear Deal

Once again, "Meet The Press," hence we have to start with Donald Trump and the post-debate fallout. Mr. Trump lashed out post debate against Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly saying that her questions were unfair and that she was obviously angry commenting, "...blood coming out of her whatever..."  By the end of today's interview, even Mr. Trump was asking to talk about the real issues.  Funny thing is, if Mr. Trump were to answer questions about actual issues, his answers would really get him in trouble.

Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, who will be moderating the next Republican primary debate, said that Mr. Trump obviously doesn't have the temperament to be president because of the off-color statements that he continues to make. However, we would more importantly add, and this is a warning to his supporters, is this huge oversight. Donald Trump is a greatly successful businessman with billions of dollars to show for it, but he's never had to consider others in those decisions.  They've all been made ultimately for his benefit. What we're saying is that to get anything done as president you have to consider the strong, most of the time inflexible, opinions of 535 other people, otherwise known as Congress. And the way in which Congress operates these days, if you alienate members on one issue, you lose them on others as well - a package deal or no deal at all.

In terms of the debate performances, we agree with the consensus opinion that Carly Fiorina did very well as did Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).  We differ in our assessment of Dr. Ben Carson's performance because our take is that his answers do not come off as thought as much as it seems like he's searching for one,which doesn't inspire any confidence.  Not to mention the fact that by his own admission he is still learning about foreign policy.  If this column knows more than a candidate on foreign policy, you're disqualified.

And speaking on that, Hugh Hewitt said that the GOP really lost on debate night because the candidates weren't asked about the Iran deal and where they stood.  That may be true but it was most probably for the best because we would speculate that at least 6 out of the 10 candidates would have said something that Democrats would be able to use in an attack ad.  It's better to get these types of answers, or really non-answer in Senator Rubio's case, in an interview setting.

Senator Rubio is obviously against the Iranian Nuclear Deal, but his reflections on Russia and China worry us.  He said that Russia and China have never acted in the interests of America, which isn't entire true, but by walking away from the deal, the United States' Congress must understand that those relationships will become even more adversarial, and Iran would then have the freedom and the money to achieve nuclear statehood.  The Republican candidate in his answer doesn't seem to consider the repercussions internationally to walking away; the very reason why former Defense Security, Robert Gates says it should go through while being rightly very critical of the deal.  Reflected in Mr. Rubio's answer, is the general attitude Republicans have to such complicated matters and that is, "We're going to do this. You do what ever you want then, but don't do this, this, and this, or else..."

Conversely, you would hope that more Senators were taking Senator Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) lead and finding out what the repercussions are.  Our thinking is that the answers that she gets are going to prompt her to be in favor of the deal because the money is going to start flowing regardless of what Congress decides. You have to surmise that the responsibility for being in this situation falls squarely on the Obama Administration, like it or not.

But given the current situation, we are very uncomfortable with the effect this deal has on the relationship with Israel and the United States, and what it means for the safety or our closest ally in the region, but without the deal, Iran will become more dangerous to all U.S. interests. We sympathize with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as the deal puts him in a very tight position, making it understandable that he is opting against it.  However, if we can get 15 years of a nuclear free Iran, with the possibility of more time, then what choice is there? Senator McCaskill asked the question: If the United States walks away from the deal, what does the world look like? Answer: A much more dangerous place.


Panel: Hugh Hewitt, Conservative Talk Host; Heather McGhee, President Demos & Demos Action; Andrea Mitchell; NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times

One more thing...
Eric Erickson is having his annual Red State Gathering and Mr. Trump is not invited.  The clip shown on the program was of Mr. Erickson explaining that his kids would be there so Mr. Trump isn't going to be in attendance.  Mr. Trump's unsurprising retort was to call Mr. Erickson a loser. Mr. Erickson, point taken.

However, John Kasich is also not invited because Mr. Erickson said that the governor of Ohio would be a terrible nominee for the party. This assessment stems from Governor Kasich accepting the Affordable Care Act's Medicare funding for his state.

Here's the problem with both scenarios. Mr. Erickson and other so called party influencers only want to see the Republican Party that they want to, and not how it actually is. Republicans have to face the demographic and electoral reality of the United States. Keeping themselves in the 'gentle' bubbles the likes of ones Mr. Erickson creates is done at one's supreme disappointment.  It reminds of us how Republicans were shocked because they couldn't believe Mr. Romney lost the election.  That's because a handful of people didn't tell Republican supporters the truth, just what they wanted to hear, and it wasn't real.

It's a private event and Mr. Erickson can invite whomever he would like, but just because you don't like a particular candidate in your own party, doesn't mean he or she doesn't exist.