The main topics of today's program all carried a whiff of
xenophobia and the ‘ol ‘otherness’ or ‘us and them’ aspect, and once again,
unfortunately, it’s was driven by Republicans.
First, there were the stupid comments this week by former
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R), in which he said that the president was not as
patriotic as he should be; and that he didn't grow up loving the country like,
say, you and me. To not endlessly rehash what we feel our readers already know
of Mr. Giuliani’s statements, they were insidious at the least or as Nia-Malika
Henderson of The Washington Post
summed it they were ‘despicable.’
Indeed.
These kinds of statements have no place in sensible
political discourse, as doesn’t Mr. Giuliani anymore, who is senselessly trying
to remain relevant. But in trying to do so has, in fact, rendered himself
completely irrelevant and cannot be taken seriously. Ms. Henderson also was
correct when she described how most New Yorkers know Mr. Giuliani's reputation before
9/11 was not all that great, and that’s understating it. Everyone is grateful for
his stout leadership on the worst day in New York City's history, but he has now
crushed that legacy. Now Mr. Giuliani is simply a right-wing crank that doesn't
represent the views of the people he once represented.
We would call Mr. Giuliani a joke but that would be
inaccurate. More appropriately, Mr. Giuliani is the punchline to the bad joke
on Scott Walker (R), the governor of Wisconsin.
We’re of the mindset that if you call the president unpatriotic
or say that he doesn't love America hat is also to indirectly say that everyone
who voted for him also doesn't love the country which is insulting to the
majority of Americans who elected Mr. Obama twice. So for Mr. Walker to not denounce Mr. Giuliani's statements,
given at a dinner that was in fact for Mr. Walker's benefit, he is deservedly
going to get beaten up in the press for such cowardice.
Today's panel also discussed a question asked of Mr. Walker
as to whether or not he believed Pres. Obama was a Christian. Chuck Todd
accurately described that the answer seemed to leave an opening that suggested
that the president may not be a Christian. What is very obvious is that Mr.
Walker needs to be schooled up very quickly if he's serious about contending
for the presidency of the United States because right now he is certainly not
ready for prime time. These ‘I’m-not-qualified-to-judge’ answers aren’t going
to cut it anymore.
Republicans like to say that Scott Walker is a great
Republican governor in a largely Democratic state, but the fact is that Mr.
Walker despite having won three elections in four years – Republicans like to
point out - has put the state of Wisconsin into debt. And despite what Republicans say, not having unions is bad
for middle-class families that earn money in manufacturing. ‘Right to Work’ legislation simply
gives all leverage to the employer that means you can be let go from your job
arbitrarily.
And we can't let this go without mentioning Louisiana Gov.
Bobby Jindal (R). The governor said that if you are looking for someone to
criticize Mayor Giuliani, go someplace else. This column is of the mindset that
Bobby Jindal is delusional if he thinks he would be a good president. He has pretty
much run the state of Louisiana into the ground, increasing debt and cutting
education funding. And speaking to
which, he’s flip-flopped on common core education. When we think about Bobby
Jindal, we don't think about how he won't criticize a fellow Republican, our
aim goes directly to his policies.
The second semantic "controversy" stems from the
fact that Republicans are condemning the president because Mr. Obama is not
labeling ISIS as Islamic extremists. The president is calling them, rather, radical extremists. ISIS is an extremist
group that follows an extreme interpretation of the Koran, which would indeed
make them Islamic extremists. That’s what this column will call ISIS, but we completely
understand why the Administration would not use that term. We agree that the Administration
should not use that term.
This opinion column has the luxury to use such as
description, just as we have the luxury to use the term “Christian extremist”
when describing the West Baptist Church for example. That congregation takes an
extreme view of the Bible. Can the president talk about Christian extremists?
Of course he cannot because politically that's just a terrible thing to do. Our
allies in the Middle East are Muslims and we have to show them, as a country
represented by the Obama Administration, that we understand that not all
Muslims are extremists. Even, conservative columnist, Michael Gerson agreed
that you cannot alienate your allies in the region in such as way that lumps a
billion Muslims world-wide with ISIS.
So we don't have a problem with Sen. Bob Corker, Republican of
Tennessee, saying that he's going to call ISIS Islamic extremists. What we
would ask is that people understand why Pres. Obama won't use that term.
On today's program video clips showed President George Bush
saying that “Islam is peace,” and one of the fmr. Vice-President Dick Cheney
saying that the Iraq war was not a war against Islam. So there is precedent for
Mr. Obama’s tact.
One other thing that Senator Corker said that that we agree
with was about the long-standing policy of the United States that it will not
pay ransoms for American citizens captured by a group like ISIS. As we've said
before in this column, we have great sympathy for Kayla Mueller’s family, but it
must be said that Ms. Mueller knew the risks in going to Syria. She had to have
known of those risks because to go there with out knowing those risks would
have been unwise. No matter how much one's heart is in the right place one
still has to go into something like that with eyes completely open. So, no, the
United States should not change its policy on not ransoming captured citizens.
The next instance of frivolous non-inclusion is the
Republicans stance on immigration inasmuch as they are tying it to funding for
the Department of Homeland Security. The Congress has four days to resolve the
funding issue of this department while demanding that the president revoked his
executive orders on immigration.
In the interview that Chuck Todd conducted with Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson, he outlined a threat to the nation's malls, specifically
the Mall of America in Minneapolis, a city with a large Somali population. The threat came from Al-Shabab, a large
terrorist organized based in Somalia. He said that people going to the mall
should be more alert than they normally would be. He said there will be extra security - visible and not. So
in the face of these threats and in the matter of protecting American borders
and enforcing border policy, which Republicans insist on, they are threatening
a shutdown that would furlough 30,000 people in Homeland Security. Decide for
yourself whether that's smart or not.
And finally, the last in this string of disenfranchisement has
to do with voting laws.
It is heartening to know that there are many Republicans,
more than Democrats would think, that can compromise and move forward bipartisan
legislation – case in point is this new voting legislation, in light of the
Supreme Court dismissing pre-clearance in changing voting laws in certain
states, cosponsored by one of today's guests Congressman Charlie Kent (R-PA). The legislation even has the support of
Civil Rights icon Congressman John Lewis.
What we didn’t like about what Congress Kent said is that new
voting rights legislation would have to contain a provision for voter IDs,
which he agreed with. The congressman did give examples of voter fraud in his
argument for requiring voter IDs, but there was a serious problem with his two cited
examples. Both examples were of politicians who committed the fraud, not about the
average voter. Yet, voter IDs penalizes the average voter and says nothing of
the politician who is more apt to commit the fraud. If that's his best argument
that he can make for voter ID then the argument is deeply flawed.
Sherrilyn Ifill, legal defense counsel for the NAACP, described
and example of where a judge in Texas ruled that the state’s voter ID laws were
specifically put in place to disenfranchise minority voters. Whether you agree with
that judge's ruling or not, the mere conversation of votes being restricted
runs counter to what the base goal really should be which is to have as many
people focus possible. The goal should always be to increase voter turnout, not
restrict it. If you think democracy is a good thing then why not encourage more
of it.
Panel: Amy oh Walter, Cook Political Report; Nia-Malika
Henderson, The Washington Post; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post; Robert
Gibbs, fmr. White House Press Secretary
No comments:
Post a Comment