In this 'look back at 2017' and 'look ahead' theme today, let's dispel with something right away and that is that the 2020 presidential race (also discussed) is a political lifetime away and who's really to say what will happen by then. There's prognosticating and then there's the almost ridiculous notion of thinking who will run in the next presidential year.
As for 2017, Mr. Trump set the tone with those two inaugural words, "American carnage." He said it would stop but in many ways he has just begun to undertake the effort of creating it. Domestically, you look at the country and we've never been more divided. As Rich Lowry explained, it isn't so much of Mr. Trump's policies, which have been mostly traditional Republican, but the viscerally, personally negative reaction the sound majority of the country has had for Mr. Trump himself. The precipice came after Charlottesville and the statement about "very fine people on both sides," a completely disgraceful statement. Despite what Mr. Trump has said, he has never made an honest attempt to govern and represent all of the people of this country. The good health of the economy saves his domestic performance from falling into the abyss.
Internationally, Mr. Trump has been amateurish and just plain stupid on so many fronts. Starting with Russia, which can be summed up with the big 'Why.' If there's nothing there and it's all a big 'hoax,' as the president likes to say, then why all the lying and covering up of facts and meetings and contacts? Why all the secrecy, as Katty Kay asked. The fact is that there is something there and time and Robert Mueller's special counsel will tell. But even if you take Russia off the table, which you really can not, Mr. Trump has embraced autocrats in Turkey and the Philippines, abdicating any leadership role the United States plays on the front of human rights.
This weekend, Mr. Trump tweeted about the protests occurring right now in Iran and he mentioned human rights, but the statement carries no respect when you consider how he's represented us abroad (and here at home). Pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords was a short-sighted, isolationist decision: Short-sighted because the U.S. has the opportunity to leader the world in clean energy technology manufacturing, but he's ignoring the business potential, and isolationist because he's alienated the world and more importantly our key allies. From a contentious conversation with the prime minister of Australia to insulting the German chancellor to her face to being publicly rebuked by Teresa May of Britain, the president has sown distrust with once steadfast western allies. Coming full circle, Putin got what he wanted in this respect.
As Kristen Welker explained, the president hasn't done anything to curtail North Korea's nuclear program, except to make the dictatorship more aggressive in its pursuit. Moving into the next year, continued bluster from the president potentially moves us ever closer to a hot war on the Korean peninsula, something that no one wants. And speaking of hot wars, the panel briefly discussed a potential hot war between Saudi Arabia and Iran; "one step away" was the phrase Katty Kay used.
And looking ahead to 2018 politically, Charlie Cook explained that we're standing on the beach and we look out into the ocean and see that a big wave is gathering. But the big 'however' is that the Democrats need a clear, concise agenda - one easily explained to the American people - or the tide won't be with them. Simply running against Mr. Trump because of personal failure to represent the office of presidency, in a presidential way, will not be enough. Some Dems don't want to hear this but Mr. Cook was correct in saying that they need to take impeachment off the table because even if the Democrats won every Senate race that's up, they'd still need 60 votes to impeach and no Republican in the Senate is going to vote for that. It's Mr. Trump's Republican party, like it or not.
At the beginning of the year, Mr. Trump said that the "American Carnage" would stop, but it seems like he's trying to set it in motion.
With that said, the good news is that despite all his attempts at undermining America's institutions, we've seen them be quite resilient in the face of all these attacks - the FBI, our judicial branch. Mr. Trump also has more people in this country paying attention to politics and what's happening in Washington, and that is also good for the health of our Democracy. Three cheers for that!
Everyone have a safe and happy new year in 2018!
Panel: Katty Kay, BBC News; Kristen Welker, NBC News, Rich Lowry, The National Review; Charles Cook, The Cook Political Report
One more thing...
Troll (verb), Dog Whistle (noun) and Alt-Right (noun) are three words we simply don't need as a society, but they are now unavoidable.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Sunday, December 24, 2017
12.24.17: This Year's Take Away - Mr. Trump Sold Us A Bill of Goods
This column has never really been a fan of the "year in review" type of programming and for the most part it will stay away from that today because events continue to happen that affect our path as a country moving forward.
The prime example of this week was the non-binding United Nations resolution vote on whether to accept the United States' stance on recognizing Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel (appropriate given this time of year, don't you think?). In practical terms, West Jerusalem functions as Israel's capital, as that is from where the country's government functions. However, the Trump Administration made no distinct between the western and eastern parts of the city. By declaring all of the city as the capital of Israel, the U.S. has essentially removed itself as a credible broker for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. For those who may not care about such things or think that's it's no big deal to them, it's naive and short-sighted to consider or in this case not consider where our allies fall on this decision. Contrary to the Trump Administration's stance that it thinks the U.S. can go it alone, we can not.
Here's a graphic of the vote tally from Thursday, December 21st.
Among the countries voting to reject the United States' stance was France, Germany, England, Japan, South Korea, The Netherlands and Spain just to name a few. Even Russia, who Mr. Trump continually desires to befriend voted against the United States. The tally was 128 in favor of rejecting the U.S.'s position and 9 in favor of it.
Then our U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who was thought to be a voice of reason within the administration says that "The United States will remember this vote..." basically threatening the U.N. and by extension of allies with retribution. Ms. Haley lost a lot of credibility this a sane voice in an administration of chaos.
Chuck Todd said the operative word for this first year of the Trump presidency was "disruptive," but more accurately it is "divisive." After a year-long campaign of dividing this country domestically, the year was capped off with the administration sewing new threads of division with our allies abroad.
Speaking of division, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson mentioned the one thing that in most Americans' eyes is irredeemable for Mr. Trump, and that is Charlottesville. "Fine people on both sides," is what the president... The President of the United States said about a neo-nazi march. And that's where Mr. Trump was all year, playing to his white aggrieved base, which at year's end got screwed over by him as well with the $1.5 trillion tax cut giveaway that won't help them, and one from which he and his family will greatly benefit. He declared the opioid epidemic a national emergency and then did nothing about it except to take away money that hampers combatting it.
If there's any take away from this year, it's that Mr. Trump sold the people who voted for him a bill of goods, one that we'll all have to pay for.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Hugh Hewitt, the Salem Radio Network and MSNBC; Carol Lee, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One more thing...
Vice President Mike Pence's sycophantic praise of the president makes me want to puke. What a suck-up. Or as they would say in a diverse neighborhood that he's unfamiliar with, he has no cojones.
The prime example of this week was the non-binding United Nations resolution vote on whether to accept the United States' stance on recognizing Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel (appropriate given this time of year, don't you think?). In practical terms, West Jerusalem functions as Israel's capital, as that is from where the country's government functions. However, the Trump Administration made no distinct between the western and eastern parts of the city. By declaring all of the city as the capital of Israel, the U.S. has essentially removed itself as a credible broker for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. For those who may not care about such things or think that's it's no big deal to them, it's naive and short-sighted to consider or in this case not consider where our allies fall on this decision. Contrary to the Trump Administration's stance that it thinks the U.S. can go it alone, we can not.
Here's a graphic of the vote tally from Thursday, December 21st.
Among the countries voting to reject the United States' stance was France, Germany, England, Japan, South Korea, The Netherlands and Spain just to name a few. Even Russia, who Mr. Trump continually desires to befriend voted against the United States. The tally was 128 in favor of rejecting the U.S.'s position and 9 in favor of it.
Then our U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who was thought to be a voice of reason within the administration says that "The United States will remember this vote..." basically threatening the U.N. and by extension of allies with retribution. Ms. Haley lost a lot of credibility this a sane voice in an administration of chaos.
Chuck Todd said the operative word for this first year of the Trump presidency was "disruptive," but more accurately it is "divisive." After a year-long campaign of dividing this country domestically, the year was capped off with the administration sewing new threads of division with our allies abroad.
Speaking of division, The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson mentioned the one thing that in most Americans' eyes is irredeemable for Mr. Trump, and that is Charlottesville. "Fine people on both sides," is what the president... The President of the United States said about a neo-nazi march. And that's where Mr. Trump was all year, playing to his white aggrieved base, which at year's end got screwed over by him as well with the $1.5 trillion tax cut giveaway that won't help them, and one from which he and his family will greatly benefit. He declared the opioid epidemic a national emergency and then did nothing about it except to take away money that hampers combatting it.
If there's any take away from this year, it's that Mr. Trump sold the people who voted for him a bill of goods, one that we'll all have to pay for.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Hugh Hewitt, the Salem Radio Network and MSNBC; Carol Lee, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One more thing...
Vice President Mike Pence's sycophantic praise of the president makes me want to puke. What a suck-up. Or as they would say in a diverse neighborhood that he's unfamiliar with, he has no cojones.
Sunday, December 17, 2017
12.17.17: If You're Looking for A Democratic Wave, Be Careful as Tides Can Change
Even with a 'deeply flawed' candidate, it's no less than stunning that Doug Jones won the special election for the Alabama senate seat over Roy Moore. Simply stated, decency won and hence America won as well. Really, Mr. Moore wasn't so much as a flawed candidate as a corrupted man. All candidates are 'flawed,' because no individual is perfect, but Roy Moore had been corrupted by money and power, operating without any checks and when you run for an office with national implications, you're going to have the layers peeled back and exposed. Alabamians decided that they didn't like what they saw and didn't want to be represented in that way. So... Thank you Alabama.
Chuck Todd in his interview with White House Legislative Affairs Director, Marc Short, showed him a clip of their last interview where Mr. Short denounced the behavior that Mr. Moore was credibly accused of, but since that time his boss, President Trump, had endorsed Roy Moore for senate. Mr. Short, today, explained that Mr. Trump endorsed him because he represents the party. No. This is incorrect as the president doesn't represent the party but all Americans. It's one of the worst aspects of Mr. Trump's presidency: that he has no inclination to represent all Americans, just pitting one group against another. Alabama reminded us that we as a country are better than that and that we've had enough.
With that, much of the talk of today's program was about the projected Democratic wave election that is coming in 2018. To that, Democrats should be cautiously optimistic. A lot can happen between now and next November, but Republicans are not helping themselves with this tax cut bill that they're trying to pass. Details aside, what Americans know is that the tax breaks disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthiest one percent of the population. There's no getting around that, no matter what the spin is. As Mr. Short even said, the most important thing about this tax cut bill is that the corporate rate has been cut. Again, details aside, what the average American hears is that corporations get a permanent tax cut and individuals do not.
The underlying message is that Republicans aren't for the average working family. With this tax cut bill, the GOP isn't doing itself any favors moving into 2018. And as for Mr. Trump, the majority of Americans don't trust him to be honest with them, and all the groups, namely women and African-Americans, are energized to vote against the Republican agenda and hence the president.
Mr. Todd asked Governor John Kasich (R-OH) if we as a country are in a better position than we were at the beginning of the year, and he demurred on the answer. Understandable, but to directly answer the question, one can only say 'no.' However, Governor Kasich did say that the GOP can not govern small, angry and narrow - Mr. Trump's precise governing style. What makes it all the worse is that many Republicans in the House and Senate are following right along in this vein.
A prime example is the coordinated attack on Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of Russian meddling in our political system by Republicans in Congress and on Fox 'News.' (Anytime I mention Fox in this column, 'news' has to be put in quotes, but all the network has been is a shill for the president.) What they are overlooking is that they are exacerbating is a threat to our national security. What does it say about a political party that controls all branches of government that undermines American institutions? No matter what Speaker Ryan or Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and sorry to say but for Mr. Kasich as well would tell you, the Republican party is the party of Donald Trump. Not quite corrupt, but certainly and sadly corrupted.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama Campaign Manager; Al Cardenas, fmr. head of the American Conservatives Union; George Will, Washington Post columnist
A few more things...
The Trump Administration has directed that the Center of Disease Control (CDC) can not use the following terms in their budget proposals - diversity, vulnerable, science-based, evidence-based, fetus, entitlement or transgender. Sounds like a Mike Pence denial wish list to me.
In this case, the following terms may have to be banned in the press to describe the Trump Administration: divisive, authoritarian, dictatorial, idiot-based, unstable, fantasy-based and stupid.
Also, the one topic that was not talked about at all was 'net neutrality,' which was repealed this week. Was it just a matter of time or was it because Comcast, NBC's parent company would stand to benefit from this repeal. Hopefully, the former and not the latter.
Chuck Todd in his interview with White House Legislative Affairs Director, Marc Short, showed him a clip of their last interview where Mr. Short denounced the behavior that Mr. Moore was credibly accused of, but since that time his boss, President Trump, had endorsed Roy Moore for senate. Mr. Short, today, explained that Mr. Trump endorsed him because he represents the party. No. This is incorrect as the president doesn't represent the party but all Americans. It's one of the worst aspects of Mr. Trump's presidency: that he has no inclination to represent all Americans, just pitting one group against another. Alabama reminded us that we as a country are better than that and that we've had enough.
With that, much of the talk of today's program was about the projected Democratic wave election that is coming in 2018. To that, Democrats should be cautiously optimistic. A lot can happen between now and next November, but Republicans are not helping themselves with this tax cut bill that they're trying to pass. Details aside, what Americans know is that the tax breaks disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthiest one percent of the population. There's no getting around that, no matter what the spin is. As Mr. Short even said, the most important thing about this tax cut bill is that the corporate rate has been cut. Again, details aside, what the average American hears is that corporations get a permanent tax cut and individuals do not.
The underlying message is that Republicans aren't for the average working family. With this tax cut bill, the GOP isn't doing itself any favors moving into 2018. And as for Mr. Trump, the majority of Americans don't trust him to be honest with them, and all the groups, namely women and African-Americans, are energized to vote against the Republican agenda and hence the president.
Mr. Todd asked Governor John Kasich (R-OH) if we as a country are in a better position than we were at the beginning of the year, and he demurred on the answer. Understandable, but to directly answer the question, one can only say 'no.' However, Governor Kasich did say that the GOP can not govern small, angry and narrow - Mr. Trump's precise governing style. What makes it all the worse is that many Republicans in the House and Senate are following right along in this vein.
A prime example is the coordinated attack on Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of Russian meddling in our political system by Republicans in Congress and on Fox 'News.' (Anytime I mention Fox in this column, 'news' has to be put in quotes, but all the network has been is a shill for the president.) What they are overlooking is that they are exacerbating is a threat to our national security. What does it say about a political party that controls all branches of government that undermines American institutions? No matter what Speaker Ryan or Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and sorry to say but for Mr. Kasich as well would tell you, the Republican party is the party of Donald Trump. Not quite corrupt, but certainly and sadly corrupted.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama Campaign Manager; Al Cardenas, fmr. head of the American Conservatives Union; George Will, Washington Post columnist
A few more things...
The Trump Administration has directed that the Center of Disease Control (CDC) can not use the following terms in their budget proposals - diversity, vulnerable, science-based, evidence-based, fetus, entitlement or transgender. Sounds like a Mike Pence denial wish list to me.
In this case, the following terms may have to be banned in the press to describe the Trump Administration: divisive, authoritarian, dictatorial, idiot-based, unstable, fantasy-based and stupid.
Also, the one topic that was not talked about at all was 'net neutrality,' which was repealed this week. Was it just a matter of time or was it because Comcast, NBC's parent company would stand to benefit from this repeal. Hopefully, the former and not the latter.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
12.10.17: Roy Moore Is A Lose-Lose For America
With the special election in Alabama coming up this Tuesday, it's safe to say that Alabama voters couldn't care less about what this blog has to say about it, which gives one the freedom to opine on the election. NBC's Hallie Jackson mentioned that there were other big Roy Moore stories before the very credible allegations of Mr. Moore molesting children.
Refusal to take down the Ten Commandments from the court house = unconstitutional.
Banning individuals of Muslim faith from serving in Congress = unconstitutional.
Making homosexuality illegal = unconstitutional.
Instructing lower court judges to not honor same sex marriages = unconstitutional.
One of the best time for families was during the period of slavery = despicable.
And then there's molesting children... And this guy was a judge?
Since Alabama voters don't care about this blog, I'll say that if they elect Roy Moore, it's evidence of the state's majority has little knowledge of or use for the Constitution and 'morally bankrupt' becomes an apt description for that majority.
If Mr. Moore wins the Senate will seat him and the chamber, controlled by Republicans, will ultimately do nothing. Even at this point, how does the GOP credibly claim that it's the party of family values? It no longer can not. That's not to say that Republicans writ large are despicable or deplorable or what ever adjective you want to use, but let's certainly dispense with the moral high ground. What we've also learned this week is that Democrats can not claim it either. With that in mind, tribal politics, which has been the order of the day thanks to Mr. Trump, is not the answer for the United States. For example, even if you disagree with Senator Tim Scott's (R-SC) policy positions, he's a senator that has earned and deserves respect.
But make no mistake, the election of Roy Moore to the Senate is a lose-lose for America. As David Brooks said, if he's elected the Republican party will be viewed as repulsive for a generation.
