What a week... Or ten days as it were...
-Republicans siding with President Obama on the Pacific trade pact
-Confederate Flags being removed from state houses throughout the South
-The Supreme Court uploading a provision of Obamacare, essentially saving it
-ISIS orchestrating three near simultaneous terror attacks in three continents - Tunisia, Yemen and
France
-The return of the Supreme Court to render that marriage equality is the law of the land
-President Obama delivering an inspired foundation-grounding eulogy for Reverend Clementa
Pinkney leading the congregation through "Amazing Grace"
And those are even come close to covering it... Welcome to the world.
The moderator, Chuck Todd, had it correct that these past ten days cement President Obama's legacy and also bring it into distinct focus, the good and the bad.
The two Supreme Court decisions were to be expected, frankly. The Obamacare challenge should have never even come up, but that it had and now that the court has issued its ruling, repeal mentioned by Governor Bobby Jindal in his interview today (R-LA) is not a political reality. And the only thing that Republicans are gathering consensus is a feeling of relief. Now that the court has ruled they can continue to rhetorically oppose the law without the responsibility of coming up with a viable alternative. Obamacare may be flawed, for certain, but the truly disingenuous political games that Republicans have been playing - e.g. wasting time and tax payers' money with 50+ votes for repeal in the House - make you want to root for the law's success.
Though Justice John Roberts said that people across the country can celebrate the decision but not the reading of the Constitution that brought the decision about. Once again we turn to Mr. Jindal who said that he strongly opposes the Supreme Court's ruling because it's an attack on religious liberty and how it could man redefine an institution created by God? Obviously, five justices disagreed with Judge Roberts but even given the conflict of interpretation, in a less binding but equally significant document, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," which we now rightfully include women, understanding that it means both. For Mr. Jindal's part, the notion that religious liberty is being thwarted in some way is ridiculous because when you consider and equate religious liberty to religious tolerance, the United States is more religiously tolerant than ever before. And marriage is a man-made tradition inspired by a belief in God, but still man-made which can be changed.
Mr. Jindal also explained that when it comes to race relations in the United States, he has spoken many times on the subject and is a strong advocate of racial equality. This is great that Mr. Jindal believes that no one in the United States should be discriminated against based on race, but gender and sexual identity is a completely different story? He mentioned the first amendment and if his reasoning for being against marriage equality is because it goes against God then that's a potential attack on that very amendment, which says that no law shall be made with respect to religion. (Our first amendment is quite pliable.)
It may seem like a lot of rapid social change going on a once, but the reality is that both racial and sexual-orientation justice have been a long long time in the making, as Newt Gingrich pointed out in the case of gay rights with the riots of Stonewall occurring 46 years ago. He also said that once same-sex marriage started happening in one state, there was no going back and that it was a just a matter of time before all states recognized it.
It has been all those little unrecognized transformational moments, drawn from pain from agony, that have come before to deliver 'just another one' like those delivered upon this week.
As for the Confederate Flag, we think you know where we stand. In the laws of social physics, there's only so much pressure that can build up before things blow [read: change dramatically].
With regard to Mr. Obama's presidency, his legacy and the credit to be given, the panel considered the term 'transformational.' His presidency is hyper-historic and his legacy, two defining aspects will be the Affordable Care Act and the significant social change that happened during his two terms. Kathleen Parker posed the question as to how much credit President Obama should receive for all this. We'd come down on the answer of 'a lot' but not 'all.' The president gets the credit because it is his administration that sets the tone, makes the arguments, presents the agendas and forces its position requiring others to respond.
Senator Ted Cruz's (R-TX) response was to call this week's one of the darkest in our history. Mr. Jindal said that if the country wanted to save money, it should get rid of the court as it is reading neither the Constitution nor the dictionary; if so, what makes him think they are reading the Bible either? It's not required reading for the justices. Mr. Todd asked him why Louisiana is the only state not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, Mr. Jindal responded by trying to dismiss this fact and half-heartedly gave a few 'procedural' answers.
