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.
No comments:
Post a Comment