KellyAnne Conway should stop saying that Donald Trump didn't have to run for president, as she did today on the program. Because before you know it even more people (his supporters) are going to be asking, "Then why did you?"
More on that in a minute, but first Fidel Castro (1916-2016).
Time is the vanquisher of history and it will do its work on Fidel Castro, and with his death the end of the Castro regime, and hopefully system of government as the panel discussed, in Cuba is seeing its final days. Make no mistake, Castro was an A-List dictator, meaning he was unmercifully brutal to his people and a murderer of his political enemies. He was only, distinctly outdone by Che Guevara who laid the foundation for that brutality. (If you read Jon Lee Anderson's definitive biography you would come to agree.) The mistake that Che made was that he left the country in pursuit of leftist military revolution and got caught in Bolivia by the CIA.
Chuck Todd was talking about 'feel' and kept posing the past hypothetical that if this were ten years ago. In other words, he doesn't feel as significant as it should be because he's been out of the picture since 2008. Understandable, but it seemed a bit dismissive, and if you believe that the United States is on the right side of history then Castro's death no matter when it came was history's justice.
My opinion, as The New York Times Helene Cooper would point out, is from an Americo-centric perspective and I can live with that. But this is exactly why Ms. Cooper is an important voice in our media because without acknowledging and seriously considering that broader perspective, your argument demands less respect. At least that's my take.
Finally, it's a good day because Fidel Castro is responsible for some of the worst U.S. policy over the last 50 years, as Mr. Todd outlined. Black eye after black eye, and let's not forget Castro as parcel for near nuclear annihilation.
So...
As Ms. Conway was saying about Mr. Trump that this is an unprecedented time with a business man becoming President of the United States, but as we all know that's not all it is. Staying on topic with the conflicts of interest that this particular presidency poses are endless. Chuck Todd, thankfully, called out Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) on that fact that we don't know about all his business dealings.
Sure, it's easy to agree with The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan in her call to put patriotism of country over his business interests and liquidate the company. But here's the rub: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Donald Trump will never liquidate his assets, no matter how hard or easy it is. Never. Not to mention that it would probably involve a measure of disclosure, to which the president-elect has a famous aversion. Ms. Conway said that the kids would have 'very senior positions' in the company but that doesn't constitute President-elect Trump giving up control. The children shouldn't even be running his business of course, but we Americans fell for it.
Also, I have to mention that when Ms. Conway says that she's 'astonished' by the media reporting on the rumored in-fighting about making Mitt Romney Secretary of State, it's laughable. Frankly, I could care less if she thinks it's astonishing or not. I would say the same of John Podesta admonishing people about his email leaks. Ms. Conway's whining defensiveness is tiresome. Her candidate is going into the White House and you want sympathy? Equally laughable. She was so reflexively defensive that she mentioned the pointless recount in WI, PA, and MI without even being asked about it.
And speaking of falling for things, the 'backing away' on positions such as waterboarding and climate change, the Affordable Care Act, Hillary Clinton's prosecution, whatever... it's simply confirms what both Democrats and Republicans already knew which is that President-elect Trump's political principles and convictions are all negotiable. And contrary to what Ms. Conway would say, it's near impossible to imagine that Donald Trump's businesses aren't still most important to him, easily over the presidency.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Mark Murray, NBC News; Danielle Pletka, ,
A couple more things...
Senator Rubio said that he wouldn't retroactively revoke any of the 'Dreamers' permits, but he also said that he wouldn't support renewing any of them when they expire. I suspect, hope, that he'll refine or revise that statement that he wouldn't support issuing more, at the very least. But really, we're going to tell these kids that after your permit expires that we don't want you here. These kids weren't the ones who broke the rules, but they've had to follow the rules ever since. And then they'll have to get out? Some would argue that they've earned it. And if you consider that then it goes against what we represent as a country. I would contend that Dreamers understand that it's a privilege to live in the U.S., more so than thinking its a right to be taken for granted.
Tim Ryan (D-OH), represents Youngstown, OH - conservative Democrat
Why couldn't he be the guy? He made a very frank, critical, and encouraging point, which was that Democratic policy positions are the way to go, but the messaging was bad. Accurate. Is he too inexperienced for such a high-profile gig, most probably but Nancy Pelosi has to go. The Democrats need a new energy, a vocal energy, for their leadership. Congressman Ryan's been in since 2003, he's vocal and he wants to win all over the map instead of Dems. simply being a coastal party. So again, why couldn't he be the guy?
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Sunday, November 20, 2016
11.20.16: Trump and the Conflict Presidency
A fairly dramatic title to this post, I will admit, but I'll give it some forceful, but not hysterical perspective.
There is no doubt that conflicts already abound in the infancy of the era of Trump, and there will continue to the appearance of many for the next month and a half. However, as Robert Costa pointed out, President-elect Trump will first work to disentangle himself from any standing legal conflicts like Trump University settlement. Taking the new White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus at his word, he said that there will be no violation of these [conflict of interest] rules, "I can assure you of that." This column will most certainly hold him to those words but I'm also willing to wait and see, actions matter. And President-elect Trump actions have so far been inadequate - meeting with his Indian business partners at this time is a complete conflict. Those meetings, according to the president-elect himself should be now conducted by his children who are supposed to be running his businesses. Divestment and blind trusts are a fantasy that Donald Trump will never fulfill, let's face it.