This brings us to the tax bill, which in sum is not good for 99 percent of the American people and here's why... First, under reconciliation, meaning the Republican-controlled Congress are enacting it as a budget deal which only needs a simple majority, punishes blue states by allowing for less tax deductions. However, the tax bill will eventually create 1.4 trillion dollars in nation debt (as has been calculated) so Republicans are proposing that since this is the case, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will have to happen, which disproportionately adversely effects people in red states, as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) outlined. So every one loses except the top one percent. By the time the general public digests and understands all this, it will be too late to go back.
Lastly, there's the growing effort by conservative pundits, TV personalities and more and more Congress people to discredit the Mueller investigation. Of course Sean Hannity comes to mind first and foremost, but Mr. Hannity is solely interested in maintaining power, money and influence, not justice and the truth. The president would fire Mr. Mueller, a Republican appointed as FBI director by a Republican president, at his own political peril. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan said that there would be huge political backlash for such a move, but really would there be? Hmmm... Let Mr. Mueller, who thankfully is immune to the TV hacks, finish his work and the American people will judge. As Congressman Jim Himes (D-CT) described, there are too many 'funny' (my word) omissions, obfuscations and forgotten facts that it's extremely difficult to conclude that it's coincidence.
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; David Brooks, The New York Times; Cornell Belcher, NBC analyst
One More Thing...
Senator Al Franken and the other resignations (Conyers, Franks) this week... The bottom line is that whether you agreed with their politics or not, they all had to go.
Refusal to take down the Ten Commandments from the court house = unconstitutional.
Banning individuals of Muslim faith from serving in Congress = unconstitutional.
Making homosexuality illegal = unconstitutional.
Instructing lower court judges to not honor same sex marriages = unconstitutional.
One of the best time for families was during the period of slavery = despicable.
And then there's molesting children... And this guy was a judge?
Since Alabama voters don't care about this blog, I'll say that if they elect Roy Moore, it's evidence of the state's majority has little knowledge of or use for the Constitution and 'morally bankrupt' becomes an apt description for that majority.
If Mr. Moore wins the Senate will seat him and the chamber, controlled by Republicans, will ultimately do nothing. Even at this point, how does the GOP credibly claim that it's the party of family values? It no longer can not. That's not to say that Republicans writ large are despicable or deplorable or what ever adjective you want to use, but let's certainly dispense with the moral high ground. What we've also learned this week is that Democrats can not claim it either. With that in mind, tribal politics, which has been the order of the day thanks to Mr. Trump, is not the answer for the United States. For example, even if you disagree with Senator Tim Scott's (R-SC) policy positions, he's a senator that has earned and deserves respect.
But make no mistake, the election of Roy Moore to the Senate is a lose-lose for America. As David Brooks said, if he's elected the Republican party will be viewed as repulsive for a generation.
This brings us to the tax bill, which in sum is not good for 99 percent of the American people and here's why... First, under reconciliation, meaning the Republican-controlled Congress are enacting it as a budget deal which only needs a simple majority, punishes blue states by allowing for less tax deductions. However, the tax bill will eventually create 1.4 trillion dollars in nation debt (as has been calculated) so Republicans are proposing that since this is the case, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will have to happen, which disproportionately adversely effects people in red states, as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) outlined. So every one loses except the top one percent. By the time the general public digests and understands all this, it will be too late to go back.
Lastly, there's the growing effort by conservative pundits, TV personalities and more and more Congress people to discredit the Mueller investigation. Of course Sean Hannity comes to mind first and foremost, but Mr. Hannity is solely interested in maintaining power, money and influence, not justice and the truth. The president would fire Mr. Mueller, a Republican appointed as FBI director by a Republican president, at his own political peril. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan said that there would be huge political backlash for such a move, but really would there be? Hmmm... Let Mr. Mueller, who thankfully is immune to the TV hacks, finish his work and the American people will judge. As Congressman Jim Himes (D-CT) described, there are too many 'funny' (my word) omissions, obfuscations and forgotten facts that it's extremely difficult to conclude that it's coincidence.
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; David Brooks, The New York Times; Cornell Belcher, NBC analyst
One More Thing...
Senator Al Franken and the other resignations (Conyers, Franks) this week... The bottom line is that whether you agreed with their politics or not, they all had to go.
Sunday, December 03, 2017
12.4.17: The Inner Cirle's Day of Reckoning Is Coming, Without A Doubt
One can not help thinking about the other shoe and the other foot... With indictments and now the guilty plea on Friday by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, if this were happening to a Democratic administration, the Republican-controlled Congress would be all over impeachment calls and criminal investigations. Remember that a Republican-controlled Congress spent more money on investigating the tragedy in Benghazi than on any other congressional investigation in the country's history. Sorry to say it, but many Republican politicians throughout this process have shown any principle. With that said, it's something that one should dwell on.
However, with Lt. General Michael Flynn pleading guilty on Friday for making false statements to the FBI - a minor charge comparatively to what he could have been charged with - the Trump Administration should be generally worried and certainly they are despite any outward appearances. And let's dispel of this little nugget right off the bat - an FBI sending an anti-Trump tweet and being dismissed for it in the summer doesn't change the fact in the slightest that Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty.
Looking at things objectively, there is evidence of obstruction, specifically from President Trump's tweet yesterday where he said that he fired Mr. Flynn because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence and because he lied to the FBI. Mr. Trump's lawyer said he sent that tweet and that's the only one that he's ever sent on behalf of the president. It's seriously doubtful that Mr. Trump's lawyer sent that statement (as we have to view Mr. Trump's twitter feed as official statements from the president), but even if a lawyer for the White House sent that, what was that person thinking? You just admitted that the president obstructed justice. Why hasn't that lawyer been fired for such a damning statement?
Senator Feinstein said that her 'enough is enough' moment came last month, but after so many of these moments, what finally set her off? Through the judiciary committee she must now know something, which she can not share, that has solidified some kind of impropriety on behalf of the president. What we do know is that Mr. Flynn did not act as a rogue agent and that members of the administration's inner circle knew what he was doing. Certainly, as confirmed, Jared Kushner knew what was going on as well as J.T. McFarland. (Interestingly, Ms. McFarland is now the ambassador to Singapore. They sure shipped her a long way away.) In a private email Ms. McFarland said the following: “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote.
Ouch!
Just a figure of speech? Not likely. If there was no collusion or quid pro quo then why write or say such a thing? As far as the inner circle during the transition is concerned, Mr. Pence was the head of the transition team so how does he not know what Mr. Flynn is doing. As the investigation progresses and more people are implicated, the shielding or walling off of Mr. Pence will come into clearer focus, most certainly.
Where we'll leave this is to answer the question of whether the president himself is under investigation and the answer is 'yes,' but not directly. By squeezing everyone else, the special counsel will find out what the president knew, and he knows quite a bit. For example, the meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians didn't escape Mr. Trump's attention. He knew about it. Let's face it, Donald Trump Jr. doesn't really strike anyone as some independent savvy thinker. And by extension, it's hard to believe that President Trump doesn't know everything that his son-in-law Jared Kushner knows.
Mr. Todd asked Senator Feinstein where we are in all this. Answer: With the guilty plea from Mr. Flynn on Friday morning, we're at the end of the beginning. There's a lot more to come out, for sure.
As for the tax legislation, Senator Collins said she voted for it because she got an "ironclad" promise that Medicare would not be touched. We'll see how long that lasts, but she also said that the tax cuts will pay for themselves with economic growth, which in reality is doubtful because the entire package relies on the theory of trickle down economics, which we know doesn't work. But with that said, the Republicans control Congress and through budget reconciliation, they passed their tax overhaul plan. By using this process they didn't need any Democrats in the Senate to vote for it. Fiscal constraint in terms of deficits and debt are lost on Republicans when they're in control, with the lone exception of Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), but lets see how the House members react and whether the Republican deficit hawks in the lower chamber vote against the Senate bill. Because of political expediency, it will pass. Republicans need a win that badly.
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton University
One more thing...
It's despicable that President Donald Trump would campaign for Roy Moore in the Alabama media market (via a rally in Pensacola, Fl - the Mobile media market). Hard stop.
And for Corey Lewandowski and Dave Bossie's book, Let Trump Be Trump... God help us, that's exactly what this country is trying to prevent.
However, with Lt. General Michael Flynn pleading guilty on Friday for making false statements to the FBI - a minor charge comparatively to what he could have been charged with - the Trump Administration should be generally worried and certainly they are despite any outward appearances. And let's dispel of this little nugget right off the bat - an FBI sending an anti-Trump tweet and being dismissed for it in the summer doesn't change the fact in the slightest that Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty.
Looking at things objectively, there is evidence of obstruction, specifically from President Trump's tweet yesterday where he said that he fired Mr. Flynn because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence and because he lied to the FBI. Mr. Trump's lawyer said he sent that tweet and that's the only one that he's ever sent on behalf of the president. It's seriously doubtful that Mr. Trump's lawyer sent that statement (as we have to view Mr. Trump's twitter feed as official statements from the president), but even if a lawyer for the White House sent that, what was that person thinking? You just admitted that the president obstructed justice. Why hasn't that lawyer been fired for such a damning statement?
Senator Feinstein said that her 'enough is enough' moment came last month, but after so many of these moments, what finally set her off? Through the judiciary committee she must now know something, which she can not share, that has solidified some kind of impropriety on behalf of the president. What we do know is that Mr. Flynn did not act as a rogue agent and that members of the administration's inner circle knew what he was doing. Certainly, as confirmed, Jared Kushner knew what was going on as well as J.T. McFarland. (Interestingly, Ms. McFarland is now the ambassador to Singapore. They sure shipped her a long way away.) In a private email Ms. McFarland said the following: “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote.
Ouch!
Just a figure of speech? Not likely. If there was no collusion or quid pro quo then why write or say such a thing? As far as the inner circle during the transition is concerned, Mr. Pence was the head of the transition team so how does he not know what Mr. Flynn is doing. As the investigation progresses and more people are implicated, the shielding or walling off of Mr. Pence will come into clearer focus, most certainly.
Where we'll leave this is to answer the question of whether the president himself is under investigation and the answer is 'yes,' but not directly. By squeezing everyone else, the special counsel will find out what the president knew, and he knows quite a bit. For example, the meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians didn't escape Mr. Trump's attention. He knew about it. Let's face it, Donald Trump Jr. doesn't really strike anyone as some independent savvy thinker. And by extension, it's hard to believe that President Trump doesn't know everything that his son-in-law Jared Kushner knows.
Mr. Todd asked Senator Feinstein where we are in all this. Answer: With the guilty plea from Mr. Flynn on Friday morning, we're at the end of the beginning. There's a lot more to come out, for sure.
As for the tax legislation, Senator Collins said she voted for it because she got an "ironclad" promise that Medicare would not be touched. We'll see how long that lasts, but she also said that the tax cuts will pay for themselves with economic growth, which in reality is doubtful because the entire package relies on the theory of trickle down economics, which we know doesn't work. But with that said, the Republicans control Congress and through budget reconciliation, they passed their tax overhaul plan. By using this process they didn't need any Democrats in the Senate to vote for it. Fiscal constraint in terms of deficits and debt are lost on Republicans when they're in control, with the lone exception of Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), but lets see how the House members react and whether the Republican deficit hawks in the lower chamber vote against the Senate bill. Because of political expediency, it will pass. Republicans need a win that badly.
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton University
One more thing...
It's despicable that President Donald Trump would campaign for Roy Moore in the Alabama media market (via a rally in Pensacola, Fl - the Mobile media market). Hard stop.
And for Corey Lewandowski and Dave Bossie's book, Let Trump Be Trump... God help us, that's exactly what this country is trying to prevent.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
11.26.17: Women Are Simply Fed Up
If you agree with the notion that the election of Donald J. Trump as president evoked a massive response from America's women, it's because they are rightly fed up with powerful entitled men ruining the country on all levels. Making the response two-fold, look what happened in the recent election in Virginia, and around the country for that matter, a number of women took office for the first time. In terms of sexual harassment, men in powerful positions, abusing that power, are being called out, and it's about time.
Maybe it has to start in high profile industries first like Hollywood, the media and in Washington to have the shock effect so that the culture does change. But it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of the problem... It never is. Katy Tur vented that the first two in the aforementioned list cleaned house quickly and decisively - Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey an Mark Halperin (from NBC) and Charlie Rose (from CBS) respectively. However, in politics, there's this 'hold on a moment' attitude, let me check to see if I like this person first (based on their politics). Anita Hill, an American hero, flatly and correctly stated that Washington can not lead on this issue. And we know it, from just what minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during her interview today. Congress is going to institute mandatory anti-harassment and anti-discrimination classes. Welcome to the 21st century. Large and small companies alike and many school districts around the country have been giving such classes for years. Great that Congress can finally catch up.
Ms. Pelosi was correct in saying that Al Franken was a very different case than Roy Moore, but both need to be addressed, not ignored. And in both cases, there's no doubt that the women's complaints are credible. Ultimately, if charges aren't being brought up then with regard to these public officials voters will have their say. For Mr. Franken, he should be subject to an ethics investigation and see where that goes first, but at the end of his term, perhaps it should be the end of the run.
Roy Moore, on the other hand, is an alleged (probable) child molester who cloaks himself behind a wall of piety, but is a corrupted soul. President Trump's defense and de facto endorsement of Judge Moore comes from a place of self-preservation more than from anywhere else. Mr. Trump has no credibility on sexual harassment because of the infamous awful words that came from his own mouth and the many complaints against him. So when he defends Roy Moore by saying "He totally denied it," so it's not true, it's like he's saying that about himself. Mr. Trump's extended argument that it's better to have Roy Moore, Republican yet child molester, in office than a Democrat. Another one of the death by a thousand cuts Mr. Trump is inflicting on the American societal body. One has to think how sad it is that our children should be able to look up to the President of the United States as our moral center - a notion that has been completely vanquished.
Ms. Pelosi wasn't completely coherent on all this, stumbling and parsing her answers - what to do about Bill Clinton in retrospect and sitting Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), the minority leader on the judiciary committee. Of the latter she said that he deserved due process despite some very 'uncomfortable' circumstances in this particular situation. She talked a circle. With regard to President Clinton, saying that we should 'move forward' was an effective punt. With the prospect that taxpayer funds may have been used in the settlement, from a pool of money set up by Congress for just such a purpose, makes it even more imperative that this be looked into. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) to his credit, called for transparency on these settlements. Transparency should come, like tomorrow.
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson described the different circumstances as tribal morality - if you're in my party, I believe you. But maybe not even that... The governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, said that she believed the women but in the senatorial election she is going to vote Republican, meaning she's going to vote for Roy Moore. Really? Talk about assinine and cowardly. It's one thing to be lead, and another to be lead by the nose. If this is the official leadership and the mouthpiece for the people of Alabama, then how can one not be worried about the fact that Alabamians are going to determine where the moral bar for this country is set?
At this point, I should be admonished for not talking about taxes as rightly Ms. Pelosi did to Chuck Todd. There's no excuse for Mr. Todd to solely focus on the salacious, and not real policy that is going to determine the financial fates of so many on "Meet The Press." This column's excuse... Well, we're not "Meet The Press."
Panel: Heather McGhee, President, Demos; Katy Tur, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network and NBC; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
One More Thing... Michael Flynn
Mr. Flynn's lawyers have stopped communicating with the White House lawyers. Hugh Hewitt said that he thinks it nothing more than Mr. Flynn's foreign agent registration violations (which is a big deal) that are the sole cause of his trouble. However, one can't help but think it's more than that. Breaking with Mr. Hewitt's opinion, it's definitely more than that and it's clear at this point that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Robert Mueller's investigation. The intrigue continues to mount.
Maybe it has to start in high profile industries first like Hollywood, the media and in Washington to have the shock effect so that the culture does change. But it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of the problem... It never is. Katy Tur vented that the first two in the aforementioned list cleaned house quickly and decisively - Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey an Mark Halperin (from NBC) and Charlie Rose (from CBS) respectively. However, in politics, there's this 'hold on a moment' attitude, let me check to see if I like this person first (based on their politics). Anita Hill, an American hero, flatly and correctly stated that Washington can not lead on this issue. And we know it, from just what minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during her interview today. Congress is going to institute mandatory anti-harassment and anti-discrimination classes. Welcome to the 21st century. Large and small companies alike and many school districts around the country have been giving such classes for years. Great that Congress can finally catch up.
Ms. Pelosi was correct in saying that Al Franken was a very different case than Roy Moore, but both need to be addressed, not ignored. And in both cases, there's no doubt that the women's complaints are credible. Ultimately, if charges aren't being brought up then with regard to these public officials voters will have their say. For Mr. Franken, he should be subject to an ethics investigation and see where that goes first, but at the end of his term, perhaps it should be the end of the run.
