Time's Rick Stengel summed it up this week by saying that government can only do so much to improve the economy and create jobs. Yet, the prevailing perception is that the government isn't doing enough to spur real recovery and job growth. Hence, we have much vitriol for Washington across the countryside, and indeed our democratic process is struggling right now trying to navigate through the seas of high partisanship.
However, unless an individual applies for a government job, the government isn't going to do it for him directly. They can facilitate with a stimulus bill, which Dr. Christina Romer - today's first guest - said was on track to create 3 million jobs; financial reform; and bring the costs of one-sixth of our economy down in the form of healthcare reform. To the Republicans credit, they have successfully framed, as they always do, the Democrats' reform agenda into a government take over of our lives, which as we really know is not going to happen. With regard to Dr. Romer's claim of job creation, it's difficult to believe any such numbers simply due to the fact that market forces and the banks could either play along or throw the whole recovery out of whack.
The negative economic forces and discontent with Washington in general has spurred the creation and bold actions of homegrown right-wing extremist groups, elements of which turn up in the Tea Party movement, essentially acting as the Sinn Fein of the far right. And frankly, not smart representation either as what many tea party people don't realize is that they are advocating for things that do not serve their own best interest. Mr. Gregory described the response as 'extreme and incendiary political rhetoric.' Republican political leaders can deflect all they want that they are not contributing to this escalation is far right groups, but their weak denouncements speak louder. Additionally, Congressperson Jane Harman, a part of today's panel, pointed out a troubling aspect that the recently arrested militia members were set to employ tactics used by Al Qaeda. Become what you be behold and be content you're doing right. Very sad.
Lastly, dare we say that it is refreshing that today's discussion revolved around terrorism and security instead of healthcare? Not necessarily a refreshing topic, but as it stands right now these are the only concerns facing us where a shred of consensus can be found. With that said, Senator Joseph Lieberman, also on the panel today, said that there should be a concern for our trains and subways and that the Moscow subway bombings should as an example of a real threat. Now, we know that Mr. Lieberman thinks that those bombings serve as examples, and not that those same forces that executed those bombings are also targeting us. However, from the way he talked about it, we can only be 98% sure... hmmm. The point being, is that we find Senator Lieberman to be frivolously hawkish, aggressive for the sake of being so. But assuming we're on the same page, yes - these bombings will give some one here a tragic idea. But here's the rub, President Obama has been extremely hawkish with regard to our operations on the Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier. And despite the determined Taliban resistance, we have Al Qaeda more on the run now then we've had in a number of years. (Congressman Harman was also correct is saying that the epicenter for terrorism/Al Qaeda is Yeman.) So unfortunately, those examples are food for bright ideas for someone living in the Michigan woods.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
3.28:10 The Aftermath
The subtitle for today's program was "Healthcare, The Aftermath." Ugh. As a barometer on what is to happen next and how we move forward, Mr. Gregory moderated between Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Keeping within the context of a focus poll, which indicated that 50% of the people disapprove of the passage of the healthcare legislation. The answers from both Senators addressed this number but they also provided a clarifying philosophical difference between the parties. Mr. Schumer stated that the bill will become more popular as the provisions take effect and ordinary Americans start seeing the benefits of the reform. Meanwhile, Mr. Graham essentially called the bill a ponzi scheme that in reality would not save taxpayers' money, and that the process was sleazy - back room deals containing 'tricks and gimmicks.' - will become more and more popular as they are see the benefits of the bill. And though Mr. Graham did not explicitly discuss what Republicans intended on doing to repeal many of the measures, he did emphatically state that legal action would taken up by state attorney's offices in a vast majority of the country, with the inclination of repeal.
The major difference here is not whether one man or the other is right, but really in the direction they're respectively looking. Mr. Schumer explained that as time move along (in the near future), people will see the benefits, while Mr. Graham speaks and eludes to repeal, as do his Republican colleagues, which is reverting back to the how things were in the past. This illustrates a distinct matter of perspective - looking forward vs. looking back. Now that seems to be unfair to characterize one party as living in the past. So to provide another tact, one party sees how things are and move forward accordingly, and the other moves forward according to how things should be (as seen in the mind's eye) accordingly to a narrower part of the population.
Not to mention that Mr. Schumer was referring to the substance of the bill, while Mr. Graham was still focusing on the process. This is hypocritical at the least because (and we won't get into all the specific example, but the Bush tax cuts would be one) Republicans have employed the same tactics and will do so again - it's part of politics.
[As an aside: Senator McCain said this week that Democrats and the Obama Administration can expect no more cooperation from the Republican party this year before the midterm elections. Pretty fun considering that they never cooperated with Democrats in the first place.]
