4.26.15: No Absolute Certainty...Certainly

In the wake of two hostages being killed, and Italian and American respectively, in a drone strike targeting and Al Qaeda stronghold in Pakistan, there is renewed focus on the Drone War.  This is one of Pres. Barack Obama's great failures during his presidency. Under President Bush there were 50 drone strikes but under Pres. Obama there have been 475. The use of drones in warfare opens up a Pandora's box of bad precedents.

Micah Zenko, a drone expert at the Council of Foreign Relations, said that the spread of drone technology and usage is slowly progressing to other countries. The British and the Israelis use drones, but soon in perhaps 5 to 10 years down the line other countries will have drone technology, which opens up a plethora of scenarios. For example, what if Russia starts using drones and then Russian hackers take over the computers that control the drones and start flying them over and firing missiles on places that send the globe into a panic? Will other countries start flying drones towards the United States that it then has to shoot down, firing missiles from within its own country, to protect itself. It seems crazy, but if you can imagine it so easily only says it could be a possible reality.

But that's future semi-horror/fantasy. In the here and now, the worst thing that Mr. Zenko outlined was that drone strikes are the calling card of US foreign policy, the face of US foreign policy. This not-so-secret perpetual state of warfare through drone use hampers the United State’s ability to negotiate and influence other countries. Granted, the United States isn’t truly negotiating with countries where they’re using drones, despite its ‘partnership’ with Pakistan, where many missions are directed. 

Tom Donilon, former national security advisor for Pres. Obama, explained very carefully that in the assessment of this target, “an enemy facility in the Aghan theater of war,” it was the facility itself were what was under scrutiny, not the identities of the individuals in the facility.  In that context, the CIA had authorization because they were correct in that particular assessment that it was indeed an Al Qaeda stronghold.  It’s the fact of that result that registers most with the American people and the domestic repercussions are minimal right now.  Mr. Donilon said as much, while tragic that hostages were killed, there is no absolute certainty in a war zone.

These are part of the unintended consequences – hostages being killed, civilians being injured in a retaliatory terrorist attacks for the use of those drones, and a deteriorating ability to negotiate with other countries around the world will all continue. Another consequence, Mr. Zenko explained, is the change in calculus as to how frequent these strikes are carried out. He explained that if these were special forces incursions there wouldn't be nearly as many or if these were manned aircraft strikes there also wouldn't be nearly as many. So the impetus for the de-escalation of these strikes given that safety calculus is very low. Drone strikes and the failure to close Guantanamo Bay Prison are two big failures that tarnish Mr. Obama’s legacy as president, there is no doubt.

Speaking of tarnished legacies it is difficult to run for president when you already have one at the state of the race. Of course we are speaking about Hillary Clinton and the rumblings of quid pro quo money for influence favors with the Clinton Foundation. The real problem here is that even the more liberal commentators and progress are using words like Evan buy from Yahoo news used on today's program which is arrogance and disregard for conflict of interest and putting it most mildly was governor Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas who said the Clintons were complicated. It's really hard to say where all of this is going to shake out however if it gets worse and Mrs. Clinton doesn't take Doris Kearns-Goodwin's advice of dealing with this herself and the Democrats have no fallback candidate if this goes in a nightmarish direction for Mrs. Clinton. We like most others don't feel that this will ultimately be a big deal but it adds to a negative narrative established twenty years with Mr. Clinton, and it’s this rehash that we dread.

Lastly, there is the impending Supreme Court decision on whether or not to make same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states and we thought that Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies frame the argument most properly. In denying same-sex marriage you are denying individuals rights that are afforded to others and under the Constitution. Everyone should have equal rights under the law. We understand the religious sensitivities that people have towards the notion of same-sex marriage but as was discussed the progression towards majority social acceptance has been historically fast. This just says that people are more accepting of differences but that those differences shouldn't mean that you have less rights than someone else. That's called advanced democracy.  There’s no absolute certainty that the country always get there, but we’re on board with the practice.

Panel: Asa Hutchinson, Governor of Arkansas; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Evan Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times

4.19.15: A Little Early for Presidential Campaign Analysis, but Gov. John Kasich...

We have no intention of going on too much today because the program primarily centered around the presidential campaign, and as Mr. Todd said, there are ninteen months until the election so we have a little time. However, having said that, we’ll offer a few thoughts on one guest in particular. First, it was no surprise that Gov. John Kasich of Ohio (R) was not going to give a scoop to “Meet The Press” in the form of an announcement on whether he’s running for president or not. Given the fact that he was a commentator on the Fox News Network, it would stand to reason that If anyone is going to get scoop, it would be Fox.