As Kathleen Parker explained, Donald Trump needs to give a speech about how he sees his presidency, addressing the concerns of many Americans, especially given the appalling poltical identity attacks he used during his campaign. He's already sewn cultural conflicts and is now not stemming the rapid growth of his business conflicts. If all of this isn't corrected by January 20, 2017, which I doubt will happen, a cloud will be cast over practically every decision the president makes, domestic or international one could ask how it could affect President Trump's business.
The reality of how this is going to play out is that there will so many of these little 'skirmishes' that the press will not know what to focus, on creating an overall cloud of conflict, but nothing that tips the balance. With Steve Bannon as chief strategist, one can presume that certain media outlets will comes to President Trump's defense. And columns such as this one will get bogged down in the minutia of every instance instead of bigger policy decisions.
On that note, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who knows Donald Trump better than any other U.S. senator, said that he would be willing to work with President Trump on trade and infrastructure but oppose him on policies like repealing the Affordable Care Act or civil liberties or Supreme Court picks, most importantly. This kind of balance will be criticized by the base of the Democratic party but from a pragmatic point of view, you have to do the best with the reality you're confronted with and so I can understand such a stance from someone in Senator Schumer's position, without diminishing the importance and necessity of the Democratic base to shout in the face of it as the cast of Hamilton has now famously done to Vice-President-elect Mike Pence. The comments of the cast were in bounds, as it were, but the timing was off the mark and shouldn't have been at the end of the show. But one has to keep in mind what the motivation was to do it, and that is to stand up to the bigotry that has been propagated during the Trump campaign.
But say that President Trump 'partners' with Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats on an infrastructure bill, but on the opposite side doesn't pay for it adequately to Tea Party Republicans' satisfaction. What happens then? Donald Trump already has a lot of Republican opposition in the Congress and this kind of example will only build on that.
This brings the question of whether the Democrats should work with the administration or oppose everything in every circumstance the way the Republicans did with President Obama? My initial thought is if you're the Democrats you need to take it on a policy by policy basis because if Democrats think they represent America better than Republicans they need to show people that they're not childish. Many times... countless, in fact, Republicans during President Obama's two terms showed themselves to be just that. We have to move away from that, but frankly, it's shitty (only way to capture it) that the Republicans in Congress can never come around on that idea.
Even Bernie Sanders seemed open to working with President Trump in areas where they shared common ground like instituting the Glass-Steagall Act once again, which would prohibit commercial banks from engaging in the investment business, and there's no doubt that would limit the consolidation of the big banks among other things.
But Robert Costa of The Washington Post said something that's sticking with me today - he said that if Democrats going along with Trump on policy items, he could destroy them as well. This is to say that if they compromise with Trump on anything then they've compromised their principles on everything and the party could break a part. It seems like an extreme conclusion, but let me remind you that Donald Trump is going to be the President of the United States (as difficult as that is to write).
Infrastructure, which no matter how you look it it would be a good compromise, will end up being the only area of agreement. Things like Glass-Steagall will never get to the floor of a Republican House. The one issue that is most troublesome is on climate change, as Bernie Sanders mentioned. Denial of it is completely idiotic at this point, and if appointments to the Dept. of Energy and Interior are anything like President-elect Trump's choices so far, we'll setting our country back in so many ways. Instead of denying climate change, use the Paris Agreement as a clarion call to America to lead the way, creating the technologies to combat the effects that the rest of the world will have to rely on. That's how America has always lead, and in this area it's how we should do it again.
Panel: Neera Tandem, Democratic Strategist; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
I can't believe I'm even saying this but I hope that Mitt Romney is offered the position of Secretary of State. John Bolton and especially Rudy Giuliani (in the top two for consideration) would each be a disaster. I rather see a sane person with a sense of responsibility than either one of those two, and then take bets on the over/under on whether Gov. Romney lasts the entire term.
If President-elect Trump were to calm my political nerves only slightly, it would be to dump Rudy Giuliani like he dumped Chris Christie. (How toxic is he now - soon to be impeached.)
Also, any tempered or pragmatic commentary I offer that may infuriate you either way, I will make clear, if I haven't already in this column, that it can not be overstated what Bernie Sanders said with regard to President-elect Trump and the birther issue. In fact, I would say that it's not an issue but a smear and a completely racist one at that. There's not a word that I write about Donald Trump where the depth of how despicable that he would use a racist conspiracy as the impetus to run for president. There's no giving him a pass on this. I could make it an editor's note at the bottom of every column, but saying it here once, clearly, is enough.
