7.31.16: Mr. Trump and His 'Nauseating' Campaign

Let's get it out of the way right at the top, the Democrats won the conventions, hands down. What compounds the victory for Republicans is that the Democrats stole the Republican message, well documented on conservative blogs and twitter feeds. Generals and Reagan Republicans coming out against Donald Trump has given masses of moderate Republicans pause, leaving them lamenting that the Democratic convention should have been their convention.

Hillary Clinton, with a less than inspiring but base-covering appeal of a speech, went right after a key constituency not even ten miles away from the Wells Fargo Center in South Philadelphia, and that is the Main Line Matriarch. The Main Line are those old-money (and when we say old talking old corporate and colonial: Moran [Johnson & Johnson], Du Pont, Arco, Biddle), conservative women who run in those wealthy, not rich, circles. There's the influence, and given the two final choices, after Sec. Clinton's speech, you can easily surmise which way they're leaning heavily right now.

And to solidify that constituency, in the wake of Mr. Khizr Khan's convention statements, Donald Trump called out the fact that Mrs. Khan didn't speak while on stage. This callous observation of a grief-stricken gold star mother in the context of Mr. Khan's emotional statement does not go unnoticed by the aforementioned group and moderate conservative women in general.

Paul Manafort explained that Mr. Trump's criticism is not the issue, but the fact that we need to protect the homeland from would-be radicalized immigrants from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. In Mr. Manafort's rebuttal, as Mr. Trump's, he gave lip-service to the Khan's family sacrifice for this country and his larger argument of banning Muslims from coming into the United States subverts the values of America.  However, on a larger point, whether you agree with Mr. Manafort's argument or not, the fact that Mr. Trump does not, or more accurately is unable to, articulate that argument in a manner that doesn't insult someone clearly shows that his does not have the qualities necessary to lead this country.

David Brookes was 'nauseated' by Mr. Trump's and then hence forth Mr. Manafort's answers; that's the decent reaction. People like Mr. Manafort, and for that matter panelist today Mr. Alex Castellanos who runs a Trump Super PAC, will continue to deflect Mr. Trump's nauseating statements, but at which point will these statements no longer continue or stand from the candidate?

A program note here: Though the three other panelists provided views of Mr. Trump that Mr. Castellanos had to defend, he shouldn't be appearing on the program as a panelist given that he runs a pro-Trump Super PAC without having an equivalent foil from the Democratic side. As an interview subject, fine, but not as a panelist.

And speaking of foils, Chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign Robby Mook didn't provide any assurances about DNC emails, and was unmemorable in his answers. To this point and in reference to the interview with Julian Assange, there is little doubt that there outside [foreign] forces trying influence the U.S. election. Mr. Assange for his part did not answer the question as to whether foreign governments had provided him with the hacked emails. In his defense he said that if a U.S. intelligence officer gave him information, he would protect that source. Yes, we understand that, but that's still an individual, NOT a government.

And Mr. Manafort's answer that Mr. Trump was just being sarcastic about encouraging Russia to conduct a cyber-espionage attack to find the rest of Sec. Clinton's emails is unacceptable. Whether being sarcastic or not, the appeal was at the least inappropriate, treasonous in intent at most. In other words, the whole thing is nauseating.


Panel: Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian; Hally Jackson, NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times; Alex Castellanos, Republican strategist


One More Thing...
Paul Manafort completely lied about the fact that the Trump campaign, specifically him, influenced the party platform on its stance on Ukraine. Republicans, because of Mr. Manafort and his lobbying ties to fmr. Ukraine president and Putin stooge, Viktor Yanukovych. The motives are clear and coupled with the suspected Russia hacking, it stinks.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html

7.24.16: It's Half Time of Convention Season

It's half-time of the political party convention game, and the second half belongs to the Democrats. Appropriately aiding in this transition, Chuck Todd interviewed first Donald Trump on the heels of his convention and Bernie Sanders leading into the Democratic get-together in Philadelphia this week, the site of this week's program. (And yes, we agree with Mr. Todd that Philadelphia is a beautiful city.)