But he sure did sound like a candidate for president, and in our humble opinion he is really the one that can give Hillary Clinton the most trouble. He's the governor of the quintessential swing state that plays a vital role in any candidate’s hopes for presidential victory. He's a conservative but he is also a pragmatist, which answers the question of why he took the money for Medicaid under the construct of the Affordable Care Act, much to the chagrin of his conservative compatriots. But Mr. Kasich sees it as most people do, “Why wouldn't you take that money?” The federal government is helping the state government help its most struggling citizens.  He said it himself that there is a way to compromise without having to sacrifice your principles.  Governor Kasich said that the two most important considerations as to whether he is going to run is first his family, and secondly, (his words – paraphrasing) what the Lord is guiding him to do in his life. Of course you always have to consider the scrutiny that your family will have to endure as you the candidate run through the gauntlet of the press and campaign trail. The other consideration whether the Lord has indicated if this is what he should do with his life, take it easy hardcore liberals that the statement came off as it was coming more from the place in the strength that he finds in being religious, not some direct call from the God, while he has a crazy look in his eye.  But make no mistake, God’s going to tell him to run.

The only problem we would have with a Kasich Administration is that it would preside over a Republican Congress, and he’d rubberstamp anything that they put forward then rest on them the justification for it if it went south.  It’s happened before. Chuck Todd mentioned that there were nineteen prospective Republican candidates at this point and not at anytime we would presume to tell you how to vote, but if you're considering Ted Cruz or Ben Carson or Mike Huckabee, then you shouldn't be really reading this blog.  We all know that we like their collective entertainment value, but taking them seriously as presidential material is just downright scary.  Needless to say, they’ve all rendered themselves disqualified to hold any public office, forget the oval one.

The other little bit about today's program with regard to presidential politics all centered around Hillary Clinton's rollout of her campaign. Some on the panel thought it was too scripted, the journey to Iowa too scripted, and that there were opportunities lost, as Mr. Todd said. To all of which we say, “ Of course it was scripted.” She's just getting out on the road – why make an early mistake if you can avoid it.  Also, she's not really taking the temperature of the people so much as she is taking the temperature of the press coverage about the campaign launch.

The launch was what it was; all that matters is that we know she is official in the race. Here are two things to keep in mind in these early stages, 1) Mrs. Clinton put out broad strokes of what her campaign is going to be about, which is restoring the middle class. However, she really needs to start refining of vision and message quickly or everyone is going to view her candidacy simply as an attempted land grad. On the other side of that, Republicans need more than Hillary bashing and greedy tax policies. That's simply not going to fly.  But as we said, there are nineteen months to go so we’re not going to waste too much energy today going on about a race that's just started.

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; David Axrelrod, former advisor to President Obama; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Steve Schmidt, former John McCain campaign manager. 

One last thing: We agree with Steve Schmidt and David Axelrod that what Florida postman Doug Hughes did - flying his Gyro copter into Capitol airspace to deliver a letter to bring attention to the reform of campaign finance was reckless and showed an extremely poor lack of judgment; he could have been shot down. Security became a large part of the story, and his message got lost in the on-air mail. Granted, we all know that this country desperately needs campaign finance reform in the biggest way because billionaires are essentially owning their own political candidates. However, the one question that’s been sticking with us throughout the story is where can we get a Gyrocopter? How cool is that?

4.12.15: Hillary Clinton's Announcement

Wouldn't it be funny if Hillary Clinton announced today that she wasn't running for president?  The number one topic that dominated today's program, despite a responsible addressing of all the week's news, was the presumed candidacy of Hillary Clinton; keyword being 'presumed.'

However, to our own mild surprise, we're going to trust NBC News because it's "Meet The Press." (We write a blog on it as you know.)  And Mr. Todd mentioned that the campaign is launching with the title - Hillary for America.  However, we're going to start with a point of discussion that the panel had at the end, which was the Atlantic Monthly's Jonathan Ruuch and his politician expiration date equation.  Mr. Todd explained that Mr. Rauch determined that the optimal time for a winning politician is if the person has been in the public eye for less than fourteen years. As an elected official, Hillary Clinton has accrued fifteen years, but if you factor in her time as first lady then it jumps up to a quarter of a century.  There were two lists of the prospective candidates outlining their over-under the fourteen-year threshold.