Roy Moore, on the other hand, is an alleged (probable) child molester who cloaks himself behind a wall of piety, but is a corrupted soul. President Trump's defense and de facto endorsement of Judge Moore comes from a place of self-preservation more than from anywhere else. Mr. Trump has no credibility on sexual harassment because of the infamous awful words that came from his own mouth and the many complaints against him. So when he defends Roy Moore by saying "He totally denied it," so it's not true, it's like he's saying that about himself. Mr. Trump's extended argument that it's better to have Roy Moore, Republican yet child molester, in office than a Democrat. Another one of the death by a thousand cuts Mr. Trump is inflicting on the American societal body. One has to think how sad it is that our children should be able to look up to the President of the United States as our moral center - a notion that has been completely vanquished.
Ms. Pelosi wasn't completely coherent on all this, stumbling and parsing her answers - what to do about Bill Clinton in retrospect and sitting Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), the minority leader on the judiciary committee. Of the latter she said that he deserved due process despite some very 'uncomfortable' circumstances in this particular situation. She talked a circle. With regard to President Clinton, saying that we should 'move forward' was an effective punt. With the prospect that taxpayer funds may have been used in the settlement, from a pool of money set up by Congress for just such a purpose, makes it even more imperative that this be looked into. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) to his credit, called for transparency on these settlements. Transparency should come, like tomorrow.
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson described the different circumstances as tribal morality - if you're in my party, I believe you. But maybe not even that... The governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, said that she believed the women but in the senatorial election she is going to vote Republican, meaning she's going to vote for Roy Moore. Really? Talk about assinine and cowardly. It's one thing to be lead, and another to be lead by the nose. If this is the official leadership and the mouthpiece for the people of Alabama, then how can one not be worried about the fact that Alabamians are going to determine where the moral bar for this country is set?
At this point, I should be admonished for not talking about taxes as rightly Ms. Pelosi did to Chuck Todd. There's no excuse for Mr. Todd to solely focus on the salacious, and not real policy that is going to determine the financial fates of so many on "Meet The Press." This column's excuse... Well, we're not "Meet The Press."
Panel: Heather McGhee, President, Demos; Katy Tur, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network and NBC; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
One More Thing... Michael Flynn
Mr. Flynn's lawyers have stopped communicating with the White House lawyers. Hugh Hewitt said that he thinks it nothing more than Mr. Flynn's foreign agent registration violations (which is a big deal) that are the sole cause of his trouble. However, one can't help but think it's more than that. Breaking with Mr. Hewitt's opinion, it's definitely more than that and it's clear at this point that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Robert Mueller's investigation. The intrigue continues to mount.
Sunday, November 19, 2017
11.19.17: Degrees, Responses and the Sliminess of Mick Mulvaney
The White House Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, is slimy; at least he proved as much during his interview with Andrea Mitchell, sitting in for Chuck Todd, this morning.
Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Mulvaney about the fact that in the bill corporate tax cuts are permanent and individual middle class tax cuts are temporary, the budget director explained that because of certain rules and to make the bill a budget one so that 51-vote reconciliation can be enacted instead of the 60-vote Senate requirement for legislation, Republicans have to game the system with expiration dates.
But why not the other way around? Why not make the individual middle class tax cut permanent and make the corporate tax cut temporary? Because that is who Mr. Mulvaney is, never having that inclination. He and other Republicans for that matter would never want to disappoint the people that matter most, the donors.
[And that clip of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) getting upset at the suggestion that the bill is one for the rich... Please, he gets no quarter of sympathy from this space. He's advocating for trickle-down economic theory and we know that it doesn't work. The latest operative example is how Governor Sam Brownback decimated the economics in his state of Kansas, from which they're still far behind neighboring states.]
Mr. Mulvaney also explained that the $1.5 trillion dollars that would be added to the debt according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assessment doesn't account for the [presumably positive] impact on the economy that these tax cuts will have. Despite evidence that growth will only recoup about a third of the $1.5 trillion coupled with lack of corporate reinvestment of the money they get back, Mr. Mulvaney wants you to believe the exact opposite.
The consolation of all this is at least we're discussing policy, even in the face of a politically cynical tax bill that just passed through the House. It's a Republican bill and trickle down theory is their dogma and we can debate the merits of that with supporters of that like The National Review's Rich Lowry and Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), respective guests today, without being disagreeable toward the person, personally.
I don't mean for this column to be a hit job on a particular individual, but Mr. Mulvaney said, with a straight face, that he's 'gaming the system,' blatantly admitting that the goal is giving some people advantages at the expense of others.
And then there's his recitation of the Republican talking point as it pertains to the sexual harassment discourse in terms of comparing Roy Moore with Senator Al Franken (D-MN): Mr. Franken has admitted guilt - he's guilty - and Judge Moore denies it. Note: the care in not saying he's not guilty.
But with exceptional addition to that, Mr. Mulvaney first said that he's the budget director and he's not focused on all that much on the details of the accusations against Judge Moore, but then went on to impugn Andrea Mitchell for predisposed political biased on what she and NBC believe, on which Ms. Mitchell clearly pushed back - it's one of the many reasons why you gotta love Andrea Mitchell. The rhetorical sum total of the equation for Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans is that it's up to the people of Alabama to decide who they want in the Senate. (That's called punting.)
Speaking of which, President Trump who 'couldn't resist' taking a shot at Senator Franken, according to Robert Costa, has nothing to say about Roy Moore who is defiant and refusing to step down. Why is that? Because Mr. Trump is accused of the same behavior, but worse. And he's admitted as much on tape. Mr. Costa also explained that this is going to get sticky for Republicans because they're going to have to answer for this implied, but blatant double (triple) standard set because of the president's alleged behavior.
But make no mistake, the talking point is that we're not saying who's worse but Al Franken admitted guilt and Judge Moore denies it. As Andrea Mitchell mentioned, it's about 'degrees and responses.'
Panel: Joy Reid, NBC; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A Couple More Things...
Yes, there should be an ethics investigation of Mr. Franken's behavior to verify that there aren't more instances of this behavior in his past and particularly during his time in the Senate. One difference between Mr. Moore and Mr. Franken is that Mr. Franken agrees with such action.
In citing The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, she explains that it's Alabama women who are going to ultimately make this election call.
Joy Reid made a notable assessment as to the nature of Democrats (as a party): self-immolation and torturing themselves... Priceless, actually.
And Congresswoman Barbara Comstock's apparently repeated mention of a current member of who showed up at his front door in a towel or robe or whatever is certainly speeding up the timeline as to when we'll find out who that is.
Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Mulvaney about the fact that in the bill corporate tax cuts are permanent and individual middle class tax cuts are temporary, the budget director explained that because of certain rules and to make the bill a budget one so that 51-vote reconciliation can be enacted instead of the 60-vote Senate requirement for legislation, Republicans have to game the system with expiration dates.
But why not the other way around? Why not make the individual middle class tax cut permanent and make the corporate tax cut temporary? Because that is who Mr. Mulvaney is, never having that inclination. He and other Republicans for that matter would never want to disappoint the people that matter most, the donors.
[And that clip of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) getting upset at the suggestion that the bill is one for the rich... Please, he gets no quarter of sympathy from this space. He's advocating for trickle-down economic theory and we know that it doesn't work. The latest operative example is how Governor Sam Brownback decimated the economics in his state of Kansas, from which they're still far behind neighboring states.]
Mr. Mulvaney also explained that the $1.5 trillion dollars that would be added to the debt according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assessment doesn't account for the [presumably positive] impact on the economy that these tax cuts will have. Despite evidence that growth will only recoup about a third of the $1.5 trillion coupled with lack of corporate reinvestment of the money they get back, Mr. Mulvaney wants you to believe the exact opposite.
The consolation of all this is at least we're discussing policy, even in the face of a politically cynical tax bill that just passed through the House. It's a Republican bill and trickle down theory is their dogma and we can debate the merits of that with supporters of that like The National Review's Rich Lowry and Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), respective guests today, without being disagreeable toward the person, personally.
I don't mean for this column to be a hit job on a particular individual, but Mr. Mulvaney said, with a straight face, that he's 'gaming the system,' blatantly admitting that the goal is giving some people advantages at the expense of others.
And then there's his recitation of the Republican talking point as it pertains to the sexual harassment discourse in terms of comparing Roy Moore with Senator Al Franken (D-MN): Mr. Franken has admitted guilt - he's guilty - and Judge Moore denies it. Note: the care in not saying he's not guilty.
But with exceptional addition to that, Mr. Mulvaney first said that he's the budget director and he's not focused on all that much on the details of the accusations against Judge Moore, but then went on to impugn Andrea Mitchell for predisposed political biased on what she and NBC believe, on which Ms. Mitchell clearly pushed back - it's one of the many reasons why you gotta love Andrea Mitchell. The rhetorical sum total of the equation for Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans is that it's up to the people of Alabama to decide who they want in the Senate. (That's called punting.)
Speaking of which, President Trump who 'couldn't resist' taking a shot at Senator Franken, according to Robert Costa, has nothing to say about Roy Moore who is defiant and refusing to step down. Why is that? Because Mr. Trump is accused of the same behavior, but worse. And he's admitted as much on tape. Mr. Costa also explained that this is going to get sticky for Republicans because they're going to have to answer for this implied, but blatant double (triple) standard set because of the president's alleged behavior.
But make no mistake, the talking point is that we're not saying who's worse but Al Franken admitted guilt and Judge Moore denies it. As Andrea Mitchell mentioned, it's about 'degrees and responses.'
Panel: Joy Reid, NBC; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A Couple More Things...
Yes, there should be an ethics investigation of Mr. Franken's behavior to verify that there aren't more instances of this behavior in his past and particularly during his time in the Senate. One difference between Mr. Moore and Mr. Franken is that Mr. Franken agrees with such action.
In citing The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, she explains that it's Alabama women who are going to ultimately make this election call.
Joy Reid made a notable assessment as to the nature of Democrats (as a party): self-immolation and torturing themselves... Priceless, actually.
And Congresswoman Barbara Comstock's apparently repeated mention of a current member of who showed up at his front door in a towel or robe or whatever is certainly speeding up the timeline as to when we'll find out who that is.
Sunday, November 05, 2017
11.5.17:The Special Counsel Is Real and Tightening the Screws
There's little doubt that Mr. Trump is worried about the Russia investigation, but not so much his administration, with the exception Attorney General Jeff Sessions who clearly mislead Congress about his contacts with and knowledge of communication with Russian officials, because most of the individuals working for Mr. Trump have been replaced since the start of his administration. Mr. Sessions, for his part, either perjured himself with false testimony to Congress or his memory is so bad to the point of approaching senility that he should step down, unable to do his job. For the record, I do not believe that Mr. Sessions is senile.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigative team are in the process of establishing who were the compromised individuals in the Trump campaign, and it looks as though there are quite a few, at least financially. And that makes Mr. Trump rather nervous because there are rumblings that the Special Counsel's current focus is the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose finances must be known to the president. The indictments and especially the revelation of George Papadopoulos's arrest and subsequent cooperation with the Special Counsel after which 'everyone's memory got better,' as Mr. Todd nicely quipped today, have the president rattled. On camera, Mr. Trump offered a flat denial, "There was no collusion!" And then he lamented about his frustrated inability to personally direct the Justice Dept. to investigate his defeated political opponents - Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
A bit of a tangent here: Senator James Lankford (R-OK) dismissed the president's comments as coming from someone who doesn't know better. Giving the president... The President of the United States a pass on this is inexcusable in and of itself. There's no quarter for 'not knowing better.' Someone in the administration should have explained this to him before he starts delegitimizing his office. We are neither The Philippines nor Venezuela. With that said, Mr. Lankford's comments on his committee's work and the Special Counsel's were quite commendable. (It makes it into the news that Republican lawmakers don't see any special protections for Mr. Mueller and his team as necessary, but that's because they don't see it in any jeopardy.) Mr. Lankford squarely stated that the Special Counsel should be allowed to do its work. He also confirmed what Senator Warner would not confirm and that was whether the Senate committee has spoken with Michael Flynn and or his son. The quote, "You'll have to ask the committee chairs whether Mr. Flynn and his son have been cooperative witnesses."
Mr. Trump said that it was a disgrace that the Special Counsel continues the investigation, but the real disgrace is that he trying to influence the Justice Dept., calling for it to end. Here is a list of names so far that have legal problems with regard to Russia's meddling in our election: Paul Manafort, J.D. Gordan, Richard Gates, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn Jr., Donald Trump Jr. Jared Kushner, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. This list includes are high-ranking campaign and administration officials respectively and what's sad is if this were a Democratic administration, Republicans would be impeaching the president as we speak - it's just a fact. And because many Republican legislators are not holding Mr. Trump accountable to the Constitution of the United States, they are in effective not upholding their oaths of office, which is just sad. They're sad enablers.
What's not sad is what is going on with Democratic party. Forget about the Republicans for a minute because the Democrats really need to get their act together. Everyone is running wild about Donna Brazile's new book about the 2016 election. It's causing a lot of disharmony in the party, but it's necessary for the time being. Ms. Brazile's tact could always be better; as Tom Brokaw noted Ms. Brazile has a tendency to fire first and aim later. But Democrats whether they like it or not, have to get passed Barack Obama, but especially the Clinton-era of being the standard bearers of the party. That's what Ms. Brazile's book will probably end up doing, but not before Republicans start manufacturing more non-controversies.
As for moving forward, the gubernatorial race in Virginia is a huge test for Tom Perez's leadership of the DNC. By the way, I've always said that the Party chair shouldn't be in public office, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz because then you get some one like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, clearly in way over her head, running the party. Focus on your Congressional job... Democrats should win in Virginia but if they don't, their chances of taking back the House or Senate will decline precipitously.
Lastly, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) is absolutely correct when he says that we need a cyber-doctrine - some sort of policy to address insidious action via social media and the internet. Actually, I like what Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said (a first) - that we should retaliate against Russia in some way, the more covert the better. But here's the rub with that, The damn president doesn't think Russia did anything to meddle in the election; it's all a hoax, to use his word. He's not going to retaliate against Russia because of something he refuses to believe.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One More Thing...
On November 6, 1947, Martha Rountree began... Yes, for 70 years! The insightful genius to make "Meet The Press" the first television program. It's why I call it the (political) program of record... It's earned the title. Congratulations... and thank you.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigative team are in the process of establishing who were the compromised individuals in the Trump campaign, and it looks as though there are quite a few, at least financially. And that makes Mr. Trump rather nervous because there are rumblings that the Special Counsel's current focus is the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose finances must be known to the president. The indictments and especially the revelation of George Papadopoulos's arrest and subsequent cooperation with the Special Counsel after which 'everyone's memory got better,' as Mr. Todd nicely quipped today, have the president rattled. On camera, Mr. Trump offered a flat denial, "There was no collusion!" And then he lamented about his frustrated inability to personally direct the Justice Dept. to investigate his defeated political opponents - Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
A bit of a tangent here: Senator James Lankford (R-OK) dismissed the president's comments as coming from someone who doesn't know better. Giving the president... The President of the United States a pass on this is inexcusable in and of itself. There's no quarter for 'not knowing better.' Someone in the administration should have explained this to him before he starts delegitimizing his office. We are neither The Philippines nor Venezuela. With that said, Mr. Lankford's comments on his committee's work and the Special Counsel's were quite commendable. (It makes it into the news that Republican lawmakers don't see any special protections for Mr. Mueller and his team as necessary, but that's because they don't see it in any jeopardy.) Mr. Lankford squarely stated that the Special Counsel should be allowed to do its work. He also confirmed what Senator Warner would not confirm and that was whether the Senate committee has spoken with Michael Flynn and or his son. The quote, "You'll have to ask the committee chairs whether Mr. Flynn and his son have been cooperative witnesses."
Mr. Trump said that it was a disgrace that the Special Counsel continues the investigation, but the real disgrace is that he trying to influence the Justice Dept., calling for it to end. Here is a list of names so far that have legal problems with regard to Russia's meddling in our election: Paul Manafort, J.D. Gordan, Richard Gates, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn Jr., Donald Trump Jr. Jared Kushner, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. This list includes are high-ranking campaign and administration officials respectively and what's sad is if this were a Democratic administration, Republicans would be impeaching the president as we speak - it's just a fact. And because many Republican legislators are not holding Mr. Trump accountable to the Constitution of the United States, they are in effective not upholding their oaths of office, which is just sad. They're sad enablers.
What's not sad is what is going on with Democratic party. Forget about the Republicans for a minute because the Democrats really need to get their act together. Everyone is running wild about Donna Brazile's new book about the 2016 election. It's causing a lot of disharmony in the party, but it's necessary for the time being. Ms. Brazile's tact could always be better; as Tom Brokaw noted Ms. Brazile has a tendency to fire first and aim later. But Democrats whether they like it or not, have to get passed Barack Obama, but especially the Clinton-era of being the standard bearers of the party. That's what Ms. Brazile's book will probably end up doing, but not before Republicans start manufacturing more non-controversies.
As for moving forward, the gubernatorial race in Virginia is a huge test for Tom Perez's leadership of the DNC. By the way, I've always said that the Party chair shouldn't be in public office, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz because then you get some one like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, clearly in way over her head, running the party. Focus on your Congressional job... Democrats should win in Virginia but if they don't, their chances of taking back the House or Senate will decline precipitously.
