Not to completely discount the serious issues that are being brought up during the primary season, but that's what it's all about right now - entertainment. The Republican primary in particular is its own poorly produced reality show with the press providing the cameras and the candidates trying to distinguish themselves with ever more ridiculous stunts and statements; all in the hope of unseating the ultimate reality star and Republican front-running presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
That was all just a mouthful of 'ugh.'
However, if this crazy Republican primary's goal is in fact to entertain us, here are a few suggestions to make it so. First, since there are 16 candidates, there should be a debate tournament where the candidate highest in the polls faces off against the person with the lowest number. As Chuck Todd pointed though, the lowest polling person will have to be drawn at lottery since more than a few have under one percent. (What's interesting is that all these candidates under one percent are suffering from the Citizens United decision because they're not the ones getting the big checks. If Citizens United were to be overturned, all the candidates would be on more equal footing and you'd hear more from people like Ohio governor John Kasich (R).)
Another way is that all the candidates have to submit a video like Rand Paul did - showing the candidate putting the tax code through a wood chipper. Lindsey Graham could just re-edit his 'phone antics' video to make it about NSA surveillance. And Marco Rubio could make an instructional video on how to stay classy. (Marco Rubio saying that the President of United States has 'no class' is just stupid because unless you make the distinction of saying 'professionally without class,' calling someone classless is a personal attack. That's how it comes off when Mr. Rubio has been using these terms and it just sounds petty. It's something that Mr. Rubio and Mr. Walker for that matter both suffer from, pettiness.)
Lastly, all the Republican candidates have to say something particularly derogatory about another Republican, not running for president. Donald Trump implied (said, until he tried to take it back) that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was not a war hero, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) a 'liar.' Supposedly the majority leader told his fellow Republicans that he wouldn't add amendments (controversial ones - the repeal of the AFA and the re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank) to a transportation bill. And again, we refer you to Senator Rubio calling the president 'classless.' They all have to do this because it seems like our politicians are incapable of restraining themselves from dishing out personal attacks on others. So now you have to be original because we love the fireworks! (As we've said before, if Senator McCain isn't a war hero then who is? And to say that he is not a 'hero' given how he conducted himself while captured, is to what.. suggest that he's the antithesis of that, a coward? As for Mr. Cruz, it seems like he violated the Senate's code of conduct as that term of discourse is forbidden when referring to other senators. Bottom line is that it was a cheap shot for a grab of attention and he should be censured for it. This continued prying off of any reasonable hold on serious political discourse, lead by Mr. Trump, is going to cause real damage to the Republican party in general.)
This 'entertainment factor' in the Republican primary is fostering of an overall distrust of the Republican party's ability to seriously lead, a distrust that eclipses the trust issues people have with Hillary Clinton, and that's saying something.
Ron Fournier, columnist for the National Journal, said that it basically comes down to the level of distrust voters have for Hillary Clinton, Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report agreed, and neither of them are wrong. What tires us, and everyone else, about the Clintons in general is the perpetual flow of shenanigans constantly surrounding them. Whether it's something that Sec. Clinton says or Pres. Clinton says or something that one of their friends did or said it continually begs the question - what now?
What Mrs. Clinton benefits from is that her campaign challenges are just the cutaway scenes in the broader show that is "Reality President." You can't say it hasn't been entertaining.
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Sara Fagen, fmr. political director, Bush White House; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Sunday, July 19, 2015
7.19.15: What the Iranian Nuclear Deal Means
The nuclear deal with Iran is a tricky one, no doubt.
England's Prime Minister David Cameron stated that it must be qualified as a success because it takes the prospect of a nuclear Iran off the tables for 15 years. We wouldn't go that far because the deal was an inevitability so it was the making best of a bad situation, especially given how New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman explained the lead up. Mr. Friedman said that since the Iraq war was a failure for the United States, it took the military option in the region off the table in negotiations, and the Iranians recognized that. That assessment basically outlines the balance of leverage that the different sides have.
You have to weigh each sides hand against one another and for the United States that means potentially getting one big upside in exchange for a lot (and we mean a lot) of potential smaller downsides. The big upside, of course, is that United States gets an Iran without nukes, but it could also mean that the Iranians have a lot more money, through the lifting of sanctions and through commerce, to play their proxy military terror games with.
