First, this column would like to take a moment to recognize the tragedy in San Diego of another shooting at a synagogue where one person died and three others injured. Their families and the community will forever be affected, for that our deepest sympathies. We should also recognize that too many communities in this country are feeling similar affects of sadness and are worn to the bone from the frustration that our politicians refuse to do anything about it.
A moment...
In the post-Mueller report world that we now live in, the two numbers of note are the 56 percent of the American people believe impeachment proceedings of the president should not happen, but that 58 percent of Americans believe that the president lied about his actions, especially when it comes to obstruction with regard to the investigation.
So what does this tell us? It tells us, first, that in this polarized political climate, impeachment (a political act) will not go through for various reasons. If you're a political sycophant and hack like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) then you believe that the entire investigation was a witch hunt. However, maybe you believe that the president has committed impeachable offenses but know that an impeachment trial in the Senate will never happen. Robert Costa explained today that through his sources in the Senate there is zero Republican support for an impeachment hearing or trial. In fact, given that it's Trump's Republican party, that they may turn the tables an start investigating the investigators.
Mr. Johnson said he wouldn't have used the word 'scum' to describe law enforcement as the president did, but that he understands his frustration. He also said that he's concerned with Russian interference but that we shouldn't blow things out of proportion, and explained that the Department of Homeland Security is doing a pretty good job in handling this. Sorry, if we don't feel reassured Senator Johnson, but to say they're doing a 'pretty good' job kind of sucks.
The fact is that there were 140 contacts between Trump campaign officials and his transition team and never once did anyone report this to the FBI. Now the President of the United States calls senior officials of his justice department and the premier law enforcement agency in the world 'scum.'
As referred to on the program today, here is the clip of Lindsey O. Graham on the Senate floor in 1999 taking about Bill Clinton, in which he says that impeachment is not about punishment but cleansing the office.
As Helene Cooper explained, this is why people are so disgusted with politics because of things like this - that Senator Graham displays brazen and admitted hypocrisy simply to retain power and be reelected. Those are the reasons, plain and simple. Senator Graham, like Senator Johnson, has forfeited all principle.
Andrea Mitchell, filling in for Chuck Todd this week, asked Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) about the president's stonewalling and his refusal on letting current or fmr. administration officials testify in front of Congress, to which she answered that that is what the subpoena is for. Most prominently, one said current official Attorney General William Barr has not agreed to a hearing with the House after he testifies to the Senate this week. Mr. Barr has a lot to answer for, especially since he is not at all acting like the top law enforcement official for the American people but solely for Mr. Trump. Ms. Klobuchar mentioned that it not only about the Mueller Report though she did note his conflicting answers about obstruction and what constitutes it, but also about repealing the ACA and the justice department's support for a lawsuit that has the potential of taking away the protections Americans now have about being denied insurance based on a preexisting conditions.
When the president speaks of getting rid of the scum in our government what he's really saying is that he's trying to get rid of any individual, like a career law enforcement official like Sally Yates, unwilling to blindly protect him or do his bidding unequivocally.
Talk about slimy.
Panel: Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Congressman from Florida
Sunday, April 28, 2019
Sunday, April 21, 2019
4.21.19: Because of The Attorney General's Dereliction of Duty, We're Left With Lawful But Awful
As Amy Walter pointed out, it is definitely worth reading the Mueller report no matter what side of the aisle you're on as there is something there for everyone. You can read it here.
On the one hand in the first half of the report, it outlines how the president did not collude with Russia. On the other in the second half, it shows a president rooted in obstructing justice at any cost. Now, there are qualifiers and context that are attached to those rudimentary assessments but if you're looking for Rudy Giuliani to provide any cogent explanation, you're looking in the wrong place.