Lastly, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) is absolutely correct when he says that we need a cyber-doctrine - some sort of policy to address insidious action via social media and the internet. Actually, I like what Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said (a first) - that we should retaliate against Russia in some way, the more covert the better. But here's the rub with that, The damn president doesn't think Russia did anything to meddle in the election; it's all a hoax, to use his word. He's not going to retaliate against Russia because of something he refuses to believe.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One More Thing...
On November 6, 1947, Martha Rountree began... Yes, for 70 years! The insightful genius to make "Meet The Press" the first television program. It's why I call it the (political) program of record... It's earned the title. Congratulations... and thank you.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
10.19.17: Who's To FIx The Political Mess We're In
Thank you for bearing with me; a much-needed break was warranted.
At a certain point, time is going to run out on blaming past administrations for foreign policy mistakes, mismanagement domestically and a slow-growing economy, but are those things going to matter? Starting tomorrow, probably not as Special Counsel Robert Mueller takes into custody the subject of his first grand jury indictment into to the Russia campaign-meddling investigation.
The state of U.S. political affairs right now are like a Jenga puzzle that's fallen apart and there's no one left to put it back together. You a man with authoritarian inclinations in the White House who profits off the presidency, a Republican fmr. chief strategist to Mr. Trump declaring war on the Republican establishment, against which the Republican Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now openly fighting. Democrats have their own credibility problems and no juice to fix them. Excluded completely from the legislative process, Democrats' voices have been drowned out, with their only hope that the Republican party goes so far off the extremist deep end that they'll be the only alternative. It's likely. Senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) telling Republican colleagues to "shut up and do your jobs," in the face of a bully president while you have senators like Rob Portman (R-OH) barely able to speak in trying to fly below the radar of the Bannon-Trump attack machine because moderates are getting squeezed.
Senator Portman said that party in-fighting is nothing new for either side, but emphasized that if the president succeeds, the country succeeds, but it's difficult to see that when the president has a 38% approval rating. Neither Mr. Portman nor anyone else has any idea what the definition of success in the mind of President Trump. For Mr. Portman, does that mean sitting by complacently silent, while someone else defines your principles, consistently violating them. A meek performance today. That's not to say that Senator Portman isn't better for the country then any Bannon-backed candidate, he definitely is, but the blind fury of the base hasn't abated.
Fmr. Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Al Cardenas described the current state of the Republican party in terms of everyone being expected to take a knee to the president. Mr. Portman did his best.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), for her part, refreshingly talks substance and details of tax reform, but it falls on deaf ears because Republicans have no inclination to listen. Describing herself as a moderate, she said that she is willing to work across the aisle, either that or obstruction, but she concluded that it will be a party-line vote, but she didn't give you the other part of the equation, which is Republicans don't want to work with her, or any Democrat for that matter.
Once the indictment comes tomorrow, we'll be facing a whole new set of problems, none of which will do anything to close the voter enthusiasm gap that Amy Walter kept coming back to. The big question is it enough for Democrats? Double digits, she and Chris Matthews both agreed. Dems. aren't going to get it. Fox commentators, such as Sean Hannity, are already ramping up the attacks on the integrity of the special counsel, picking up the slack for a president tempering his responses, for legally jeopardizing reasons most probably. (The president 'tempering' his comments is relative, of course.)
Republicans will soon has to choose sides, depending on what this first, and surely not the last, indictment brings, and the rule-of-law and the faith in our institutions are without a doubt going to be put to the test. Huntington, West Virginia Fire Chief Jan Radar said that it has been years since a day went by in her county that there wasn't at least one overdose call - every fourth call is for an overdose. The president's declaration of a public health crisis designates no compulsory funding to counter the problem, only a national emergency would do that, a health care budget provision that Republicans want to scrub.
President Donald Trump is ultimately going to be held responsible for the aforementioned mess. When you're the president, it is inevitable. He's broken it, most certainly, and smashing everything into tinier pieces, but is special counsel Robert Mueller the one to fix it? Even if you wish that were likely, it's not.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Al Cardenas, fmr. chairman of the American Conservative Union; Chris Matthews, NBC News
At a certain point, time is going to run out on blaming past administrations for foreign policy mistakes, mismanagement domestically and a slow-growing economy, but are those things going to matter? Starting tomorrow, probably not as Special Counsel Robert Mueller takes into custody the subject of his first grand jury indictment into to the Russia campaign-meddling investigation.
The state of U.S. political affairs right now are like a Jenga puzzle that's fallen apart and there's no one left to put it back together. You a man with authoritarian inclinations in the White House who profits off the presidency, a Republican fmr. chief strategist to Mr. Trump declaring war on the Republican establishment, against which the Republican Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now openly fighting. Democrats have their own credibility problems and no juice to fix them. Excluded completely from the legislative process, Democrats' voices have been drowned out, with their only hope that the Republican party goes so far off the extremist deep end that they'll be the only alternative. It's likely. Senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) telling Republican colleagues to "shut up and do your jobs," in the face of a bully president while you have senators like Rob Portman (R-OH) barely able to speak in trying to fly below the radar of the Bannon-Trump attack machine because moderates are getting squeezed.
Senator Portman said that party in-fighting is nothing new for either side, but emphasized that if the president succeeds, the country succeeds, but it's difficult to see that when the president has a 38% approval rating. Neither Mr. Portman nor anyone else has any idea what the definition of success in the mind of President Trump. For Mr. Portman, does that mean sitting by complacently silent, while someone else defines your principles, consistently violating them. A meek performance today. That's not to say that Senator Portman isn't better for the country then any Bannon-backed candidate, he definitely is, but the blind fury of the base hasn't abated.
Fmr. Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Al Cardenas described the current state of the Republican party in terms of everyone being expected to take a knee to the president. Mr. Portman did his best.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), for her part, refreshingly talks substance and details of tax reform, but it falls on deaf ears because Republicans have no inclination to listen. Describing herself as a moderate, she said that she is willing to work across the aisle, either that or obstruction, but she concluded that it will be a party-line vote, but she didn't give you the other part of the equation, which is Republicans don't want to work with her, or any Democrat for that matter.
Once the indictment comes tomorrow, we'll be facing a whole new set of problems, none of which will do anything to close the voter enthusiasm gap that Amy Walter kept coming back to. The big question is it enough for Democrats? Double digits, she and Chris Matthews both agreed. Dems. aren't going to get it. Fox commentators, such as Sean Hannity, are already ramping up the attacks on the integrity of the special counsel, picking up the slack for a president tempering his responses, for legally jeopardizing reasons most probably. (The president 'tempering' his comments is relative, of course.)
Republicans will soon has to choose sides, depending on what this first, and surely not the last, indictment brings, and the rule-of-law and the faith in our institutions are without a doubt going to be put to the test. Huntington, West Virginia Fire Chief Jan Radar said that it has been years since a day went by in her county that there wasn't at least one overdose call - every fourth call is for an overdose. The president's declaration of a public health crisis designates no compulsory funding to counter the problem, only a national emergency would do that, a health care budget provision that Republicans want to scrub.
President Donald Trump is ultimately going to be held responsible for the aforementioned mess. When you're the president, it is inevitable. He's broken it, most certainly, and smashing everything into tinier pieces, but is special counsel Robert Mueller the one to fix it? Even if you wish that were likely, it's not.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Al Cardenas, fmr. chairman of the American Conservative Union; Chris Matthews, NBC News
Sunday, October 08, 2017
10.8.17: Flooded America
There's no doubt that America is flooded - beaten and battered and flooded by hurricanes, awash in guns, engulfed by political chaos and a lack of leadership, drowning in debt and left irreparably moldy by the undercurrent of an opiod addiction.
On that happy note, in the wake of the most horrific mass shooting in modern American history in Las Vegas where 58 people lost their lives and over 500 were injured, all that comes about is a debate about having the debate, about guns, which Mr. Todd lead with on today's program.
Exhibit A is the two explanations from Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) respectively on whether bump stocks should be made illegal, and you can imagine where each one falls on this. I agree with Mr. Scalise that most people didn't even know what a bump stock was a week ago. I certainly didn't. He went on to say that he needed all the facts before he could make a decision on such a ban. However, Ms. Feinstein explained that automatic machine guns are illegal and bump stocks turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns, hence they should be illegal. What more do you need to know? In essence.
However, Mr. Scalise's interpretation of history and the second amendment is a bit warped. Individual guns rights coming before the Constitution is speculative at best. The second amendment does specifically mention 'a well-regulated militia,' which don't exist anymore. If you watch Ken Burn's The Civil War documentary you learn that each state had its own militia all the way up through the end of the war. After the war, a standing national army replaced militias. Some historians have said that after the Civil War, the United States were really formed. Before then it was separate states together on a continent. And that's when the notion of the second amendment and individual guns ownership rights took root. That's not a bad thing, per se.
If we're not going to amend the amendment then a 'militia' has to be taken into account. Military style weapons are unnecessary in society. If you cannot feel comfortable defending your home with a 15-shot clip in a handgun, frankly, then an assault rifle won't do you any more good because you are unqualified to handle one in the first place, probably. Mr. Scalise, shot and almost killed on a baseball field, is still adamant about no restrictions. Wait and see on the bump stock.
You really can't argue with the Senator when she says that mass shooting occur everywhere in this country; it's a literal truth - movie theaters, country music festivals, night clubs, churches, colleges, high schools, office buildings, elementary schools... elementary schools.
NBC News' Kristen Welker is right when she said the gun legislation debate was settled after Newtown. If no legislative was taken then after the senseless murder of twenty children and six adults then nothing will be done. Ugh, a gut punch. Representing the conservative viewpoint on the panel, Hugh Hewitt stated that gun regulations are no unconstitutional or that you should be able to identify unusual heavy purchasing in a short time, i.e. raise a red flag. Does Mr. Hewitt understand that he's way to the left of where the practical whole of the Republican party is on this?
And the White House won't lead on guns... Let's face it, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the president is a "f**king moron." In his press conference earlier this week, Sec. Tillerson didn't give it the 'dignity' of a response. Eesh. To be fair, expectations that the president would pick up the issue in a serious way is to betray his base on such a root level that it makes a health care deal with Democrats almost forgivable.
Even as this is being written, the president and retiring Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) are battling it out on social media. Senator Corker said that Rex Tillerson (Sec. of State), John Kelly (Chief of Staff) and John Mattis (Sec. of Def.) are the only once standing in the way of chaos, referring to Mr. Trump's leadership. Predictably the president responded the Mr. Corker had no guts for not running for reelection. Mr. Corker: It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Serious discussions or legislation on guns? Not likely.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Carol Lee, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Mick Mulvaney is despicable as a budget director. As a congressman all he did was rail against any kind of spending. Even on today's program he defended denying funding for the Hurricane Sandy rebuild in New Jersey and New York. He then, today, had the gall to say that the government is going to run deficits to facilitate growth. If things go as planned this further deficit spending will be incurred because of a huge tax cut. Meanwhile, if you're Puerto Rico you're not getting any help if Mr. Mulvaney has his say. There's a man of principle for you.
Harvey Weinstein? Why should we be surprised? In every power-center industry there is always a percentage of sleaze - in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley. To be fair, it's heavily outweighed by good people on the left and the right. Good for Hugh Hewitt to say that even though he absolutely disagrees with Ron Howard or Rob Reiner politically, for example, he states that they are fine people. That's everywhere. In this instance as always go with Eugene Robinson for the most common sense - Growing up in a certain age defense? In any 'age' when was this ever appropriate? Exactly... The conspiracy of silence is probably going to play out ugly...
Oh, and for Rex Tillerson, he'll be out at the turn of the year. After the president's China trip is complete, he'll wind down his profile (unless there is a diplomatic emergency) while rumors will elevate until...
On that happy note, in the wake of the most horrific mass shooting in modern American history in Las Vegas where 58 people lost their lives and over 500 were injured, all that comes about is a debate about having the debate, about guns, which Mr. Todd lead with on today's program.
Exhibit A is the two explanations from Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) respectively on whether bump stocks should be made illegal, and you can imagine where each one falls on this. I agree with Mr. Scalise that most people didn't even know what a bump stock was a week ago. I certainly didn't. He went on to say that he needed all the facts before he could make a decision on such a ban. However, Ms. Feinstein explained that automatic machine guns are illegal and bump stocks turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns, hence they should be illegal. What more do you need to know? In essence.
However, Mr. Scalise's interpretation of history and the second amendment is a bit warped. Individual guns rights coming before the Constitution is speculative at best. The second amendment does specifically mention 'a well-regulated militia,' which don't exist anymore. If you watch Ken Burn's The Civil War documentary you learn that each state had its own militia all the way up through the end of the war. After the war, a standing national army replaced militias. Some historians have said that after the Civil War, the United States were really formed. Before then it was separate states together on a continent. And that's when the notion of the second amendment and individual guns ownership rights took root. That's not a bad thing, per se.
If we're not going to amend the amendment then a 'militia' has to be taken into account. Military style weapons are unnecessary in society. If you cannot feel comfortable defending your home with a 15-shot clip in a handgun, frankly, then an assault rifle won't do you any more good because you are unqualified to handle one in the first place, probably. Mr. Scalise, shot and almost killed on a baseball field, is still adamant about no restrictions. Wait and see on the bump stock.
You really can't argue with the Senator when she says that mass shooting occur everywhere in this country; it's a literal truth - movie theaters, country music festivals, night clubs, churches, colleges, high schools, office buildings, elementary schools... elementary schools.
NBC News' Kristen Welker is right when she said the gun legislation debate was settled after Newtown. If no legislative was taken then after the senseless murder of twenty children and six adults then nothing will be done. Ugh, a gut punch. Representing the conservative viewpoint on the panel, Hugh Hewitt stated that gun regulations are no unconstitutional or that you should be able to identify unusual heavy purchasing in a short time, i.e. raise a red flag. Does Mr. Hewitt understand that he's way to the left of where the practical whole of the Republican party is on this?
And the White House won't lead on guns... Let's face it, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the president is a "f**king moron." In his press conference earlier this week, Sec. Tillerson didn't give it the 'dignity' of a response. Eesh. To be fair, expectations that the president would pick up the issue in a serious way is to betray his base on such a root level that it makes a health care deal with Democrats almost forgivable.
Even as this is being written, the president and retiring Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) are battling it out on social media. Senator Corker said that Rex Tillerson (Sec. of State), John Kelly (Chief of Staff) and John Mattis (Sec. of Def.) are the only once standing in the way of chaos, referring to Mr. Trump's leadership. Predictably the president responded the Mr. Corker had no guts for not running for reelection. Mr. Corker: It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Serious discussions or legislation on guns? Not likely.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Carol Lee, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Mick Mulvaney is despicable as a budget director. As a congressman all he did was rail against any kind of spending. Even on today's program he defended denying funding for the Hurricane Sandy rebuild in New Jersey and New York. He then, today, had the gall to say that the government is going to run deficits to facilitate growth. If things go as planned this further deficit spending will be incurred because of a huge tax cut. Meanwhile, if you're Puerto Rico you're not getting any help if Mr. Mulvaney has his say. There's a man of principle for you.
Harvey Weinstein? Why should we be surprised? In every power-center industry there is always a percentage of sleaze - in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley. To be fair, it's heavily outweighed by good people on the left and the right. Good for Hugh Hewitt to say that even though he absolutely disagrees with Ron Howard or Rob Reiner politically, for example, he states that they are fine people. That's everywhere. In this instance as always go with Eugene Robinson for the most common sense - Growing up in a certain age defense? In any 'age' when was this ever appropriate? Exactly... The conspiracy of silence is probably going to play out ugly...
Oh, and for Rex Tillerson, he'll be out at the turn of the year. After the president's China trip is complete, he'll wind down his profile (unless there is a diplomatic emergency) while rumors will elevate until...
Sunday, September 17, 2017
9.17.17: It's Put Up or Shut Up Time, No One's Exempt This Week
In being non-ideological and narcissistic as many would describe, President Trump this week has left Democrats and Republicans alike to doubt his position on anything. But when you're goal is to simply get 'wins' and be liked, you're not going to commit to any position. The unfortunate but predictable result of that is nothing gets done, which is what you've seen for the first eight months of his presidency.
Ann Coulter's rhetorical question of "who doesn't want Trump impeached?" is the firebrand's way of asking, "what is this president for?" After this week, everyone is left to wonder. By impulse is no way to run the United States of America and it seems that President Trump hasn't internalized that concept. As far as other conservative commentators are concerned (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al), NBC's Katy Tur who just wrote a book about her experience on the Trump campaign said that the Trump supporter (apparently a new political party according to Chuck Todd, not really) don't even listen to those people. At least they have that going for them.
But the Trump supporter is to the right of the right, the "if I don't like the game, I'm taking the ball and going home" crowd if you will, and what the president showed glimpses of is that he may not be their guy. Mr. Trump plays to the crowd he's in front of, and now conservative commentators are realizing that he really was just playing. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin gave the most succinct insight that only a presidential historian could, which was that Mr. Trump has "lost his mojo."
