The Iowa caucuses are upon us and Mr. Todd packed it in to today's program with four candidate guests, all senators: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. Mr. Todd cut right to the heart of the matter with each candidate, which was essentially "Why you?"
Before we get into what each said, it's worth mentioning at the top here that it was refreshing that Rand Paul actual met the press, taking questions from the various journalists on the panel. One thing that he said of note which we agree with and that you should consider when polls are referenced is that they are taken among older voters. To Senator Paul's credit not many politicians would be at all comfortable doing that, especially Mr. Rubio, with whom we'll start.
So why if Mr. Rubio enjoys great popularity is he not doing better in the polls? The reason is that at the end of the day, people don't think he's mature enough to be the president of the United States. What that means is that people like what he says but don't trust him enough that he'll be his own man when making a decision. It's like voters get the feeling that in a crisis, he won't be able to handle it. Call it a feeling or whatever, but it's real. Illustrating this very point is the clip that Mr. Todd showed of Mr. Rubio, while a member of the Florida House, support cap and trade legislation with an EPA mandate. He then turns around and says that clip was taken out of context. It's difficult to take Mr. Rubio seriously when he accuses Ted Cruz of just saying anything to get a vote. Also, Mr. Rubio said that he went to Washington to solve the immigration problem and the fact is, he hasn't. He instead walked away from legislation that he was instrumental in crafting. This contradiction is strictly his, but he insists on casting blame elsewhere. Not to mention that Mr. Rubio has completely abdicated his world view to the neo-conservatives in the Republican party and that's the kind of foreign policy of foolish hegemony. Mr. Rubio is essentially the shadow-establishment candidate.
For Mr. Cruz's part, he is the front runner in Iowa without a doubt, but it's going to be tight if as predicted the turn out is high. Plus, the way that the caucus is set up for the Republicans, as Mr. Todd helpfully explained, is that it is basically a firehouse primary because people drop in a secret ballot, which benefits Donald Trump's potential first-time voters. Ultimately, Mr. Cruz gets in trouble with Iowa voters on the ethanol issue because while what he says about ending all subsidies of any kind for energy production may sound good to Republicans, Iowans' ethanol economy is going to get squeezed because they don't peddle the influence that oil and gas do. That's the part that Mr. Cruz isn't telling them but it is what they know and they're not crazy about it, to say the least. And because it is convenient, we'll read into Mr. Cruz's description of the only way he runs a political race, "scared," was his quote. Why would you vote for someone who readily admits that?
Interestingly, what also makes it a tight race for Republicans is the fragmentation of the evangelical vote, which David Brody described. The nuance, he said, between the evangelical Cruz voter and the evangelical Trump voter is that for Mr. Trump, they represent traditional Christian cultural mores where the Cruz voter is more dedicated - the Wednesday night church goer. If that's the case then Mr. Carson's support (He should not still be in the race.) along with Mr. Huckabee's would fall to Mr. Cruz. Mr. Brody also explained that the evangelical voter is tired of being played like a political pawn for so long, like Karl Rove masterfully did for George W. Bush, and boy (!) is he correct. No block of voters has been deceived like evangelical Republican voters. Evangelical voters want their religious choices legislated on to the rest of the population and not in an incremental way, which is very difficult to get done in the United States, but politicians promise this anyway. It's easy to see why they're upset.
For the Republicans in Iowa, it's a question of who comes in third? This position will speak to what is the main argument on the Democratic side, which is practical electability. For Republicans, that comes down to the aforementioned Mr. Rubio, Mr. Bush, Mr. Christie, and Mr. Kasich. Of this group, it comes down to Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Given this lackluster choice, in our humble opinion, no Republican in their right mind would vote for Marco Rubio.
