Chuck Todd's comment on the Bernie Sander's interview made it seem reminiscent of Mike Meyers' old Saturday Night Live skit, "Coffee Talk."
Linda Richman: Was that Bernie's exit interview? I'm verklempt. Discuss.
We wouldn't quite call it an exit interview, but it was definitely one in which in so many words Senator Sanders was saying, "I know where the door is, but I'm not going to leave until I'm ready." And that's what Senator Sanders should do because as improbably as his nomination for the general is, his message is one that needs to be heard more and more so that it really sticks all the way through to California. What we're referring to specifically is the issue of income inequality, which has gotten to the point of strangling the country. We would not include in that message Senator Sanders' demand for Sec. Clinton to release the transcripts of speeches she has made as a private citizen, as we stated before. But campaign finance - yes. Taxation - yes.
The other key take away from the senator's interview was that he said he was behind in votes and wins because the sad reality is that poor people in the United States do not vote. It is a sad truth as the senator called and we agree that if perhaps more poor people voted, they would vote for Senator Sanders and he could have very well been ahead. So knowing this, why didn't his campaign make a more concerted effort to get that vote out? There hasn't been any talk from the Sanders campaign that mass voting drives in poor areas of the country have been taking place so to simply state that 'sad fact' without the revolutionary attempt to enfranchise these people, you can't use that as an excuse for being behind. So in a way, Ms. Reid was correct in her assessment of that statement.
Perhaps Senator Sanders should have made the voter registration process in this country a bigger issue. With all the turmoil on the Republican side of things and all the talk of delegates voting opposite of the electorate, we were reminded that the Republican and Democratic parties are private organizations. So when someone wants to register to vote, a process that Republican state officials legislate up the degree of difficulty, they have to declare what private organization they belong to. If they do not, that person has no say in a closed primary. There just seems to be something off about that. Surmise to say that registration should be made easier. Hard stop.
This kind of leads to the other topic of the program, the inevitability of the nomination of the chameleonic Donald Trump who said that it's easy to act presidential, which begs the question - but is it easy to be president? The answer is no, by the way. But as Mr. Todd outlined at the top of today's program, Republicans have fully gone through those five stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. That's not to say that there are still more than an influential few who are pounding on the proverbial door to get the hell out, but for the most part...
RNC Chair, Reince Priebus, is urging the Republican establishment to get behind the nominee, of the private organization. But they don't have to because that pesky word keeps popping up. Most likely, the big donors are going to sit it out if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee - it really is a sad state of affairs for the Republican party and unfortunately for them, with Mr. Priebus running the RNC good things are not on the horizon.
But getting back to the 'evolving' of Mr. Trump as a candidate, the controversy is that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's convention manager, told the RNC brass down in Hollywood, FL that Mr. Trump was playing a part during the debates and on the stump and that's not how he really thinks. So all the things that he's been saying all along don't really mean anything. Two ways to read that: 1) That sounds like a typical politician, saying things you don't mean, which is what Mr. Trump rails against; or 2) Being the complete wildcard with his statements also makes him a complete wildcard with his actions and that's dangerous.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jose Diaz-Balart, Telemundo; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Nicole Wallace, NBC Political Analyst
One more thing...
28 redacted pages. These pages from the 9/11 report should be declassified, most certainly because Americans have the right to know. We understand that in those pages, some unflattering shades of gray seen on the Saudi government and there a key ally and source of oil for us, but so be it. Yes, the continued alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is necessary, but this is where we think President Obama has it correct. We're allies, but we ain't friends. The Saudi royal family has one motivation and that is to persist, no matter what they have to do so the days of them having us over a barrel of oil have to end.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Sunday, April 17, 2016
4.17.16: NC HB2 Law Helps No One/ The New York Primary, Act Accordingly
In 2017, Joe Smith and his partner are getting tired of driving so they pull off the highway in North Carolina and proceed directly to the check-in desk of the local Motel 6 franchise and they are going to be refused a room because of their sexual orientation. They sue Motel 6 and lose, but they appeal until in 2018 the case, Smith v. the State of North Carolina overturns the state legislation HB2 that does not protect citizens from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. And why? Because federal law overrides state law, just as state law (NC) overrode municipal (Charlotte) law in this case; and federal law says that the Constitution applies to all U.S. citizens equally.
