Maine senator Angus King (I) said that he was disappointed in the president speech last night in Harrisburg, PA because it showed that Mr. Trump was still in "campaign mode," not reaching out to Americans that haven't supported him and spouting charred red meat rhetoric to his loyal supporters. Chris Matthews said it was the smart move. For the president it was, but the outreach, despite what Vice President Mike Pence would tell you, has been nonexistent.
That's not a surprise and faux outrage is a waste of energy. President Trump at the 100-day mark is not going to go the White House correspondents' dinner to be roasted. He needed a "feel good" because these first days, frankly, have been brutal for the president.
In this respect, I read Donald Trump as a "wake-up call" kind of person. Unfortunately, his attitude has shown that it will take some sort of tragic event that effects people all across the political spectrum for him to realize that we're all in this together. (I say this with reservation.)
Before getting into that, it must first be said that enough's enough with Mr. Pence speaking in such a patronizing/ condescending tone in interviews like he has some other insight into the American people that they themselves don't know about. The subtle mimicry of Reaganesque inflections has got to stop.
"This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier," the president said to the Associated Press. The problem is that it's only going to get more difficult from here on out. The president's less-than-calculated alienating statements have everyone on their heals, which only means that he will become even more isolated. A Republican-controlled Congress rejected the billion dollar down payment for the border wall. There's little enthusiasm for for his legislative agenda, as thin as it is.
In terms of tax policy, a one page outline simply isn't going to make the grade. In fact, no tax reform [read: tax cutting] should happen before the president, who is still fully invested in his businesses, releases his returns. The American people have the right to know how changing the tax code might disproportionately benefit the president.
In terms of foreign policy, specifically South Korea which was discussed today, again the vice-president deflected away conflicting statements coming from the administration. President Trump is making tough statements with regard to North Korea, while at the same time telling Seoul that they need to pay for the air defense system, which Defense Secretary Mattis then reversed in direct talks with the South Koreans.
No way to conduct foreign policy, obviously.
You would observe that the Trump Administration needs to get on the same page, but perhaps they should begin with reading the same book first. This task (getting everyone on the "same page") is expressly the job of the White House chief of staff, in this case Reince Priebus. Granted he does have the near impossible task of keeping the president on message, but it's on him. Again, Vice-President Pence tries to put a more diplomatic spin on it, saying things like, "we're asking our allies to do more," etc; when the president is saying, "you should pay for it."
Maybe they could run this through the filter before we're made to drink it in.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Nicole Wallace, NBC News; Chris Matthews, NBC News
One More Thing...
Ms. Cooper explained that Democrats right now are in the wilderness. Mr. Matthews said that they needed to get more aggressive, break the rules and take control of the floor for a vote. I'm not sure where I fall on that right at the moment, but they better be coming up with a plan if and a message if they want to take control of either chamber of Congress.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Sunday, April 16, 2017
4.16.17: President Trump's Tactics vs. Strategy
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) put it best when he described what President Trump is doing with regard to foreign policy, at least, are tactics, not a strategy. To that he said that he would give the president some time but not much because he hasn't seen any sort of strategy as of yet.
The Trump Administration doesn't really have a foreign policy strategy, now. but it did previously - one crafted by chief strategist Steven Bannon. That strategy was to stay out of Syria, get tough on China economically and align with Russia militarily. Then the realities of being president set in versus being on the campaign trail.
Domestically, the president found himself on the losing end of some major battles then met with the King of Jordan and the president of China. He probably figured that it might be advantageous to listen to someone else, anyone else who been involved with these issues. As Andrea Mitchell reminded us, the president likes winning.
But speaking of domestic policy, that is where Trump does have a strategy, rudimentary as it is, and it's being carried out - less regulations, notably environmental, and on immigration. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly of course didn't use the term 'deportation force' but he did say that they are hiring more people to combat illegal immigration.
On environmental policy, plain and simple - if the United States pulls out of the Paris Climate Agreement to which 190 nations have signed on, we are essentially abdicating our leadership role into the future. And for what? So that a few can profit immensely in the short term. That's what Republican orthodoxy is all about when it comes to environmental policy.
On domestic policy, President Trump has a strategy but seems to be more closed-minded, unwilling to listen to opposing voices, while on foreign policy where he has no experience he's open-minded to what people [read: foreign leaders] have to say.
At this point it's futile to delineate between the president's tactics and on what issues he actually has a strategy because as Mitch McConnell said this week, Mr. Trump is still learning the job. We're coming up on 100 hundred days so right now we'll just have to wait and see. What we do know for certain is that Mr. Trump hasn't been a good student so far.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos Action; John E. Sununu, fmr. Republican Senator from New Hampshire; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times
Happy Passover and Happy Easter!