"Practical Electability" is not a phrase that we would use to describe Senator Bernie Sanders, on the Democratic side of things. For his part, he would use the term 'bold,' and fighting for single payer healthcare while - let's face it - Obamacare is still being fought over is quite daring. Mr. Sanders' broadest appeal is among younger voters, which we'll be a great benefit to him if they show up. Conceding that they do, the way the Democrats caucus supports more of the 'herd mentality,' for which a younger voter is more susceptible, hence benefiting Mr. Sanders. However, there is no question that in a general election Hillary Clinton will fair much better than Mr. Sanders in terms of wider support, yes, the notion of having a woman president - a wave not to be underestimated. Now, is it good to denounce Mr. Sander's plan on the basis of practicality as Mrs. Clinton did? No because on the campaign trail you don't want to come across as adverse to great and bold ideas. On a more detailed note, Mr. Sanders did mention that a main factor driving increased healthcare costs is the price for prescription drugs, but know that to curb those costs it is not a necessity to have single payer healthcare.
After all this talk, we're just glad that people are starting to vote - time to put up or shut up for the candidates... finally.
Panel: Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jennifer Jacobs, The Des Moines Register; David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
1.25.16: Limited Visibility Heading into Iowa
As we head into the Iowa Caucuses, like the historic blizzard that hit the East Coast, the presidential campaign outlook provides only limited visibility.
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post is justified in his astonishment that a 74-year old mayor of Burlington, VT is ahead in some polls over Hillary Clinton, but it's very easy to see why he's in that position and it isn't so astonishing. Senator Sanders is to the Democratic Party as is Donald Trump to the Republican Party - the protest against the status quo. Also, many of the young voters who are turning out for Mr. Sanders have been reared on a diet of disparagement of Mrs. Clinton and the big memory of her is when she lost to President Obama so that voting block isn't excited by her. They weren't a part of the working world in the go-go 90's that Bill Clinton spearheaded.
David Brooks of The New York Times explained that Senator Sanders' has honed his message to one of change and optimism whereas Mrs. Clinton's message lacks enthusiasm and inspiration, relying on the 'experience counts' quality. Given the fact that Mrs. Clinton is not a great campaigner, as Kristen Welker explained, while having the most scrutinizing light put upon her, we'd flip the switch and say that these indicate her strengths. In the political season in which none of these candidates have to actually lead or legislate on what they're telling the electorate, Mrs. Clinton has the most experience and meddle of any candidate to do so; to run a government as Secretary Robert Gates outlined later in the program. Running the government is NOT the same as running a company, as Sec. Gates pointed out.
Mr. Brooks is apparently one of the few who is still rooting against both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz, still holding out hope for the emergence of Marco Rubio, but if you take not just the Republican intellectuals such as Mr. Brooks, The National Review, Erick Erickson, et al. who are anti-Trump but consider the Party writ large with Republican legislators lining up against Mr. Cruz, the establishment is clearly dissatisfied with both and the estimate is that Mr. Trump is really just the lesser of two evils, so to speak. However, as we have alluded to before, we're leery of a Marco Rubio presidency and one of the reasons is in fact David Brooks' hope for his emergence. Mr. Rubio isn't his own guy and is/would be too easily molded by what the establishment wants him to say and do.
Obviously, the Democratic Party, even given the unexpected hugely strong showing of Senator Sanders against Mrs. Clinton's campaign, is in a much healthier state ideologically than the Republican party, without question. With that said, if Sen. Sanders were to become the nominee, and especially if his opponent was Donald Trump, this would be the impetus for fmr. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to jump into the race. We would agree with Mr. Sanders here, that is not a good look for our democracy to have two billionaires running for president of The United States in the same election year, at the very least.
It's for you to decide how bullish you are on Mrs. Clinton's statement that a Bloomberg candidacy will not happen because it will be unnecessary because she will in fact get the Democratic nomination because the primary is her biggest hurdle. In the general, unless it's Jeb Bush, she'll sound like the greater voice of reason because in some ways Mrs. Clinton could be considered a moderate Republican, by Roosevelt (Teddy) and Nixon legislative standards.
All due respect to Mr. Bloomberg, but he definitely isn't the solution to none of the above.
