12.27.15: Donald Trump Has 'Schlonged' Us All in 2015

"Things can break late," The Washington Post's Michael Gerson said of the run up to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary at the beginning of February, 2016.  What's funny is that he was saying it as a veiled plea to Republicans to have a moment of clarity before the vote and defeat the Donald Trump candidacy. But it's true, any candidate can get 'schlonged' at any moment, even Mr. Trump. (Btw - yes, a crude, crass and cross Yiddish term that would not be welcomed in any Jewish household as Rep. Wasserman-Schultz explained so of course we used it in the title of this week's column. As for Mr. Trump's usage, so much for presidential discourse...) Mr. Gerson is hoping it's him...

And here's where it could happen. Caucusing in Iowa, in February. Despite the extreme weather event we're experiencing right now with this unseasonably, unreasonably warm weather, it will be a long cold day when Iowans gather to pick their candidate, and whether Donald Trump can rally that kind of determined support is yet to be seen. Our guess here is that Mr. Trump's campaign is better organized on the ground than it appears, but despite that Ted Cruz's campaign is even better and he'll be this election cycle's 'Rick Santorum' of the Iowa caucus and win it. This leaves New Hampshire where it's just you and your conscious at the ballot box and that might not work out well for Mr. Trump either. The point of all this speculation is that it illustrates that it has certainly been a tiring year of Trump, and the only thing for certain is that he's not going to go quietly in 2016.

To Yahoo News' Matt Bai goes credit for pointing out that the press has been the biggest enabler of the Donald Trump candidacy and his campaign's success. That isn't going to change until or if he is no longer the front runner so moving forward we would suggest looking for other sources for the claims that Mr. Trump and and all the candidates make. Case in point: A joint interview with fmr. Amb. to Russia Michael McFaul and fmr. Under-Secretary of State Wendy Sherman commenting on Mr. Trump's praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Amb. McFaul stated, Mr. Trump's admiration is 'wrong on so many levels,' but what he specifically pointed out is Mr. Trump making the false equivalency of what the United States does abroad as part of its foreign policy to what Mr. Putin does at home to his own citizens.  But for Mr. Trump, he statements indicate that the ends are justified by the means and for him it's all about ratings. No matter how it's accomplished Mr. Putin has an 80 percent approval rating and that's all that counts in Mr. Trump's assessment.

On the more substantive matter, Mr. Putin is playing both sides in his support of the Assad regime and his bombing of ISIS as Amb. McFaul pointed out. He said that in a Russian bombing raid, a rebel leader supported by the United States was killed, as reported in The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebel-commander-reportedly-killed-in-russian-airstrike/2015/12/25/2db59b60-ab25-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html). However, in the article it describes this 'moderate' rebel leader as having made supportive statements of Al Qaeda, something that Mr. McFaul didn't point out. These are the type of contradictions that you would hope your president understands and considers when making decisions. As a voter, you would understand that Mr. Putin's statement endorsing Mr. Trump as a strong leader is not something you want to hear.

Pragmatic thinking should be the order for 2016 in your assessment of who should lead this country because the tasks at hand for the next president aren't going to get any less complicated, so cut to the conciseness of the candidates' answers.

Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) for example illustrates clearly where he stands on  economic issues but when it comes to foreign policy he speaks in much more general terms of what he'd like to see happen. Andrea Mitchell, the only fill-in moderator that should be used when Mr. Todd is out, pressed him on his lack of foreign policy acumen and it was duly noted by the panel - a large part of being president is how you project the United States' image to the rest of the world. And as for Senator Sanders economic policy proposals, we agree that universal healthcare is something we should have like the rest of the developed world, but it's a matter of American practicality... It just isn't.


Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post

One more thing...
Admittedly, we haven't seen Spike Lee's new film, "Chi-Raq," but the bottom line is that Mr. Lee is keeping the discussion of guns and gun violence top of mind and that we commend.