Mr. Trump characterized his speech as an optimistic one overall. He said that he explained the problems and followed with solutions, but "I, alone," is not a solution Saying that we're going to just 'win' is not a solution. Fmr. RNC Chair Michael Steele said that the Republican based (the convention) is in fact hungry for a strong man, to which we would simply ask, "What are these people thinking?!" The concept of compromise has been demonized to such an extent in our body politic that one of our major parties has nominated an individual that has rhetorically relied on threats as a way of getting things done.

Mr. Trump said that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is "100% wrong" on NATO. The Republican nominee reiterated his position that the United States will not back a member country if it hasn't paid it's fair share. In that context, Andrea Mitchell's point that anyone in Poland hearing that is not happy is valid, and downright scary for the Poles. This certainly opens the door for aggressive Russian advances toward Poland (e.g. military exercises on the boarder; 'creating' a military incident for justification) during a Trump administration with no repercussions to be felt from the United States. Mr. Trump's obtuse endorsement of Mr. Putin and his actions is deeply troubling.

Even of immigration, Mr. Trump said that he would suspend immigration from any country compromised by terrorism and that includes France, another member of NATO by the way. Not only has Mr. Trump taken an adversarial stance toward China and Mexico, and with statements like from today's interview, he's alienating some of our most steadfast, long-time allies. Meet The Press as well as countless other programs have pointed out that Mr. Trump like to create controversy and a bit of chaos to bolster his image, and you can imagine what we'll say next. You guess it: This is in no uncertain terms the way in which to run the most powerful nation in the world.

The last bit about Mr. Trump from today's interview is that he said he would probably be setting up SuperPACs to attack Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Governor John Kasich (R-OH) for their outspokenness in opposition of the nominee. Why? Mr. Trump has already won, beaten both of those individuals in the election so to go back after the victory to drive them down further does show the vindictiveness of a strong man, but a cowardly one let's face it. And again, vindictiveness is not a quality that should motivate the President of the United States.

Mr. Trump is really relying on the "I, alone" because he's attacking everyone, and to make sure no one is left out, we transition to the Democrats, in which Mr. Trump's attack on the newly-named Democratic VP pick, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) will focus his receiving of gifts as governor of Virginia, his closeness with the banks, and his support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

"His politics are not my politics," Bernie Sanders said of Senator Kaine on the eve of the Democratic convention. This, coupled with Wikileaks leak of DNC emails showing that it favored Mrs. Clinton do not bode well for a smooth start to the proceedings, especially with Senator Sanders speaking on the first night.

Whether you like Mrs. Clinton's choice or not, we respect the candidate who picks someone that he/she feels most comfortable working with. With all the external battles that an administration has to fight during its term, it doesn't make any sense to wantonly fight battles internally. And for that reason, Mrs. Clinton picked a center-left Democrat instead of a firebrand progressive like Elizabeth Warren, as Senator Sanders stated he would have liked.

Conversely, Mr. Trump's pick of Governor Mike Pence is of convenient conservatism, an individual it's rumored that Mr. Trump wasn't all in. So far, Gov. Pence has been trying is best to represent his conservative credentials, but given that he was in for a tough gubernatorial reelection fight, he's been simply glad to be along for the ride. And really, Mr. Trump seems to feel that his best partner is himself. "I, alone."

About the DNC e-mails: First, as we said way back at the beginning, it was a mistake to make a Congressperson the chair of the party, and Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has done a terrible job in that capacity. Simple example: Today, Chris Matthews called the debate schedule 'absurd,' and one that heavily favored Mrs. Clinton. There's the notion out there that Russia who hacked the DNC server gave the emails to Wikileaks to influence the election in favor of Mr. Trump who has shown deference to Mr. Putin. Either way, it's no coincidence that they were leaked just before the convention.

Ultimately, the emails only give fuel to Senator Sanders' supporters, adding to the amount of leverage that he holds to either bring the Democrats together or in attempting the rip the whole thing down. However, in this particular email instance, Mrs. Clinton is not to blame and won't be too badly hurt.