One more thing...
The tax day marches... They matter and Donald Trump releasing his tax returns matters, despite what Mr. Sununu said about it not effecting policy. Between this nondisclosure and now not releasing White House visitor logs, Mr. Trump's presidency is rapidly stripping away transparency norms that forgets one big basic premise: He works for the American people and transparency is required.
The Trump Administration doesn't really have a foreign policy strategy, now. but it did previously - one crafted by chief strategist Steven Bannon. That strategy was to stay out of Syria, get tough on China economically and align with Russia militarily. Then the realities of being president set in versus being on the campaign trail.
Domestically, the president found himself on the losing end of some major battles then met with the King of Jordan and the president of China. He probably figured that it might be advantageous to listen to someone else, anyone else who been involved with these issues. As Andrea Mitchell reminded us, the president likes winning.
But speaking of domestic policy, that is where Trump does have a strategy, rudimentary as it is, and it's being carried out - less regulations, notably environmental, and on immigration. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly of course didn't use the term 'deportation force' but he did say that they are hiring more people to combat illegal immigration.
On environmental policy, plain and simple - if the United States pulls out of the Paris Climate Agreement to which 190 nations have signed on, we are essentially abdicating our leadership role into the future. And for what? So that a few can profit immensely in the short term. That's what Republican orthodoxy is all about when it comes to environmental policy.
On domestic policy, President Trump has a strategy but seems to be more closed-minded, unwilling to listen to opposing voices, while on foreign policy where he has no experience he's open-minded to what people [read: foreign leaders] have to say.
At this point it's futile to delineate between the president's tactics and on what issues he actually has a strategy because as Mitch McConnell said this week, Mr. Trump is still learning the job. We're coming up on 100 hundred days so right now we'll just have to wait and see. What we do know for certain is that Mr. Trump hasn't been a good student so far.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos Action; John E. Sununu, fmr. Republican Senator from New Hampshire; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times
Happy Passover and Happy Easter!
One more thing...
The tax day marches... They matter and Donald Trump releasing his tax returns matters, despite what Mr. Sununu said about it not effecting policy. Between this nondisclosure and now not releasing White House visitor logs, Mr. Trump's presidency is rapidly stripping away transparency norms that forgets one big basic premise: He works for the American people and transparency is required.
Sunday, April 02, 2017
4.2.17: Sunday Morning Kabuki Theater about the Supreme Court Nominee, and Other Tales of Political Infighting
For a change we can at least slight veer away from talking about the president this week and focus on other things, namely the Supreme Court and the president's (really special conservative interests') nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Today you had the leaders of both parties in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and to listen to them speak is simply bad kabuki theater. They both know how this nomination is going to turn out. Democrats in the Senate aren't going to give Mr. Gorsuch the 60 vote consent that is the norm in the chamber and Republicans will certain invoke the nuclear option to confirm him, as The New York Times Robert Draper explained during the program.
So the two men have to say things that are most politically satisfying to their respective bases.
The battle for the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of cynical partisan politics as both men showed. Democrats are right to keep bringing up the fact that Republicans didn't allow for hearings on President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland. Mr. McConnell lead the obstruction and even to this day will not give a straight answer as to why they didn't bring the nomination to a Senate vote; that it was 'in the middle' of a presidential campaign is simply bullsh*t. However, they got what they wanted and that was this pick, nothing changes that.
So here we are, and the vote on Mr. Gorsuch is this week. The Democrats would be smarter to vote no, but not filibuster. The reasoning here, as the panel discussed, is that there is the possibility of another nomination coming during this president's term, and that's when the Democrats will really need to exercise the force of that. There are some Democratic senators who are going to vote for Mr. Gorsuch, namely Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitcamp (D-ND), because politically they have to for their more conservative constituents as a state-wide representative. If you're a Democratic supporter, you may not like that, but that's politics. Don't make that big a deal out of it because those two votes wouldn't change the outcome and you still need both of them to win reelection. Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed but not with 60 votes and he shouldn't get 60 because he's to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas, which is just what the country doesn't need.
This brings us to another topic of discussion today, the infighting going on within the Republican party, which is no doubt a mess. You have the right, the hard right and the off-the-chain Freedom caucus, none of whom can get together. We always kind of knew this was the case, but a shoddy, rush health care bill exacerbated and put a bright spotlight on the differences. On top of that you have a deal-making president who can't make the deal. Why? Because for the Freedom Caucus (Tea Party), their ideology is more important than money so you can not expect the president whose ideology is money to understand their position.