Snow Aftermath Panel: Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post; Kacie Hunt, NBC News; Kristen Welker, NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post is justified in his astonishment that a 74-year old mayor of Burlington, VT is ahead in some polls over Hillary Clinton, but it's very easy to see why he's in that position and it isn't so astonishing. Senator Sanders is to the Democratic Party as is Donald Trump to the Republican Party - the protest against the status quo. Also, many of the young voters who are turning out for Mr. Sanders have been reared on a diet of disparagement of Mrs. Clinton and the big memory of her is when she lost to President Obama so that voting block isn't excited by her. They weren't a part of the working world in the go-go 90's that Bill Clinton spearheaded.
David Brooks of The New York Times explained that Senator Sanders' has honed his message to one of change and optimism whereas Mrs. Clinton's message lacks enthusiasm and inspiration, relying on the 'experience counts' quality. Given the fact that Mrs. Clinton is not a great campaigner, as Kristen Welker explained, while having the most scrutinizing light put upon her, we'd flip the switch and say that these indicate her strengths. In the political season in which none of these candidates have to actually lead or legislate on what they're telling the electorate, Mrs. Clinton has the most experience and meddle of any candidate to do so; to run a government as Secretary Robert Gates outlined later in the program. Running the government is NOT the same as running a company, as Sec. Gates pointed out.
Mr. Brooks is apparently one of the few who is still rooting against both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz, still holding out hope for the emergence of Marco Rubio, but if you take not just the Republican intellectuals such as Mr. Brooks, The National Review, Erick Erickson, et al. who are anti-Trump but consider the Party writ large with Republican legislators lining up against Mr. Cruz, the establishment is clearly dissatisfied with both and the estimate is that Mr. Trump is really just the lesser of two evils, so to speak. However, as we have alluded to before, we're leery of a Marco Rubio presidency and one of the reasons is in fact David Brooks' hope for his emergence. Mr. Rubio isn't his own guy and is/would be too easily molded by what the establishment wants him to say and do.
Obviously, the Democratic Party, even given the unexpected hugely strong showing of Senator Sanders against Mrs. Clinton's campaign, is in a much healthier state ideologically than the Republican party, without question. With that said, if Sen. Sanders were to become the nominee, and especially if his opponent was Donald Trump, this would be the impetus for fmr. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to jump into the race. We would agree with Mr. Sanders here, that is not a good look for our democracy to have two billionaires running for president of The United States in the same election year, at the very least.
It's for you to decide how bullish you are on Mrs. Clinton's statement that a Bloomberg candidacy will not happen because it will be unnecessary because she will in fact get the Democratic nomination because the primary is her biggest hurdle. In the general, unless it's Jeb Bush, she'll sound like the greater voice of reason because in some ways Mrs. Clinton could be considered a moderate Republican, by Roosevelt (Teddy) and Nixon legislative standards.
All due respect to Mr. Bloomberg, but he definitely isn't the solution to none of the above.
Snow Aftermath Panel: Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post; Kacie Hunt, NBC News; Kristen Welker, NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times
Sunday, January 17, 2016
1.17.16: Perspective on the Candidates' Iran Deal Responses
No one should be surprised that the candidates on the Democratic side of the presidential race support President Obama's strategy and dealings with Iran while the Republican candidates oppose all that his administration is doing. Really it comes down to this: Do you agree with bringing Iran to the negotiating table or not? Secretary Clinton clearly does while Senator Rubio clearly does not. If you read this column then you know we have a distaste for statements that do not acknowledge for fuller dynamics of a given situation. For example, Senator Rubio said that he would reimpose sanctions and cancel the nuclear agreement immediately if he were elected president but what that answer doesn't take into account is the other countries that have signed on to the deal namely Russia and China who will continue to further normalize relations with Iran whether the United States backs out or not. It's a big ask to have Britain and France back out, which is unlikely as well. So really if the United States were to back out and reimpose sanctions, which wouldn't work anyway, it's us that would be left out in the cold, not the Iranians.