NPR's Maria Hinojosa commented that terms like 'stale' and 'expiration date' are very poor choices when describing any woman let alone Mrs. Clinton, and we obviously agree.  But here's the key - all all the people on that list there is only one woman and that is where the equation breaks.  Think about all that Mrs. Clinton has had to accomplish and go through to be in this very position.  As First Lady, she took a pummeling from Republicans over healthcare reform; then she had to win a New York Senate race, followed by losing a difficult presidential bid to relative newcomer Barack Obama; then serve under him as Secretary of State.  Comparatively, no other male candidate has a comparable  resume so she's had to be in the public eye longer by necessity .  You understand the disparity here.

Mrs. Clinton certainly does have trust issues, which are two-pronged.  There are Republicans who simply hate the Clintons and would never vote for them and then there is the more significant dissents, which come from Democrats who can not trust the Mrs. Clinton will do what she says she will.  For example, if Mrs. Clinton talks about the wealth gap in the United States and helping the middle class in a significant way, will she make good on that rhetoric?  This will be hashed out during the campaign and an examination of her vision, which is critical.

And given that, we wouldn't endorse Mrs. Clinton at this time either, not before we heard what she has to say so we agree with Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake that it is not significant that Bill de Blasio who served as he Senate-race campaign manager didn't endorse her today during his interview.  The dynamics of such an endorsement have significantly changed, starting with the fact that Mr. de Blasio is now the mayor of America's largest city, New York.  Also, we wouldn't suggest what she should or should not do on the campaign trail.  We're here to observer and assess as everyone else will do before casting a vote.  And what we'll assess is indeed Mrs. Clinton's vision for the country, and whether or not we think she'll actually carry it out, to earn an endorsement.

Hugh Hewlitt said he found it surreal that one of the talking points for Mrs. Clinton, uttered multiple times by Mr. de Blasio, is that she has been thoroughly vetted - obviously, he disagrees.  If you're a conservative as Mr. Hewlitt is, you're going to find it surreal as well because there are 'so many questions.'  Conversely, if you're a progressive, one would ask, 'what more do you need to know?'  For every politician, there is a sliding scale between the two.  As Mr. Todd pointed out, we know very little of Rand Paul's personal background, nor will he answer any questions about it. Yet, we know that Mrs. Clinton's husband had an affair, with whom and what was done.  To use the word 'surreal' is a bit too conspiracy oriented than is called for, as is saying that the Clintons think they are above the law, like Senator Paul did.

Then there is the ultimate wild-card, alluded to in the last paragraph, which is President Bill Clinton.  Strange that one's spouse would be a wild card, but when one's already been the president of the United States and it's Bill Clinton, then strange is what to expect. Having said that, in more honest campaigning terms, we think Mr. Clinton will stay on the right page more, in line with Mrs. Clinton's wishes this time round, but the variable is how it comes off and how it's perceived by the electorate.

David Brooks mentioned that for Mrs. Clinton it will be all about authenticity and integrity, but as David Axelrod said (in a clip), humility is the order of the day, and though we wouldn't call it humility per se, it's smart that Mrs. Clinton is announcing today because tomorrow, she'll only be a side note at the water cooler, which will be dominated by "Game of Thrones."  So here's to starting our own, the race for presidency of the United States.


Panel: David Brooks, The New York Times; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor of Baltimore (D); Hugh Hewlitt, conservative radio host.


On another note: We'd be negligent if we didn't mention the police shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina, but there isn't much to add except that 1) the alternative hypothetical report that "Meet The Press" put together was a better example of something truly surreal, 2) the policeman, Michael Slager should certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and 3) most importantly, the public trust of the police force, across the entire country, has eroded to a crisis level, and something needs to be done.  Body cameras, as discussed, is a good start, and demilitarizing the force would be a solid second step.

4.5.15: The Iranian Nuclear Deal & Religious Liberty

-->

It's a shame that on an Easter and Passover weekend we cannot speak about the topics from today's program in a more genial tone, but the guests and the subjects did not lend themselves at all well to any sort of conciliatory language.

Here’s the fact:  There is a deal in place.

It is certainly one that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not happy with as he unequivocally and repeatedly stated in his interview with Chuck Todd today that  Iran is the preeminent terrorist state of our time. Mr. Netanyahu, as we know, would like to see a deal that closes Iran's nuclear facilities, entirely rolling back their nuclear program.

But here’s another fact, is that's unrealistic. There is no way that is going to happen as Iran’s program is too far along, so much so that they were only a few months away from total nuclear weapon capability.  Mr. Netanyahu said that he wants a diplomatic deal, but one that is frankly unrealistic.  His only recourse to accomplish what he sees is a good deal would be to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities?  And if indeed that is the course of action, extrapolating out that plan, it would not be Israel that does the bombing, but the United States through authorization of a Republican Congress that frankly Mr. Netanyahu has in his vest pocket.  The deal pushes Iran’s capability back to a year’s time.