What is simply inexplicable is how Christian conservatives, white evangelicals can give the president a pass on the president's behavior, statements (past and present) and personal transgressions. David Brody from the Christian Broadcasting Network, who has his finger on the pulse of these things, explained that white evangelicals feel that Mr. Trump is their cultural warrior. Really? The perception is that Mr. Trump is playing to an unconscious (or maybe conscious) xenophobia. If that's a too 'loaded' explanation, that's only one of two possibilities; the other being in opposition to abortion. If the president ever waffles on that, he's lose all that support - the ultimate deal breaker.
And speaking of Christians, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) didn't have much Christian charity to show toward the DREAMers, some of whom have served in the military. I guess he didn't ask about that either in his time in the service, just like he punted on the issue of transgender individuals being allowed to serve. As has been mentioned in this column previously, DACA recipients are Americans, for all intent and purpose, and Mr. Cotton is certainly indifferent to the human element of the issue. The Arkansas senator threw out the phrase "unlimited chain migration," which pushes all the right wing buttons creating another 'immigration boogie' suggesting that this is what is going on now; it's unlimited and endless.
And not to leave out any chastising for the other side, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he would run as a Democrat or Independent. He also punted, on this question, and the problem is that if you want to tell the Democratic party what to do and sometimes, frankly, lecture them on how they should do things, then he should get invested and join the party. Because giving yourself the easy out when you have to backtrack on something or even nuance it by saying, "Oh, well I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent," is sorry to say a little chickenshit. Mr. Sanders, what's it going to be. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Mr. Sanders that Medicare for all is a good plan and you could incrementally integrate it by lowering the requirement age over a series of time periods to absorb cost adjustments. However, what Mr. Sanders wants to do, essentially, is take the profit motive out of health care. And that's not necessarily bad per se, just incredibly difficult.
In the time being, Congress should be working on prescription drug prices down because its behavior on this issue has been disgraceful. Congress enables the pharmaceutical companies to get millions upon millions of Americans on one medication or another, also addictive and deadly (opiates), and then gauge those same Americans on the price. Now that I think of it, that's actually drug dealing, and through campaign contributions, politicians get a cut of that. Too much to think about.
The program also covered North Korea and Chuck Todd's trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands, the latter of which you should go online and watch again, however I wanted to keep the column to the president's actions over the week and the interviews with the respective senators, but no one is exempt this week. On all sides, Americans of all stripes are saying the same thing, "Put up or shut up."
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Katy Tur, NBC News; Alex Cardenas, fmr. president of the American Conservatives Union; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
Ann Coulter's rhetorical question of "who doesn't want Trump impeached?" is the firebrand's way of asking, "what is this president for?" After this week, everyone is left to wonder. By impulse is no way to run the United States of America and it seems that President Trump hasn't internalized that concept. As far as other conservative commentators are concerned (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al), NBC's Katy Tur who just wrote a book about her experience on the Trump campaign said that the Trump supporter (apparently a new political party according to Chuck Todd, not really) don't even listen to those people. At least they have that going for them.
But the Trump supporter is to the right of the right, the "if I don't like the game, I'm taking the ball and going home" crowd if you will, and what the president showed glimpses of is that he may not be their guy. Mr. Trump plays to the crowd he's in front of, and now conservative commentators are realizing that he really was just playing. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin gave the most succinct insight that only a presidential historian could, which was that Mr. Trump has "lost his mojo."
What is simply inexplicable is how Christian conservatives, white evangelicals can give the president a pass on the president's behavior, statements (past and present) and personal transgressions. David Brody from the Christian Broadcasting Network, who has his finger on the pulse of these things, explained that white evangelicals feel that Mr. Trump is their cultural warrior. Really? The perception is that Mr. Trump is playing to an unconscious (or maybe conscious) xenophobia. If that's a too 'loaded' explanation, that's only one of two possibilities; the other being in opposition to abortion. If the president ever waffles on that, he's lose all that support - the ultimate deal breaker.
And speaking of Christians, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) didn't have much Christian charity to show toward the DREAMers, some of whom have served in the military. I guess he didn't ask about that either in his time in the service, just like he punted on the issue of transgender individuals being allowed to serve. As has been mentioned in this column previously, DACA recipients are Americans, for all intent and purpose, and Mr. Cotton is certainly indifferent to the human element of the issue. The Arkansas senator threw out the phrase "unlimited chain migration," which pushes all the right wing buttons creating another 'immigration boogie' suggesting that this is what is going on now; it's unlimited and endless.
And not to leave out any chastising for the other side, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he would run as a Democrat or Independent. He also punted, on this question, and the problem is that if you want to tell the Democratic party what to do and sometimes, frankly, lecture them on how they should do things, then he should get invested and join the party. Because giving yourself the easy out when you have to backtrack on something or even nuance it by saying, "Oh, well I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent," is sorry to say a little chickenshit. Mr. Sanders, what's it going to be. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Mr. Sanders that Medicare for all is a good plan and you could incrementally integrate it by lowering the requirement age over a series of time periods to absorb cost adjustments. However, what Mr. Sanders wants to do, essentially, is take the profit motive out of health care. And that's not necessarily bad per se, just incredibly difficult.
In the time being, Congress should be working on prescription drug prices down because its behavior on this issue has been disgraceful. Congress enables the pharmaceutical companies to get millions upon millions of Americans on one medication or another, also addictive and deadly (opiates), and then gauge those same Americans on the price. Now that I think of it, that's actually drug dealing, and through campaign contributions, politicians get a cut of that. Too much to think about.
***
The program also covered North Korea and Chuck Todd's trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands, the latter of which you should go online and watch again, however I wanted to keep the column to the president's actions over the week and the interviews with the respective senators, but no one is exempt this week. On all sides, Americans of all stripes are saying the same thing, "Put up or shut up."
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Katy Tur, NBC News; Alex Cardenas, fmr. president of the American Conservatives Union; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
Sunday, September 10, 2017
9.10.17: Irma Preempts Everything, Covers Everyone
"Meet The Press" has been preempted today due to wall-to-wall coverage of Hurricane Irma, for which we'll say that we hope everyone in the path of the storm comes out the other side of it safely, of course. As it has been said many times, in the midst of a natural disaster there is no politics, no red nor blue, just United States and Americans helping one another.
With that said, such comprehensive storm coverage gives cover to many things, namely special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and the fact that he's seeking to interview six White House staffers, current and former. Normally, this would be huge news but fortunately for Mr. Mueller, the general news media is preoccupied. The most high profile current staffer is interim White House Communications Director Hope Hicks. Former W.H. Press Secretary Sean Spicer and fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus are also on Mr. Mueller's list of interviewees.
The special counsel's interest in these individuals centers around Donald Trump Jr.'s June 2016 meeting with Russian representatives but more specifically who was privy to the discussion about Mr. Trump Jr.'s official statement, crafted by the White House staff on board Air Force One on the way back from the G20 Summit. Just the factual description of the above scenario invites so many obvious questions with potentially damaging answers. For example, did you know about the meeting? Did the president know about this meeting? Why did the White House craft the statement and who was involved in its drafting? Not good stuff, like that... Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said that bungled collusion is still collusion, so are the actions on board Air Force One obstruction?
Of said individuals, the one the administration has to worry about the most, this column believes, is fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Ms. Hicks has been with the president too long, years before he even decided to run, loyal and as close to being family without actually being family. But Mr. Priebus is a different story...
For every situation in question, he was present and who knows at this point how Mr. Priebus is feeling about the president and the administration, which in other words is to question his degree of loyalty to the president at this point in time. As fmr. Chairman of the RNC, Mr. Priebus is a party guy and he knows full well what actions cross the line and which ones do not. But also being a party guy means that ultimately that's where he'll put his faith. Let's face it, he got the hard boot from the White House so the loyalty wasn't reciprocated and he won't end up needing a pardon from the president.
A bit of conjecture there, for sure but the point is that this is a serious development in this investigation, and its not getting crazy coverage, which all told is a good thing.
The other thing that we need to touch on, and yes we have to go there, is the fact of atmospheric change which is causing climate occurrences like droughts and hurricanes, etc. to be much more intense. Even if you don't believe that man's activities are having an effective on the climate changing (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence), we can all agree that these extreme weather events happen and are occurring with more frequency so can't we at least get together on climate event prevention and build and zone cities to accommodate the facts of devastation on the ground?
With that said, such comprehensive storm coverage gives cover to many things, namely special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and the fact that he's seeking to interview six White House staffers, current and former. Normally, this would be huge news but fortunately for Mr. Mueller, the general news media is preoccupied. The most high profile current staffer is interim White House Communications Director Hope Hicks. Former W.H. Press Secretary Sean Spicer and fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus are also on Mr. Mueller's list of interviewees.
The special counsel's interest in these individuals centers around Donald Trump Jr.'s June 2016 meeting with Russian representatives but more specifically who was privy to the discussion about Mr. Trump Jr.'s official statement, crafted by the White House staff on board Air Force One on the way back from the G20 Summit. Just the factual description of the above scenario invites so many obvious questions with potentially damaging answers. For example, did you know about the meeting? Did the president know about this meeting? Why did the White House craft the statement and who was involved in its drafting? Not good stuff, like that... Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said that bungled collusion is still collusion, so are the actions on board Air Force One obstruction?
Of said individuals, the one the administration has to worry about the most, this column believes, is fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Ms. Hicks has been with the president too long, years before he even decided to run, loyal and as close to being family without actually being family. But Mr. Priebus is a different story...
For every situation in question, he was present and who knows at this point how Mr. Priebus is feeling about the president and the administration, which in other words is to question his degree of loyalty to the president at this point in time. As fmr. Chairman of the RNC, Mr. Priebus is a party guy and he knows full well what actions cross the line and which ones do not. But also being a party guy means that ultimately that's where he'll put his faith. Let's face it, he got the hard boot from the White House so the loyalty wasn't reciprocated and he won't end up needing a pardon from the president.
A bit of conjecture there, for sure but the point is that this is a serious development in this investigation, and its not getting crazy coverage, which all told is a good thing.
The other thing that we need to touch on, and yes we have to go there, is the fact of atmospheric change which is causing climate occurrences like droughts and hurricanes, etc. to be much more intense. Even if you don't believe that man's activities are having an effective on the climate changing (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence), we can all agree that these extreme weather events happen and are occurring with more frequency so can't we at least get together on climate event prevention and build and zone cities to accommodate the facts of devastation on the ground?
Sunday, September 03, 2017
9.3.17: The Heat Into The Fall, The President's August and What It Means for September
The challenges for President Trump have arrived and his tumultuous month of August lingering into these beginning days of September with the aftermath of the tragic Hurricane Harvey and as reported this morning a new nuclear test in North Korea, one that registered a 6.3 on the Richter Scale.
As the Sylvester Turner, Mayor of Houston, stated it's all about housing in terms of the relief and aid for the communities. Secondarily, he said that the removal of debris was essential to prevent any public health crisis. So far, the president has responded well to the disaster and has signaled an immediate injection of $7.8 billion for hurricane relief. It's a start but realistically, that amount is only half of the tip of the iceberg of monetary resources that it's going to take to rebuild southeast Texas.
With the limited amount of congressional working days in September and funding for hurricane relief the first order of business on the domestic front and the North Korean threats on the foreign policy end, the administration's legislative agenda is all but dead. With the suggestion that Hurricane Harvey relief funds be tied to the raising of the debt ceiling will length the debate and simply create more uncertainty with the best to hope for is a continuing resolution to fund the government. Not to mention that Mr. Trump called out and picked fights with a number of Republican legislators this past month, number one on that list being the Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). This comes after the president isolating himself with an abhorrent press conference in the wake of Charlotttesville, an alternative-universe like rally in Phoenix where he dissed both of the state's Republican senators, and then a pardon for an unrepentant bigoted sheriff who defied the rule of law. Now, senators like John McCain (R-AZ) want to stick it in the president's eye, so to speak.
The president is still talking about health care, which will not be taken up again by Congress and there just isn't the legislative time to get tax reform done, with everything else on the table. Nothing legislatively is going to get done in this next session. Further complicating the domestic agenda is the president's coming Tuesday decision on what to do about DACA - the deferred action on childhood arrivals.
Many conservative members of Congress has urged the president not to rescind the executive order (DACA), but as today's panel discussed, doing away with DACA doesn't play well with Mr. Trump's base. The hard line attorney general Jeff Sessions is advocating for the order's cancellation. There was also conjecture from the panel that the president would kick it to Congress to decide what to do, which would be the politically logical thing to do, as Princeton professor Eddie Glaude pointed out, but he seemed to think that because it's Mr. Trump, conventional political logic doesn't apply. One can only speculate, but rescinding DACA would also implement harsh deportation policy on places particularly like southeast Texas, which would be a slap in the face by the president to that community if he rescinded the order now. Bottom line is: These 800,000 'Dreamer' kids are Americans and should be made so.
And while Mr. Trump was throwing cold water on Congressional relations in August, it was fire and fury everywhere else. In addition to inflaming racial divisions with irresponsible comments, "fire and fury" was the phrase that the president used as a response to missile tests by North Korea. It's worth noting a statistic that Chuck Todd outlined: Kim Jung Il conducted 16 missile tests in his entire time in power, and his son Kim Jung Un has had 18 since Mr. Trump became president. It's quite obvious that the young dictator is testing the ill-tempered president.
Mr. Trump's terrible August, frankly, has set him up well for a productive September and despite outside mitigating issues such as the Russian investigation, can the president overcome all of these challenges to simply show that he can be competent in the job?
September is going to be the most significant month of his presidency so far.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Susan Page, USA Today; Eddie Glaude, Princeton University; Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon
As the Sylvester Turner, Mayor of Houston, stated it's all about housing in terms of the relief and aid for the communities. Secondarily, he said that the removal of debris was essential to prevent any public health crisis. So far, the president has responded well to the disaster and has signaled an immediate injection of $7.8 billion for hurricane relief. It's a start but realistically, that amount is only half of the tip of the iceberg of monetary resources that it's going to take to rebuild southeast Texas.
With the limited amount of congressional working days in September and funding for hurricane relief the first order of business on the domestic front and the North Korean threats on the foreign policy end, the administration's legislative agenda is all but dead. With the suggestion that Hurricane Harvey relief funds be tied to the raising of the debt ceiling will length the debate and simply create more uncertainty with the best to hope for is a continuing resolution to fund the government. Not to mention that Mr. Trump called out and picked fights with a number of Republican legislators this past month, number one on that list being the Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). This comes after the president isolating himself with an abhorrent press conference in the wake of Charlotttesville, an alternative-universe like rally in Phoenix where he dissed both of the state's Republican senators, and then a pardon for an unrepentant bigoted sheriff who defied the rule of law. Now, senators like John McCain (R-AZ) want to stick it in the president's eye, so to speak.
The president is still talking about health care, which will not be taken up again by Congress and there just isn't the legislative time to get tax reform done, with everything else on the table. Nothing legislatively is going to get done in this next session. Further complicating the domestic agenda is the president's coming Tuesday decision on what to do about DACA - the deferred action on childhood arrivals.
Many conservative members of Congress has urged the president not to rescind the executive order (DACA), but as today's panel discussed, doing away with DACA doesn't play well with Mr. Trump's base. The hard line attorney general Jeff Sessions is advocating for the order's cancellation. There was also conjecture from the panel that the president would kick it to Congress to decide what to do, which would be the politically logical thing to do, as Princeton professor Eddie Glaude pointed out, but he seemed to think that because it's Mr. Trump, conventional political logic doesn't apply. One can only speculate, but rescinding DACA would also implement harsh deportation policy on places particularly like southeast Texas, which would be a slap in the face by the president to that community if he rescinded the order now. Bottom line is: These 800,000 'Dreamer' kids are Americans and should be made so.
And while Mr. Trump was throwing cold water on Congressional relations in August, it was fire and fury everywhere else. In addition to inflaming racial divisions with irresponsible comments, "fire and fury" was the phrase that the president used as a response to missile tests by North Korea. It's worth noting a statistic that Chuck Todd outlined: Kim Jung Il conducted 16 missile tests in his entire time in power, and his son Kim Jung Un has had 18 since Mr. Trump became president. It's quite obvious that the young dictator is testing the ill-tempered president.
Mr. Trump's terrible August, frankly, has set him up well for a productive September and despite outside mitigating issues such as the Russian investigation, can the president overcome all of these challenges to simply show that he can be competent in the job?
September is going to be the most significant month of his presidency so far.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Susan Page, USA Today; Eddie Glaude, Princeton University; Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon
Sunday, August 20, 2017
8.20.17: Is There Any Regaining Of A Moral Center?
Today's commendable edition of "Meet The Press" offered insightful perspectives from every guest and panelist. The down side is that while generous in their means to inform, alas it all falls to the wayside and no one listens because it all comes back to the only individual that matters in this entire conversation and that is Mr. Donald Trump.
The overriding question in discussion of the president is whether or not he lost his moral authority this week, and if so, can he regain it?