Furthermore, there is something we can not let go without comment and must call out Senator Rubio for something he said, which was with regard to the hostage exchange with Iran. He said that if he were the president, it would be 'like Ronald Reagan' and the hostages would be coming home without negotiation. Either Mr. Rubio is a poor student of history and has never heard of Iran-Contra, in which the Reagan administration traded arms for those hostages or he does know his history and get things done in the same manner. Either way, we kindly say to the Florida Senator: Cut the crap.
The Iranian nuclear deal was one of necessity because left unchecked it would have become a nuclear state with 5 years and that's being conservative. We agree with Sec. Clinton that it opens up the dialogue for other areas but her answer didn't consider the fact that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism and it should be able to freely join the international community until that stops. In saying that, understand that the Iranians would ask, terrorism against whom? Saudia Arabia or Israel or both?
It's refreshing that "Meet The Press" is back to a place where Republican as well as Democratic politicians appear, and today was the epitome of that notion given the aforementioned Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rubio along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Sanders being guests. What you can glean from all of their respective answers is that Senator Sanders' foreign policy would reflect Barack Obama's but not as hawkish while Sec. Clinton's would fall more hawkish than the president. Senator Rubio's foreign policy seems to be a shoot first, aim later type of strategy while Gov. Bush is also hard right but with a tempered approach given consideration for his brother's legacy.
As Richard Engel reported, yesterday was implementation day for the deal so now only time, and stringent inspections, will tell.
Usually we're not crazy about panel's dominated by strategists and partisan commentators but today's insight into the unanimous opinion that the biggest take away from the four interviews was that Jeb Bush referred to Donald Trump as 'the big guy in the race,' as if Mr. Trump is now beyond touch or something. The more you think about it and the focus that it will be given, it's a massive concession. And speaking of the making of a big deal, there's Bernie Sanders in a dead heat with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, and no - don't be surprised, especially for Iowa where the primary left is really left and the primary right is all the way over. Stephanie Cutter clearly defined the 'why' explaining that just as Donald Trump is the angry-vote response to the current state of our politics, Bernie Sanders represents that same sentiment for the left.
Though we beat up on Senator Rubio earlier for his foreign policy tough talk, we do agree with his opinion of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in as much as he does things for political expediency and his own advancement; the reason why none of his colleagues like him. We like many, take exception to Mr. Cruz's 'New York values' comment and in particular that he said that the people of South Carolina know what New York values are but that New Yorkers do not. We would call that stereotyping. And as Mr. Rubio conveniently pointed out, Mr. Cruz has no trouble making disparaging remarks about New Yorkers, but will go there without hesitation when he needs money. We would call that being a jerk.
Panel: Joy Ann Reid, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist; Stephanie Cutter, political consultant
A Few More Things...
Hugh Hewlitt said that Hillary Clinton dodged the question about Benghazi as it relates to the movie, 13 Hours. He went on to suggest to Chuck Todd that he should ask he later at the debate if she had seen the movie. First, Mr. Todd, don't take Mr. Hewlitt's advise. As Secretary of State at the time, Mrs. Clinton isn't going to comment on a movie beyond what she said today. How many times do we have to go here?
And then there is Maldives, a string of islands (with resorts) in the middle of the Indian Ocean, recruitment center and vacation destination for ISIS. If an international coalition can not restrict a despotic regime on a tiny island country, how is it to manage something bigger, like Syria. And if it takes Amal Clooney, International Human Rights lawyer, to bring it to our attention, we just say 'thank you.'
Furthermore, there is something we can not let go without comment and must call out Senator Rubio for something he said, which was with regard to the hostage exchange with Iran. He said that if he were the president, it would be 'like Ronald Reagan' and the hostages would be coming home without negotiation. Either Mr. Rubio is a poor student of history and has never heard of Iran-Contra, in which the Reagan administration traded arms for those hostages or he does know his history and get things done in the same manner. Either way, we kindly say to the Florida Senator: Cut the crap.
The Iranian nuclear deal was one of necessity because left unchecked it would have become a nuclear state with 5 years and that's being conservative. We agree with Sec. Clinton that it opens up the dialogue for other areas but her answer didn't consider the fact that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism and it should be able to freely join the international community until that stops. In saying that, understand that the Iranians would ask, terrorism against whom? Saudia Arabia or Israel or both?