Mr. Giuliani, with every television appearance, embarrasses himself further and today was no exception. The prime observation from the interview with Chuck Todd is that Mr. Giuliani is arguing that it's OK to use information provided by a foreign adversary against your opponent in a campaign, trying to normalize it. As a general proposition, it's difficult to make sense of all of Mr. Giuliani's gibberish because he's in the position of being Mr. Trump's defense attorney, but gives examples of when he was a prosecutor. First, he said that the special counsel never took the position of Mr. Trump being innocent, adding the Mr. Mueller is incapable of this. However, he assumed that FBI was politically motivated against Mr. Trump without any evidence for that assertion. Not to mention that fact that when Mr. Giuliani was the District Attorney of New York and his advocacy for stop and frisk, it's safe to say that he did not believe in people being innocent even if they weren't committing a crime. Also, when Hillary Clinton was questioned by the FBI and said some form of "I don't remember" thirty-seven times, Mr. Giuliani said that since that was the case, she must be hiding something. When Chuck Todd confronted him with the fact that on Mr. Trump's written answers, he said "I don't recall" over thirty times. As a matter of fact, Mr. Giuliani said that he couldn't remember how many times the phrase was used in his written answers. Also, he added that he wouldn't advise his client to volunteer any extra information.
When asked why didn't Donald Trump Jr. report to the FBI that he was offered dirt on a political opponent by Russians (a foreign adversary), Mr. Giuliani said that it was a set up and that people had the right to know to this information. If it actually were a set up, and Don Jr. had the idea that it was a set up then he should have spoken to the FBI.
Rudy Giuliani is to the say the least being hypocritical on a farcical scale, and to that he can never again be called "America's Mayor." Frankly, what is Rudy smoking that he can say with a straight face that he believes that Mr. Trump is truthful. Jonah Goldberg called his answers completely nonsensical and for that he has thoroughly disgraced himself.
At the top of Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) interview, the congressman, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, laughed at the mention of Mr. Giuliani's interview because he has long known of Rudy's ramblings.
We like to say in this country that no one is above the law. However, Attorney General William Barr seems that that is not the case and that the president is immune from the law. On this point, Mr. Nadler flatly stated that the Attorney General is wrong. And to that end, Mr. Nadler's committee has subpoenaed the full Mueller including the portions that have been redacted. On top of that, Mr. Nadler is calling William Barr, Robert Mueller and former White House Don McGahn to testify.
When asked straight up by Mr. Todd whether what is outlined in the Mueller Report is cause for impeaching the president, Mr. Nadler paused for a moment and then said, "Yeah, I do." Then he said that he's going to see where the evidence leads, but it seems that minds are already made up for Democrats.
In response to a clip of Senator Kamela Harris saying that she wanted to hear from Robert Mueller before making a decision on impeachment, Joshua Johnson rhetorically asked "What game are you playing?" When it comes to impeachment, it's a political action and that's the game that the Democrats are playing, a political one. As for the Administration, Hallie Jackson said that from her reporting the White House wants to turn the page, close the case, and muddy the waters. Democrats shouldn't allow that to happen.
On impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is right that impeachment is not worth it because politically it wouldn't be beneficial for the Democrats to proceed in that direction, as it could backfire on them in 2020. Not to mention that Republicans in the Senate would never take up impeachment. - Would. Never. Happen. Amy Walter explained that the Democrats are looking for that 'aha' moment, the smoking gun, but in agreement with her, they have to give up on that when it comes to the Mueller Report.
What the report clearly shows is that this Administration requires strict oversight and that's what the Democrats need to provide. Does it seem that the president obstructed justice? He certainly wanted to. President Trump has widened the divisions in this country, only professes to want to govern part of it and has made us a laughing stock internationally.
The Attorney General is the one who should be impeached for committing acts that are in the interest of the president solely, and not the American people.
So what we're left with is what Joshua Johnson called, "lawful but awful."
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Amy Walter, the Cook Political Report; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Jonah Goldberg, the National Review
One more thing...
Joe Biden is finally putting up and will announce he's in the race.