But the real reason is that he doesn't like it hence the state is dragging its feet, a passive aggressive move not good if you're running for president; all because he believes it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Now that's taking religious liberties.
Panel: Charles Ogletree, Harvard University; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University; Newt Gingrich, Republican at Large
Quick Note...
Governor Jindal and Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) for that matter getting into the presidential race will bring the official count for the 'why not me' primary to 14, and this number doesn't include probable entrant Governor Scott Walker (R-WI). First, at 15 hopefully the party will feel it's reached its quota for candidates. We sit and hear the argument for Mr. Walker, but Mr. Jindal and Mr. Christie? Please, why? They must be running for cabinet positions, in which the joke would be on us when Mr. Christie is appointed Secretary of Transportation. Secondly, this many candidates with bomb-throwing tempers could have a gladiatorial political death effect on some careers. But what ever, why not me?
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
6.21.15: Deflecting and Diffusing Questions Doesn't Work on Us Anymore
Even though Mr. Todd prefaced the video by saying that it only featured African-American men, but it was in no way a comment about the racial component of gun violence. As managing editor, Mr. Todd made the wrong decision in choosing to air it with given its inadequate representation of diversity. All the caveats and explanations given before are not going to overcome the visual presentation. Despite David Brooks becoming choked up, the backlash was to be expected.
We understand the message of the video and the heart of it seems well placed, but for a national audience on "Meet The Press" given what just happened in Charleston, it showed poor judgement not recognizing an obvious shortcoming.
The goal of showing the video was to further the discussion and although it did not turn out how the "Meet The Press" intended, it was successful in extending the discourse in as much as that whites should have that honest conversation with themselves about their attitudes toward race. There is a constant posture of deflect and diffuse, to be so careful in what one says that nothing actually gets said, hence nothing done. Eugene Robinson shouldn't have to point out that this was a racist act of terror perpetrated by a white man and that the two murders who recently escaped prison were also white. Helene Cooper apologized for her cynical answer when it came to guns control law, because she reasoned that if we weren't going to pass any meaningful gun laws after twenty kindergarten kids were senseless murdered then why we would do anything after a white guy guns down 9 African-Americans in a church. However, she shouldn't have apologized because it stems from the frustration that we all feel in our leaders who are beholden to the gun lobby (among others).
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee offered very little in the form of consolation in term of having an honest dialogue about race as he deflected question after question avoiding giving an honest answer on everything during his interview. When asked about the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina state house, he said that it was a matter of states' rights. And we understand that Mr. Huckabee is a man of faith and we don't begrudge him that, but faith alone is not going to solve the problem. He also said that there were bigger issues to be addressed like the economy and defense of the country. But isn't he missing (or denying) the point entirely? The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism for many in this country and it is a touchstone in the conversation about race relations in this country, which is a major issue. It's disconcerting that Mr. Huckabee is not more sensitive to this social dynamic and what has been going on in cities across the United States. Mr. Huckabee keeps a rational tone when giving non-answers to questions or, as we explained before, deflecting to a different topic, but it makes us conclude that he would govern very differently from what he is selling on the campaign trail, at least when in the national eye.
One more point on this: Mr. Huckabee doesn't believe in man-made climate change and instead of addressing Mr. Todd's question about whether he agreed with Pope Francis on the subject, he instead talked about responsible energy policy, which sounds nice but there was nothing concrete in his answer. When pressed again about it, he said that the Pope covered many topics like abortion, and then he went on about that.
We happen to agree with Pope Francis that man's activity are accelerating climate change, between all the greenhouse gas emissions and the plastic island the size of Texas, three-feet deep, floating in the Pacific Ocean most certainly are created by man and neither is good for the health of the planet. And let us also point out that we strongly disagree with any politician saying that the Pope shouldn't weigh in on political issues; lest we remind them that not only is the head of the Catholic Church, but he's also a head of state, the Vatican state.