There is no doubt that conflicts already abound in the infancy of the era of Trump, and there will continue to the appearance of many for the next month and a half. However, as Robert Costa pointed out, President-elect Trump will first work to disentangle himself from any standing legal conflicts like Trump University settlement. Taking the new White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus at his word, he said that there will be no violation of these [conflict of interest] rules, "I can assure you of that." This column will most certainly hold him to those words but I'm also willing to wait and see, actions matter. And President-elect Trump actions have so far been inadequate - meeting with his Indian business partners at this time is a complete conflict. Those meetings, according to the president-elect himself should be now conducted by his children who are supposed to be running his businesses. Divestment and blind trusts are a fantasy that Donald Trump will never fulfill, let's face it.
As Kathleen Parker explained, Donald Trump needs to give a speech about how he sees his presidency, addressing the concerns of many Americans, especially given the appalling poltical identity attacks he used during his campaign. He's already sewn cultural conflicts and is now not stemming the rapid growth of his business conflicts. If all of this isn't corrected by January 20, 2017, which I doubt will happen, a cloud will be cast over practically every decision the president makes, domestic or international one could ask how it could affect President Trump's business.
The reality of how this is going to play out is that there will so many of these little 'skirmishes' that the press will not know what to focus, on creating an overall cloud of conflict, but nothing that tips the balance. With Steve Bannon as chief strategist, one can presume that certain media outlets will comes to President Trump's defense. And columns such as this one will get bogged down in the minutia of every instance instead of bigger policy decisions.
On that note, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who knows Donald Trump better than any other U.S. senator, said that he would be willing to work with President Trump on trade and infrastructure but oppose him on policies like repealing the Affordable Care Act or civil liberties or Supreme Court picks, most importantly. This kind of balance will be criticized by the base of the Democratic party but from a pragmatic point of view, you have to do the best with the reality you're confronted with and so I can understand such a stance from someone in Senator Schumer's position, without diminishing the importance and necessity of the Democratic base to shout in the face of it as the cast of Hamilton has now famously done to Vice-President-elect Mike Pence. The comments of the cast were in bounds, as it were, but the timing was off the mark and shouldn't have been at the end of the show. But one has to keep in mind what the motivation was to do it, and that is to stand up to the bigotry that has been propagated during the Trump campaign.
But say that President Trump 'partners' with Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats on an infrastructure bill, but on the opposite side doesn't pay for it adequately to Tea Party Republicans' satisfaction. What happens then? Donald Trump already has a lot of Republican opposition in the Congress and this kind of example will only build on that.
This brings the question of whether the Democrats should work with the administration or oppose everything in every circumstance the way the Republicans did with President Obama? My initial thought is if you're the Democrats you need to take it on a policy by policy basis because if Democrats think they represent America better than Republicans they need to show people that they're not childish. Many times... countless, in fact, Republicans during President Obama's two terms showed themselves to be just that. We have to move away from that, but frankly, it's shitty (only way to capture it) that the Republicans in Congress can never come around on that idea.
Even Bernie Sanders seemed open to working with President Trump in areas where they shared common ground like instituting the Glass-Steagall Act once again, which would prohibit commercial banks from engaging in the investment business, and there's no doubt that would limit the consolidation of the big banks among other things.
But Robert Costa of The Washington Post said something that's sticking with me today - he said that if Democrats going along with Trump on policy items, he could destroy them as well. This is to say that if they compromise with Trump on anything then they've compromised their principles on everything and the party could break a part. It seems like an extreme conclusion, but let me remind you that Donald Trump is going to be the President of the United States (as difficult as that is to write).
Infrastructure, which no matter how you look it it would be a good compromise, will end up being the only area of agreement. Things like Glass-Steagall will never get to the floor of a Republican House. The one issue that is most troublesome is on climate change, as Bernie Sanders mentioned. Denial of it is completely idiotic at this point, and if appointments to the Dept. of Energy and Interior are anything like President-elect Trump's choices so far, we'll setting our country back in so many ways. Instead of denying climate change, use the Paris Agreement as a clarion call to America to lead the way, creating the technologies to combat the effects that the rest of the world will have to rely on. That's how America has always lead, and in this area it's how we should do it again.
Panel: Neera Tandem, Democratic Strategist; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Thomas Friedman, The New York Times, Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
I can't believe I'm even saying this but I hope that Mitt Romney is offered the position of Secretary of State. John Bolton and especially Rudy Giuliani (in the top two for consideration) would each be a disaster. I rather see a sane person with a sense of responsibility than either one of those two, and then take bets on the over/under on whether Gov. Romney lasts the entire term.
If President-elect Trump were to calm my political nerves only slightly, it would be to dump Rudy Giuliani like he dumped Chris Christie. (How toxic is he now - soon to be impeached.)