And it's worth noting what Chuck Todd said at the very end of the program - there are still 12 unknown cases going on as we speak... Some of which will probably hit right around election time (our words).
On the one hand in the first half of the report, it outlines how the president did not collude with Russia. On the other in the second half, it shows a president rooted in obstructing justice at any cost. Now, there are qualifiers and context that are attached to those rudimentary assessments but if you're looking for Rudy Giuliani to provide any cogent explanation, you're looking in the wrong place.
Mr. Giuliani, with every television appearance, embarrasses himself further and today was no exception. The prime observation from the interview with Chuck Todd is that Mr. Giuliani is arguing that it's OK to use information provided by a foreign adversary against your opponent in a campaign, trying to normalize it. As a general proposition, it's difficult to make sense of all of Mr. Giuliani's gibberish because he's in the position of being Mr. Trump's defense attorney, but gives examples of when he was a prosecutor. First, he said that the special counsel never took the position of Mr. Trump being innocent, adding the Mr. Mueller is incapable of this. However, he assumed that FBI was politically motivated against Mr. Trump without any evidence for that assertion. Not to mention that fact that when Mr. Giuliani was the District Attorney of New York and his advocacy for stop and frisk, it's safe to say that he did not believe in people being innocent even if they weren't committing a crime. Also, when Hillary Clinton was questioned by the FBI and said some form of "I don't remember" thirty-seven times, Mr. Giuliani said that since that was the case, she must be hiding something. When Chuck Todd confronted him with the fact that on Mr. Trump's written answers, he said "I don't recall" over thirty times. As a matter of fact, Mr. Giuliani said that he couldn't remember how many times the phrase was used in his written answers. Also, he added that he wouldn't advise his client to volunteer any extra information.
When asked why didn't Donald Trump Jr. report to the FBI that he was offered dirt on a political opponent by Russians (a foreign adversary), Mr. Giuliani said that it was a set up and that people had the right to know to this information. If it actually were a set up, and Don Jr. had the idea that it was a set up then he should have spoken to the FBI.
Rudy Giuliani is to the say the least being hypocritical on a farcical scale, and to that he can never again be called "America's Mayor." Frankly, what is Rudy smoking that he can say with a straight face that he believes that Mr. Trump is truthful. Jonah Goldberg called his answers completely nonsensical and for that he has thoroughly disgraced himself.
At the top of Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) interview, the congressman, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, laughed at the mention of Mr. Giuliani's interview because he has long known of Rudy's ramblings.
We like to say in this country that no one is above the law. However, Attorney General William Barr seems that that is not the case and that the president is immune from the law. On this point, Mr. Nadler flatly stated that the Attorney General is wrong. And to that end, Mr. Nadler's committee has subpoenaed the full Mueller including the portions that have been redacted. On top of that, Mr. Nadler is calling William Barr, Robert Mueller and former White House Don McGahn to testify.
When asked straight up by Mr. Todd whether what is outlined in the Mueller Report is cause for impeaching the president, Mr. Nadler paused for a moment and then said, "Yeah, I do." Then he said that he's going to see where the evidence leads, but it seems that minds are already made up for Democrats.
In response to a clip of Senator Kamela Harris saying that she wanted to hear from Robert Mueller before making a decision on impeachment, Joshua Johnson rhetorically asked "What game are you playing?" When it comes to impeachment, it's a political action and that's the game that the Democrats are playing, a political one. As for the Administration, Hallie Jackson said that from her reporting the White House wants to turn the page, close the case, and muddy the waters. Democrats shouldn't allow that to happen.
On impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is right that impeachment is not worth it because politically it wouldn't be beneficial for the Democrats to proceed in that direction, as it could backfire on them in 2020. Not to mention that Republicans in the Senate would never take up impeachment. - Would. Never. Happen. Amy Walter explained that the Democrats are looking for that 'aha' moment, the smoking gun, but in agreement with her, they have to give up on that when it comes to the Mueller Report.