So to use NBC reporter Perry Bacon's summary, the governor didn't really think it through. Governor McCrory's position on this law is indefensible on both the discriminatory nature and the bathroom stipulation, or should we say ridiculousness. Just reeking of politics, Gov. McCrory is endorsing a law that helps no one. Chuck Todd quoted a figure of 39.7 million dollars of lost revenue to the state, which will surely go up as time passes. State revenue gains through corporate hubs being located there is an easy and big political win for Republicans. That's gone. The country perceives the state legislature as an intentional discriminatory body. Reputation shot. And that's after you've unleashed a ton of potential suffering for a lot of individuals in your state who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. As Mr. Todd rightly asked, "Where was the dialogue?" And the answer is that there was none.
When are Republicans going to learn that these discriminatory social issue battles are always going to be losers for them. The reason they're always going to be losers is because society evolves to become more tolerant and understanding. Despite what Donald Trump may tell you or what law the North Carolina state legislature may pass when social norms and views evolve there is no going backward. Ever.
So why did they make this law? Because of religious beliefs? No one would admit that because taken to extremes it can head toward some very dark corners. And there's the fact that it is a Constitutional no-no; it's against the rules. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Those are the rules so we're just asking why.
Speaking of which, the freshly pleasant weather has also brought on a very minor miracle in that this column agrees with something RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put forth, which was that if you didn't know the rules before the game started and now you're complaining about them, too bad. The rules are the rules and they have to be followed. And while we understand that the rules may be considered arcane, silly, and unfair, but they only suck for Donald Trump because they're not working for him. If they were, then everything would be fine.
But shouting into a microphone that the RNC system is rigged is great politically for specifically Donald Trump because he's going to win New York big, then there's Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut coming up so with likely wins in all those states, Mr. Trump can say that he won in spite of the game being 'tilted against' him making it more significant in the eyes of Republican voters.
It plays even bigger when you consider the percentages outlined above when you consider that it's looking likely that Mr. Trump will win the vote total but that Mr. Cruz is likely to win the delegate vote if Trump doesn't reach the threshold of 1,237 prior to the convention. The business that gets done at the convention goes largely unnoticed, but not this year, as Mr. Priebus explained. And while you're watching this business transpire over four days in July on television, you'll be holding your nose or just shaking your head in disgust (no matter who you support).
Conversely, sorry to say for some, the Democratic race is going pretty much how a primary normally goes. There is a moderate, usually the front runner and someone else running to the base flank of the party, who pulls the moderate more toward the base.
That's what is happening but it doesn't speak to personalities, and it's clear that Sec. Clinton's and Sen. Sander's grate up against one another. Thursday's Democratic debate in Brooklyn was a heated affair but would you expect anything else, especially from Sec. Clinton who absolutely needs to win the state she represented as senator. When Senator Sanders argues that Sec. Clinton is not transparent the crowd roars, which is a great blow to the secretary even though Senator Sander's answers are just as vague on things. Senator Sanders is capitalizing on the Republican narrative that Mrs. Clinton always has something to hide, etc. as he should because she seems to always put herself in an awkward situation where in hide sight the 'something' wasn't such a great idea, and that's being kind. However, we think that Sec. Clinton should not have to release the transcripts of her speeches to financial firms et al. because she doesn't have to, being a private citizen when she gave them. More importantly, she has released her tax returns for the past twenty-two years, yet no one else running for president, including Bernie Sanders, has disclosed them at all.
With all that said about both sides, of course right now it's nasty with rhetorical ripping and tearing as it could be no other way. At stake you have the primary contest for the state that contains the media and financial capital of the world. Act accordingly.
Panel: Chris Matthews, NBC; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Perry Bacon, NBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator
So to use NBC reporter Perry Bacon's summary, the governor didn't really think it through. Governor McCrory's position on this law is indefensible on both the discriminatory nature and the bathroom stipulation, or should we say ridiculousness. Just reeking of politics, Gov. McCrory is endorsing a law that helps no one. Chuck Todd quoted a figure of 39.7 million dollars of lost revenue to the state, which will surely go up as time passes. State revenue gains through corporate hubs being located there is an easy and big political win for Republicans. That's gone. The country perceives the state legislature as an intentional discriminatory body. Reputation shot. And that's after you've unleashed a ton of potential suffering for a lot of individuals in your state who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. As Mr. Todd rightly asked, "Where was the dialogue?" And the answer is that there was none.