We understand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to denounce the deal as loudly as possible, but the agreement was necessary. The fact remains that Russian and China want to do commerce with Iran and they were going to start with or without a deal in place. At that point, Iran will be free to proceed toward their goal of being a nuclear power. Iran is an existential threat to Israel, but we'd like that to be more in the conventional sense than in a nuclear one.
However, this is what really gets to us, where Republicans have a point, and that is this deal legitimizes Iran as a rational regional power without them having to change their behavior in the larger sense outside of the nuclear issue. You have to concede to Senator Tom Cotton's (R-AR) use of the term 'enabling,' clearly. And the fall down that was allowing the end of the conventional arms embargo ensures that it's full speed ahead with weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. More Kalashnikovs point in the direction of the United States and Israel is never a good idea.
Another big point that makes us uncomfortable is the 10-year period of stringent monitoring; it should have been 20 years. This way, it's a true generational shift in the leadership of Iran and with that would come a change in attitude, possibly, as they would at that time be more integrated into the world economy. It really speaks to the mentality of the two countries: For the United States, ten years is a long time, especially in politics, but a country like Iran has a much longer view of history and ten years is nothing.
The Iranians made this deal about more than just nuclear weapons and the United States, Britain and France, at least, should have insisted on the same. Not having nuclear weapons for 10 years doesn't all of sudden make you a legitimate, rational actor in the region, with undo influence. It's not just about nuclear proliferation, it's more than that. Fmr. governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) commented that we didn't even insist on a 'show of faith' with the releases of the 4 Americans in Iranian prisons, certainly a black eye for the Administration. The unfettered mindset that it is only about nuclear weapons, is the flaw in Secretary Kerry's thinking.
All right... We got that out... and now that we've said that piece, here's another: you sign off on it, and hold Iran to their word. To skeptics that say Iran will most certainly cheat, we would argue to go into it with that assumption, and when cheating is verified then the deal is off anyway. Congress should not vote it down and insist on a better deal because they're not going to get it, no chance. Republicans are going to have to buck their reputation of having ceremonious votes that will accomplish nothing.
(You can only hope that American intelligence agencies will use what ever means and then some to spy on Iran, to stay a few steps ahead of them. More international commerce for Iran means more Iranians traveling abroad hence more intelligence targets.)
And speaking of 'accomplishing nothing,' there's presidential candidate Donald Trump, who just yesterday criticized Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in the senator's home state saying, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren't captured." To paraphrase Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he's an idiot mouthing off who trying to land a TV show. We've never agreed with Senator McCain's overly hawkish positions, but he's definitely a American hero. If he's not, then who is?
And if you think that Donald Trump is destroying the Republican party brand, which he is, don't blame the press because we all know that celebrity news sells and you can't ignore that. Blame goes to the Republican party who gave him crowning status in all those years he didn't declare himself as a candidate. Neither the character nor the temperament as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) put it.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Bill Richardson, fmr. Governor of New Mexico and US Ambassador to the UN.
A couple more things...
In the immigration debate between Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Raul Labrador (R-UT), Mr. Labrador said that we need to limit our legal immigration, which would draw a raised eyebrow, for sure. But then he went on to explain that our outdated system can not handle the volume. Another term for federal computer systems is 'infrastructure,' something that Republicans do not want to raise one dime for through taxes to pay for.
And we can not come to accept that lone-wolf Islamic terrors acts are the new norm in this country as Michael Leiter described. We're not there yet, but we're close - it's just that it is so randomly spread out that the American people don't sense the entire forest, and its constancy.
Lastly, as Chuck Todd admitted at the end, today's program covered a lot of ground, no joke. Overall, Meet The Press is starting to get back up to spec., but it's not quite there yet. Lots of good information today, lots to choose from if you happen to write a blog about the show, but they shouldn't be afraid of some longer form segments utilizing the panel as questioners.