Also, any tempered or pragmatic commentary I offer that may infuriate you either way, I will make clear, if I haven't already in this column, that it can not be overstated what Bernie Sanders said with regard to President-elect Trump and the birther issue. In fact, I would say that it's not an issue but a smear and a completely racist one at that. There's not a word that I write about Donald Trump where the depth of how despicable that he would use a racist conspiracy as the impetus to run for president. There's no giving him a pass on this. I could make it an editor's note at the bottom of every column, but saying it here once, clearly, is enough.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
11.13.16: Republicans Riding High On The Trump Tiger
Writer's Note: For the lifetime of this blog, with the exception of my last post, I've always tried to maintain of level of objectivity and hence used words like "we" or "this column" in the hope that people who read these columns and would consider a broader perspective on the issues discussed. At the end of this election, I had made the decision that I would discontinue this column to focus on other writing, but how can I now? We've entered into uncharted waters so how could I stop? I will continue to write and comment more critically than ever, with more focus on calling out any softness that we witness from the media people (in addition to the politicians) that appear on "Meet The Press." The one major change, I'm going to give myself a voice and write this column from the first person, yes a major change. (I may lapse back to the collective 'we' once in a while - old habits...) Thank you as always for reading.
And this is what I'm talking about with regard to the show and by extension the press - the manner in which it pigeon holes people into every imaginable category. Chuck Todd said that his late father would have kicked him in the pants for framing people, in shorthand, as college equaling educated and non-college as uneducated and by extension city vs. rural. If a lawyer who fights for farmers lives in a city, he or she is educated, but bring that person to the farm and ask im or her to plow a field, now uneducated. Really, do I have to explain this?
What this country needs to do is that educated is a matter of perspective and instead of being condescending or resentful of the other, understand the specialty of each and that it should compliment one another - connect the diversity of the talent. The press needs to correct this and since I comment of "Meet The Press" specifically, we'll have to use Chuck Todd as the barometer.
Another course correction for the program has to be more in-studio guests that puts individuals on the spot. The interview with KellyAnne Conway was taped with questions edited out. Maybe in some instances I'll be able to go to the web site for the full interview, but that's not entirely the point. In a live studio atmosphere you get less inflammatory and more substance. We've always said that in this respect, "Meet The Press" would do well to go back to its original format. In fact, now more than ever, NBC should create an entire separate half hour program in which a press panel of four, with a moderator, interviews two politicians - one from each side - to discuss a few key issues. This way people can hear both perspectives side by side. We're certainly not getting that now.
And to be sure, Ms. Conway was smug during today's interview, but would you expect anything different considering the big win she was instrumental in orchestrating? No doubt she would give a couple of kicks to the Clinton campaign saying that it misread America and calling them "pretenders" that red states would go blue. The first part of that is false while the second part is true. Red states weren't going to go blue, for which ever reason you want to give it wasn't going to happen. Did Democrats misread America - maybe but how do you win the popular vote and say you misread America?
Did the Comey FBI letters play a part in effecting turn-out for Clinton, most certainly, but as it turns out Sec. Clinton did go to enough places where it would have mattered. Hindsight being what it is, you would though that the Clinton campaign would have looked at every stop President Obama made in 2012 and went to everyone of them (or the next town over) and packed in more stops on top of that. That's what it took this time around and the Clinton campaign didn't accomplish that. Chuck Todd analyzed states in which Trump had won as opposed to states Clinton lost. Well, there's no doubt that if next to your name you don't have the most votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, KellyAnne Conway is going to stick it in your face.
Going back a step, one of my reservations about Sec. Clinton as president was not the Secretary herself. It was always the sword of Damocles that is Bill Clinton saying or doing something stupid while his wife served as president. Now, we'll never have to find out what would have happened there. Yet, what we have now is no better, worse as a matter of fact. Ethically, you have to remember we have no idea what Trump has going on in his businesses (no release of the tax returns) and there has been little talk about the separation of his businesses and his presidency. Something that was grievously overlooked in today's conversation.
But Republicans aren't worried about it as winning changes everything and they're giddy about their unexpected opportunity to govern with complete control. With that in mind, right now they're riding high on the tiger and putting the wish list together.
Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ) said that neither party should be standing with pride right now and should be humble, but we know that simply not going to happen. Republicans in control of the Senate will use reconciliation to pass legislation and to confirm Supreme Court recommendations, of which I'm going on record to say that Ted Cruz is completely unacceptable for the Supreme Court (ask me for a reason).
Getting back to Ms. Conway for a moment, in the interview she also said that the cultural zeitgeist of the country has also changed, which honestly is a shallow euphemism for an openly white dominated culture, which has come to the fore since the election result. As Senator Booker said, people are fearful of how they'll be treated in this xenophobic context. Ms. Conway said President-elect Trump has already addressed it (with a tweet) and that President Obama and Sec. Clinton should really be the ones to step up and talk about the protests. Bullshit. With winning comes responsibility and the fledgling Trump administration personnel better get a handle on that concept. He needs to speak out on this divisive forces (both sides) in a more clarifying presidential tone to reassure people. The longer he waits to say something the deeper the resentment will become and coupled with the Republicans' slash and burn politics, it will come to an ugly head sooner or later. And it will cut this nation deeply.
In this first post-election post, I can't leave on a completely down note but I can neither be optimistic for any reason. Moment to moment, I'm in a wait and see mode.
Panel: Nina Turner, fmr. State Senator (D-OH); Katty Kay, BBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network
A few more things...