[On a programming note, today's "Meet The Press" had a great panel - all journalists - and what would have made the Mike Huckabee interview better would have been if he actually met the press and each panelist asked one question of the candidate. It's part of our general feeling that the panel isn't utilized enough or quite appropriately. Take out one of the shorter segment - don't do them every week - and extend the interview when it's an interview of significance. (Which makes us think, maybe Mr. Huckabee doesn't meet that criteria.)]
And a little bit more on the Confederate Flag... Leave it again to Eugene Robinson to educate us and explain that the flag has only been flying above the state house since 1961. He explained that it was basically a 'middle finger' to the Federal Government in response to Civil Rights legislation. Another reason that it should come immediately: The entire motivation for flying it again was because of prejudice.
And for the record, Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) pointed out that the stars and bars isn't actually the flag of the Confederacy but a battle flag. Well, the South may have started with one, but they certainly ended with another. We've pasted both in below so you know what the real one looks like. However, one shouldn't be replaced with the other - both still need to go.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; David Brooks, The New York Times (columnist); Gerald Seib, The Wall Street Journal; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post.
A couple more notes...
1. We're in simply wonder of the strength that these grieving families have in the wake of this unspeakable act. To even come on the program and speak with such love, dignity, and yes, faith speaks to the best of this country.
2. He was mentioned ever so briefly during the program, but Donald Trump's candidacy will be short-lived, mark our words. And ask yourself, after giving such an insidious race-baiting speech, then having nothing constructive to say after the tragedy in Charleston, would you vote for such a person? That's an example of representing the worst of America.
We understand the message of the video and the heart of it seems well placed, but for a national audience on "Meet The Press" given what just happened in Charleston, it showed poor judgement not recognizing an obvious shortcoming.
The goal of showing the video was to further the discussion and although it did not turn out how the "Meet The Press" intended, it was successful in extending the discourse in as much as that whites should have that honest conversation with themselves about their attitudes toward race. There is a constant posture of deflect and diffuse, to be so careful in what one says that nothing actually gets said, hence nothing done. Eugene Robinson shouldn't have to point out that this was a racist act of terror perpetrated by a white man and that the two murders who recently escaped prison were also white. Helene Cooper apologized for her cynical answer when it came to guns control law, because she reasoned that if we weren't going to pass any meaningful gun laws after twenty kindergarten kids were senseless murdered then why we would do anything after a white guy guns down 9 African-Americans in a church. However, she shouldn't have apologized because it stems from the frustration that we all feel in our leaders who are beholden to the gun lobby (among others).
Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee offered very little in the form of consolation in term of having an honest dialogue about race as he deflected question after question avoiding giving an honest answer on everything during his interview. When asked about the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina state house, he said that it was a matter of states' rights. And we understand that Mr. Huckabee is a man of faith and we don't begrudge him that, but faith alone is not going to solve the problem. He also said that there were bigger issues to be addressed like the economy and defense of the country. But isn't he missing (or denying) the point entirely? The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism for many in this country and it is a touchstone in the conversation about race relations in this country, which is a major issue. It's disconcerting that Mr. Huckabee is not more sensitive to this social dynamic and what has been going on in cities across the United States. Mr. Huckabee keeps a rational tone when giving non-answers to questions or, as we explained before, deflecting to a different topic, but it makes us conclude that he would govern very differently from what he is selling on the campaign trail, at least when in the national eye.
One more point on this: Mr. Huckabee doesn't believe in man-made climate change and instead of addressing Mr. Todd's question about whether he agreed with Pope Francis on the subject, he instead talked about responsible energy policy, which sounds nice but there was nothing concrete in his answer. When pressed again about it, he said that the Pope covered many topics like abortion, and then he went on about that.