To quote The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan and The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson respectively, "No" and "no." Ms. Noonan explained that you can not lose something that you never had as a candidate nor as president. Mr. Robinson does not see how he regains it due to the lack of any kind of moral center, nor does Julius Krein, editor of the American Affairs blog, on whom there are more comments to come in a moment. "Disastrously amoral," is the phrase that Mr. Robinson used. But as fmr. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) explained, Mr. Trump never understood the magnitude of what it meant to be president and Mr. Trump, by his words, seems to have decided that he will only be the president of red America, as Chuck Todd noted, which in and of itself is obviously problematic for the nation.
Mr. Trump, indeed, is not the calm in the center of the storm, as Peggy Noonan opined as how the president should conduct himself amidst such tragedies as Charlottesville, and once again its all about the president. One of things that people forget is that in order to be good president, let alone a great one, is to be able to show humility in the face of humanity, like Eugene Robinson noted about President Reagan's speech (that Peggy Noonan wrote) when the Challenger exploded. Mr. Trump has not shown himself to have this quality in the slightest, at least not publicly. This is further evidence that he could never regain or achieve a moral authority. But then again, according to editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes, the president is happy with the position he's taken.
The president called some of the protesters who opposed the removal of the General Lee statue "very fine people," and explained that they weren't all neo-Nazis, during his press conference this week. That's what he really thinks and by that fact all his credibility as a voice of reason and morality is lost, which again keeping sight of the larger fact that it does none of us any good. Despite agreeing with fmr. congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD) that the country has maintained its moral center, it's difficult to succeed as a country with a president not holding it as well.
Now, it's interesting Mr. Krein who once strongly supported Donald Trump and his ideas and who now is staunchly in opposition to the president, especially on a character basis, is getting so much attention. When asked by Chuck Todd if there was any way of getting him back into the fold, a flat 'no' was Mr. Krein's response. "They torched it," (no pun intended) he said. To that, one can only ask, "Where was your head to begin with?" From the first day of Mr. Trump's campaign when he ridiculously called out Mexicans as rapists, you knew where he stood on race. So when Mr. Krein says that Charlottesville was the last straw, I would reply that he's a day late and twenty dollars short.
More directly in terms of what to do about white supremacists and neo-Nazis, Mark Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook explained that violence is necessary to rid the country of this scourge because its so vastly different from other forms violence. Conversely, Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center said that that was not the answer at all. He said that the most effective way to combat hate speech is with even more speech [in opposition]. It would be a mistake to see these two views on a sliding scale, the violence isn't the answer, but many times speech is not enough. So what to do?
Enter civil right leader, fmr. UN ambassador, fmr. mayor of Atlanta Andrew Young who could not bring himself to completely condemn white supremacists. (The magnanimous nature of this man is staggering, from which we could all learn.) Instead, he talked about the poverty of these people and how they should unjustly be happy with a black-lung job and not health care, for example. He explained that these people needed help as well. Wow.
Which brings us to this crazy notion... Mr. Trump has decimated his credibility as president with his own words, there is little doubt. However... There are still deeds. In the spirit of Mr. Young, the president could turn the health care debate on its head and decide on Medicare for all would be the way to go, giving millions of working poor health care. As implausible as it would be, it is only such as deed that would begin to scrub away the words.
Panel: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Donna Edwards, fmr. Congresswoman (D-MD); Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Stephen Hayes, The Weekly Standard
The overriding question in discussion of the president is whether or not he lost his moral authority this week, and if so, can he regain it?
To quote The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan and The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson respectively, "No" and "no." Ms. Noonan explained that you can not lose something that you never had as a candidate nor as president. Mr. Robinson does not see how he regains it due to the lack of any kind of moral center, nor does Julius Krein, editor of the American Affairs blog, on whom there are more comments to come in a moment. "Disastrously amoral," is the phrase that Mr. Robinson used. But as fmr. Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) explained, Mr. Trump never understood the magnitude of what it meant to be president and Mr. Trump, by his words, seems to have decided that he will only be the president of red America, as Chuck Todd noted, which in and of itself is obviously problematic for the nation.
Mr. Trump, indeed, is not the calm in the center of the storm, as Peggy Noonan opined as how the president should conduct himself amidst such tragedies as Charlottesville, and once again its all about the president. One of things that people forget is that in order to be good president, let alone a great one, is to be able to show humility in the face of humanity, like Eugene Robinson noted about President Reagan's speech (that Peggy Noonan wrote) when the Challenger exploded. Mr. Trump has not shown himself to have this quality in the slightest, at least not publicly. This is further evidence that he could never regain or achieve a moral authority. But then again, according to editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes, the president is happy with the position he's taken.
The president called some of the protesters who opposed the removal of the General Lee statue "very fine people," and explained that they weren't all neo-Nazis, during his press conference this week. That's what he really thinks and by that fact all his credibility as a voice of reason and morality is lost, which again keeping sight of the larger fact that it does none of us any good. Despite agreeing with fmr. congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD) that the country has maintained its moral center, it's difficult to succeed as a country with a president not holding it as well.
Now, it's interesting Mr. Krein who once strongly supported Donald Trump and his ideas and who now is staunchly in opposition to the president, especially on a character basis, is getting so much attention. When asked by Chuck Todd if there was any way of getting him back into the fold, a flat 'no' was Mr. Krein's response. "They torched it," (no pun intended) he said. To that, one can only ask, "Where was your head to begin with?" From the first day of Mr. Trump's campaign when he ridiculously called out Mexicans as rapists, you knew where he stood on race. So when Mr. Krein says that Charlottesville was the last straw, I would reply that he's a day late and twenty dollars short.
More directly in terms of what to do about white supremacists and neo-Nazis, Mark Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook explained that violence is necessary to rid the country of this scourge because its so vastly different from other forms violence. Conversely, Richard Cohen of the Southern Poverty Law Center said that that was not the answer at all. He said that the most effective way to combat hate speech is with even more speech [in opposition]. It would be a mistake to see these two views on a sliding scale, the violence isn't the answer, but many times speech is not enough. So what to do?
Enter civil right leader, fmr. UN ambassador, fmr. mayor of Atlanta Andrew Young who could not bring himself to completely condemn white supremacists. (The magnanimous nature of this man is staggering, from which we could all learn.) Instead, he talked about the poverty of these people and how they should unjustly be happy with a black-lung job and not health care, for example. He explained that these people needed help as well. Wow.
Which brings us to this crazy notion... Mr. Trump has decimated his credibility as president with his own words, there is little doubt. However... There are still deeds. In the spirit of Mr. Young, the president could turn the health care debate on its head and decide on Medicare for all would be the way to go, giving millions of working poor health care. As implausible as it would be, it is only such as deed that would begin to scrub away the words.
Panel: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Donna Edwards, fmr. Congresswoman (D-MD); Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Stephen Hayes, The Weekly Standard
Sunday, August 13, 2017
8.13.17: Trump's Failure To Lead Scores A Hat-Trick
The title of this week's post became a no-brainer when three-quarters of the way through the program Chuck Todd reminded viewers that the president also picked a fight with Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
That, the icing before the cake, along with the president's profoundly unwise bellicose statements on North Korea and his fecklessness shown from his no-statement on the violence in Charlottesville, VA have sealed off any doubt that Mr. Trump has drowned under the turbulent water that is the presidency and is woefully ill-suited to lead this country.
However, it's not surprising in the least, as much as it was inevitable to see. The president not specifically condemning white supremacists for the tragic violence in Charlottesville may finally be the straws that permanently pry open the eyes of Republicans in Congress.
What Mr. Trump never came around to comprehending was that as President of The United States of America, you have to be able to speak to all Americans, even the ones who didn't vote for you. His campaign whistled to and cultivated the support of the alt-right through its extreme immigration initiatives - words and deeds from Mr. Trump himself which are now obviously a big part of his presidency.
Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists fully armed in paramilitary gear (thanks National Rifle Association for pointless open carry laws) march on a town in Virginia to rally around a statue of Robert E. Lee, a general in the Confederacy. And the president doesn't specifically condemn that? President Abraham Lincoln referred to the Confederacy as rebels... traitors to the principles of the Constitution that all men are created equal and deserve equal justice under the law, hence traitors against their country because their cause was to uphold slavery. Couldn't agree more with that view. Americans have fought and died against the forces of Nazism and Racism, but Mr. Trump has nothing to say about it with the exception of a platitude that gives white supremacists a pass.
A failure to lead the country.
The fmr. Joint Chief of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen said that Mr. Trump's rhetoric takes away his maneuvering options, and North Korea knowing that the U.S. will not take military action without suffering the "unintentional consequences," as Adm. Mullen described them, called Mr. Trump's bluff making additional threats.
Only a political wing-nut would use words like "fire and fury" or "locked and loaded" referring to our military, not the president of the United States. Period, end of discussion. (The word "shrewd" never comes up when describing Mr. Trump.)
Mr. Trump's statements put two of our closest allies in more immediate peril, ramping up an international crisis that Adm. Mullen assessed could get out of control fast.
A failure to lead the world.
The National Review's Rich Lowry said that Mr. Trump need the Republican Congress and Mitch McConnell for "scandal control," which would be hysterical if it weren't so true. As Joy-Ann Reid reminded us, the Senate majority leader's wife is in Mr. Trump's cabinet - Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao. But so what, Senator McConnell couldn't get the votes on health care. He couldn't get a win for Trump which makes him a loser, as how our simplified political math is trending right now. The Republican party, especially House members, is all Mr. Trump has right now. He's been losing pieces one at a time in the Senate but forfeiting the most strategically important one is politically shortsighted to say the least. And the Senate clearly supports McConnell.
Failure to lead his party; a triple fail.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Amy Walter, the Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times
Other things... just to be sure...
Adm. Mullen said that Kim Jung Un is not a rational actor.
As Chuck Todd and the panel agreed, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Presidential Senior Advisor Steven Bannon can NOT work together. One is going to have to go, which will be the most telling choice the Administration makes. Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka have no place in The White House.
Helene Cooper is sick of hearing that taking down the statues of Robert E. Lee and such people might make anger some people, to which she replied, "Make them angry." Amen to that.
That, the icing before the cake, along with the president's profoundly unwise bellicose statements on North Korea and his fecklessness shown from his no-statement on the violence in Charlottesville, VA have sealed off any doubt that Mr. Trump has drowned under the turbulent water that is the presidency and is woefully ill-suited to lead this country.
However, it's not surprising in the least, as much as it was inevitable to see. The president not specifically condemning white supremacists for the tragic violence in Charlottesville may finally be the straws that permanently pry open the eyes of Republicans in Congress.
What Mr. Trump never came around to comprehending was that as President of The United States of America, you have to be able to speak to all Americans, even the ones who didn't vote for you. His campaign whistled to and cultivated the support of the alt-right through its extreme immigration initiatives - words and deeds from Mr. Trump himself which are now obviously a big part of his presidency.
Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists fully armed in paramilitary gear (thanks National Rifle Association for pointless open carry laws) march on a town in Virginia to rally around a statue of Robert E. Lee, a general in the Confederacy. And the president doesn't specifically condemn that? President Abraham Lincoln referred to the Confederacy as rebels... traitors to the principles of the Constitution that all men are created equal and deserve equal justice under the law, hence traitors against their country because their cause was to uphold slavery. Couldn't agree more with that view. Americans have fought and died against the forces of Nazism and Racism, but Mr. Trump has nothing to say about it with the exception of a platitude that gives white supremacists a pass.
A failure to lead the country.
The fmr. Joint Chief of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen said that Mr. Trump's rhetoric takes away his maneuvering options, and North Korea knowing that the U.S. will not take military action without suffering the "unintentional consequences," as Adm. Mullen described them, called Mr. Trump's bluff making additional threats.
Only a political wing-nut would use words like "fire and fury" or "locked and loaded" referring to our military, not the president of the United States. Period, end of discussion. (The word "shrewd" never comes up when describing Mr. Trump.)
Mr. Trump's statements put two of our closest allies in more immediate peril, ramping up an international crisis that Adm. Mullen assessed could get out of control fast.
A failure to lead the world.
The National Review's Rich Lowry said that Mr. Trump need the Republican Congress and Mitch McConnell for "scandal control," which would be hysterical if it weren't so true. As Joy-Ann Reid reminded us, the Senate majority leader's wife is in Mr. Trump's cabinet - Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao. But so what, Senator McConnell couldn't get the votes on health care. He couldn't get a win for Trump which makes him a loser, as how our simplified political math is trending right now. The Republican party, especially House members, is all Mr. Trump has right now. He's been losing pieces one at a time in the Senate but forfeiting the most strategically important one is politically shortsighted to say the least. And the Senate clearly supports McConnell.
Failure to lead his party; a triple fail.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Amy Walter, the Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times
Other things... just to be sure...
Adm. Mullen said that Kim Jung Un is not a rational actor.
As Chuck Todd and the panel agreed, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Presidential Senior Advisor Steven Bannon can NOT work together. One is going to have to go, which will be the most telling choice the Administration makes. Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka have no place in The White House.
Helene Cooper is sick of hearing that taking down the statues of Robert E. Lee and such people might make anger some people, to which she replied, "Make them angry." Amen to that.
Sunday, August 06, 2017
8.6.17: The 'And' Versus The 'Or'
It wasn't so much of a special edition of "Meet The Press" this week as it was an enhanced or focused one, but nonetheless the discussion throughout dealt with the state of our broken politics in the United States.
Fittingly, the two guests - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) - are individuals who seek the middle ground in policy and political discourse, the middle meaning more civil in the case of the latter. The discourse is where it all starts, as president of DEMOS Heather McGhee put it. That's true, but despite the rest of the panel dismissing Andrea Mitchell's assessment that it's all about the money, she's correct.
The And vs. The Or
Chuck Todd commented that sometimes you have to compromise, but actually politics is the art of compromising all the time - where no one gets everything they want but walk away satisfied with what they did get. As said before in this column, think of the United States has a huge, fully equipped cruise ship that's always moving forward. To always be moving in a positive direct you sometimes have to tack to right and sometimes to the left. However, if you turn too hard and too fast in either direction, you tip the boat over and take all of us down. It's just the way it is and the checks and balances of the government pretty much ensure that.
That's the And.
As for the Or...
Dan Balz of The Washington Post explained that there is a full-time political industry; that fact alone - that there is an industry - was noted by the panel. However, it's designed to demonize the other side instead of presenting ideas or a vision for the future, as Governor Brown described, a vision that we now know the Republicans don't have and that Democrats still need to find. Senator Flake said it himself, that Republicans were too busy trying to make President Obama a one-term president and not enough time constructing a ideological and legislative agenda.
To prompt the 'End Game' segment, Mr. Todd teased that the panel would take the problem with real solutions, but the problem was that no one could really come up with one. Instantly, it's evident by any conservation of this type that everyone knows the problem and does have a constructive solution by the nature of the problem itself is so big with so much money involved that it seems beyond fixing.
Case in point...
Chuck Todd used the Texas second congressional district as an example of our divided politics and how it's swung in political direction from Democrat to Republican. But take a look at this district...
Every ten years, when the census is conducted, the party in control of the state has the opportunity to redraw the congressional map. Do you think this one was draw so that it only included politically like-minded constituents? Here's one of those solutions: If you want to make the discourse more civil and possible negate some of the monetary interests, make all the congressional districts as square as possible and this way politicians have to respond to a broader set of ideas from the people they represent. Never happen.
It was notable that Governor Brown said the demographics are trending in a non-Republican direction, and not saying in a Democratic one. The Democratic party casts a wider net in terms of being more inclusive of different ideas, it's fair to say. But this once great strength of the party has become its Achilles' heal. They can not seem to be able to coral it into a cohesive vision. "A Better Deal?" Please. How about starting with "We Have A Plan!" As for the Republicans, who traditionally have such discipline in message as one of their strengths of party, factions of thinking a congealing and calcifying into three camps, as the panel explained. There's the Ted Cruz wing - the hardcore right wing, the Marco Rubio more inclusive or moderate group, and then there's the cult of personality Trump Republican, who brings with it a monkey wrench.
That last part someone could say disrespects supports of the president, but the fact is that this administration outside of an appointment, executive orders, and a bill that was veto-proof hasn't gotten much done. Before going on vacation, President Trump held a campaign-style rally in West Virginia, what Andrea Mitchell called 'ground-zero' for his support and where the governor, given that political reality, notably switched from Democrat to Republican. Deference should be given to these people and it's important to understand how they feel, most certainly, but... With all due respect to West Virginia, it should not be seen as the guiding example on how to move the United States forward when California has over 39 million people and is the world's sixth largest economy.
This brings to mind that unfortunate reality of the president being unwilling to reach out to Americans who don't see eye to eye with him - to lead us all, a president's responsibility after all. The optimistic view is that this presidential leadership deficit provokes people in both parties to step up, like Senator Flake, and call for some bi-partisanship instead of zero-sum, the and vs. or.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, president of DEMOS; David French, The National Review; Dan Balz, The Washington Post
Fittingly, the two guests - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) - are individuals who seek the middle ground in policy and political discourse, the middle meaning more civil in the case of the latter. The discourse is where it all starts, as president of DEMOS Heather McGhee put it. That's true, but despite the rest of the panel dismissing Andrea Mitchell's assessment that it's all about the money, she's correct.