England's Prime Minister David Cameron stated that it must be qualified as a success because it takes the prospect of a nuclear Iran off the tables for 15 years. We wouldn't go that far because the deal was an inevitability so it was the making best of a bad situation, especially given how New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman explained the lead up. Mr. Friedman said that since the Iraq war was a failure for the United States, it took the military option in the region off the table in negotiations, and the Iranians recognized that. That assessment basically outlines the balance of leverage that the different sides have.
You have to weigh each sides hand against one another and for the United States that means potentially getting one big upside in exchange for a lot (and we mean a lot) of potential smaller downsides. The big upside, of course, is that United States gets an Iran without nukes, but it could also mean that the Iranians have a lot more money, through the lifting of sanctions and through commerce, to play their proxy military terror games with.
We understand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to denounce the deal as loudly as possible, but the agreement was necessary. The fact remains that Russian and China want to do commerce with Iran and they were going to start with or without a deal in place. At that point, Iran will be free to proceed toward their goal of being a nuclear power. Iran is an existential threat to Israel, but we'd like that to be more in the conventional sense than in a nuclear one.
However, this is what really gets to us, where Republicans have a point, and that is this deal legitimizes Iran as a rational regional power without them having to change their behavior in the larger sense outside of the nuclear issue. You have to concede to Senator Tom Cotton's (R-AR) use of the term 'enabling,' clearly. And the fall down that was allowing the end of the conventional arms embargo ensures that it's full speed ahead with weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. More Kalashnikovs point in the direction of the United States and Israel is never a good idea.
Another big point that makes us uncomfortable is the 10-year period of stringent monitoring; it should have been 20 years. This way, it's a true generational shift in the leadership of Iran and with that would come a change in attitude, possibly, as they would at that time be more integrated into the world economy. It really speaks to the mentality of the two countries: For the United States, ten years is a long time, especially in politics, but a country like Iran has a much longer view of history and ten years is nothing.
The Iranians made this deal about more than just nuclear weapons and the United States, Britain and France, at least, should have insisted on the same. Not having nuclear weapons for 10 years doesn't all of sudden make you a legitimate, rational actor in the region, with undo influence. It's not just about nuclear proliferation, it's more than that. Fmr. governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) commented that we didn't even insist on a 'show of faith' with the releases of the 4 Americans in Iranian prisons, certainly a black eye for the Administration. The unfettered mindset that it is only about nuclear weapons, is the flaw in Secretary Kerry's thinking.
All right... We got that out... and now that we've said that piece, here's another: you sign off on it, and hold Iran to their word. To skeptics that say Iran will most certainly cheat, we would argue to go into it with that assumption, and when cheating is verified then the deal is off anyway. Congress should not vote it down and insist on a better deal because they're not going to get it, no chance. Republicans are going to have to buck their reputation of having ceremonious votes that will accomplish nothing.
(You can only hope that American intelligence agencies will use what ever means and then some to spy on Iran, to stay a few steps ahead of them. More international commerce for Iran means more Iranians traveling abroad hence more intelligence targets.)
And speaking of 'accomplishing nothing,' there's presidential candidate Donald Trump, who just yesterday criticized Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in the senator's home state saying, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren't captured." To paraphrase Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he's an idiot mouthing off who trying to land a TV show. We've never agreed with Senator McCain's overly hawkish positions, but he's definitely a American hero. If he's not, then who is?
And if you think that Donald Trump is destroying the Republican party brand, which he is, don't blame the press because we all know that celebrity news sells and you can't ignore that. Blame goes to the Republican party who gave him crowning status in all those years he didn't declare himself as a candidate. Neither the character nor the temperament as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) put it.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Bill Richardson, fmr. Governor of New Mexico and US Ambassador to the UN.
A couple more things...
In the immigration debate between Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Raul Labrador (R-UT), Mr. Labrador said that we need to limit our legal immigration, which would draw a raised eyebrow, for sure. But then he went on to explain that our outdated system can not handle the volume. Another term for federal computer systems is 'infrastructure,' something that Republicans do not want to raise one dime for through taxes to pay for.
And we can not come to accept that lone-wolf Islamic terrors acts are the new norm in this country as Michael Leiter described. We're not there yet, but we're close - it's just that it is so randomly spread out that the American people don't sense the entire forest, and its constancy.