I think Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) would be a great choice for the DNC chairmanship, but I agree with David Axelrod's call to have a full-time chair. You need someone who is always listening to the constitutes throughout the country and building on a local level - something that Rep. Ellison can not possibly accomplish given his responsibilities in Congress where he should be projecting his voice the loudest. I never liked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as the DNC chair and you see where that lead the party.
And the Trump administration would be best served not going after Sec. Clinton legally for the email server once in power and just have the Clinton era quietly fade. Democrats, for their part, have to just say goodbye and move on.
And this is what I'm talking about with regard to the show and by extension the press - the manner in which it pigeon holes people into every imaginable category. Chuck Todd said that his late father would have kicked him in the pants for framing people, in shorthand, as college equaling educated and non-college as uneducated and by extension city vs. rural. If a lawyer who fights for farmers lives in a city, he or she is educated, but bring that person to the farm and ask im or her to plow a field, now uneducated. Really, do I have to explain this?
What this country needs to do is that educated is a matter of perspective and instead of being condescending or resentful of the other, understand the specialty of each and that it should compliment one another - connect the diversity of the talent. The press needs to correct this and since I comment of "Meet The Press" specifically, we'll have to use Chuck Todd as the barometer.
Another course correction for the program has to be more in-studio guests that puts individuals on the spot. The interview with KellyAnne Conway was taped with questions edited out. Maybe in some instances I'll be able to go to the web site for the full interview, but that's not entirely the point. In a live studio atmosphere you get less inflammatory and more substance. We've always said that in this respect, "Meet The Press" would do well to go back to its original format. In fact, now more than ever, NBC should create an entire separate half hour program in which a press panel of four, with a moderator, interviews two politicians - one from each side - to discuss a few key issues. This way people can hear both perspectives side by side. We're certainly not getting that now.
And to be sure, Ms. Conway was smug during today's interview, but would you expect anything different considering the big win she was instrumental in orchestrating? No doubt she would give a couple of kicks to the Clinton campaign saying that it misread America and calling them "pretenders" that red states would go blue. The first part of that is false while the second part is true. Red states weren't going to go blue, for which ever reason you want to give it wasn't going to happen. Did Democrats misread America - maybe but how do you win the popular vote and say you misread America?
Did the Comey FBI letters play a part in effecting turn-out for Clinton, most certainly, but as it turns out Sec. Clinton did go to enough places where it would have mattered. Hindsight being what it is, you would though that the Clinton campaign would have looked at every stop President Obama made in 2012 and went to everyone of them (or the next town over) and packed in more stops on top of that. That's what it took this time around and the Clinton campaign didn't accomplish that. Chuck Todd analyzed states in which Trump had won as opposed to states Clinton lost. Well, there's no doubt that if next to your name you don't have the most votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, KellyAnne Conway is going to stick it in your face.
Going back a step, one of my reservations about Sec. Clinton as president was not the Secretary herself. It was always the sword of Damocles that is Bill Clinton saying or doing something stupid while his wife served as president. Now, we'll never have to find out what would have happened there. Yet, what we have now is no better, worse as a matter of fact. Ethically, you have to remember we have no idea what Trump has going on in his businesses (no release of the tax returns) and there has been little talk about the separation of his businesses and his presidency. Something that was grievously overlooked in today's conversation.
But Republicans aren't worried about it as winning changes everything and they're giddy about their unexpected opportunity to govern with complete control. With that in mind, right now they're riding high on the tiger and putting the wish list together.
Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ) said that neither party should be standing with pride right now and should be humble, but we know that simply not going to happen. Republicans in control of the Senate will use reconciliation to pass legislation and to confirm Supreme Court recommendations, of which I'm going on record to say that Ted Cruz is completely unacceptable for the Supreme Court (ask me for a reason).
Getting back to Ms. Conway for a moment, in the interview she also said that the cultural zeitgeist of the country has also changed, which honestly is a shallow euphemism for an openly white dominated culture, which has come to the fore since the election result. As Senator Booker said, people are fearful of how they'll be treated in this xenophobic context. Ms. Conway said President-elect Trump has already addressed it (with a tweet) and that President Obama and Sec. Clinton should really be the ones to step up and talk about the protests. Bullshit. With winning comes responsibility and the fledgling Trump administration personnel better get a handle on that concept. He needs to speak out on this divisive forces (both sides) in a more clarifying presidential tone to reassure people. The longer he waits to say something the deeper the resentment will become and coupled with the Republicans' slash and burn politics, it will come to an ugly head sooner or later. And it will cut this nation deeply.
In this first post-election post, I can't leave on a completely down note but I can neither be optimistic for any reason. Moment to moment, I'm in a wait and see mode.
Panel: Nina Turner, fmr. State Senator (D-OH); Katty Kay, BBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network
A few more things...
I think Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) would be a great choice for the DNC chairmanship, but I agree with David Axelrod's call to have a full-time chair. You need someone who is always listening to the constitutes throughout the country and building on a local level - something that Rep. Ellison can not possibly accomplish given his responsibilities in Congress where he should be projecting his voice the loudest. I never liked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as the DNC chair and you see where that lead the party.