The And vs. The Or
Chuck Todd commented that sometimes you have to compromise, but actually politics is the art of compromising all the time - where no one gets everything they want but walk away satisfied with what they did get. As said before in this column, think of the United States has a huge, fully equipped cruise ship that's always moving forward. To always be moving in a positive direct you sometimes have to tack to right and sometimes to the left. However, if you turn too hard and too fast in either direction, you tip the boat over and take all of us down. It's just the way it is and the checks and balances of the government pretty much ensure that.
That's the And.
As for the Or...
Dan Balz of The Washington Post explained that there is a full-time political industry; that fact alone - that there is an industry - was noted by the panel. However, it's designed to demonize the other side instead of presenting ideas or a vision for the future, as Governor Brown described, a vision that we now know the Republicans don't have and that Democrats still need to find. Senator Flake said it himself, that Republicans were too busy trying to make President Obama a one-term president and not enough time constructing a ideological and legislative agenda.
To prompt the 'End Game' segment, Mr. Todd teased that the panel would take the problem with real solutions, but the problem was that no one could really come up with one. Instantly, it's evident by any conservation of this type that everyone knows the problem and does have a constructive solution by the nature of the problem itself is so big with so much money involved that it seems beyond fixing.
Case in point...
Chuck Todd used the Texas second congressional district as an example of our divided politics and how it's swung in political direction from Democrat to Republican. But take a look at this district...
Every ten years, when the census is conducted, the party in control of the state has the opportunity to redraw the congressional map. Do you think this one was draw so that it only included politically like-minded constituents? Here's one of those solutions: If you want to make the discourse more civil and possible negate some of the monetary interests, make all the congressional districts as square as possible and this way politicians have to respond to a broader set of ideas from the people they represent. Never happen.
It was notable that Governor Brown said the demographics are trending in a non-Republican direction, and not saying in a Democratic one. The Democratic party casts a wider net in terms of being more inclusive of different ideas, it's fair to say. But this once great strength of the party has become its Achilles' heal. They can not seem to be able to coral it into a cohesive vision. "A Better Deal?" Please. How about starting with "We Have A Plan!" As for the Republicans, who traditionally have such discipline in message as one of their strengths of party, factions of thinking a congealing and calcifying into three camps, as the panel explained. There's the Ted Cruz wing - the hardcore right wing, the Marco Rubio more inclusive or moderate group, and then there's the cult of personality Trump Republican, who brings with it a monkey wrench.
That last part someone could say disrespects supports of the president, but the fact is that this administration outside of an appointment, executive orders, and a bill that was veto-proof hasn't gotten much done. Before going on vacation, President Trump held a campaign-style rally in West Virginia, what Andrea Mitchell called 'ground-zero' for his support and where the governor, given that political reality, notably switched from Democrat to Republican. Deference should be given to these people and it's important to understand how they feel, most certainly, but... With all due respect to West Virginia, it should not be seen as the guiding example on how to move the United States forward when California has over 39 million people and is the world's sixth largest economy.
This brings to mind that unfortunate reality of the president being unwilling to reach out to Americans who don't see eye to eye with him - to lead us all, a president's responsibility after all. The optimistic view is that this presidential leadership deficit provokes people in both parties to step up, like Senator Flake, and call for some bi-partisanship instead of zero-sum, the and vs. or.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, president of DEMOS; David French, The National Review; Dan Balz, The Washington Post
Sunday, July 30, 2017
7.30.17: Trump Is Trump and McCain is The Mav
The politics of this week leaves one only to wonder how it could become anymore bizarrely frenetic, to the detriment of us all, without digressing too much, and though not completely unpredictable, it was enough to prompt Mr. Todd among many others to describe the Republican Party as a circular firing squad while describing the presidency as chaotic. From this week's New York Post, a supportive publication for Mr. Trump for the most part, displayed this cover, comparing the White House to "Survivor."
But a reality game show, this is not - a perception that now White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly was brought in to fix, at the expense of the Scaramucci-castigated Reince Priebus. General Kelly gets sworn in tomorrow and the good news for him is that among the few people the president listens to it seems are generals; a short time will tell.
While all the infighting raged through the administration this week, major moments were taking shape in the Senate over Mitch McConnell's health care bill. To distract from a potential disaster of not fulfilling a campaign promise - repealing Obamacare - the Trump Administration, nay President Trump tweeted a new military policy banning all transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. The Pentagon directed questions about the policy back to the White House and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions back to the Pentagon. The administration's calculation was once again an example of poor political judgement. Not only did it not soften the blow of the health care vote going down in defeat in the eyes of Mr. Trump's base, but it was widely criticized by many Republican politicians, namely Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who said that transgender individuals didn't choose their sexuality but were born that way so why should we hold that against them.
But as stated at the top, the defeat of Mr. McConnell's health care bill was not entirely surprising. Before getting to that, it must be said that Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price only gives answers in pure ideological terms never with any specifics, as he once again did on today's program. It's almost as though you have to have the secretary on your program as a courtesy, but the fact is that no one is listening to his platitudes anymore. As the secretary in charge of healthcare, he needs to be specific, and he never is. So when he says that the president is "so passionate" and "serious" about health care, how are we to believe that.
President Trump said that he was "waiting with pen in hand" to sign a bill repealing Obamacare, and that was part of the problem right there - the president doesn't even realize. He was waiting. If you're so passionate and serious about health care reform, you're out there talking about it in a constructive way, not threatening the Secretary of Health and Human Services' job during a speech at the National Boy Scouts of America Jamboree.
And to make sure that the president and the Senate majority leader understand regular order and how it's done, in walks the maverick - Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) was always a no vote on McConnell's bill. The Trump Administration threatened to withhold approval on infrastructure projects in Alaska and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) punched right back at Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke by holding up hiring hearing in the Senate for his agency - pushing her to a no vote. But Senator McCain... Republican leadership and the Vice President thought they had a shot at him.
Senator McCain after having surgery and being diagnosed with brain cancer, flew back to Washington and gave a widely-praised speech on the Senate returning to regular order and working in a bipartisan way again then he cast a 'yes' vote on the motion for the Senate to proceed with debate on the ACA repeal bill. It was heartening to Mr. McConnell and Republican leadership.
But here's the rub, Mr. McConnell reversed all of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, eliminating big dark money in campaigns. It was the kind of signature piece of bipartisan legislation that Mr. McCain prided himself on. Also, for his part, Mr. Trump never apologized to the senator for his comments on not being a war hero because the then-airman was captured. Point being is that the senator felt no obligation to either man so he voted no because the bill didn't go through the standard process of the Senate; there was no adequate replacement bill; and too many people would lose coverage. When you consider all that, not so surprising.
And just on another quick note, Mr. Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski explained that new Chief of Staff Kelly will restore order to the staff so that the president's agenda can be carried out. He also warned that if the fmr. general tries to change Mr. Trump - not let Trump be Trump - then he will fail. But he went on to say that the three main agenda items for the president were the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, the building of a wall on our southern border and tax reform. The president is demanding the Senate take another vote but that's unlikely, one down. As for the border wall, among Mr. Trump's base there is enthusiasm for it, but not among anyone else, which simply just goes unsaid among conservatives. This leaves tax reform, which prompts a question of trust toward any ideas the administration would have on the law, simply for the fact that there is no real understanding on how a said idea would unfairly benefit the president due to him never releasing his tax returns. A huge sticking point.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Cornell Belcher, Democratic pollstar and author.
But a reality game show, this is not - a perception that now White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly was brought in to fix, at the expense of the Scaramucci-castigated Reince Priebus. General Kelly gets sworn in tomorrow and the good news for him is that among the few people the president listens to it seems are generals; a short time will tell.
While all the infighting raged through the administration this week, major moments were taking shape in the Senate over Mitch McConnell's health care bill. To distract from a potential disaster of not fulfilling a campaign promise - repealing Obamacare - the Trump Administration, nay President Trump tweeted a new military policy banning all transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. The Pentagon directed questions about the policy back to the White House and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions back to the Pentagon. The administration's calculation was once again an example of poor political judgement. Not only did it not soften the blow of the health care vote going down in defeat in the eyes of Mr. Trump's base, but it was widely criticized by many Republican politicians, namely Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who said that transgender individuals didn't choose their sexuality but were born that way so why should we hold that against them.
But as stated at the top, the defeat of Mr. McConnell's health care bill was not entirely surprising. Before getting to that, it must be said that Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price only gives answers in pure ideological terms never with any specifics, as he once again did on today's program. It's almost as though you have to have the secretary on your program as a courtesy, but the fact is that no one is listening to his platitudes anymore. As the secretary in charge of healthcare, he needs to be specific, and he never is. So when he says that the president is "so passionate" and "serious" about health care, how are we to believe that.
President Trump said that he was "waiting with pen in hand" to sign a bill repealing Obamacare, and that was part of the problem right there - the president doesn't even realize. He was waiting. If you're so passionate and serious about health care reform, you're out there talking about it in a constructive way, not threatening the Secretary of Health and Human Services' job during a speech at the National Boy Scouts of America Jamboree.
And to make sure that the president and the Senate majority leader understand regular order and how it's done, in walks the maverick - Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) was always a no vote on McConnell's bill. The Trump Administration threatened to withhold approval on infrastructure projects in Alaska and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) punched right back at Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke by holding up hiring hearing in the Senate for his agency - pushing her to a no vote. But Senator McCain... Republican leadership and the Vice President thought they had a shot at him.
Senator McCain after having surgery and being diagnosed with brain cancer, flew back to Washington and gave a widely-praised speech on the Senate returning to regular order and working in a bipartisan way again then he cast a 'yes' vote on the motion for the Senate to proceed with debate on the ACA repeal bill. It was heartening to Mr. McConnell and Republican leadership.
But here's the rub, Mr. McConnell reversed all of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, eliminating big dark money in campaigns. It was the kind of signature piece of bipartisan legislation that Mr. McCain prided himself on. Also, for his part, Mr. Trump never apologized to the senator for his comments on not being a war hero because the then-airman was captured. Point being is that the senator felt no obligation to either man so he voted no because the bill didn't go through the standard process of the Senate; there was no adequate replacement bill; and too many people would lose coverage. When you consider all that, not so surprising.
And just on another quick note, Mr. Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski explained that new Chief of Staff Kelly will restore order to the staff so that the president's agenda can be carried out. He also warned that if the fmr. general tries to change Mr. Trump - not let Trump be Trump - then he will fail. But he went on to say that the three main agenda items for the president were the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, the building of a wall on our southern border and tax reform. The president is demanding the Senate take another vote but that's unlikely, one down. As for the border wall, among Mr. Trump's base there is enthusiasm for it, but not among anyone else, which simply just goes unsaid among conservatives. This leaves tax reform, which prompts a question of trust toward any ideas the administration would have on the law, simply for the fact that there is no real understanding on how a said idea would unfairly benefit the president due to him never releasing his tax returns. A huge sticking point.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Cornell Belcher, Democratic pollstar and author.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
7.23.17: A Backward Win (Perspective On A Glimmer of Hope)
Today's "Meet The Press" was preempted by the broadcast of the British Open. It's a 'free' day, a Sunday during which "Meet The Press" doesn't air, so it carte blanche on topics to discuss.
Certainly the trouble is deepening for the Trump Administration with regard to Russia because of its campaign activity. A last ditch effort by the Administration in hiring Anthony Scaramucci as the new White House Communications Director, ousting Sean Spicer, is an attempt to stem the onslaught.
As said before in this column, it's really all about the money when it comes to Mr. Trump's connection to Russia. If you follow the money, which Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team are doing, we'll find that the Trump Organization is heavily leveraged by Russian oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin. It seems reasonable to conclude that this may be one of the reasons Mr. Trump never released his tax returns. Now, doing business with Russian oligarchs offers a minefield of illegalities, but it isn't illegal. As president, it's a different story all together. From Attorney General Jeff Sessions lack of recollection of meetings with the Russian ambassador, about policy and the campaign no less, when asked by Congress to Jared Kushner's, senior advisor to the president, constant revisions of his disclosure forms for a security clearance - undisclosed money and contacts - to campaign manager, Paul Manafort, having to register as a foreign agent to Donald Jr. taking meetings with Russian officials to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, it all raises serious questions. And now that all of these people have been obviously less than forthcoming, the American people have more questions. They must be answered.
That the last two individuals on the above list have cut a deal with Congress not to testify in public this week, but instead in a closed-door sessions. Probably for the best because Congress needs real answers and frankly, we don't need the show of a public hearing, in which these two people decline to answer questions while Congresspeople pontificate.
That's just a microcosm of what's going on and that's enough for one to say, enough already.
Then there is the series of fall-downs on the part of the Republicans with regard to healthcare and their repeal and replace plan. First, the Senate couldn't pass the replacement bill because of grievances from moderates (going too far on cutting Medicaid) and conservatives (not fully repealing Obamacare) alike. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) floated the introduction of a straight repeal and that didn't fly either.
This you know, but here's why the Republicans got stuck.
At the beginning of the Senate process, which really wasn't a process as much as it was Mitch McConnell locking himself in a room and coming up with a healthcare bill, the Senate leader indicated that he didn't want the Administration involved in the process, a hands off approach. Why? Because Mr. McConnell knows that the president, who would usually be out on the stump shouting about the new healthcare bill, in this case doesn't know the first thing about healthcare, has no desire to learn it, and could inadvertently undercut the Senate plan by contradicting it on the stump. In other words, Mr. McConnell thinks the president is unreliable. The president, for his part, had no interest in discussing the details of healthcare and just sat back, with 'pen in hand,' which is not leadership.
In boxing out the president, though understandable, Mr. McConnell couldn't utilize that megaphone, and since the rest of the Senate wasn't involved in the process, thus not knowing what was in the bill, they couldn't champion it either. Thus, with no one to sell it to the American people and with no other information to go on with the exception of an unfavorable CBO, it had no chance.
With all that said, here are the takeaways as to why there is a glimpse of hope from these adverse circumstances (and the point of this column).
Because of the Republicans' legislative failure on healthcare, Mr. McConnell also said that the Congress should work to sure up the markets by doing some fixes on the Affordable Care Act. Everyone agrees that the ACA, aka Obamacare, that it needs fixes and the only way to make those fixes is in a bipartisan manner. Hmmm...
Interesting, there is a bill traveling rapidly through the Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support on toughening sanctions on Russia, which also includes the caveat that the sanctions can not be rolled back by the president without Congress's consent. This could present a very problematic situation for President Trump, who opposes the bill. He may veto a Russian sanctions bill that has widespread bipartisan support. Hmmm... again.
Is it possible that this rudderless, troubled and divisive administration is bringing Republicans and Democrats together on the major issues facing our country - healthcare and Russian cyber attacks?
If so, it's a win for the American people, a backward one, but a win nonetheless. We'll take it.
Certainly the trouble is deepening for the Trump Administration with regard to Russia because of its campaign activity. A last ditch effort by the Administration in hiring Anthony Scaramucci as the new White House Communications Director, ousting Sean Spicer, is an attempt to stem the onslaught.
As said before in this column, it's really all about the money when it comes to Mr. Trump's connection to Russia. If you follow the money, which Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team are doing, we'll find that the Trump Organization is heavily leveraged by Russian oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin. It seems reasonable to conclude that this may be one of the reasons Mr. Trump never released his tax returns. Now, doing business with Russian oligarchs offers a minefield of illegalities, but it isn't illegal. As president, it's a different story all together. From Attorney General Jeff Sessions lack of recollection of meetings with the Russian ambassador, about policy and the campaign no less, when asked by Congress to Jared Kushner's, senior advisor to the president, constant revisions of his disclosure forms for a security clearance - undisclosed money and contacts - to campaign manager, Paul Manafort, having to register as a foreign agent to Donald Jr. taking meetings with Russian officials to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, it all raises serious questions. And now that all of these people have been obviously less than forthcoming, the American people have more questions. They must be answered.
That the last two individuals on the above list have cut a deal with Congress not to testify in public this week, but instead in a closed-door sessions. Probably for the best because Congress needs real answers and frankly, we don't need the show of a public hearing, in which these two people decline to answer questions while Congresspeople pontificate.
That's just a microcosm of what's going on and that's enough for one to say, enough already.
Then there is the series of fall-downs on the part of the Republicans with regard to healthcare and their repeal and replace plan. First, the Senate couldn't pass the replacement bill because of grievances from moderates (going too far on cutting Medicaid) and conservatives (not fully repealing Obamacare) alike. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) floated the introduction of a straight repeal and that didn't fly either.
This you know, but here's why the Republicans got stuck.