12.20.15: Setting the Bar Differently for Republicans and Democrats

We've really recalibrated the bar to the lower side. Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton was a liar, weak and didn't have the stamina to be president, a veiled reference to the fact that it took her longer to use the bathroom than her male counterparts in last night's debate.  He also said that Jeb Bush was a puppet of special interests and a disgrace to the Bush family.

And then conservative commentator Hugh Hewlitt said that he did a good job in the interview. This doesn't even consider the fact of how Trump went on about how he likes Putin and would get along with him. (If the people of eastern Europe - Poland, Lithuania Ukraine - are concerned about President Obama, you should be really worried about a potential Trump presidency.)

But Mr. Hewlitt seems simply blinded by his utter contempt and hatred of Hillary Clinton in his assessment of the Donald Trump interview because Mrs. Clinton during last night's debate declared that ISIS is using Mr. Trump's derogatory comments about Muslims as a recruiting tool, to which he liar label was applied to the former secretary. Even if it isn't true, it's an all too easy conclusion to come to, and today's round table seemed to agree that it would be trouble for her.   This can only lead one to conclude that the bar is set at different heights for each party in terms of hyperbolic rhetoric.

The legitimate debate is how the candidates differ on how to approach ISIS and the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. As Mr. Todd pointed out to Mr. Trump, he and Senator Bernie Sanders agree that ISIS has to be dealt with first and then Assad whereas Mrs. Clinton feels that both must be addressed at the same time - regime change and the elimination of ISIS. Senator Sanders repeated this position in his interview segment later in the program. However, what Mr. Todd didn't explain in pointing out the similarity of Mr. Trump's and Senator Sanders' position is the two vastly different motivations for this agreement. Senator Sanders explained that ISIS should be the first priority and then, when they are eliminated, the United States should lead a diplomatic coalition to remove Mr. Assad from power through a democratic process.  Conversely, Mr. Trump agrees more with Vladimir Putin that Assad should stay in power in perpetuity. Never mind the oppression of the people of Syria, it's favoring the strong man.

What today's program unknowingly pointed out is that with all this media drooling over the bombast, it's allowed new House Speaker Paul Ryan to fly under the radar a bit and actually get Congress to complete legislation that has required traditional compromise to pass. So there's a little consolation. Of course Speaker Ryan, while saying he has worked productively with President Obama on criminal justice reform and appropriations, has to then pivot and state that Mr. Obama has been the most polarizing president we've ever had. So much for good cheer.

Despite that, we want to wish all who read this column a very safe and happy holiday season.


Panel: Maggie Haberman, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian

12.13.15: Hey Knucklehead! Marco Rubio and the Other Two Stooges

Don't you wish that it was just time for everyone to just shut up and start voting? Thankfully, that time will be hear soon enough, but absolutely can not get here fast enough.  We can in no way imagine that this was the type of primary season that RNC Chairman Reince Preibus had in mind when he changed the primary schedule and balloting but you reap what you sew, as they say. With less debates and an early convention, an outrageous candidate like Donald Trump has been able command the race; one in which some one like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) sounds like (gulp) the voice of reason? Then there is the last of the Three Stooges, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his interview with Chuck Todd.

However, we should clarify something first. Of the aforementioned three names, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz we consider stooges because of the stupid things they say and them not having the slightest inclination that what they are saying is completely counterproductive, to say the very least. On the other hand, we consider Senator Rubio a stooge of a different sort, and it's the kind that is beholden to others (a select, few rich ones) and him not having his own stands. For us, this notion stems from what happened with comprehensive immigration reform where Senator Rubio was one of the key players in crafting the parameters of the legislation and then backed down and disowned his own proposals in the face of a conservative lobby challenge. He bends to special interest and he doesn't seem to always be present, hence all Mr. Todd's questions about him really wanting to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. And there is also that feeling that Senator Rubio just doesn't strike us as someone who is that perceptive, able to put all the pieces together to see the bigger picture.