What the report clearly shows is that this Administration requires strict oversight and that's what the Democrats need to provide. Does it seem that the president obstructed justice? He certainly wanted to. President Trump has widened the divisions in this country, only professes to want to govern part of it and has made us a laughing stock internationally.
The Attorney General is the one who should be impeached for committing acts that are in the interest of the president solely, and not the American people.
So what we're left with is what Joshua Johnson called, "lawful but awful."
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Amy Walter, the Cook Political Report; Joshua Johnson, NPR; Jonah Goldberg, the National Review
One more thing...
Joe Biden is finally putting up and will announce he's in the race.
And it's worth noting what Chuck Todd said at the very end of the program - there are still 12 unknown cases going on as we speak... Some of which will probably hit right around election time (our words).
Sunday, April 14, 2019
4.14.19: No Semantic Debate - Crisis on the Border, Crisis in Leadership
Let's put this out there at the top - what's happening at the United States' southern border is a crisis. We're not going to debate semantics, however, it's a crisis that has been accentuated and exacerbated sharply by the president. Kasie Hunt explained that the president when faced with either policy or politics, Mr. Trump opts for the latter, meaning he is less interested in fixing problems than in using them to his political advantage. This is something that David Brooks called performative narcissism.
This brings us to Chuck Todd's interview with White House advisor Kellyanne Conway in which he challenged her on the fact that she was presenting proposals to fix immigration that the president is, frankly, loathe to utter. Closing the border, getting rid of judges and cutting off aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are not policy prescriptions that will solve the problem, but only serve to bolster the president in the eyes of his political base. If anything, on all three of the aforementioned rhetorical pieces, if you want to solve the problem, you need to go in the opposite direction. Keep the border open, hire more judges and hearing officers as Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) suggested and provide more resources to the Northern Triangle countries. On the last of which, not only should the U.S. up its aid to those countries but make it conditional on allowing more U.S. advisors in country to help combat the problem.
Ms. Conway, denied by Mr. Todd her usual verbal filibustering by being forced to stay on topic, sounded as if the administration wants to work with Democrats but the fact is that the president has no inclination to do so. Why? Because the president needs the issue of immigration for the 2020 election so that he can continue charging up his base support.
Conversely, Mr. Todd put forth the notion that Democrats in Congress don't know where their base is on immigration so we'll try to provide an answer here. First, let's just say that Democrats are not for open borders, but also they are not for the inhumane treatment of people at the southern border. The zero-tolerance policy that the administration put in place caused family separations, permanently traumatizing thousands of children. It makes more sense to put more administrative resources on the border to speed up the hearing backlog, create a path to citizenship for dreamers devoid of political quid pro quo and employ better technologies along the border to combat illegal crossings and drugs from flowing in. Obviously, bipartisan immigration reform is needed and the Gang of Eight in the Senate did come up with it, but the Republicans in the House had killed it so now we have to start all over when in reality that bill should be dusted off and put on the table again. Having no illusions, the president would indeed veto it. It's difficult not to agree with Eugene Robinson generally and he explained that the United States is the wealthiest most powerful nation in the world so we do have the resources and we should be able to fix this. However, again, the president has no interest in fixing the problem. Instead, he wants to weaponize, to use Mr. Inslee's term, the situation and punish Democrats by shipping illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, which by the way is illegal.
Suffice to say that we agree with Danielle Pletka's use of the word 'crisis' when it comes to the southern border, but we also agree with her use of the word when it comes to the president and what she sees at a turning point this week inasmuch as the widening chasm between the president's rhetoric/ actions and proper governance. She explained that the president's staff is struggling to keep my with Mr. Trump's off-the-cuff proposals that have no constitutional basis and a proper response to them. She is having a difficult time seeing how this can last for another year and a half.