We happen to agree with Pope Francis that man's activity are accelerating climate change, between all the greenhouse gas emissions and the plastic island the size of Texas, three-feet deep, floating in the Pacific Ocean most certainly are created by man and neither is good for the health of the planet. And let us also point out that we strongly disagree with any politician saying that the Pope shouldn't weigh in on political issues; lest we remind them that not only is the head of the Catholic Church, but he's also a head of state, the Vatican state.
[On a programming note, today's "Meet The Press" had a great panel - all journalists - and what would have made the Mike Huckabee interview better would have been if he actually met the press and each panelist asked one question of the candidate. It's part of our general feeling that the panel isn't utilized enough or quite appropriately. Take out one of the shorter segment - don't do them every week - and extend the interview when it's an interview of significance. (Which makes us think, maybe Mr. Huckabee doesn't meet that criteria.)]
And a little bit more on the Confederate Flag... Leave it again to Eugene Robinson to educate us and explain that the flag has only been flying above the state house since 1961. He explained that it was basically a 'middle finger' to the Federal Government in response to Civil Rights legislation. Another reason that it should come immediately: The entire motivation for flying it again was because of prejudice.
And for the record, Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) pointed out that the stars and bars isn't actually the flag of the Confederacy but a battle flag. Well, the South may have started with one, but they certainly ended with another. We've pasted both in below so you know what the real one looks like. However, one shouldn't be replaced with the other - both still need to go.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; David Brooks, The New York Times (columnist); Gerald Seib, The Wall Street Journal; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post.
A couple more notes...
1. We're in simply wonder of the strength that these grieving families have in the wake of this unspeakable act. To even come on the program and speak with such love, dignity, and yes, faith speaks to the best of this country.
2. He was mentioned ever so briefly during the program, but Donald Trump's candidacy will be short-lived, mark our words. And ask yourself, after giving such an insidious race-baiting speech, then having nothing constructive to say after the tragedy in Charleston, would you vote for such a person? That's an example of representing the worst of America.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
6.19.15: Bury The Confederate Flag
Congressman (former Governor) Mark Sanford (R-SC) said that the Confederate Flag is a very complicated issue
for the people of South Carolina.
He said that while he understands that some may view it as a symbol of
racism, others view it as a symbol of the heritage of the state and of state’s
rights or that it serves as a reminder that someone’s great great grandfather
fought and died in a uniquely American war.
Those are cowardly reasons. The fact is that the Civil War has been over for 151 years
and the South lost. Let me repeat:
The South lost.
And the continuing “tribute” to the Southern soldiers who
fought and died in the war is not honorable at all. While surely brave, those soldiers fought and died under the banner of the Confederate
flag for a cause to perpetuate enslavement of other people, other Americans as
it turns out. Your great, great
grandfather who fought for the South was not fighting for a noble cause, so these soldiers should be remembered not celebrated. And
the Confederate flag, a symbol of white supremacy, should be appropriately relegated to the discarded ashes of history.
All this poetic lead up is almost frivolous to the essential
question for white South Carolinian politicians right now, which is “What are
you so afraid of in getting rid of that racist symbol?” What? Your white constituents will vote
you out of office? If that’s your
worry then your leadership skills should be brought into question. And if you support that symbol, then
categorize yourself appropriately – bigot at the least, racist at the utmost.
Honestly, it doesn’t take that much courage to vote to have
it removed, and every excuse for keeping it simply illustrates bigotry on the
part of the person supporting these ‘reasons.’ Any Southern politician who defends the continued flying of
the Confederate flag is a coward, pure and simple.
Obviously, I’m not from the South (I lived there - South Carolina as a matter of fact, beautiful state, wonderful people - but I'm not
from there) so I must not understand the nuance and history… but what really is
there to understand? I mean,
really?
It’s funny that in a country that can not remember history
of three years ago, somehow can not seem to let go this particularly horrible
aspect of our past.