Then you read articles like this from the front page of The Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-drug-smuggling-ring-that-brought-anguish-tomarco-rubios-family/2015/12/12/473f3a2c-9db6-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_rubiodrugcase644pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

That aside, take his explanation on what to do with ISIS where he outlined the exact things that the Obama Administration is currently doing the only problem being is that particularly President Barack Obama is doing them. Building a coalition: What more can you do then have the U.S., France, England, Russia among others all bombing ISIS? Could we conduct more bombing missions as Senator Rubio stated the president isn't doing enough? The United States has conducted thousands of sorties, but the problem is a lack of precise targeting which would require troops on the ground and he should know that. And getting moderate Sunni governments to commit troops means nothing if you can not explain how you actually make that happen because it hasn't yet. We'd suggest that Senator Rubio be careful when criticizing Mr. Ban-All-Muslims and Senator Carpet Bomb because he doesn't seem to be all that more... what's the word? Perceptive.

Senator Rubio also mentioned that the Republican Party can not be isolationists, unless it comes to climate change which according to them may be happening but doubt man has anything to do with it and that it's certainly not a crisis.  Then there's the rest of the world.

We agree with Secretary of State John Kerry in his endorsement of President Obama's leadership that has brought the United States credibility at the Paris climate summit. The president's strength on energy policy is underrated because the reality is that under the Obama administration the country has become the world's top oil producer while taking serious steps to limit carbon emissions. On Keystone, his decision was unpopular but it was the right one. Call us sentimental, but for that few of permanent jobs that it would create, why risk an environmental disaster in the beautiful heartland of America?

And to Mr. Todd's question as to how the commitments would be enforced, aside from just a public shaming, we would answer that there is no way in fact to enforcement the parameters of the agreement, right now. But the operative word in the sentence was 'agreement.' And being in agreement is a good first step because treaties and biding resolutions and coalitions come into form.

If not for anything else, it's a sign of hope that the world sees it the same way on at least one thing.


Panel: Ted Koppel, author; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal

One more thing...
As Helene Cooper gleefully said, a contested convention is a political reporter's ultimate fantasy and no doubt it would be great viewing (not welcomed by the RNC for sure), but contested or not, the Republicans' down-ticket problem is serious. If there is a contested convention that could alienate a lot of Republican voters causing them to stay home, or break for a third party candidate like Donald Trump if he doesn't get the nomination. However, if Mr. Trump does get the nomination in a uncontested convention (unlikely) then in state-wide elections, down ticket could be a disaster for Republicans, not at the very least of costing them control of the Senate.


 

12.6.15: The Aftermath of the Worst U.S. Terrorist Attack Since 9/11

It's clear from Mr. Todd's interview with the Attorney General Loretta Lynch is that through this investigation, the F.B.I. is trying to figure out that the best way to stop this from happening again, let alone more frequently. All of her answered were tightly measured, but understandably since there are  so many outstanding questions. With that, two things seem certain: It was a terrorist attack and Tashfeen Malik's radicalization germinated in Pakistan, completely and acted upon here with the help of propaganda courtesy of Al-Nusra Front, Al Qaeda in Syria.

While the question of the overall motivation - terrorism - has been answered, the specific motivation as to why that day in that location still remains somewhat unclear, and by extension how to stop lone-wolf type radicalization. One of the questions that does not remain unclear of course is how could this couple acquire such a large, what is being called an arsenal, amount of weapons? Answer: Simply, it's very easy to legally buy guns in the United States. (We'll get into this more a little later.)

With regard to other measures that could be taken, the clarifying joint interview with Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) illustrated how complicated the matter is from the respective senators (and presidential candidates) differing on troop deployments and surveillance. Senator Graham declared Republican isolationism over, a critique of Senator Paul's position, but the South Carolina senator's idea of ending that isolationist stance is to send tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Raqqa, Syria. And in terms of the bulk collection of data by the NSA, Senator Graham advocates expansion while Senator Paul lead the fight to have the program discontinued.

