It's been a while since we've written and it's due to our reevaluation of the relevance today's (in the general sense) "Meet The Press." One of those reasons, and why we decided to write today, is because of the moderator, which is no more a moderator than just another host anymore. And frankly, when it comes down to that, Mr. Todd isn't the best one out there.
That's not necessarily saying that Mr. Todd shoulders all the responsibility for "Meet The Press'" declining, but most. He's been 'too comfortable' in the chair and it shows in his questioning or lack thereof. There are barely any follow-up questions, very little challenge or push back, no serious attempt to hold a politicians proverbial feet to the fire. And when he does challenge a person's answer, he seems to give them an out. We mention being 'too comfortable' because all this seems to come unconsciously.
This leads us to one main point we wanted to make specifically today, which is on today's "Meet The Press" you saw the individual who should be in the chair, Kristen Welker. Ms. Welker has been a long-term Washington correspondent, has moderated debates, and it's clear that she has been mentored by the best, Andrea Mitchell.
Ms. Welker's nervousness today showed through with a couple of interruptions but that was because she was challenging her interviews and not letting them just 'walk away' from a tough question. Even in her Q&A with The New York Times' Maggie Habermann, she managed to challenge her on the perception that she is 'too cozy' with the former president.
"Meet The Press" would benefit greatly by having Ms. Welker take over as moderator.
Additionally, we would scrap the big set for something more intimate that provides the atmosphere more of 'politicians are going to have to answer for themselves instead of I'm going to a TV production.' Maybe bringing back the old, old format where you have say one 'liberal' journalist and one 'conservative' journalist ask questions of politicians on the left and the right. Then there is the need for an actual moderator.
We say these things because we truly love "Meet The Press" and will indeed hold it to a higher standard than the rest, because we ask political viewers and information seekers deserve it. If there is any doubt as to our commitment to the program, we have over 600 columns that would say different.
Which leads us to say that this will be the last column for a while... maybe forever. There is only so much shouting at the rain that one can do. And because of what we said above, the program doesn't intellectually provoke in a serious manner anymore, truth be told.
But before we go, there are some things we'd like to put down unequivocally for the record.
On Russia:
Putin, not Russia, is an existential threat not to the 'world order' but the world. Hard stop. As we've seen from recent reports, the war is going badly for Mr. Putin and the Ukrainians aren't backing down. In fact they are taking back their land with counteroffensives. With the blowing up of the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Russia to Crimea, Ukraine is turning the tide of a war that for them has been going on for 8 years. The United States and Europe and NATO should give no quarter to Mr. Putin and keep up the financial and military support to Ukraine at 100 percent. If Mr. Putin is allowed to succeed, he will not stop with Ukraine. If Ukraine wins the war, Russia eventually wins as well. The loser is Putin's regime.
The danger is that if Mr. Putin can't have it, he'll make sure no one can. What we mean by that is that if Mr. Putin can not win in Ukraine, it's not out of the question for him to do the following: Instead of a tactical nuclear strike, Mr. Putin could exist Ukraine after destroying parts of Zeporizhzhia nuclear power plant, endangering all of Europe, and in true Putin style, since it wasn't a 'nuclear strike' per se, he'll blame the Ukrainians.
For all of Europe to prosper and be safer, Mr. Putin has to go.
On The U.S. Midterms and the Near Political Future:
Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives, however, it depends how motivated American women are to vote since having a Constitutional right to privacy taken aware from them. It seems counterintuitive to go with conventional wisdom in these uncoventional times. Outside of that aforementioned variable, we don't see anything to change that.
However, the Senate is a different story and we believe that at the end of the day, the Democrats will hold their majority and perhaps increase it. As we see, the candidacy of Hershel Walker in Georgia is a symptom of the larger problem in the Republican party, which is character, truthfulness, integrity and qualification no longer factor, as long as the candidate, as Yamiche Alcindor put it, a 'means to their political end.'
As for the near 300 Republican election-denying candidates, they have no idea the fire that they are playing with, and nor do the American people writ large, we think. These midterm elections will decide the people in charge of counting the votes in the 2024 presidential election. You can see such a scenario playing out in which the former president runs again and claims election fraud again if he doesn't win. If, and this is a big if, in just one of those states in which an election-denying secretary of state (think Arizona) changes the outcome, hence changing the winner and it all goes through. Democracy in the United States would be shattered.
But here's what they don't get. If it's allowed to stand and the U.S. is no longer called a democracy, the markets will tank because faith in the U.S. dollar will be destroyed. The strength of the dollar is based on the success of the democracy, whether is tacts left or right. All of our current international alliances would all of sudden be up in the air with countries asking, "If you don't believe in your democratic country, why would you believe in ours?" Isolation of this sort will only cause U.S. economic and innovative decline.
If you think inflation is bad now, if the above happens, it's going to get a whole lot worse, not only going to affect the U.S. but through global economy. These individuals haven't an utter clue of the fire they are playing with.
The Gun:
We're all for gun ownership, but unless the United States collectively decides to take truly transformative regulatory legislative steps, they will truly be the tool of our own ruination. Our entire collective attitude toward guns, from all sides, make them a literal and existential threat to the country. The literal threat of being killed by one, and the existential threat of someone taking away your firearm. Both cause people to act irrationally and with less common sense.
You can't rail against crime and if advocate for absolutely no gun regulation. If you want less crime, there must be less guns. The more guns, the more crime. All the rhetoric in the world is not going to change that fact.
A country awash in guns and no shared set of facts due to social media is a recipe for disaster. And if we're going to go down this road, let's at least do it right and bring along plenty of alcohol. We jest, but it speaks to a larger truth, doesn't it.
Well, we could go on and on and on and on, but we'll sign off here. I loved doing this column and I really hope that someone enjoyed it as well. We may be back, maybe not but either way we'll always be watching "Meet The Press."
Thank you thank you thank you! Be safe.
Panel: Maggie Habermann, The New York Times, Yamiche Alcindor, NBC News; Jen Psaki, NBC Analyst; Brendan Buck, Republican Strategist
No comments:
Post a Comment