Here’s a history lesson: At the time of the Revolution,
representatives from the Northern colonies proposed the elimination of slavery,
but the only way to get the Southern colonies on board in collective defiance of
England was to declare African-Americans as three-fifths of a person. A ludicrous notion, but that was the
compromise. So when someone says that
the civil war was about more than just the ownership of other humans, the other
factors are all ones that could have been negotiated without firing a shot.
It’s time to completely bury this symbol of the
Confederacy. It doesn’t serve as a
cautionary reminder of what we all call the original sin of the United
States. It’s continued display only
empowers bigotry without penance.
But what do I know...
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/19/why-south-carolinas-confederate-flag-isnt-at-half-mast-after-church-shooting/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/us/charleston-shooting-reignites-debate-about-confederate-flag.html?rref=us&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&pgtype=article
Sunday, June 14, 2015
6.14.15: Relationships Matter
It feels like forever since we've written a piece so we're so glad to be back. What's odd is that we haven't written in three weeks but have only missed one show, which was on the 31st of May, a "Campaign Special," which would have to be programmed over multiple dates because of the ridiculous number of Republican candidates, and Jeb Bush is set to announce tomorrow... But we always knew that he would.
We would count Jeb Bush in the 'good candidate' column, as opposed to say Ted Cruz who would be placed in the 'stupid candidate' list. Unfortunately, you can not separate them in these terms for the purposes of a debate. There would be the policy debate and a separate one called the red meat debate. But Mr. Bush is a good candidate for Republicans. That's not to say we think he's going to win or that we agree with his policies, no. What we are saying is that he's conservative but has some more moderated views very different from his base, namely immigration. Let's face it, if Republicans want to win the presidency, it's going to take a moderate candidate. It's a complete fallacy to believe that someone like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum or the aforementioned Mr. Cruz could ever be elected. We sure they're nice people (well, maybe not Mr. Cruz), but they would all be horrible as presidents of the United States. Mitt Romney in his interview explained his previously use of the term 'chaos' as a description of the Republican primary in 2012. He said that Republicans attacking Republicans makes things messy.
There's also the other thing with Mr. Bush - Jeb! There isn't any reference to 'Clinton' in Hillary's logo either. Obviously, these dynasty candidates (one of the themes of today's program) have to shed a bit of the baggage that comes with their sir names; there is no doubt. But make no mistake, it's much more difficult to overcome the association to disastrously imbecilic foreign policy that was the Iraq War than it is being associated with the 'go-go' 90's. Interestingly, Mr. Obama's campaign logo was all about his last name, the big 'O.'
Mr. Todd put a lot of focus on the number of issues Mrs. Clinton covered in her rally speech on yesterday and the amount of time put toward each. But this is the first rally of her campaign, the first of many to come so of course she's going to cover a lot of bases. Mrs. Clinton will follow the standard candidate model with signature speeches coming in specific locations; e.g. Mr. Obama's speech in Philadelphia on the topic of race. This kind of drill down with regard to her kick-off campaign rally is unnecessary.
The reason we bring it up is that in the last month (calender), Meet The Press hasn't discussed (especially this week) the big looming decisions that are about to be issued by the Supreme Court - one addressing same-sex marriage and marriage equality in all of the country and the other with regard to Obamacare. The latter effects some 6 to 7 million people. And not a word... Is this on Mr. Todd or the producers? Both, probably. If overlooked, it's like not hitting a pitcher throwing a grapefruit; and if a choice not to include, a poor one.
The panel agreed, obviously Stephanie Cutter, that no one gives a speech like Mr. Obama and for Mrs. Clinton to try and match that, it would be embarrassing. But what came out of the discussion is worth mentioning. Andrea Mitchell explained that Mrs. Clinton is portraying herself as a fighter [for the middle class]. Then the comment came that she would be the one to finish things that Barack Obama started but didn't have the mettle to complete. In other words, one could say he was laying the groundwork. We don't totally buy that. And we do not agree with Hugh Hewlitt who assesses Mrs. Clinton's term as Secretary of State as a disaster. By no means was it great, but picking up at the tail end of the Iraq War really handicap your odds of success. Was she laying the groundwork for now Secretary Kerry? One could argue, yes.