When are Republicans going to learn that these discriminatory social issue battles are always going to be losers for them. The reason they're always going to be losers is because society evolves to become more tolerant and understanding. Despite what Donald Trump may tell you or what law the North Carolina state legislature may pass when social norms and views evolve there is no going backward. Ever.
 |
| Reputation Shot. |
Those are the rules so we're just asking why.
Speaking of which, the freshly pleasant weather has also brought on a very minor miracle in that this column agrees with something RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put forth, which was that if you didn't know the rules before the game started and now you're complaining about them, too bad. The rules are the rules and they have to be followed. And while we understand that the rules may be considered arcane, silly, and unfair, but they only suck for Donald Trump because they're not working for him. If they were, then everything would be fine.
But shouting into a microphone that the RNC system is rigged is great politically for specifically Donald Trump because he's going to win New York big, then there's Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut coming up so with likely wins in all those states, Mr. Trump can say that he won in spite of the game being 'tilted against' him making it more significant in the eyes of Republican voters.
It plays even bigger when you consider the percentages outlined above when you consider that it's looking likely that Mr. Trump will win the vote total but that Mr. Cruz is likely to win the delegate vote if Trump doesn't reach the threshold of 1,237 prior to the convention. The business that gets done at the convention goes largely unnoticed, but not this year, as Mr. Priebus explained. And while you're watching this business transpire over four days in July on television, you'll be holding your nose or just shaking your head in disgust (no matter who you support).
Conversely, sorry to say for some, the Democratic race is going pretty much how a primary normally goes. There is a moderate, usually the front runner and someone else running to the base flank of the party, who pulls the moderate more toward the base.
That's what is happening but it doesn't speak to personalities, and it's clear that Sec. Clinton's and Sen. Sander's grate up against one another. Thursday's Democratic debate in Brooklyn was a heated affair but would you expect anything else, especially from Sec. Clinton who absolutely needs to win the state she represented as senator. When Senator Sanders argues that Sec. Clinton is not transparent the crowd roars, which is a great blow to the secretary even though Senator Sander's answers are just as vague on things. Senator Sanders is capitalizing on the Republican narrative that Mrs. Clinton always has something to hide, etc. as he should because she seems to always put herself in an awkward situation where in hide sight the 'something' wasn't such a great idea, and that's being kind. However, we think that Sec. Clinton should not have to release the transcripts of her speeches to financial firms et al. because she doesn't have to, being a private citizen when she gave them. More importantly, she has released her tax returns for the past twenty-two years, yet no one else running for president, including Bernie Sanders, has disclosed them at all.
With all that said about both sides, of course right now it's nasty with rhetorical ripping and tearing as it could be no other way. At stake you have the primary contest for the state that contains the media and financial capital of the world. Act accordingly.
Panel: Chris Matthews, NBC; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Perry Bacon, NBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator
Sunday, April 10, 2016
4.10.16: Everyone's Got a Gripe, The Operatives At Play
Everything is being 're-litigated in the negative' in the 'Byzantine system,' in which 'Gestapo tactics' are being used to 'disenfranchise the base of the party.'
In other words, everyone's got a gripe, and every gripe is recorded. The above phrases in quotes all came from today's commentary and the outlook from all sides doesn't seem to be good. We've gotten to a point that in our personal lives when given the choice we expect to get what we want when we want it and if not, why bother? Our politics reflects that notion instead of a more professional stance of putting the small differences aside in order to move forward. In politics, like life, you really can not have it all. That our politics have become a futile zero-sum type of game, without compromise, the result is extreme or unpopular or unrealistic candidates.
Where this has left us on the Democratic side of things is with the unpopular (Sec. Clinton) and the unrealistic (Sen. Sanders). In the senator's interview today he once again walked back the 'unqualified' comment about Sec. Clinton but immediately pivoted to question her judgement citing the former secretary's support for trade deals, fracking and Super PACs that support her. We confess that we're not experts in trade deals, but we can say this about them: They're inevitable and they'll obviously never be perfect so we have to consider them in that frame of mind. In terms of fracking, it's great that we can lead the world in natural gas production but the cost is the great possibility of permanently damaging large supplies of our clean drinking water - a resource that is becoming more scarce worldwide. Also altering our geology so quickly and drastically in some regions that it has precipitated an increase in seismic activity, in Oklahoma for example where earthquakes are now a common occurrence. Fracking is fair game as an issue. However, we find Sen. Sanders's argument that Sec. Clinton's judgement should be questioned because of Super PACs supporting her not all that compelling. Remember that Super PACs came into existence because of the Supreme Court's decision on the Citizens United case fought because of a film that a corporation made about Hillary Clinton, hence giving us the illogical 'corporations are people.' You can equally make effective arguments for rejecting them or using them. The fact is that the other side, unless you're a billionaire, are going to use them to their fullest capacity. This column comes down on the side of Citizens United being one of the worse decisions by the high court in our lifetimes, but it's the reality.
