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.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)