And the Trump administration would be best served not going after Sec. Clinton legally for the email server once in power and just have the Clinton era quietly fade. Democrats, for their part, have to just say goodbye and move on.
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
11.9.16: The Election Hangover
Honestly, I don't really have a hangover from last night because I went to bed relatively early (around half past midnight) because as soon as it was confirmed that Ron Johnson (R-WI) would win reelection in his senate race I knew Donald Trump would win Wisconsin and the presidency. There's no way that Ron Johnson would have won on a split ticket. He needed a down ballot push from the top, no question. He was the canary.
But here are a few thoughts about last night's historic election...
1. Now we'll really see how a completely Republican-controlled country will look and how it will function. This is to also ask if President-elect Trump will just fall in line with Republican orthodoxy or will he buck the party that propelled him into office? I suspect a lot of hardship coming due to fiscal austerity.
2. Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, if you like, is done.
It's a shame really because I have personal experience with using the Affordable Care Act and it worked for me. The premium was high because of a preexisting condition, but it would have been triple the cost with the ACA, if I could have gotten insurance at all. Granted I live in a state that set up an exchange, but I believe that if opened up interstate competition and mandated a price structure, the problem with the rates could have been fixed. Unfortunately, Democrats couldn't fix it because they didn't have the numbers and Republicans hated it because it wasn't their legislation.
We'll go back to the way it was and healthcare costs will against start to explode.
It's difficult for me to imagine how taking away health insurance from 20 million people is going to be good politically but we'll find out.
3. What's always worried me is that Donald Trump never released his tax returns and now there's no cause for him to do so ever. I'm not comfortable with just 'hoping' that he is not personally beholden financially to some government or more accurately Russian oligarch. Conflict of interest needs to be extremely scrutinized by the press at all times. Because he didn't release his tax returns, it's required.
4. I think our interaction and leadership in the world is a necessity for this country, and I do believe that leadership position for the United States will end during Trump's time in office. Our standing in the world will be greatly diminish. For example, going against trade simply on principle is a mistake. Technology eliminates a lot more jobs than trade. We are no longer that shining city on a hill as Ronald Reagan had described.
5. Foreign Policy and Military Action are now a complete wildcard. I have no idea what's going to transpire. We'll just have to hold our breath on this one.
6. Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, she's not a bigot. And maybe Donald Trump isn't one either, but he embraced bigotry in a big way and this country voted him into the presidency. We now live in a country that accepts bigotry - it comes from the top. That's putting it mildly even. Hard truth, but it's the truth.
7. Democrats are screwed.
Hillary Clinton wasn't the answer, and no Bernie Sanders wasn't either. But who steps up now? I just don't see who it's going to be. The OK news here is that individuals in this day and age can rise very quickly, e.g. Barack Obama, Donald Trump.
8. The culture wars that we all thought were over are going to all come back hard and I think we're going to headed toward the extreme right. Republicans have been given full license to fulfill the entire wish list. Roe v. Wade is now on the table. This will be bitter in the worst way.
9. For all those who didn't want Donald Trump as president, and I was one of those people, I'll say this: It's going to be OK... We'll be OK. At least for now.
10. We're "The States of Trump." United only by paper. And we've embraced Trumpism, which isn't Americanism. America, as a concept (see the last sentence of point 4), is on hold.
Good Night and Good Luck.
But here are a few thoughts about last night's historic election...
1. Now we'll really see how a completely Republican-controlled country will look and how it will function. This is to also ask if President-elect Trump will just fall in line with Republican orthodoxy or will he buck the party that propelled him into office? I suspect a lot of hardship coming due to fiscal austerity.
2. Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act, if you like, is done.
It's a shame really because I have personal experience with using the Affordable Care Act and it worked for me. The premium was high because of a preexisting condition, but it would have been triple the cost with the ACA, if I could have gotten insurance at all. Granted I live in a state that set up an exchange, but I believe that if opened up interstate competition and mandated a price structure, the problem with the rates could have been fixed. Unfortunately, Democrats couldn't fix it because they didn't have the numbers and Republicans hated it because it wasn't their legislation.
We'll go back to the way it was and healthcare costs will against start to explode.
It's difficult for me to imagine how taking away health insurance from 20 million people is going to be good politically but we'll find out.
3. What's always worried me is that Donald Trump never released his tax returns and now there's no cause for him to do so ever. I'm not comfortable with just 'hoping' that he is not personally beholden financially to some government or more accurately Russian oligarch. Conflict of interest needs to be extremely scrutinized by the press at all times. Because he didn't release his tax returns, it's required.
4. I think our interaction and leadership in the world is a necessity for this country, and I do believe that leadership position for the United States will end during Trump's time in office. Our standing in the world will be greatly diminish. For example, going against trade simply on principle is a mistake. Technology eliminates a lot more jobs than trade. We are no longer that shining city on a hill as Ronald Reagan had described.
5. Foreign Policy and Military Action are now a complete wildcard. I have no idea what's going to transpire. We'll just have to hold our breath on this one.
6. Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, she's not a bigot. And maybe Donald Trump isn't one either, but he embraced bigotry in a big way and this country voted him into the presidency. We now live in a country that accepts bigotry - it comes from the top. That's putting it mildly even. Hard truth, but it's the truth.
7. Democrats are screwed.
Hillary Clinton wasn't the answer, and no Bernie Sanders wasn't either. But who steps up now? I just don't see who it's going to be. The OK news here is that individuals in this day and age can rise very quickly, e.g. Barack Obama, Donald Trump.
8. The culture wars that we all thought were over are going to all come back hard and I think we're going to headed toward the extreme right. Republicans have been given full license to fulfill the entire wish list. Roe v. Wade is now on the table. This will be bitter in the worst way.
9. For all those who didn't want Donald Trump as president, and I was one of those people, I'll say this: It's going to be OK... We'll be OK. At least for now.
10. We're "The States of Trump." United only by paper. And we've embraced Trumpism, which isn't Americanism. America, as a concept (see the last sentence of point 4), is on hold.
Good Night and Good Luck.
Sunday, November 06, 2016
11.6.16: Has Donald Trump Just Offended Too Many People? The End Of A Long, Twisted Election Road
In this exceptionally well-paced and informative final election analysis episode of "Meet The Press," the most significant take away in our estimation is that the spike in the Hispanic vote is what could put Hillary Clinton over the top to win the presidency. The operative word there is 'could.'
And for Hillary Clinton supporters it would be poetic that it would turn out that Mr. Trump actually lost this election on the very day that he declared himself a candidate. The introductory speech on that first day when he called Mexicans rapists and murderers may in fact really been the beginning of the end. As Telemundo's Jose Diaz-Balart pointed out, Latinos are standing up against something, the something being Trump. But good for them - Mr. Trump's description was despicable to say the least and the tribalism ripping through the country that Tom Brokaw referred to during the panel discussion has been initiated, perpetuated and exacerbated disproportionately by a wide margin by the Trump campaign, and even that phrasing is being extremely generous.
To us, it's ridiculous that baked into the common lexicon of American thinking at the point is the notion that Donald Trump has openly offended so many different groups of people and yet people still find him acceptable to represent the United States.
Throughout the first half, the program featured different NBC analysts and what they were watching for in the race, state to state - mentions of what to look for in FL, NC, AZ, etc. Of all the states mentioned, due to the spike in Hispanic turnout, we would not be surprised if Democrats built a solid block of states by winning Nevada and Arizona, establishing a southwest block.
The professional pollsters Chuck Todd interviewed both seemed to agree that Sec. Clinton's four-point national lead is 'durable.' However, Mr. Todd and the panel members keep focusing their attention on why the Clinton campaign was still putting so many resources into winning Michigan. It must be in play, right? If you're the Clinton campaign, you're thinking that until the polls close on Tuesday night, don't take anything for granted, playing it cautious as is Sec. Clinton's wont, but in this ultra-harsh, unpredictable election you can leave nothing to chance. Or think of it this way, Georgia isn't going to go Democratic, but it's close enough that it is making Republicans uncomfortable - vice versa on Michigan and the Dems.
In other areas, like in Philadelphia as Chris Matthews described, Republicans are kidding themselves if they think that they're going to win Pennsylvania. Not going to happen. As we've said numerous times in past columns, if you cannot win in the suburbs of Philadelphia, you will never win the state.
Lastly, on the blocking and tackling of all this, is the African-American vote which Mr. Todd questioned John Podesta, Chairman of the Clinton Campaign, about, and the concern that turnout is down in early voting. When Mr. Podesta outlined that it was down 6% from when Barack Obama, our first African-American president who was running for reelection, then you would say overall that's not to bad for the Clinton campaign, and we haven't gotten to election day yet.
Ultimately, that's going to be the key - Sec. Clinton and her campaign have coalesced all these different groups whereas the Trump campaign has alienated them inherently narrowing his supporters to predominantly white men. And in that group, he's not going to get enough because many college-educated white males are going Democratic.
Then there's the existential - the God-knows-what-could-still-happen-in-this-election possibility that still dreadfully exists in this anything goes year. Even Tom Brokaw, of all people, was questioning the behavior of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, saying that from the outside looking in the FBI seems to have been politicized on the side of the Trump campaign. Within a week's time, it's been accepted that particular agents at the FBI are intentionally politicizing the agency. Vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine has put forward the notion that FBI agents are actively working against the Clinton campaign. The responsibility for such behavior falls squarely on Director Comey, without question. In the aftermath, the politicizing of the FBI is one of, if not the worst byproduct of this campaign.
As for the "day after," let's worry about that when we get to it - as the saying goes: one catastrophe at a time.
Without going on too long, we'll say this - if you haven't voted yet, try to cast it with some hope in mind, but if that doesn't work for you, just get out there and do it anyway!
If everything goes smoothly, or even just slightly rocky, the next time we write we'll have a new president-elect. Wow, finally.