And since we're headed in that direction, it brings us to the subject of trade and this week's vote in the House. What happened was that Democrats didn't back the president's wish for the administration to first negotiate a trade deal with other countries, fast track it, before bringing it to Congress for approval. So when William Daley pointed out that it's smart for Mrs. Clinton to not comment, he's right because there is no trade deal per se. This was all about the parameters in which the president is allowed to negotiate.
You could say that if all it does is give the president the ability to negotiate first, but Congress still has final say, then why not let the administration have that ability? If it were only so easy. If the administration has the ability to bring up trade deals with a sole up or down vote, because that's how it could be - a take it or leave, then it's a no-win situation for anyone in any aisle in Congress. Remember, congresspeople have to live with these deals, presidents don't. The last major trade deal was NAFTA, where President Bill Clinton got a lot of Republican votes, which candidate Hillary Clinton would now oppose. Manufacturing in the United States suffered terribly from NAFTA.
But President Obama needed this negotiating power, because it's the only way something that needs to get down, actually happens. Mr. Daley is wrong, we completely agree with Andrea Mitchell, in that relationship building is vitally important to be effective at your job, even if your job is President of the United States. We understand that Mr. Obama would be reticent to reach out to Republicans after conservative leaders let pass some really despicable language during the presidential campaigns and the 'You lie' and all that. But to not be constantly reaching out to Democrats so that you not only know them but more importantly they know you, then how would you expect them to back you? Essentially, giving you full control of foreign economic policy. When we put it like that, even Republicans would take pause before giving Mr. Obama that kind of power... and they were for it.
Mr. Romney admitted today that one of the flaws in his campaign was that he didn't reach out to minority voters soon enough, and we would add as much as he should have. As a incredibly success businessman, one where the moderator of the program nominates you to head FIFA, he should have known that when doing business with lots of different groups, one has to tackle the most difficult relationships first.
Relationships matter because if you have the right one, then you might just have the money to run for president.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Stephanie Cutter, former Obama Administration official; Evan Thomas, author
One Last Thing: In addition to the high reverence we place on Meet The Press in calling it the 'news program of record' (being the first television program), one other big reason we started this blog is the tremendous respect we have for Tim Russert's approach to politics. It inspired us (me) to comment and has continued to do so these years after his passing.
We would count Jeb Bush in the 'good candidate' column, as opposed to say Ted Cruz who would be placed in the 'stupid candidate' list. Unfortunately, you can not separate them in these terms for the purposes of a debate. There would be the policy debate and a separate one called the red meat debate. But Mr. Bush is a good candidate for Republicans. That's not to say we think he's going to win or that we agree with his policies, no. What we are saying is that he's conservative but has some more moderated views very different from his base, namely immigration. Let's face it, if Republicans want to win the presidency, it's going to take a moderate candidate. It's a complete fallacy to believe that someone like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum or the aforementioned Mr. Cruz could ever be elected. We sure they're nice people (well, maybe not Mr. Cruz), but they would all be horrible as presidents of the United States. Mitt Romney in his interview explained his previously use of the term 'chaos' as a description of the Republican primary in 2012. He said that Republicans attacking Republicans makes things messy.
There's also the other thing with Mr. Bush - Jeb! There isn't any reference to 'Clinton' in Hillary's logo either. Obviously, these dynasty candidates (one of the themes of today's program) have to shed a bit of the baggage that comes with their sir names; there is no doubt. But make no mistake, it's much more difficult to overcome the association to disastrously imbecilic foreign policy that was the Iraq War than it is being associated with the 'go-go' 90's. Interestingly, Mr. Obama's campaign logo was all about his last name, the big 'O.'