At the top of the program Mr. Todd summarized reactions on both sides: the hardliners in Iran felt that their Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, gave away too much and elected officials critical of the Obama administration in the United States said that the United States did not get enough concessions, so what we can surmise is that both sides felt some pain.  The other consideration, a big one, is that there were five other countries involved in negotiations. And this is key for the United States, in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. It does the United States well to be partnered with Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia and China. However, if the U.S. Republican-controlled Congress does not go along with this deal – doesn’t ratify it – essentially killing it then we've lost some key allies and significant partners, not only on this deal but in others where we'll need their cooperation. They will know that the president doesn’t have the ability to negotiate on behalf of the country, rendering the United States an unreliable partner that other countries will cease to seek out.

Given that Iran was only months away from constituting a nuclear weapon, this was a critical time and a deal had to be struck or the United States would have to be willing to go to war with Iran, and it would certainly go it alone, with only Israel as a partner, as none of those other five countries would support a war against Iran. Not to mention that, frankly, the American people simply don't want it.

Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT), who called the deal ‘remarkable,’ provided minor consolation for the deal, when he explained that other sanctions related to other issues at hand would remain in place.  Only sanctions as they are related to Iran's nuclear capability would eventually be lifted.  Mr. Murphy also offered the opinion that perhaps if the United States can show it can negotiate with Iran on this issue; perhaps it could negotiate with them on others. That’s a overly optimistic in our opinion.

When it comes right down to it the opinion of this column is one of pragmatism. Given the facts, as they are now, the question at hand is what the U.S. Congress should do now? As we’ve said, if Congress nixes this deal, which they probably will, it puts the United States in a very difficult diplomatic spot.

[Though were not really ready to comment on presidential politics at the moment, if in 2016 a Democrat is elected president and Republican Congress is still in control; will this sort of diplomatic negating tactic stay in place, essentially rendering the United States’ ability to negotiate with other countries completely null and void because of its unpredictability? Point being, is that this could set of very bad precedent that would only get worse moving forward.

And unfortunately speaking of the concept of ‘things-can-only-get-worse’ in the of presidential politics, we think of governors running for president in terms of how they run their states. So when we consider Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal: we ask ourselves: do we want to live Mr. Jindal’s Louisiana? The answer is clearly ‘no.’]

The above supplemental commentary aside, the essential question that Mr. Jindal was on today’s program to answer was in consideration of the validity of these religious liberty laws that have come through Indiana and Arkansas in the past week.

The first amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

Amendment 1

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. 

In his defense of religious liberty laws, Mr. Jindal quoted referred to the founding fathers and the First Amendment, what is disturbing is that he would have you believe an incorrect reading of the first sentence of the first amendment.  (And frankly, Cardinal Dolan in his interview, was also incorrectly spoke about what the first amendment means.) In the first sentence, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” What that means is Congress should make no laws with regard to religion, and making a religious liberty law is making law about ‘religion,’ which Congress shouldn’t do under any circumstance. The invocation of liberty is open to interpretation, but it's a non-issue regardless because the First Amendment it says no law should be made with respect to religion. That is most rudimentary answer as to why it is unconstitutional.

What these religious liberty laws were designed to do in a practical sense is protects businesses if they wanted to refuse service to a gay couple on the grounds that it goes against the religious values of the business owner. For example, if there is only one florist in town and a gay couple wants to get married – in that town in a state where same-sex marriage is legal - and they go to that florist to get flowers for the wedding.  The florist says, “I don't believe in that kind of marriage for religious reasons, so I am not delivering the flowers,” that business’s discrimination is protected under the law.  It’s protects the business’s right to discriminate based on sexual orientation.   Again - Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion.

Not to mention that throughout the entire interview, Governor Jindal spoke only in terms of Christians.  He didn’t speak at all in terms of all religions, just the Christian religion, which was sad. (And it didn't go unnoticed that Cardinal Dolan only referred to Christians and Jews as practicing religious peacefulness.) We understand and have sympathy for Cardinal Dolan's point of view because he is a cardinal in the Catholic Church, catering to Catholics! However with respect to Gov. Jindal, he signed up for PUBLIC office – public meaning everyone without respect to religion, not the office of the Christian public only. 

Panel:   Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Perry Bacon, NBC News

-->