Greta Van Susteren rhetorically asked that who knew the Republicans were the 'big tent' and the Democrats had more cohesion. Let's be clear, she is misusing the term 'big tent,' which refers to diverse ideologies coming together in compromise, not infighting amongst a group with the same ideology, some more extreme than the other.
Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report point out that all of this is donor driven, which brought vocal agreement from everyone at the table, like why didn't someone say the obvious sooner. That's not a slight as it is natural conversation to be given a specific and drill down on it but once you get to the why you arrive at the more root causes, and in this case - donors.
You take all this inter-party and intra-party fighting and it makes what fmr. FBI agent Clint Watts, who testified before Congress last week, said which was that our adversaries see it as well, particularly the Russians who are now actively using it against us. He explained that the Kremlin's goal is to sew discord here so that when we're imploding we have little influence of matters happening around the globe, diminishing the United States' geopolitical power and influence. When you look at it from that perspective it makes our hyper-partisanship seem ill-focused and sad.
If we really want to have less partisanship and more compromise in this country along with less big-money influence, you'd have to take some big steps. One way to start us back on the road of internal reconciliation would be to make every Congressional district in this country square, and eliminate gerrymandering. There would still be conservative and liberal pockets but there would a lot more politicians answering to a more diverse constituency, in turn forcing representatives to be more tempered in their votes, if they in fact want to be reelected. Just a thought...
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Greta Van Susteren, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Robert Draper, The New York Times
Today you had the leaders of both parties in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and to listen to them speak is simply bad kabuki theater. They both know how this nomination is going to turn out. Democrats in the Senate aren't going to give Mr. Gorsuch the 60 vote consent that is the norm in the chamber and Republicans will certain invoke the nuclear option to confirm him, as The New York Times Robert Draper explained during the program.
So the two men have to say things that are most politically satisfying to their respective bases.
The battle for the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of cynical partisan politics as both men showed. Democrats are right to keep bringing up the fact that Republicans didn't allow for hearings on President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland. Mr. McConnell lead the obstruction and even to this day will not give a straight answer as to why they didn't bring the nomination to a Senate vote; that it was 'in the middle' of a presidential campaign is simply bullsh*t. However, they got what they wanted and that was this pick, nothing changes that.
So here we are, and the vote on Mr. Gorsuch is this week. The Democrats would be smarter to vote no, but not filibuster. The reasoning here, as the panel discussed, is that there is the possibility of another nomination coming during this president's term, and that's when the Democrats will really need to exercise the force of that. There are some Democratic senators who are going to vote for Mr. Gorsuch, namely Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitcamp (D-ND), because politically they have to for their more conservative constituents as a state-wide representative. If you're a Democratic supporter, you may not like that, but that's politics. Don't make that big a deal out of it because those two votes wouldn't change the outcome and you still need both of them to win reelection. Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed but not with 60 votes and he shouldn't get 60 because he's to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas, which is just what the country doesn't need.
This brings us to another topic of discussion today, the infighting going on within the Republican party, which is no doubt a mess. You have the right, the hard right and the off-the-chain Freedom caucus, none of whom can get together. We always kind of knew this was the case, but a shoddy, rush health care bill exacerbated and put a bright spotlight on the differences. On top of that you have a deal-making president who can't make the deal. Why? Because for the Freedom Caucus (Tea Party), their ideology is more important than money so you can not expect the president whose ideology is money to understand their position.
Greta Van Susteren rhetorically asked that who knew the Republicans were the 'big tent' and the Democrats had more cohesion. Let's be clear, she is misusing the term 'big tent,' which refers to diverse ideologies coming together in compromise, not infighting amongst a group with the same ideology, some more extreme than the other.
Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report point out that all of this is donor driven, which brought vocal agreement from everyone at the table, like why didn't someone say the obvious sooner. That's not a slight as it is natural conversation to be given a specific and drill down on it but once you get to the why you arrive at the more root causes, and in this case - donors.
You take all this inter-party and intra-party fighting and it makes what fmr. FBI agent Clint Watts, who testified before Congress last week, said which was that our adversaries see it as well, particularly the Russians who are now actively using it against us. He explained that the Kremlin's goal is to sew discord here so that when we're imploding we have little influence of matters happening around the globe, diminishing the United States' geopolitical power and influence. When you look at it from that perspective it makes our hyper-partisanship seem ill-focused and sad.
If we really want to have less partisanship and more compromise in this country along with less big-money influence, you'd have to take some big steps. One way to start us back on the road of internal reconciliation would be to make every Congressional district in this country square, and eliminate gerrymandering. There would still be conservative and liberal pockets but there would a lot more politicians answering to a more diverse constituency, in turn forcing representatives to be more tempered in their votes, if they in fact want to be reelected. Just a thought...
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Greta Van Susteren, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Robert Draper, The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)