It's refreshing that "Meet The Press" is back to a place where Republican as well as Democratic politicians appear, and today was the epitome of that notion given the aforementioned Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rubio along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Sanders being guests. What you can glean from all of their respective answers is that Senator Sanders' foreign policy would reflect Barack Obama's but not as hawkish while Sec. Clinton's would fall more hawkish than the president. Senator Rubio's foreign policy seems to be a shoot first, aim later type of strategy while Gov. Bush is also hard right but with a tempered approach given consideration for his brother's legacy.
As Richard Engel reported, yesterday was implementation day for the deal so now only time, and stringent inspections, will tell.
Usually we're not crazy about panel's dominated by strategists and partisan commentators but today's insight into the unanimous opinion that the biggest take away from the four interviews was that Jeb Bush referred to Donald Trump as 'the big guy in the race,' as if Mr. Trump is now beyond touch or something. The more you think about it and the focus that it will be given, it's a massive concession. And speaking of the making of a big deal, there's Bernie Sanders in a dead heat with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, and no - don't be surprised, especially for Iowa where the primary left is really left and the primary right is all the way over. Stephanie Cutter clearly defined the 'why' explaining that just as Donald Trump is the angry-vote response to the current state of our politics, Bernie Sanders represents that same sentiment for the left.
Though we beat up on Senator Rubio earlier for his foreign policy tough talk, we do agree with his opinion of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in as much as he does things for political expediency and his own advancement; the reason why none of his colleagues like him. We like many, take exception to Mr. Cruz's 'New York values' comment and in particular that he said that the people of South Carolina know what New York values are but that New Yorkers do not. We would call that stereotyping. And as Mr. Rubio conveniently pointed out, Mr. Cruz has no trouble making disparaging remarks about New Yorkers, but will go there without hesitation when he needs money. We would call that being a jerk.
Panel: Joy Ann Reid, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist; Stephanie Cutter, political consultant
A Few More Things...
Hugh Hewlitt said that Hillary Clinton dodged the question about Benghazi as it relates to the movie, 13 Hours. He went on to suggest to Chuck Todd that he should ask he later at the debate if she had seen the movie. First, Mr. Todd, don't take Mr. Hewlitt's advise. As Secretary of State at the time, Mrs. Clinton isn't going to comment on a movie beyond what she said today. How many times do we have to go here?
And then there is Maldives, a string of islands (with resorts) in the middle of the Indian Ocean, recruitment center and vacation destination for ISIS. If an international coalition can not restrict a despotic regime on a tiny island country, how is it to manage something bigger, like Syria. And if it takes Amal Clooney, International Human Rights lawyer, to bring it to our attention, we just say 'thank you.'
Sunday, January 10, 2016
1.10.16: Franken-Republicans' Monster and the Circular Firing Squad
It took us a moment at the end of today's "Meet The Press" to truly get out thoughts together due to the fact that we just didn't know where to begin. At the top, respected Republican strategist Alex Castellanos admitted that he got 'no takers' from the big-donor Republican establishment crowd to produce an anti-Trump media campaign. At the end, conservative journalist Jeff Greenfield called Donald Trump a 'bloviating billionaire with weird hair.' If that weren't enough, the middle was stuffed with the discussion of Ted Cruz's (R-TX) Canadian birther charge, which has the senator clearly rattled because the other candidates have piled on to what Donald Trump started. It actually speaks negatively of Mr. Cruz's character if his fellow Republicans don't have his back on this. Amazing...
The Republican establishment doesn't want to attack Donald Trump right now because they see Ted Cruz receiving the residual benefit, and that it does not want. We also suspect that there is a fear that Donald Trump could put these peoples' names in the news and they definitely don't want that. But here we all are, waiting to see if the establishment's Franken-Republican monster destroys all or dies. The Republican establishment had stoked and fanned the angry fires of their electorate for so many years without ever coming through on their promises, and they sought Donald Trump's endorsement and support in the past; then he got fed up as well. Uh-oh...