But when you consider that Mr. Trump has indeed found his Roy Cohn, a former mob lawyer, in the person of William Barr, well then he's going to say and do whatever he wants. Mr. Barr in his so far in his second stint as Attorney General has protected Mr. Trump at every turn, Kasie Hunt's assessment that the Democrats' trust in him is basically nil is an easy call. Mr. Barr chooses his words carefully so when he said that he thought there was 'spying' on the Trump campaign by his own Justice Department, he knew Mr. Trump would use that to attack his critics. Mr. Barr, it seems right now, will give cover to Mr. Trump no matter what he does and says.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; David Brooks, The New York Times
One more thing...
The president this week said that 'I know nothing about Wikileaks, it's not my thing... It's not my deal in life." Really? Talk about BS... He mentioned Wikileaks over 150 times on the campaign, holding up papers on campaign stops. Exasperating...
This brings us to Chuck Todd's interview with White House advisor Kellyanne Conway in which he challenged her on the fact that she was presenting proposals to fix immigration that the president is, frankly, loathe to utter. Closing the border, getting rid of judges and cutting off aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are not policy prescriptions that will solve the problem, but only serve to bolster the president in the eyes of his political base. If anything, on all three of the aforementioned rhetorical pieces, if you want to solve the problem, you need to go in the opposite direction. Keep the border open, hire more judges and hearing officers as Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) suggested and provide more resources to the Northern Triangle countries. On the last of which, not only should the U.S. up its aid to those countries but make it conditional on allowing more U.S. advisors in country to help combat the problem.
Ms. Conway, denied by Mr. Todd her usual verbal filibustering by being forced to stay on topic, sounded as if the administration wants to work with Democrats but the fact is that the president has no inclination to do so. Why? Because the president needs the issue of immigration for the 2020 election so that he can continue charging up his base support.
Conversely, Mr. Todd put forth the notion that Democrats in Congress don't know where their base is on immigration so we'll try to provide an answer here. First, let's just say that Democrats are not for open borders, but also they are not for the inhumane treatment of people at the southern border. The zero-tolerance policy that the administration put in place caused family separations, permanently traumatizing thousands of children. It makes more sense to put more administrative resources on the border to speed up the hearing backlog, create a path to citizenship for dreamers devoid of political quid pro quo and employ better technologies along the border to combat illegal crossings and drugs from flowing in. Obviously, bipartisan immigration reform is needed and the Gang of Eight in the Senate did come up with it, but the Republicans in the House had killed it so now we have to start all over when in reality that bill should be dusted off and put on the table again. Having no illusions, the president would indeed veto it. It's difficult not to agree with Eugene Robinson generally and he explained that the United States is the wealthiest most powerful nation in the world so we do have the resources and we should be able to fix this. However, again, the president has no interest in fixing the problem. Instead, he wants to weaponize, to use Mr. Inslee's term, the situation and punish Democrats by shipping illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities, which by the way is illegal.
Suffice to say that we agree with Danielle Pletka's use of the word 'crisis' when it comes to the southern border, but we also agree with her use of the word when it comes to the president and what she sees at a turning point this week inasmuch as the widening chasm between the president's rhetoric/ actions and proper governance. She explained that the president's staff is struggling to keep my with Mr. Trump's off-the-cuff proposals that have no constitutional basis and a proper response to them. She is having a difficult time seeing how this can last for another year and a half.
But when you consider that Mr. Trump has indeed found his Roy Cohn, a former mob lawyer, in the person of William Barr, well then he's going to say and do whatever he wants. Mr. Barr in his so far in his second stint as Attorney General has protected Mr. Trump at every turn, Kasie Hunt's assessment that the Democrats' trust in him is basically nil is an easy call. Mr. Barr chooses his words carefully so when he said that he thought there was 'spying' on the Trump campaign by his own Justice Department, he knew Mr. Trump would use that to attack his critics. Mr. Barr, it seems right now, will give cover to Mr. Trump no matter what he does and says.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; David Brooks, The New York Times
One more thing...