Lastly, as Chuck Todd admitted at the end, today's program covered a lot of ground, no joke. Overall, Meet The Press is starting to get back up to spec., but it's not quite there yet. Lots of good information today, lots to choose from if you happen to write a blog about the show, but they shouldn't be afraid of some longer form segments utilizing the panel as questioners.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
7.12.15: Perspective on U.S. Adversaries
We'll concede Senator Corker's point that Mitt Romney's statement about Russia being our number one adversary isn't so far fetched, but it's still not correct. The Tennessee Senator himself explained that there are several significant concerns, not necessarily placing one of the other - to name a few: ISIS, the Iranian nuclear deal; and China... of course.
We'd like to hear more from the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate on China and what we're doing about cyber-security. As Ret. Maj. Gen. Brett Williams explained, the hacking of the 21.5 million background checks from the Office of Personnel Management was an act of pure espionage. Strategically, China tops the list of U.S. competitors for global influence, by far. Putin wants a 'benevolent' dictatorship in Russia, but that's not what China is about at all. In fact, there's little likelihood that something like that would happen in China. In addition to cyber-espionage, China has also been aggressive militarily in disputed waters with several of our Pacific-Rim allies, claiming islands and building bases. And then there is omnipresent economic entanglement.
Given all of that, it's unbelievable to hear Maj. Gen. Williams say that cyber-security and hence cyber-warfare doesn't figure into the overall strategic defense plan; that it is treated separately. More discouraging was his statement that there is no will to make the difficult decisions to get anything done, translate to appropriate the money. Perhaps worst of all is that there has been poor risk assessment... is that what defense is all about?
He also said something that we all know but always bears repeating, which is that we spend the money in the wrong places. It was only of some consolation that he demurred when Mr. Todd asked him if the United States is involved in cyber-espionage, giving a vague answer that the United States uses all the tools available for defense. From the 'John Q. Public' perspective, the answer is, "We better be!" which has some wisdom in its simplicity.
And on Iran, we couldn't how politically versus factual based Senator Corker's statement about the negotiations being on a downward trend for a while actually was. We side with his concerns inspections and verification, and in the case we welcome a tempered conservative perspective on what's in the deal. That comes from no distrust of the Obama Administration as much as it does the Iranian regime. Mr. Corker was absolutely correct in saying the Iran will cheat by the inch. The reason for our certainty is that we all do it, given the opportunity in a particular situation, human nature.
It was good to hear Mr. Corker endorsing the Obama Administration in its forcing of the issue as it were. The United States has to because ultimately Russia and China are not as concerned as we are about Iran having nuclear capabilities, and if Iran having nuclear weapons benefits Russia and China's interests in the region then so be it. Russia has been helpful in the negotiations because their interest is served by having Iran help them with eliminating Islamic extremists before they start to fully infiltrate into Chechnya. However, does feel the same on that existential threat as the United States does when it comes to Iran's threat to Israel.
All of this comes into play while assessing Secretary Kerry's negotiating skills, with which Mr. Corker said he was not impressed. However, with the details of the deal apparently coming this week, we'll have to leave it at, "We''ll see."
***
What separates the pros from us are articulated statements like Matt Bai's of Yahoo News, in which he said that, "Her [Governor Nikki Haley's] journey on the flag is the Republicans' journey on the flag." Concise and true. When asked about her profile being on the rise, Ms. Haley responded that she thinks about the Emanuel 9, as she called them, and the effect their deaths have had on the state of South Carolina in particular let alone the country. Providing some perspective on 'Ms. Haley's journey,' it's the first time that Southern conservative politicians have really begun to understand the meaning of that flag through the eyes of African Americans, and they have begun to see the horror in it.
And when the victims' families showed that there is no political high ground in terms of Christian forgiveness, the effect on southern republican thinking was profound.
Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Matt Bai, Yahoo! News; Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute
One Last Thing...
And the Trump Effect is real, and it's wreaking havoc in the Republican primary and with the RNC. Chairman Reince Priebus is a chump if he thinks Mr. Trump is going to listen to him on anything. Trump knows that people buying what he's selling, not the Republican National Committee, and because of it the damage to the Republican Party will be felt hard. The politician that benefits the most from all this turmoil is Hillary Clinton because moderate Republicans, especially woman, will ultimately migrate to her.