But make no mistake, Senator Sanders holds a lot of the keys in making the Democratic convention one that moves the party forward or backward.  A lot will be made of what Senator Sanders doesn't say, like how many times he says Mrs. Clinton's name, etc.

There's also no doubt that Mr. Sanders will not have a Ted Cruz moment because of his feeling that there has been a no more dangerous candidate for president in his lifetime than Donald Trump. And there hasn't.


Panel: Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, NBC News; Michael Steele, fmr. RNC Chair

7.17.16: Hottest July on Record

Terrorist attacks in Instanbul (June 28) Dhaka, Medina,  (tragic) Nice and (devastating) Baghdad, the last of which killed over 300 people, along with a near military coupe in Turkey, and Syria's civil war still full-on would be enough. No, not enough... Let's couple all that with police unjustly killing more African-American men in Baton Rouge and Minnesota, the protests that have followed across the country, despicably lethal revenge against the police in Dallas and back to Baton Rouge on this very day. For good measure throw on the most divisive and frankly weird presidential campaign ever in our collective memories and there you have it - the hottest ever July on record. And it's literally killing us.

We disagree with Glenn Beck in his throwing around of the word 'corrupt' so cavalierly in his interview today, but we completely understand his frustration though a bit hyperbolic and slightly misguided. His underlying point, as well as the panel's, is that the federal government and the campaigns are not acknowledging what's going on in this country, a tone-deafness, and we agree but with a significant caveat. And it applies to the fact that Mr. Trump's rhetoric during this campaign has been divisive to the point of breaking open the fault line of this country singling out people's races and religions. By being so rhetorically flammable, Mr. Trump is effectively breaking down the rule of law, one of the very things he said he would uphold.

Where we agree with Mr. Beck is in his assessment of Reince Preibus and his place and statements in all this, as the ultimate Trump enabler. With regard to Mr. Trump evolving into a more mainstream candidate, Mr. Priebus said that the candidate has "come around a lot since a few months ago." He called it a 'fantasy land' idea for Republicans to vote for anyone but Mr. Trump. It can only make one shake his or her head, but Mr. Beck also said that Mr. Priebus surely knows better and doesn't really believe what he's saying. On this point, we not so sure.

Chuck Todd brought up the Republican 'autopsy' from the last campaign and confronted Mr. Priebus about the fact the no action was taken on it, to which the RNC chairman did the customary bob and weaver around the questions.  The Republicans' current platform doesn't consider that 'autopsy,' which called for more outreach to minorities and women among other things. You know who didn't care about or read the 'autopsy?' The candidate, Donald Trump, that's who so we might as well just stop asking about it.

Tom Brokaw said that it's not the Republican party, it's the DonaldTrump.com Party.

As for the 'black swan' of an event as Hugh Hewlitt described the upcoming Republican convention, moderates and party onlookers can only hope for a 'it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be' type of assessment at the end of it. With this sort of expectation from conservative commentators like Hugh Hewlitt going in, it's hard to see how Mr. Trump's campaign gets the customary bump in the polls post convention. The reason for this is the fact that Mr. Trump's campaign in fact offers no positive message for the country. The candidate himself offers no positive message, which inexplicably is infrequently discussed by the pundits. "Make America Great Again" isn't a message, it's a slogan.

And if you evidence on how inspiring Mr. Trump can be, below is a tweet Mr. Trump wrote during the course of writing this blog.

This is what the Republican nominee thinks about the country he apparently aspires to lead.

...

You know what? It's too hot to get worked up any more because after seeing that tweet it was like a new layer of icing was smeared over our stale loathing cake.

Here's to hoping we all cool down for a moment, in our hearts and in our heads.


Panel: Sara Fagen, CNBC Contributor; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Tom Brokaw, NBC News

We'll get the all the foreign policy craziness later.

7.10.16: Where Not To Direct Our Anger

Getting a thoughtful column together is simply daunting when your only thoughts are "where to start" and "where does this all end?"