Mr. Trump said it himself in his interview today with Mr. Todd, that President Obama is a terrible negotiator with everyone except with Republicans; so they're the worst. And this doesn't bode well for the other Republican 'establishment' candidates obviously because they're the ones who've been doing the negotiating. Meanwhile they're engaged in what Mr. Todd called a 'circular firing squad;' here's how we noted it:
Rubio on Christie,
Bush on Rubio,
Christie on Rubio and Cruz.
Ben Ginsberg, fmr. counsel for Republican Administrations called it a 'demolition derby.' Collectively, Republicans are having a really hard time coming up with a candidate that they think can make it through the primary and the general elections, one they can rally around. Jennifer Jacobs from the Des Moines Register said it's going to be close because even though Mr. Trump leads, Mr. Cruz's favorability numbers are in the seventies. She also explained that each of the top two candidates are worried about one another, nuancing their respective positions to cater specifically to Iowa caucus goers. And as Mr. Castelllanos duly noted that it's too late for any of the establishment candidates to catch up with either of the front runners.
The only thing that the establishment can hang its hat on, so to speak, is something that Mr. Ginsberg said which was that in this election cycle the first four primary states have less significance than in past elections. But we're not so sure of that, especially if Mr. Trump wins the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and possibly a third in South Carolina. What that could possibly lead to is no clear nominee come convention time. (It's difficult not to get ahead of yourself on this given the anxiety you witness among Republicans.)
The conservative electorate may be undecided on whether they want to go with Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz, but the political establishment clearly signals that it prefers neither but this is a situation of their own making and having Reince Preibus leading the RNC has probably made things worse. As the process moves on more damage will certainly be done to all the candidates as votes start being cast and no matter who comes out on top in the end could be well past the point of no return to appeal to a majority in the general election.
When Mr. Todd asked Mr. Trump to fill in the blank: The state of our union is what? Mr. Trump answered, "a mess." Seems like everyone's thinking that he's referring to the union within the Republican party.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jennifer Jacobs, The Des Moines Register; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico
One more thing...
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan is a sad and despicable situation on so many levels. That the water was not lead-free in the first place; that Governor Rick Snyder's office has been passive to do anything as this has gone on for over a year; that the national media is not giving this the attention that should be paid give credence to our description. As Helene Cooper said: this is so basic and we're not a third-world country. So focused on the sensational are we that we are forgetting what is really important. Fix it!
The Republican establishment doesn't want to attack Donald Trump right now because they see Ted Cruz receiving the residual benefit, and that it does not want. We also suspect that there is a fear that Donald Trump could put these peoples' names in the news and they definitely don't want that. But here we all are, waiting to see if the establishment's Franken-Republican monster destroys all or dies. The Republican establishment had stoked and fanned the angry fires of their electorate for so many years without ever coming through on their promises, and they sought Donald Trump's endorsement and support in the past; then he got fed up as well. Uh-oh...
Mr. Trump said it himself in his interview today with Mr. Todd, that President Obama is a terrible negotiator with everyone except with Republicans; so they're the worst. And this doesn't bode well for the other Republican 'establishment' candidates obviously because they're the ones who've been doing the negotiating. Meanwhile they're engaged in what Mr. Todd called a 'circular firing squad;' here's how we noted it:
Rubio on Christie,
Bush on Rubio,
Christie on Rubio and Cruz.
Ben Ginsberg, fmr. counsel for Republican Administrations called it a 'demolition derby.' Collectively, Republicans are having a really hard time coming up with a candidate that they think can make it through the primary and the general elections, one they can rally around. Jennifer Jacobs from the Des Moines Register said it's going to be close because even though Mr. Trump leads, Mr. Cruz's favorability numbers are in the seventies. She also explained that each of the top two candidates are worried about one another, nuancing their respective positions to cater specifically to Iowa caucus goers. And as Mr. Castelllanos duly noted that it's too late for any of the establishment candidates to catch up with either of the front runners.