The president this week said that 'I know nothing about Wikileaks, it's not my thing... It's not my deal in life." Really? Talk about BS... He mentioned Wikileaks over 150 times on the campaign, holding up papers on campaign stops. Exasperating...
Sunday, April 07, 2019
4.7.19: Forgiveness with Accountability
Chuck Todd brought up a quote from Stacy Abrams, past Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the state of Georgia, in which she said that there must be forgiveness with accountability. In the case, of former vice-president Joe Biden it has been a matter of debate as to whether this has been the case. These episodes of awkward, unwelcomed touching over the years are indeed forgivable, but has Mr. Biden been held sufficiently to account? That he joked about it in a speech on Friday doesn't bode well for the accountability part of the equation.
While we're on this, Bernie Sanders' response on accusations from his staff that there sexual harassment on his 2016 campaign were replayed on the program, and in a way, this column finds his explanation worse. Mr. Sanders said that he was a 'little bit busy' at the time campaigning all across the country, which in a way says that he's not paying close enough attention to his staff to realize this is going on. That's abdicating accountability.
With that said, it brings us to the question posed by Mr. Todd, does Joe Biden, a person who has built up his political credentials in the 20th century able to govern effectively in the 21st century? Oh, how badly do Democrats want Mr. Trump out of the White House...
As we said last week, Mr. Biden needs to make his decision sooner rather than later on whether he is running or not. And if he is indeed running, his electability factor would indeed go down if he were to pledge a single term.
Though he is not officially in the race as of yet, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) is indeed the complete polar opposite of the current president. Mayor Pete's, as he is known, biggest hurdle in the success of his candidacy is his age, 37, not the fact that he is gay. However, impressive beyond expectation is something you can not deny. He is a religious progressive from a Midwestern state who is a Rhodes scholar, Iraq-Afghanistan war veteran who has run a municipality. In terms of experience, he may be the most well-rounded candidate in the race. Hugh Hewitt said as a Republican he's worried about Mayor Pete's candidacy because of all of the outlined above, especially his military service experience.
One of the key things he said today should resonate deeply and that is that good politics is not based on the word 'again.' Despite Mr. Trump's campaign mantra of "Make America Great Again," there is no going backward. This column would postulate that anyone who thinks there is some way to move backward is deluding him or herself and isn't basing their vote in reality. It's understandable that people would be uncomfortable with the pace in which we move forward, but forward is the direction in which we must constantly move.
Mayor Pete explained that it is frustrating and hypocritical that Christian conservatives are blindly backing Mr. Trump, given the fact that he paid hush money to an adult film actress to cover up an affair, but as Mr. Hewitt pointed out, they've gotten the conservative judges on the bench that they have wanted. This is a Faustian bargain that all Republicans have made with Mr. Trump.
But is the price too high?
Mr. Trump since taking the oath of office has been tearing the country apart to what may be irreparable depths. No where is this more evident than with the issue of immigration. Mr. Trump in his rhetoric wants to completely close this country off from the rest of the world. Our distinct humaneness is what makes America the country that it always has been, what Ronald Reagan called a 'shining city on a hill.' It is the largess of heart that Mr. Trump has not desire to pump more blood into. Whether crisis or not at the border, it makes no sense whatsoever that the United States of America with all its resources and heart cannot deal with this issue effectively and humanely all at once. In a nation of immigrants, voluntary and involuntary, this issue defines the humanity that we are as a nation.
So yes, as Heather McGhee pointed out, it's disheartening to hear Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has legitimately questioned the president's decisions, capitulate on the Dream Act, and that an immigration system based on criminalization has no place. As Mr. Buttigieg said, a policy of tearing families apart and denying people a path to citizenship cannot stand.
The president for his part goes to great pains to make sure he doesn't forgive or is held to account.