We'd like to hear more from the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate on China and what we're doing about cyber-security. As Ret. Maj. Gen. Brett Williams explained, the hacking of the 21.5 million background checks from the Office of Personnel Management was an act of pure espionage. Strategically, China tops the list of U.S. competitors for global influence, by far. Putin wants a 'benevolent' dictatorship in Russia, but that's not what China is about at all. In fact, there's little likelihood that something like that would happen in China. In addition to cyber-espionage, China has also been aggressive militarily in disputed waters with several of our Pacific-Rim allies, claiming islands and building bases. And then there is omnipresent economic entanglement.
Given all of that, it's unbelievable to hear Maj. Gen. Williams say that cyber-security and hence cyber-warfare doesn't figure into the overall strategic defense plan; that it is treated separately. More discouraging was his statement that there is no will to make the difficult decisions to get anything done, translate to appropriate the money. Perhaps worst of all is that there has been poor risk assessment... is that what defense is all about?
He also said something that we all know but always bears repeating, which is that we spend the money in the wrong places. It was only of some consolation that he demurred when Mr. Todd asked him if the United States is involved in cyber-espionage, giving a vague answer that the United States uses all the tools available for defense. From the 'John Q. Public' perspective, the answer is, "We better be!" which has some wisdom in its simplicity.
And on Iran, we couldn't how politically versus factual based Senator Corker's statement about the negotiations being on a downward trend for a while actually was. We side with his concerns inspections and verification, and in the case we welcome a tempered conservative perspective on what's in the deal. That comes from no distrust of the Obama Administration as much as it does the Iranian regime. Mr. Corker was absolutely correct in saying the Iran will cheat by the inch. The reason for our certainty is that we all do it, given the opportunity in a particular situation, human nature.
It was good to hear Mr. Corker endorsing the Obama Administration in its forcing of the issue as it were. The United States has to because ultimately Russia and China are not as concerned as we are about Iran having nuclear capabilities, and if Iran having nuclear weapons benefits Russia and China's interests in the region then so be it. Russia has been helpful in the negotiations because their interest is served by having Iran help them with eliminating Islamic extremists before they start to fully infiltrate into Chechnya. However, does feel the same on that existential threat as the United States does when it comes to Iran's threat to Israel.
All of this comes into play while assessing Secretary Kerry's negotiating skills, with which Mr. Corker said he was not impressed. However, with the details of the deal apparently coming this week, we'll have to leave it at, "We''ll see."
***
What separates the pros from us are articulated statements like Matt Bai's of Yahoo News, in which he said that, "Her [Governor Nikki Haley's] journey on the flag is the Republicans' journey on the flag." Concise and true. When asked about her profile being on the rise, Ms. Haley responded that she thinks about the Emanuel 9, as she called them, and the effect their deaths have had on the state of South Carolina in particular let alone the country. Providing some perspective on 'Ms. Haley's journey,' it's the first time that Southern conservative politicians have really begun to understand the meaning of that flag through the eyes of African Americans, and they have begun to see the horror in it.
And when the victims' families showed that there is no political high ground in terms of Christian forgiveness, the effect on southern republican thinking was profound.
Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Matt Bai, Yahoo! News; Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute
One Last Thing...
And the Trump Effect is real, and it's wreaking havoc in the Republican primary and with the RNC. Chairman Reince Priebus is a chump if he thinks Mr. Trump is going to listen to him on anything. Trump knows that people buying what he's selling, not the Republican National Committee, and because of it the damage to the Republican Party will be felt hard. The politician that benefits the most from all this turmoil is Hillary Clinton because moderate Republicans, especially woman, will ultimately migrate to her.
7.12.15: The Ted Cruz Interview
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) used the term 'true believer' to describe President Barack Obama when praising the president's passion when it came to fighting for what he believed in. Then in the next breath, Mr. Cruz praised Donald Trump for being the one to bring up the immigration debate.
These two points speak directly to why Mr. Cruz would not be a good president and by extension a poor candidate and even by extending further a failed leader in the Senate.