The only thing that the establishment can hang its hat on, so to speak, is something that Mr. Ginsberg said which was that in this election cycle the first four primary states have less significance than in past elections. But we're not so sure of that, especially if Mr. Trump wins the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and possibly a third in South Carolina. What that could possibly lead to is no clear nominee come convention time. (It's difficult not to get ahead of yourself on this given the anxiety you witness among Republicans.)
The conservative electorate may be undecided on whether they want to go with Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz, but the political establishment clearly signals that it prefers neither but this is a situation of their own making and having Reince Preibus leading the RNC has probably made things worse. As the process moves on more damage will certainly be done to all the candidates as votes start being cast and no matter who comes out on top in the end could be well past the point of no return to appeal to a majority in the general election.
When Mr. Todd asked Mr. Trump to fill in the blank: The state of our union is what? Mr. Trump answered, "a mess." Seems like everyone's thinking that he's referring to the union within the Republican party.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jennifer Jacobs, The Des Moines Register; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico
One more thing...
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan is a sad and despicable situation on so many levels. That the water was not lead-free in the first place; that Governor Rick Snyder's office has been passive to do anything as this has gone on for over a year; that the national media is not giving this the attention that should be paid give credence to our description. As Helene Cooper said: this is so basic and we're not a third-world country. So focused on the sensational are we that we are forgetting what is really important. Fix it!
Sunday, January 03, 2016
1.3.16: The Angry Avatar and The Happy Warrior
Here's a change we've noticed over the years, the holiday season gets shorter and shorter in people's minds, just more things on the long list the need to be checked off, (despite the marketing) and the New Year's holiday can not be over soon enough. In other words, let's just get on with it.
This week's "Meet The Press" is certainly getting on with it moving head on into anger and presidential politics. Discussing the the presidential candidates (Mr. Trump aside) definitely causes one to become anger, the candidates spur more anger out on the campaign trail and poor administration (presidential) policies over the last 15 years have made Americans angry. Yes, you could say that a lot of it going around, and it's all going to come to a head during this presidential campaign cycle.
But here's the rub... in the long run, anger is a loser, especially in presidential politics, and that's why no matter what happens in the primaries, Donald Trump will not win the presidency because in the end it comes down to having a hopeful message, from which all Americans can take a little something, and he doesn't have it.
Conversely, two of the Republican candidates that have a positive message were on today's program - Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Do we agree with everything they had to say, no of course not, but could we take away something that we liked, yes. Gov. Kasich used the phrase 'real solutions to real problems' meaning that the governor understands that while he has his conservative principles, he also understands that there are many who do not share his politics - that there's another political party out there. At least that's how we read it.
Senator Paul explained that he didn't think Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) had the proper personality to be president because Mr. Cruz's willingness to attack people's character on the floor of the Senate breaking with the rules and decorum of the upper chamber. When asked why he hasn't been on the campaign trail for two weeks, refreshingly he said that he had spent time with family, did pro bono [eye] surgery and was in Washington doing his job as Senate adding that that is what his constituents pay him to do - taking a clear shot at Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).
Speaking of whom, Mr. Rubio seems neither angry nor passionate. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin described him as being 'too effortless' for his own good. He just doesn't put the time in despite his campaign's philosophy that deems it unnecessary to pound the pavement in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's actually this message riding the undercurrent right now that damages Mr. Rubio the most - that he just doesn't put the time in. Also, there is the perception that he's a Manchurian candidate of sorts - that his message really isn't his but the interests of other individuals that back him and is void of any vision of his own.
Yet, it seems that when the amount of candidates on the Republican side narrows, Senator Rubio will be one of the three or four still standing, and odds are that Mr. Kasich and Mr. Paul will be on the outside looking in.