Panel: Nicole Wallace, Savannah Guthrie, Chris Matthews, Jose Diaz-Balart, and Tom Brokaw
One more thing...
In the more politics as usual Senate races, Charlie Cook, namesake of the Cook Political Report, didn't call either North Carolina or Missouri, but gave control to the Democrats with his predictions. He didn't think Kelly Ayotte will win, but is a big blow to the Republicans, more so than any other contest because sacrificing a seat held by a conservative northeast woman in great standing with the party for the Trump candidacy will be a price that didn't need to be paid. Mr. Cook also sees Pat Toomey losing his seat in PA to Katie McGinty will be insult to injury in the state.
While the presidential race has filled us with all kinds of existential dread, the Senate races at least have still made it a little fun. Not much of a consolation.
All the best.
And for Hillary Clinton supporters it would be poetic that it would turn out that Mr. Trump actually lost this election on the very day that he declared himself a candidate. The introductory speech on that first day when he called Mexicans rapists and murderers may in fact really been the beginning of the end. As Telemundo's Jose Diaz-Balart pointed out, Latinos are standing up against something, the something being Trump. But good for them - Mr. Trump's description was despicable to say the least and the tribalism ripping through the country that Tom Brokaw referred to during the panel discussion has been initiated, perpetuated and exacerbated disproportionately by a wide margin by the Trump campaign, and even that phrasing is being extremely generous.
To us, it's ridiculous that baked into the common lexicon of American thinking at the point is the notion that Donald Trump has openly offended so many different groups of people and yet people still find him acceptable to represent the United States.
Throughout the first half, the program featured different NBC analysts and what they were watching for in the race, state to state - mentions of what to look for in FL, NC, AZ, etc. Of all the states mentioned, due to the spike in Hispanic turnout, we would not be surprised if Democrats built a solid block of states by winning Nevada and Arizona, establishing a southwest block.
The professional pollsters Chuck Todd interviewed both seemed to agree that Sec. Clinton's four-point national lead is 'durable.' However, Mr. Todd and the panel members keep focusing their attention on why the Clinton campaign was still putting so many resources into winning Michigan. It must be in play, right? If you're the Clinton campaign, you're thinking that until the polls close on Tuesday night, don't take anything for granted, playing it cautious as is Sec. Clinton's wont, but in this ultra-harsh, unpredictable election you can leave nothing to chance. Or think of it this way, Georgia isn't going to go Democratic, but it's close enough that it is making Republicans uncomfortable - vice versa on Michigan and the Dems.
In other areas, like in Philadelphia as Chris Matthews described, Republicans are kidding themselves if they think that they're going to win Pennsylvania. Not going to happen. As we've said numerous times in past columns, if you cannot win in the suburbs of Philadelphia, you will never win the state.
Lastly, on the blocking and tackling of all this, is the African-American vote which Mr. Todd questioned John Podesta, Chairman of the Clinton Campaign, about, and the concern that turnout is down in early voting. When Mr. Podesta outlined that it was down 6% from when Barack Obama, our first African-American president who was running for reelection, then you would say overall that's not to bad for the Clinton campaign, and we haven't gotten to election day yet.
Ultimately, that's going to be the key - Sec. Clinton and her campaign have coalesced all these different groups whereas the Trump campaign has alienated them inherently narrowing his supporters to predominantly white men. And in that group, he's not going to get enough because many college-educated white males are going Democratic.
Then there's the existential - the God-knows-what-could-still-happen-in-this-election possibility that still dreadfully exists in this anything goes year. Even Tom Brokaw, of all people, was questioning the behavior of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, saying that from the outside looking in the FBI seems to have been politicized on the side of the Trump campaign. Within a week's time, it's been accepted that particular agents at the FBI are intentionally politicizing the agency. Vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine has put forward the notion that FBI agents are actively working against the Clinton campaign. The responsibility for such behavior falls squarely on Director Comey, without question. In the aftermath, the politicizing of the FBI is one of, if not the worst byproduct of this campaign.
As for the "day after," let's worry about that when we get to it - as the saying goes: one catastrophe at a time.
Without going on too long, we'll say this - if you haven't voted yet, try to cast it with some hope in mind, but if that doesn't work for you, just get out there and do it anyway!
If everything goes smoothly, or even just slightly rocky, the next time we write we'll have a new president-elect. Wow, finally.
Panel: Nicole Wallace, Savannah Guthrie, Chris Matthews, Jose Diaz-Balart, and Tom Brokaw
One more thing...
In the more politics as usual Senate races, Charlie Cook, namesake of the Cook Political Report, didn't call either North Carolina or Missouri, but gave control to the Democrats with his predictions. He didn't think Kelly Ayotte will win, but is a big blow to the Republicans, more so than any other contest because sacrificing a seat held by a conservative northeast woman in great standing with the party for the Trump candidacy will be a price that didn't need to be paid. Mr. Cook also sees Pat Toomey losing his seat in PA to Katie McGinty will be insult to injury in the state.
While the presidential race has filled us with all kinds of existential dread, the Senate races at least have still made it a little fun. Not much of a consolation.
All the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)