The Democratic debate has gotten testy (or whatever equivalent adjective you want to use) for sure but at least it's been mostly centered on policy and the means to achieve goals. This obviously contrasts what's going on with the Republicans who it clearly seems are headed for a contested convention. How do we know this? Hmmm... Maybe because one today's guests was Paul Manafort whose title in the Trump campaign is convention manager. Mr. Manafort was an advisor for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes George. Now he works for Mr. Trump, which just goes to show how much some serious Republican power brokers hate Ted Cruz. It's like one of those blind hates like Republicans have for Sec. Clinton and President Obama.
Also, it seems like there are Republican power brokers, as we called them, on both sides of the Trump/ Cruz nomination argument, but here's how it lines up. Republicans who have been or who have worked with politicians seem to side with Trump whereas the conservative establishment press tends to back Cruz - the practical versus the ideological. Political operatives are backing Trump because he's always talking deals where conversely Senator Cruz speaks of ideology.
The National Review's Rich Lowry, whose publication devoted an entire issue about being against Trump, said that the nominee from the Republican party is going to be either Trump or Cruz so you can easily conclude who Mr. Lowry backs. It's the same with Glenn Beck who is a Cruz supporter, but who is also convinced that he'll be the nominee as well because he's a 'never Trump' guy. Where Mr. Beck and Mr. Lowry also agree is that anyone else as the nominee was effectively blow up the GOP. But as we've previously said, Mr. Trump is in the race until the end so he's either the Republican nominee or he's the third party.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
We're not sure what's going on with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) but we don't like it. First, he didn't want to be Speaker of the House unless he was the consensus pick, in his mind riding in to save the day. Well, what is up with the "White Knight" complex and the campaign ad that he put out this week? He says he doesn't want the presidential nomination but these not so subtle signals and the weaselly "I'm-not-campaigning" campaigning indicate otherwise and as you can tell, it's really rubbing us the wrong way.
In other words, everyone's got a gripe, and every gripe is recorded. The above phrases in quotes all came from today's commentary and the outlook from all sides doesn't seem to be good. We've gotten to a point that in our personal lives when given the choice we expect to get what we want when we want it and if not, why bother? Our politics reflects that notion instead of a more professional stance of putting the small differences aside in order to move forward. In politics, like life, you really can not have it all. That our politics have become a futile zero-sum type of game, without compromise, the result is extreme or unpopular or unrealistic candidates.
Where this has left us on the Democratic side of things is with the unpopular (Sec. Clinton) and the unrealistic (Sen. Sanders). In the senator's interview today he once again walked back the 'unqualified' comment about Sec. Clinton but immediately pivoted to question her judgement citing the former secretary's support for trade deals, fracking and Super PACs that support her. We confess that we're not experts in trade deals, but we can say this about them: They're inevitable and they'll obviously never be perfect so we have to consider them in that frame of mind. In terms of fracking, it's great that we can lead the world in natural gas production but the cost is the great possibility of permanently damaging large supplies of our clean drinking water - a resource that is becoming more scarce worldwide. Also altering our geology so quickly and drastically in some regions that it has precipitated an increase in seismic activity, in Oklahoma for example where earthquakes are now a common occurrence. Fracking is fair game as an issue. However, we find Sen. Sanders's argument that Sec. Clinton's judgement should be questioned because of Super PACs supporting her not all that compelling. Remember that Super PACs came into existence because of the Supreme Court's decision on the Citizens United case fought because of a film that a corporation made about Hillary Clinton, hence giving us the illogical 'corporations are people.' You can equally make effective arguments for rejecting them or using them. The fact is that the other side, unless you're a billionaire, are going to use them to their fullest capacity. This column comes down on the side of Citizens United being one of the worse decisions by the high court in our lifetimes, but it's the reality.
The Democratic debate has gotten testy (or whatever equivalent adjective you want to use) for sure but at least it's been mostly centered on policy and the means to achieve goals. This obviously contrasts what's going on with the Republicans who it clearly seems are headed for a contested convention. How do we know this? Hmmm... Maybe because one today's guests was Paul Manafort whose title in the Trump campaign is convention manager. Mr. Manafort was an advisor for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes George. Now he works for Mr. Trump, which just goes to show how much some serious Republican power brokers hate Ted Cruz. It's like one of those blind hates like Republicans have for Sec. Clinton and President Obama.