As we've said before, the United States sometimes veers to the center-left and at other times to the center-right, but never too far to either flank. Right now, the mood is that people want to take the country back to the center-right away from President Obama's center-left but they just don't see the right (pardon the term) candidate that can take them there, which in and of itself also contributes fuel to the angry fire that is Donald Trump. Many of the top candidates are majorly flawed and Americans know it. With Mrs. Clinton, there's reservation because of the propensity of scandal; With Jeb Bush, there's the potential for foreign policy folly; Dr. Carson is a brilliant surgeon, but out of his depth; Bernie Sanders is weak on foreign policy and a 'socialist'; Rubio is fake and lazy; Cruz is a jerk (no one votes for one of those); Carly Fiorina tanked HP; Martin O'Malley was the mayor of Baltimore; and Chris Christie - cones.
All that's enough to make us really frustrated - certainly angry, but not Donald Trump kind of angry. His kind of angry is the right-wing radio sort of angry - you know, really good at saying what's wrong and who to blame, but never offering a solution. Americans are angry, but what they need, what they're looking for is a Happy Warrior.
Panel: Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Sara Fagen, CNBC; Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Chris Matthews, MSNBC
This week's "Meet The Press" is certainly getting on with it moving head on into anger and presidential politics. Discussing the the presidential candidates (Mr. Trump aside) definitely causes one to become anger, the candidates spur more anger out on the campaign trail and poor administration (presidential) policies over the last 15 years have made Americans angry. Yes, you could say that a lot of it going around, and it's all going to come to a head during this presidential campaign cycle.
But here's the rub... in the long run, anger is a loser, especially in presidential politics, and that's why no matter what happens in the primaries, Donald Trump will not win the presidency because in the end it comes down to having a hopeful message, from which all Americans can take a little something, and he doesn't have it.
Conversely, two of the Republican candidates that have a positive message were on today's program - Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Do we agree with everything they had to say, no of course not, but could we take away something that we liked, yes. Gov. Kasich used the phrase 'real solutions to real problems' meaning that the governor understands that while he has his conservative principles, he also understands that there are many who do not share his politics - that there's another political party out there. At least that's how we read it.
Senator Paul explained that he didn't think Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) had the proper personality to be president because Mr. Cruz's willingness to attack people's character on the floor of the Senate breaking with the rules and decorum of the upper chamber. When asked why he hasn't been on the campaign trail for two weeks, refreshingly he said that he had spent time with family, did pro bono [eye] surgery and was in Washington doing his job as Senate adding that that is what his constituents pay him to do - taking a clear shot at Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).
Speaking of whom, Mr. Rubio seems neither angry nor passionate. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin described him as being 'too effortless' for his own good. He just doesn't put the time in despite his campaign's philosophy that deems it unnecessary to pound the pavement in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's actually this message riding the undercurrent right now that damages Mr. Rubio the most - that he just doesn't put the time in. Also, there is the perception that he's a Manchurian candidate of sorts - that his message really isn't his but the interests of other individuals that back him and is void of any vision of his own.
Yet, it seems that when the amount of candidates on the Republican side narrows, Senator Rubio will be one of the three or four still standing, and odds are that Mr. Kasich and Mr. Paul will be on the outside looking in.
As we've said before, the United States sometimes veers to the center-left and at other times to the center-right, but never too far to either flank. Right now, the mood is that people want to take the country back to the center-right away from President Obama's center-left but they just don't see the right (pardon the term) candidate that can take them there, which in and of itself also contributes fuel to the angry fire that is Donald Trump. Many of the top candidates are majorly flawed and Americans know it. With Mrs. Clinton, there's reservation because of the propensity of scandal; With Jeb Bush, there's the potential for foreign policy folly; Dr. Carson is a brilliant surgeon, but out of his depth; Bernie Sanders is weak on foreign policy and a 'socialist'; Rubio is fake and lazy; Cruz is a jerk (no one votes for one of those); Carly Fiorina tanked HP; Martin O'Malley was the mayor of Baltimore; and Chris Christie - cones.
All that's enough to make us really frustrated - certainly angry, but not Donald Trump kind of angry. His kind of angry is the right-wing radio sort of angry - you know, really good at saying what's wrong and who to blame, but never offering a solution. Americans are angry, but what they need, what they're looking for is a Happy Warrior.
Panel: Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Sara Fagen, CNBC; Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Chris Matthews, MSNBC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)