Mr. Todd put a lot of focus on the number of issues Mrs. Clinton covered in her rally speech on yesterday and the amount of time put toward each. But this is the first rally of her campaign, the first of many to come so of course she's going to cover a lot of bases. Mrs. Clinton will follow the standard candidate model with signature speeches coming in specific locations; e.g. Mr. Obama's speech in Philadelphia on the topic of race. This kind of drill down with regard to her kick-off campaign rally is unnecessary.
The reason we bring it up is that in the last month (calender), Meet The Press hasn't discussed (especially this week) the big looming decisions that are about to be issued by the Supreme Court - one addressing same-sex marriage and marriage equality in all of the country and the other with regard to Obamacare. The latter effects some 6 to 7 million people. And not a word... Is this on Mr. Todd or the producers? Both, probably. If overlooked, it's like not hitting a pitcher throwing a grapefruit; and if a choice not to include, a poor one.
The panel agreed, obviously Stephanie Cutter, that no one gives a speech like Mr. Obama and for Mrs. Clinton to try and match that, it would be embarrassing. But what came out of the discussion is worth mentioning. Andrea Mitchell explained that Mrs. Clinton is portraying herself as a fighter [for the middle class]. Then the comment came that she would be the one to finish things that Barack Obama started but didn't have the mettle to complete. In other words, one could say he was laying the groundwork. We don't totally buy that. And we do not agree with Hugh Hewlitt who assesses Mrs. Clinton's term as Secretary of State as a disaster. By no means was it great, but picking up at the tail end of the Iraq War really handicap your odds of success. Was she laying the groundwork for now Secretary Kerry? One could argue, yes.
And since we're headed in that direction, it brings us to the subject of trade and this week's vote in the House. What happened was that Democrats didn't back the president's wish for the administration to first negotiate a trade deal with other countries, fast track it, before bringing it to Congress for approval. So when William Daley pointed out that it's smart for Mrs. Clinton to not comment, he's right because there is no trade deal per se. This was all about the parameters in which the president is allowed to negotiate.
You could say that if all it does is give the president the ability to negotiate first, but Congress still has final say, then why not let the administration have that ability? If it were only so easy. If the administration has the ability to bring up trade deals with a sole up or down vote, because that's how it could be - a take it or leave, then it's a no-win situation for anyone in any aisle in Congress. Remember, congresspeople have to live with these deals, presidents don't. The last major trade deal was NAFTA, where President Bill Clinton got a lot of Republican votes, which candidate Hillary Clinton would now oppose. Manufacturing in the United States suffered terribly from NAFTA.
But President Obama needed this negotiating power, because it's the only way something that needs to get down, actually happens. Mr. Daley is wrong, we completely agree with Andrea Mitchell, in that relationship building is vitally important to be effective at your job, even if your job is President of the United States. We understand that Mr. Obama would be reticent to reach out to Republicans after conservative leaders let pass some really despicable language during the presidential campaigns and the 'You lie' and all that. But to not be constantly reaching out to Democrats so that you not only know them but more importantly they know you, then how would you expect them to back you? Essentially, giving you full control of foreign economic policy. When we put it like that, even Republicans would take pause before giving Mr. Obama that kind of power... and they were for it.
Mr. Romney admitted today that one of the flaws in his campaign was that he didn't reach out to minority voters soon enough, and we would add as much as he should have. As a incredibly success businessman, one where the moderator of the program nominates you to head FIFA, he should have known that when doing business with lots of different groups, one has to tackle the most difficult relationships first.
Relationships matter because if you have the right one, then you might just have the money to run for president.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Stephanie Cutter, former Obama Administration official; Evan Thomas, author
One Last Thing: In addition to the high reverence we place on Meet The Press in calling it the 'news program of record' (being the first television program), one other big reason we started this blog is the tremendous respect we have for Tim Russert's approach to politics. It inspired us (me) to comment and has continued to do so these years after his passing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)