Also, it seems like there are Republican power brokers, as we called them, on both sides of the Trump/ Cruz nomination argument, but here's how it lines up. Republicans who have been or who have worked with politicians seem to side with Trump whereas the conservative establishment press tends to back Cruz - the practical versus the ideological. Political operatives are backing Trump because he's always talking deals where conversely Senator Cruz speaks of ideology.
The National Review's Rich Lowry, whose publication devoted an entire issue about being against Trump, said that the nominee from the Republican party is going to be either Trump or Cruz so you can easily conclude who Mr. Lowry backs. It's the same with Glenn Beck who is a Cruz supporter, but who is also convinced that he'll be the nominee as well because he's a 'never Trump' guy. Where Mr. Beck and Mr. Lowry also agree is that anyone else as the nominee was effectively blow up the GOP. But as we've previously said, Mr. Trump is in the race until the end so he's either the Republican nominee or he's the third party.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
We're not sure what's going on with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) but we don't like it. First, he didn't want to be Speaker of the House unless he was the consensus pick, in his mind riding in to save the day. Well, what is up with the "White Knight" complex and the campaign ad that he put out this week? He says he doesn't want the presidential nomination but these not so subtle signals and the weaselly "I'm-not-campaigning" campaigning indicate otherwise and as you can tell, it's really rubbing us the wrong way.
Sunday, April 03, 2016
4.3.16: Facts and Math and Reince Strangelove
Presidential doctrine dictates to hold party above any candidate and the good of the country above any party, but there's only one problem with this. It doesn't exist, either in written form or as a notion in the mind of any politician.
We completely understand why some one like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) would say that he would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstance, but there is still something disheartening about it because you know by reading this column that voting for Donald J. Trump over Hillary Clinton if those are the only two choices is not only irresponsible but un-American. Now, one may say that America needs some one like Mr. Trump as the president to shake things up, which most assuredly he'll do, but it won't be for the betterment of the country. That is also a certainty.
No more exemplified by Mr. Trump's five different answers on abortion in a 48-hour period as Chuck Todd pointed out. With all the various answers it seems that Mr. Trump has an answer for himself as to where he stands on abortion, but doesn't know the right conservative answer, which should tell Republicans something. Conversely, as Helene Cooper pointed out, Sec. Clinton can state her view and then go in depth as to why she has that view, and the record to match. In particular, when Mr. Todd asked the secretary about legal protections for the unborn, Mrs. Clinton rightly, knowingly, said that no such laws exist and that ultimately women have full rights over their bodies. Whether you agree with her view or not, it's clear that she is more thoughtful on the issue than Mr. Trump. It speaks to the comfort level that New York Times columnist David Brooks mentioned that Democrats have with Hillary Clinton. And as we've said before, if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee, she'll enjoy the support of Republican women as well.
As distressing as those comments were, even more troubling is Mr. Trump's comprehension of U.S. nuclear policy, or the lack thereof. Mr. Trump has said that he'll keep all cards on the table, even nuclear, when it comes to combating ISIS and that maybe South Korea and Japan should have nuclear arms instead of us protecting them with the deterrent. Once again, Mr. Trump has tried to take what he thinks is the most hard-right position on an issue just for the sake of taking it without understanding the consequences of such a position. It's ridiculous, and the Pentagon is worried.
Despite the worst political week that Mr. Trump has experienced to date, Mr. Brooks is convinced at this point that a Trump nomination is a foregone conclusion but he'll then go down in a 'crushing defeat.' that will be remembered 100 years from now. (Yes, he will get a tweet.) And from what we've written so far, you'd think we, like Mr. Brooks, are already looking toward the general election, but not really as it's more a critique on the depth of knowledge the front-runners from the respective parties have on issues. By that score, the Democrats are way ahead, and if there are two choices, well...
Sec. Clinton does has a transparency problem, whether she actually has been matters not because the perception is there so the problem exists. Having said that, despite the pressure from the Sanders campaign to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, she shouldn't do it. She made those speeches as a private citizen and she's entitled to that privacy, like it or not. Senator Sanders says they should be released because he believes that Sec. Clinton is too closely tied to Wall Street because of contributions, but here's a fact. Wall Street firms were part of fmr. Senator Clinton's constituency. Regardless, we agree with The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter in that the Democrats are having a skirmish.