Panel: Heather McGhee, President of DEMOS; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Anna Palmer, Politico; Jake Sherman, Politico
One more thing...
Senator Romney said that the president is going to win the battle of whether the public will see Mr. Trump's taxes. The Democrats have made the formal request to the IRS for Mr. Trump's tax records.
According to Section 6103(f)(1):
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
We don't know how Mr. Trump gets out of this one, but no doubt we'll see how this battle of oversight ends up.
While we're on this, Bernie Sanders' response on accusations from his staff that there sexual harassment on his 2016 campaign were replayed on the program, and in a way, this column finds his explanation worse. Mr. Sanders said that he was a 'little bit busy' at the time campaigning all across the country, which in a way says that he's not paying close enough attention to his staff to realize this is going on. That's abdicating accountability.
With that said, it brings us to the question posed by Mr. Todd, does Joe Biden, a person who has built up his political credentials in the 20th century able to govern effectively in the 21st century? Oh, how badly do Democrats want Mr. Trump out of the White House...
As we said last week, Mr. Biden needs to make his decision sooner rather than later on whether he is running or not. And if he is indeed running, his electability factor would indeed go down if he were to pledge a single term.
Though he is not officially in the race as of yet, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) is indeed the complete polar opposite of the current president. Mayor Pete's, as he is known, biggest hurdle in the success of his candidacy is his age, 37, not the fact that he is gay. However, impressive beyond expectation is something you can not deny. He is a religious progressive from a Midwestern state who is a Rhodes scholar, Iraq-Afghanistan war veteran who has run a municipality. In terms of experience, he may be the most well-rounded candidate in the race. Hugh Hewitt said as a Republican he's worried about Mayor Pete's candidacy because of all of the outlined above, especially his military service experience.
One of the key things he said today should resonate deeply and that is that good politics is not based on the word 'again.' Despite Mr. Trump's campaign mantra of "Make America Great Again," there is no going backward. This column would postulate that anyone who thinks there is some way to move backward is deluding him or herself and isn't basing their vote in reality. It's understandable that people would be uncomfortable with the pace in which we move forward, but forward is the direction in which we must constantly move.
Mayor Pete explained that it is frustrating and hypocritical that Christian conservatives are blindly backing Mr. Trump, given the fact that he paid hush money to an adult film actress to cover up an affair, but as Mr. Hewitt pointed out, they've gotten the conservative judges on the bench that they have wanted. This is a Faustian bargain that all Republicans have made with Mr. Trump.
But is the price too high?
Mr. Trump since taking the oath of office has been tearing the country apart to what may be irreparable depths. No where is this more evident than with the issue of immigration. Mr. Trump in his rhetoric wants to completely close this country off from the rest of the world. Our distinct humaneness is what makes America the country that it always has been, what Ronald Reagan called a 'shining city on a hill.' It is the largess of heart that Mr. Trump has not desire to pump more blood into. Whether crisis or not at the border, it makes no sense whatsoever that the United States of America with all its resources and heart cannot deal with this issue effectively and humanely all at once. In a nation of immigrants, voluntary and involuntary, this issue defines the humanity that we are as a nation.
So yes, as Heather McGhee pointed out, it's disheartening to hear Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has legitimately questioned the president's decisions, capitulate on the Dream Act, and that an immigration system based on criminalization has no place. As Mr. Buttigieg said, a policy of tearing families apart and denying people a path to citizenship cannot stand.
The president for his part goes to great pains to make sure he doesn't forgive or is held to account.
Panel: Heather McGhee, President of DEMOS; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Anna Palmer, Politico; Jake Sherman, Politico
One more thing...
Senator Romney said that the president is going to win the battle of whether the public will see Mr. Trump's taxes. The Democrats have made the formal request to the IRS for Mr. Trump's tax records.
According to Section 6103(f)(1):
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.
We don't know how Mr. Trump gets out of this one, but no doubt we'll see how this battle of oversight ends up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)