We appreciate the serious debate between the candidates and these questions are obviously being asked in a timely manner. However, where we seeing a failing on the part of both Senators and the stupidity of partisan politics solely for the sake of partisanship is when Senator Paul mentioned that 40 percent of immigrants in the United States illegally comes from individuals overstaying their visas. Congress has squandered repeated opportunities to pass comprehensive immigration reform and has failed to do so. It's on them.

Interestingly, where there is wider agreement from Senator Graham to The National Review's Rich Lowry to author Asra Mosani is that it is upon the vast majority of moderate Muslims to spoke out against and combat this violent perversion of Islam. Because as activist/author Dalia Mogahed said, ISIS believes that they are prompting a legitimate strain of Islam. With that comes some heavy lifting. There are enough willing participants to perform bombing missions on ISIS targets but the troops have to come from the regional governments, the worst actor of which has been Saudi Arabia, to Ms. Mosani's point during the program. Saudi Arabia spends hundreds of millions of dollars to export Wahhabism, a very fundamentalist practice (a serious understatement) of Islam, in which ISIS pumps huge doses of steroids into in the form of arbitrary mass killing and terrorism via a wash of black market petro-dollars. In terms of troops, the Saudis are preoccupied with Yemen and containing attacks emanating from there directly targeting the the House of Saud.

Until that very delicate and complex strategy and coalition comes together in correct proportions, it leaves governments in a protect and contain posture which brings us back home and what we can do here. Despite your opinion on the The New York Times' front page gun control editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0), the paper's Elisabeth Bumiller poses a legitimate question, which is why is it necessary for Americans to own assault weapons? Rich Lowry's answer was that the AR-15 (semi-automatic assault rifle) is the most popular gun in America, as if to say how could you make it illegal? We find these kinds of intractable positions beyond reason and rationality, in which the answer is to arm more people with more guns more easily. There is no reason to have assault weapons on the market that are designed for killing military and police personnel, but maybe that's just us.

We concede that there is a lot that we don't know and what to do about all the other types of guns that are not assault weapons, but here's what we do. When you want to make a serious purchase in America, like buying a house or a car, there are a number of hoops you have to jump through. These are processes in this country that we all accept. You can not just buy a car and start driving it. First, you have to get the license; then the insurance; get the loan to buy it requiring a credit check (a financial background check); have the car registered with the state; have it inspected on a yearly basis. When buying a house, there's the interview with the bank, the credit check (again), the insurance, the house inspector, the listing on your federal tax return saying you own it. 

For serious purchases, we jump through hoops, it's what we do, and buying a firearm and bringing into the home, especially if there are children there, is a serious purchase. In our line of thinking if you really want a gun, that's fine, but you'll have to jump through these series of hoops to get one. We're not every saying that you can not have one, but if you really want it, here's what you have to do - a permit to own a gun, a waiting period, a background check.

The common element in all shootings is a gun, of some sort. At this moment, the question Mr. Todd asked of Attorney General Lynch of are we to now accept this as now the way we live, a part of our society is rhetorical. It is, in fact, a part of living in American society to we as a nation have to endure through mass shootings. Twenty innocent small children were gunned down at their elementary school and now in the worst terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, the perpetrators were able to easily build up an arsenal of weapons in their home. If these two incidents haven't or won't change our behavior and our laws, then nothing will.

So... good luck out there and stay safe.


Panel: Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review


One more thing...
"Meet The Press" has truly found its groove again, exemplified by today's top-notch program - the flow, tone, production, breath of different voices/opinions, depth of information delivered really uphold the traditions and intent of the original format. It's this type of programming that will see "Meet The Press" rise back to the top of the rates ranks on Sunday morning, in due time. What's helped, we think, is the daily version in as much as now the Sunday version does not have to scratch the surface of many topics, spreading itself too thin, always in search of the elusive, viral inducing quote and really only comes from more in-depth discourse (unless you're Donal Trump). 

The show never had to pretend to be something it wasn't. Welcome back, and thanks.