First, Mr. Cruz lacks sound and shrewd tactics on every political level. In coming out in support of Donald Trump, he is illustrating poor judgement of sound political tactics. In the case of the government shutdown, he bullied through the door getting his shutdown over healthcare and then embittered other Republicans because he had no endgame. For his filibuster all it is remembered for - the joke clip that will be forever used in b-roll - is when he recited Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham. Poor Tactics.
Another point is that he doesn't, or isn't willing to, recognize how people view him, he has very little self-awareness, which is interesting in as much as it's a trait of being cocky, a state of being he thought he shed when he said that he wasn't picked to serve in the Bush Administration; being the "Michael J. Fox in American President." The Bush Administration didn't want Ted Cruz because he is the true believer himself, and they certainly were not, not on small government and social issues. Mr. Cruz wanted to be the one saying, "Do the right thing, Mr. President," and that's exactly what they didn't need.
We respect the fact that Mr. Cruz remains strong in his convictions and political beliefs, though with many we disagree. However, it is difficult to take those views seriously when such buffoonery occurs trying to impose those views on resistant forces. If President Obama is as to the left as Mr. Cruz says he is being his polar opposite on the right, the Senator from Texas doesn't seem to recognize what separates the two of them when comparing levels of success. Mr. Obama seems the long game and prepares for a long debate - plans long and sees long. And his administration is keenly aware of what people are saying - constantly pushing buttons to influence thinking.
Speaking of influencing thinking, it's never going to happen when you propose that judges should run for election as Mr. Cruz did. This is even a matter of bad tactics as much as it is just simply a stupid idea, not thought out for even a second.
At the very cynical least, in his defense of Donald Trump, Mr. Cruz makes the unforced error of also offending the Hispanic community, one where he should be a leader, and not understanding that he would need those votes. Unlike Rand Paul, Ted Cruz makes no attempt to speak effectively to constituency groups that have different views from his own. You can't lead America if you don't want to consider and talk to most Americans.
As for the rest, you get the point...
(full post on this week's "Meet The Press" coming shortly.)
These two points speak directly to why Mr. Cruz would not be a good president and by extension a poor candidate and even by extending further a failed leader in the Senate.
First, Mr. Cruz lacks sound and shrewd tactics on every political level. In coming out in support of Donald Trump, he is illustrating poor judgement of sound political tactics. In the case of the government shutdown, he bullied through the door getting his shutdown over healthcare and then embittered other Republicans because he had no endgame. For his filibuster all it is remembered for - the joke clip that will be forever used in b-roll - is when he recited Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham. Poor Tactics.
Another point is that he doesn't, or isn't willing to, recognize how people view him, he has very little self-awareness, which is interesting in as much as it's a trait of being cocky, a state of being he thought he shed when he said that he wasn't picked to serve in the Bush Administration; being the "Michael J. Fox in American President." The Bush Administration didn't want Ted Cruz because he is the true believer himself, and they certainly were not, not on small government and social issues. Mr. Cruz wanted to be the one saying, "Do the right thing, Mr. President," and that's exactly what they didn't need.
We respect the fact that Mr. Cruz remains strong in his convictions and political beliefs, though with many we disagree. However, it is difficult to take those views seriously when such buffoonery occurs trying to impose those views on resistant forces. If President Obama is as to the left as Mr. Cruz says he is being his polar opposite on the right, the Senator from Texas doesn't seem to recognize what separates the two of them when comparing levels of success. Mr. Obama seems the long game and prepares for a long debate - plans long and sees long. And his administration is keenly aware of what people are saying - constantly pushing buttons to influence thinking.
Speaking of influencing thinking, it's never going to happen when you propose that judges should run for election as Mr. Cruz did. This is even a matter of bad tactics as much as it is just simply a stupid idea, not thought out for even a second.
At the very cynical least, in his defense of Donald Trump, Mr. Cruz makes the unforced error of also offending the Hispanic community, one where he should be a leader, and not understanding that he would need those votes. Unlike Rand Paul, Ted Cruz makes no attempt to speak effectively to constituency groups that have different views from his own. You can't lead America if you don't want to consider and talk to most Americans.
As for the rest, you get the point...
(full post on this week's "Meet The Press" coming shortly.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)