We'd also agree that the Republicans are in the midst of thermo-nuclear war. And the Dr. Strangelove of the bunch, Reince Priebus aka "The Worst Guy In Politics" acts as though everything is going great while the party all around him is crumbling. Even if you consider his circular answers about delegate math, he still does seem to comprehend that the party is broken. If Trump is the nominee, Mr. Priebus will be the one held responsible for tanking the party and jeopardizing Republican majorities in Congress. If Mr. Trump isn't the nominee, all those new Republicans brought into the process that Mr. Priebus likes to boast about, we'll leave the process and go with a third-party Trump run. Reince Strangelove had his finger on the button and he pushed it.
It truly seems as though Mr. Priebus really has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Charles Benson, NBC News - Milwaukee Affiliate; David Brooks, The New York Times
We completely understand why some one like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) would say that he would never vote for a Democrat under any circumstance, but there is still something disheartening about it because you know by reading this column that voting for Donald J. Trump over Hillary Clinton if those are the only two choices is not only irresponsible but un-American. Now, one may say that America needs some one like Mr. Trump as the president to shake things up, which most assuredly he'll do, but it won't be for the betterment of the country. That is also a certainty.
No more exemplified by Mr. Trump's five different answers on abortion in a 48-hour period as Chuck Todd pointed out. With all the various answers it seems that Mr. Trump has an answer for himself as to where he stands on abortion, but doesn't know the right conservative answer, which should tell Republicans something. Conversely, as Helene Cooper pointed out, Sec. Clinton can state her view and then go in depth as to why she has that view, and the record to match. In particular, when Mr. Todd asked the secretary about legal protections for the unborn, Mrs. Clinton rightly, knowingly, said that no such laws exist and that ultimately women have full rights over their bodies. Whether you agree with her view or not, it's clear that she is more thoughtful on the issue than Mr. Trump. It speaks to the comfort level that New York Times columnist David Brooks mentioned that Democrats have with Hillary Clinton. And as we've said before, if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee, she'll enjoy the support of Republican women as well.
As distressing as those comments were, even more troubling is Mr. Trump's comprehension of U.S. nuclear policy, or the lack thereof. Mr. Trump has said that he'll keep all cards on the table, even nuclear, when it comes to combating ISIS and that maybe South Korea and Japan should have nuclear arms instead of us protecting them with the deterrent. Once again, Mr. Trump has tried to take what he thinks is the most hard-right position on an issue just for the sake of taking it without understanding the consequences of such a position. It's ridiculous, and the Pentagon is worried.
Despite the worst political week that Mr. Trump has experienced to date, Mr. Brooks is convinced at this point that a Trump nomination is a foregone conclusion but he'll then go down in a 'crushing defeat.' that will be remembered 100 years from now. (Yes, he will get a tweet.) And from what we've written so far, you'd think we, like Mr. Brooks, are already looking toward the general election, but not really as it's more a critique on the depth of knowledge the front-runners from the respective parties have on issues. By that score, the Democrats are way ahead, and if there are two choices, well...
Sec. Clinton does has a transparency problem, whether she actually has been matters not because the perception is there so the problem exists. Having said that, despite the pressure from the Sanders campaign to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, she shouldn't do it. She made those speeches as a private citizen and she's entitled to that privacy, like it or not. Senator Sanders says they should be released because he believes that Sec. Clinton is too closely tied to Wall Street because of contributions, but here's a fact. Wall Street firms were part of fmr. Senator Clinton's constituency. Regardless, we agree with The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter in that the Democrats are having a skirmish.
We'd also agree that the Republicans are in the midst of thermo-nuclear war. And the Dr. Strangelove of the bunch, Reince Priebus aka "The Worst Guy In Politics" acts as though everything is going great while the party all around him is crumbling. Even if you consider his circular answers about delegate math, he still does seem to comprehend that the party is broken. If Trump is the nominee, Mr. Priebus will be the one held responsible for tanking the party and jeopardizing Republican majorities in Congress. If Mr. Trump isn't the nominee, all those new Republicans brought into the process that Mr. Priebus likes to boast about, we'll leave the process and go with a third-party Trump run. Reince Strangelove had his finger on the button and he pushed it.
It truly seems as though Mr. Priebus really has learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Charles Benson, NBC News - Milwaukee Affiliate; David Brooks, The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)