At the beginning of the Senate process, which really wasn't a process as much as it was Mitch McConnell locking himself in a room and coming up with a healthcare bill, the Senate leader indicated that he didn't want the Administration involved in the process, a hands off approach. Why? Because Mr. McConnell knows that the president, who would usually be out on the stump shouting about the new healthcare bill, in this case doesn't know the first thing about healthcare, has no desire to learn it, and could inadvertently undercut the Senate plan by contradicting it on the stump. In other words, Mr. McConnell thinks the president is unreliable. The president, for his part, had no interest in discussing the details of healthcare and just sat back, with 'pen in hand,' which is not leadership.
In boxing out the president, though understandable, Mr. McConnell couldn't utilize that megaphone, and since the rest of the Senate wasn't involved in the process, thus not knowing what was in the bill, they couldn't champion it either. Thus, with no one to sell it to the American people and with no other information to go on with the exception of an unfavorable CBO, it had no chance.
With all that said, here are the takeaways as to why there is a glimpse of hope from these adverse circumstances (and the point of this column).
Because of the Republicans' legislative failure on healthcare, Mr. McConnell also said that the Congress should work to sure up the markets by doing some fixes on the Affordable Care Act. Everyone agrees that the ACA, aka Obamacare, that it needs fixes and the only way to make those fixes is in a bipartisan manner. Hmmm...
Interesting, there is a bill traveling rapidly through the Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support on toughening sanctions on Russia, which also includes the caveat that the sanctions can not be rolled back by the president without Congress's consent. This could present a very problematic situation for President Trump, who opposes the bill. He may veto a Russian sanctions bill that has widespread bipartisan support. Hmmm... again.
Is it possible that this rudderless, troubled and divisive administration is bringing Republicans and Democrats together on the major issues facing our country - healthcare and Russian cyber attacks?
If so, it's a win for the American people, a backward one, but a win nonetheless. We'll take it.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
7.16.17: A Building Political Riptide for the Trump Administration
This is the week in which the tides have permanently turned on the Trump Administration and they're facing a head wind into rough seas the rest of the way. When trusted conservative voices en mass, exemplified on today's program, start calling out the administration, using the word 'lies,' then you know you have problems. And here is the American populace standing on the beach watching the mother of all riptides.
As always, if you're reading this column, we don't have to go into the particulars of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian 'operatives' - you know it happened and you know now that he lied about the participants in the meeting. With that said, it's inexplicable, and not Trump-like, that Donald Trump Jr. would release the email chain, even if The New York Times was going to publish the exchange.
In today's interview, Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the difference between collusion and collaboration, to which Sen. Warner demurred and didn't want to go into nuanced definitions.
But speaking of those conservative voices, if you want an argument for collusion, refer to Mr. Krauthammer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.9baf0fe1e13d
For Collaboration, see McClatchy DC Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html
In the second example, the McClatchey story notes that there is an investigation in the Trump campaign digital operation lead by the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and whether he had a hand in guiding a sophisticated Russian cyber campaign to target key congressional district with misinformation.
Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said that she doesn't know if there was collusion or cooperation, but that she does know that the Trump Administration are liars. Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union, explained that the meeting couldn't have happened in a void, from the Russia perspective. "The don't freelance," he said. A meeting like that had a structure and an approval process, he went on.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) really wanted no part of answering questions about Russia, though he has a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, except to say that he thought it was incorrect to personalize [read: point directly at the Trump Administration] the target of the Senate committee's investigation; it's about Russia. As health care votes loom in the Senate, the deflections away from the president are rhetorically subtle. On the part of the president's legal team, not so much. Jay Sekulow made it clear, as he likes to say, that he doesn't represent Donald Trump Jr. or the Trump Campaign, only the president, Donald Trump. And you have to give him credit in as much as he does his job well, at least representing him during interviews, in walling off the president from all the revelations about Russian interactions with advisors and family members.
But what keeps coming to mind is how all throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump and his surrogates touted how close his family is about everything so it makes one wonder if the president did know about this meeting. Surely, someone in the FBI or in Mr. Mueller's office is looking into whether that is the case. In a way, Mr. Sekulow's job has been made easier now that Donald Trump Jr. is embroiled in a deep mess because it diminishes public scrutiny in the potential of the president's direct involvement. In other words, Junior is taking some of the heat for his father, and from that more familial perspective, you get why he did it.
All of this leads to the overarching theme of today's show, which was that there is a serious void in leadership of the United States, to an unacceptable level. Today's great panel stayed on this theme for our benefit. Tom Brokaw repeatedly mentioned the serious situation the U.S. with North Korea and how the administration is putting it off. He said that the Chinese leadership doesn't even know who to talk to on our side of the aisle about it.
Mr. Cardenas explained that the last five to six votes are the toughest and that the president hasn't given any speeches on healthcare in states and districts where senators are on the fence with regard to support for the legislation. He hasn't championed the legislation at all, in part because he's so preoccupied with the Russian investigation.
Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin also observed that President Trump said that he would be very upset if they (meaning the Senate) didn't pass a health care bill, but she noted that the 'they' includes the president. That it's actually a 'we,' but clearly the Mr. Trump doesn't understand that.
And it's that leadership role that's costing us all time, and the tide is rising.
Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
As always, if you're reading this column, we don't have to go into the particulars of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian 'operatives' - you know it happened and you know now that he lied about the participants in the meeting. With that said, it's inexplicable, and not Trump-like, that Donald Trump Jr. would release the email chain, even if The New York Times was going to publish the exchange.
In today's interview, Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the difference between collusion and collaboration, to which Sen. Warner demurred and didn't want to go into nuanced definitions.
But speaking of those conservative voices, if you want an argument for collusion, refer to Mr. Krauthammer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.9baf0fe1e13d
For Collaboration, see McClatchy DC Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html
In the second example, the McClatchey story notes that there is an investigation in the Trump campaign digital operation lead by the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and whether he had a hand in guiding a sophisticated Russian cyber campaign to target key congressional district with misinformation.
Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said that she doesn't know if there was collusion or cooperation, but that she does know that the Trump Administration are liars. Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union, explained that the meeting couldn't have happened in a void, from the Russia perspective. "The don't freelance," he said. A meeting like that had a structure and an approval process, he went on.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) really wanted no part of answering questions about Russia, though he has a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, except to say that he thought it was incorrect to personalize [read: point directly at the Trump Administration] the target of the Senate committee's investigation; it's about Russia. As health care votes loom in the Senate, the deflections away from the president are rhetorically subtle. On the part of the president's legal team, not so much. Jay Sekulow made it clear, as he likes to say, that he doesn't represent Donald Trump Jr. or the Trump Campaign, only the president, Donald Trump. And you have to give him credit in as much as he does his job well, at least representing him during interviews, in walling off the president from all the revelations about Russian interactions with advisors and family members.
But what keeps coming to mind is how all throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump and his surrogates touted how close his family is about everything so it makes one wonder if the president did know about this meeting. Surely, someone in the FBI or in Mr. Mueller's office is looking into whether that is the case. In a way, Mr. Sekulow's job has been made easier now that Donald Trump Jr. is embroiled in a deep mess because it diminishes public scrutiny in the potential of the president's direct involvement. In other words, Junior is taking some of the heat for his father, and from that more familial perspective, you get why he did it.
All of this leads to the overarching theme of today's show, which was that there is a serious void in leadership of the United States, to an unacceptable level. Today's great panel stayed on this theme for our benefit. Tom Brokaw repeatedly mentioned the serious situation the U.S. with North Korea and how the administration is putting it off. He said that the Chinese leadership doesn't even know who to talk to on our side of the aisle about it.
Mr. Cardenas explained that the last five to six votes are the toughest and that the president hasn't given any speeches on healthcare in states and districts where senators are on the fence with regard to support for the legislation. He hasn't championed the legislation at all, in part because he's so preoccupied with the Russian investigation.
Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin also observed that President Trump said that he would be very upset if they (meaning the Senate) didn't pass a health care bill, but she noted that the 'they' includes the president. That it's actually a 'we,' but clearly the Mr. Trump doesn't understand that.
And it's that leadership role that's costing us all time, and the tide is rising.
Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
Sunday, July 09, 2017
7.9.17: The Trump Administration's Isolationism Going As Planned
The Executive Branch of government is the lead branch and where it goes the rest follow, and it's pretty clear that a big part of the Trump Administration's idea of America first is America solo. If the Administration wants to go it alone then everything is going as planned.
"It's an honor to be with you."
That statement that President Trump said to Russian President Vladimir Putin alone is sticking in the gut of everyone in Washington while fueling united criticism from pols Republican and Democratic alike. In the context of what has been determining by the U.S. intelligence community about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, fmr. CIA Director John Brennan called it a dishonorable statement in his interview. No one's calling him out on it.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the president's views on Russia are "undermining his entire presidency," and that he doesn't know anyone else in Washington who believes the Russians didn't meddle in the election. "I'm dumbfounded and disappointed," he said. Senator Graham explained that he agreed with the president's actions on several confrontational fronts from Afghanistan to North Korea, but called his stance on Russia a blind spot. Yes, indeed a blind spot; one brought into sharp focus by the in-over-his-head Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who explained that the U.S. president after speaking with the Russian president isn't going to relitigate the past. So basically, you attacked our democracy and denied it so we're all good now?
Also, something of note here: fmr. Director Brennan in response to an anonymous administration source being quoted that he felt like the [Obama] Administration choked, he flatly rebutted that statement explaining that he confronted his Russian counterpart. President Obama confronted Pution personally in September 2016, which Brennan said altered their behavior some.
As for the president, during his overseas trip while in Poland, he said that he wasn't sure if it was just Russia alone who meddled in the election, which projects that the president doesn't have confidence in his own intelligence agencies, but then again Mr. Trump doesn't seem to know the clear responsibilities and jurisdictions of each as evidence by his errant tweet about the CIA being authorized to operate domestically. They are not.
During the G20 meetings in Hamburg, Germany the big take away is how the other 19 countries involved isolated the United States on climate discussions, and by extension the economic opportunities that come out of those talks. On trade, the European Union cut a trade deal with Japan completely boxing out the United States. All this on top of the fact that the leaders of France and Germany among many other countries don't have the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for Russia that President Trump does.
Then the Trump Administration issues a statement of its intention to work with Russia on a joint cyber security plan. What? Senator Graham said it wasn't the dumbest idea he's ever heard, but it's pretty close. The column respectfully disagrees, that is the dumbest idea ever presented by an Administration.
Or there's Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) tweet:
On the home front, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has told the president and his staff to stay out of the way of the Senate's tax cut... uh, health care legislation. Just kidding as that is in all fairness yet to be seen though Republicans have signaled that tax reform would include a massive tax cut from the savings on the Medicaid rollback. But the president is out of the loop, out on limb fighting disputes of his own making. Whether it be with the press or his own intelligence services, he's alone in doing it. Americans know that picking petty fights with others isn't effective leadership, we know this. What we're not used to is looking away from the president, the presidency, because it not longer feels like the moral (leadership) center.
It's like the administration is constantly complaining about the criticism on how they're steering the ship, while at the same time not hearing everyone screaming back at them that the rudder's broken.
Weird.
When the president is isolated like this, the whole United States feels this, thus a further retreating to the corners, as it were.
Prime example: The two party chairs, Ronna McDaniel (RNC) and Tom Perez (DNC), appearing in their first joint interview. They just met and ended up talking over one another by the end of it (as Mr. Todd noted). Many would watch that interview and assess those individuals are part of the problem, but the problem is that if you cede one inch of ground on issue or statement, you'll feel the job ending scorn of your base. And because we know Mr. Perez better, he needs to be called here about saying that Republicans don't give **** about Democrats. Maybe true, but an individual in his position shouldn't say that. Also, when he likes a phrase, he definitely annoys you with it - We believe health care is right, not a privilege for a few - three times in three minutes. We're watching "Meet The Press" on a Sunday morning, we heard it the first time, we're not stupid, you don't have to repeat it, and we knew it before you said it.
Asking Democrats to participate in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is like Democrats asking Republicans to raise taxes on the richest Americans to pre-Reagan era levels. It's unthinkable so to suggest that the opposing party would participate in such a thing is a little disingenuous at least.
As the panel gamely discussed, Senator McConnell threatened his caucus with having to possibly work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to fix the Affordable Care Act to stabilize the markets if they all couldn't get on the same page in terms of voting for the bill, moderates and hardliners alike.
What a detestable thought that the parties would work together, but instead they retreat into their respective corners with the Administration ushering the way.
Panel: Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Kudos to Robert Costa for the slight disgusting you could hear in his voice when he referred to the Republican party becoming the grievance party and that the base probably doesn't care if the health care bill passes out not. Interpret as you will, but either way kudos still apply.
Solid Panel today, actually starting to think that the fact of the Trump presidency has tempered Rich Lowry's rhetorical arguments a bit.
"It's an honor to be with you."
That statement that President Trump said to Russian President Vladimir Putin alone is sticking in the gut of everyone in Washington while fueling united criticism from pols Republican and Democratic alike. In the context of what has been determining by the U.S. intelligence community about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, fmr. CIA Director John Brennan called it a dishonorable statement in his interview. No one's calling him out on it.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the president's views on Russia are "undermining his entire presidency," and that he doesn't know anyone else in Washington who believes the Russians didn't meddle in the election. "I'm dumbfounded and disappointed," he said. Senator Graham explained that he agreed with the president's actions on several confrontational fronts from Afghanistan to North Korea, but called his stance on Russia a blind spot. Yes, indeed a blind spot; one brought into sharp focus by the in-over-his-head Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who explained that the U.S. president after speaking with the Russian president isn't going to relitigate the past. So basically, you attacked our democracy and denied it so we're all good now?
Also, something of note here: fmr. Director Brennan in response to an anonymous administration source being quoted that he felt like the [Obama] Administration choked, he flatly rebutted that statement explaining that he confronted his Russian counterpart. President Obama confronted Pution personally in September 2016, which Brennan said altered their behavior some.
As for the president, during his overseas trip while in Poland, he said that he wasn't sure if it was just Russia alone who meddled in the election, which projects that the president doesn't have confidence in his own intelligence agencies, but then again Mr. Trump doesn't seem to know the clear responsibilities and jurisdictions of each as evidence by his errant tweet about the CIA being authorized to operate domestically. They are not.
During the G20 meetings in Hamburg, Germany the big take away is how the other 19 countries involved isolated the United States on climate discussions, and by extension the economic opportunities that come out of those talks. On trade, the European Union cut a trade deal with Japan completely boxing out the United States. All this on top of the fact that the leaders of France and Germany among many other countries don't have the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for Russia that President Trump does.
Then the Trump Administration issues a statement of its intention to work with Russia on a joint cyber security plan. What? Senator Graham said it wasn't the dumbest idea he's ever heard, but it's pretty close. The column respectfully disagrees, that is the dumbest idea ever presented by an Administration.
Or there's Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) tweet:
On the home front, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has told the president and his staff to stay out of the way of the Senate's tax cut... uh, health care legislation. Just kidding as that is in all fairness yet to be seen though Republicans have signaled that tax reform would include a massive tax cut from the savings on the Medicaid rollback. But the president is out of the loop, out on limb fighting disputes of his own making. Whether it be with the press or his own intelligence services, he's alone in doing it. Americans know that picking petty fights with others isn't effective leadership, we know this. What we're not used to is looking away from the president, the presidency, because it not longer feels like the moral (leadership) center.
It's like the administration is constantly complaining about the criticism on how they're steering the ship, while at the same time not hearing everyone screaming back at them that the rudder's broken.
Weird.
When the president is isolated like this, the whole United States feels this, thus a further retreating to the corners, as it were.
Prime example: The two party chairs, Ronna McDaniel (RNC) and Tom Perez (DNC), appearing in their first joint interview. They just met and ended up talking over one another by the end of it (as Mr. Todd noted). Many would watch that interview and assess those individuals are part of the problem, but the problem is that if you cede one inch of ground on issue or statement, you'll feel the job ending scorn of your base. And because we know Mr. Perez better, he needs to be called here about saying that Republicans don't give **** about Democrats. Maybe true, but an individual in his position shouldn't say that. Also, when he likes a phrase, he definitely annoys you with it - We believe health care is right, not a privilege for a few - three times in three minutes. We're watching "Meet The Press" on a Sunday morning, we heard it the first time, we're not stupid, you don't have to repeat it, and we knew it before you said it.
Asking Democrats to participate in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is like Democrats asking Republicans to raise taxes on the richest Americans to pre-Reagan era levels. It's unthinkable so to suggest that the opposing party would participate in such a thing is a little disingenuous at least.
As the panel gamely discussed, Senator McConnell threatened his caucus with having to possibly work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to fix the Affordable Care Act to stabilize the markets if they all couldn't get on the same page in terms of voting for the bill, moderates and hardliners alike.
What a detestable thought that the parties would work together, but instead they retreat into their respective corners with the Administration ushering the way.
Panel: Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Kudos to Robert Costa for the slight disgusting you could hear in his voice when he referred to the Republican party becoming the grievance party and that the base probably doesn't care if the health care bill passes out not. Interpret as you will, but either way kudos still apply.
Solid Panel today, actually starting to think that the fact of the Trump presidency has tempered Rich Lowry's rhetorical arguments a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)