In the face of this uniquely American tragedy, we're stuck on this: Philando Castile, the Minneapolis man, was shot to death by a white police officer due in part from his fear that Mr. Castile had a legal firearm in his car. Mark Hughes, in Dallas, was falsely accused of being a suspect in the Dallas police shooting because he was legally and openly carrying his AR-15 during a protest. In both cases, these men were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, but because they were black the first inclination on the part of police was to label them either 'dangerous (or criminal)' and 'suspect.' 

(Never mind that this column is pretty firm in its belief that our modern, civil American society has no use for a law that allows its citizens to carry loaded military style weapons in public streets.)

This implicit racial bias as Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) described is all too real, and we say that because there are many that do not believe it exists. And then there are those, like Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who know it exists but refuse to acknowledge and discuss it. Her argument was that the economic conditions play more of a role in this kind of violence than race does. But that's an argument that sees only what it wants to see and denies so much reality. Colloquially, it doesn't even explain the example we outlined above.

Did she not hear the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson say at the very top of the program that "tensions are high?" The man who heads the agency sworn to protect all of us is afraid for his son's life in terms of police encounters, admitting to Chuck Todd that they've had 'the talk.'

On the other hand we have to applaud Michael Gerson, a voice of conservative reason in the time of Trump, for, we feel, thoughtfully misspeaking when he said that both sides (whites and blacks) should show empathy toward one another. It should actually be 'sympathy' because 'empathy' suggests equal understanding but clearly whites in the U.S. do not fully understand what it's like to be black in America; whites should sympathize. But 'empathy' is appropriate because his emphasis is on the 'equal' part of the definition.

In terms of Black Lives Matter, that movement is an effect of causation. The movement exists because too many African-Americans, men in particular, are being killed unjustly by police (the cause), compounded by the fact that guilty officers haven't faced appropriate legal charges and punishments. If this killing didn't happen with such alarming frequency then perhaps the movement wouldn't need to exist. Demonizing Black Lives Matter as Rudy Giuliani does, and despicably how the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations William Johnson did, is an attempt to deny the reason for its very existence, but clearly there is a need for its being.

There is also a need for the reformation of the criminal justice system, the 'war on drugs' as Senator Booker explained that disproportionately affects the poor and minorities, police training as fmr. police commissioner Charles Ramsey described and frankly gun laws.

With all that said, imagine being a police officer and having to always presume that the person you're encountering is armed with a gun. Think about the 98% of police men and women who do their jobs cautiously, competently, professionally and honorably living with that certain possibility. If there were less guns in public, there would be less violent incidents with police, it’s simply math.

The comments of Texas Lt. Governor weren't discussed on the program but we're compelled to make this mention because in them among other things, he said that the Black Lives Matter demonstrators were hypocrites because they denounce the police, but ran to them for protection when the shooting started. What a sad and narrow-minded comment. Would the Lt. Governor rather the Black Lives Matter supporters fought the police? During a peaceful protest, in which police were there to insure the safety of the marchers and taking photos with them, shooting started and the marchers had the inherent trust in the police to protect by instructing them what to do and where to go in a time of crisis. If anything, it illustrates overall respect for the institution of the police while demanding change in the face of tragic errors. That's not hypocritical, just American.

Lastly, on the political end of things, particular cudos go to Senator Cory Booker on essentially calling B.S. on the very segment he was asked to participate in, which posed the question of how can either two of these so divisive candidates bring Americans together [racially]? The New Jersey senator accurately said that on the matters of race and religion, Hillary Clinton is not divisive at all. Politically,  one can argue she is divisive, but on these matters, no. We agree. She has not called for banning Muslims from coming into the United States or rounding people up and deporting them while calling them rapists and drug dealers, unlike Donald Trump who advocates for both. Whomever you agree with is a matter of prerogative but the fact remains is that we all know Mr. Trump repeatedly says these things and they are divisive and offensive to American common sensibilities: words matter.

Panel:  Michael Gerson, The Washington Post; Mary Matalin, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Michael Eric Dyson, author and Georgetown University professor