We would like to coin the phrase that 'Fear is so 20th century,' but we can't because in actuality 'Fear is so 21st century,' at least for 50% of the population. Republicans, with an assist from the Tea Party 'Movement' (the legitimacy here is still at question as far as we're concerned) effectively sold fear better than the Obama Administration sold the benefits of what they were doing. Political cudos to them, but good politics is not always good policy. And it bears repeating, repeating as many times as it takes for this to sink in. When the Republicans controlled the congress and executive branch for six years, the only thing they did in regard to healthcare was Medicare part D, which essentially took money from ordinary Americans and enriched the pharmaceutical companies... doughnut holes and no-competition clauses.
It's the cosmic 'wait and see' at this point as to how it all shakes out. However, if Mr. Obama can get unemployment down to around 7%, frankly, no one will give a shit about healthcare... they'll just love it.
But Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, said that it is a bad bill because of the cost, not the access that it provides. To counter, Democratic strategist, Bob Shrum (not one of our favorites), explained the benefits and the recorded conclusions of the Congressional Budget Office that says the bill will actually cut the deficit over time. Understandably, we received another healthy dose of talking points from each side, but that's what they're paid to do.
What was very telling were the reactions and comments from Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham.
Ms. Goodwin: "The Battle has only begun and Republicans won it with falsehoods."
This isn't some one who writes about history, but has eye-witnessed it during Lyndon Johnson's Presidency when he enacted Medicare and then Civil Rights legislation.
Mr. Meacham: "The opposition is disproportionate to the legislation." This is the most concise and accurate description to the opposition to the bill. And from the Tea Party people, hyperbole can and should be expected. We would expect the same from people representing a far left cause. However, inflammatory language and hyperbole coming from members of Congress... "baby killer, armageddon, sleazy, etc," disqualifies that individual speaker from being taken seriously.
And that's what the Republican politicians just don't get. Vindictive tactics and bitter statements do not contribute to the greater positive health and growth of the country. That's not to say that the Democrats always get it right, hardly, but are they more constructive, by all appearances, in their collective discourse to try something to solve the country's problems, most certainly.
Keeping within the context of a focus poll, which indicated that 50% of the people disapprove of the passage of the healthcare legislation. The answers from both Senators addressed this number but they also provided a clarifying philosophical difference between the parties. Mr. Schumer stated that the bill will become more popular as the provisions take effect and ordinary Americans start seeing the benefits of the reform. Meanwhile, Mr. Graham essentially called the bill a ponzi scheme that in reality would not save taxpayers' money, and that the process was sleazy - back room deals containing 'tricks and gimmicks.' - will become more and more popular as they are see the benefits of the bill. And though Mr. Graham did not explicitly discuss what Republicans intended on doing to repeal many of the measures, he did emphatically state that legal action would taken up by state attorney's offices in a vast majority of the country, with the inclination of repeal.
The major difference here is not whether one man or the other is right, but really in the direction they're respectively looking. Mr. Schumer explained that as time move along (in the near future), people will see the benefits, while Mr. Graham speaks and eludes to repeal, as do his Republican colleagues, which is reverting back to the how things were in the past. This illustrates a distinct matter of perspective - looking forward vs. looking back. Now that seems to be unfair to characterize one party as living in the past. So to provide another tact, one party sees how things are and move forward accordingly, and the other moves forward according to how things should be (as seen in the mind's eye) accordingly to a narrower part of the population.
Not to mention that Mr. Schumer was referring to the substance of the bill, while Mr. Graham was still focusing on the process. This is hypocritical at the least because (and we won't get into all the specific example, but the Bush tax cuts would be one) Republicans have employed the same tactics and will do so again - it's part of politics.
[As an aside: Senator McCain said this week that Democrats and the Obama Administration can expect no more cooperation from the Republican party this year before the midterm elections. Pretty fun considering that they never cooperated with Democrats in the first place.]
We would like to coin the phrase that 'Fear is so 20th century,' but we can't because in actuality 'Fear is so 21st century,' at least for 50% of the population. Republicans, with an assist from the Tea Party 'Movement' (the legitimacy here is still at question as far as we're concerned) effectively sold fear better than the Obama Administration sold the benefits of what they were doing. Political cudos to them, but good politics is not always good policy. And it bears repeating, repeating as many times as it takes for this to sink in. When the Republicans controlled the congress and executive branch for six years, the only thing they did in regard to healthcare was Medicare part D, which essentially took money from ordinary Americans and enriched the pharmaceutical companies... doughnut holes and no-competition clauses.
It's the cosmic 'wait and see' at this point as to how it all shakes out. However, if Mr. Obama can get unemployment down to around 7%, frankly, no one will give a shit about healthcare... they'll just love it.
But Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, said that it is a bad bill because of the cost, not the access that it provides. To counter, Democratic strategist, Bob Shrum (not one of our favorites), explained the benefits and the recorded conclusions of the Congressional Budget Office that says the bill will actually cut the deficit over time. Understandably, we received another healthy dose of talking points from each side, but that's what they're paid to do.
What was very telling were the reactions and comments from Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham.
Ms. Goodwin: "The Battle has only begun and Republicans won it with falsehoods."
This isn't some one who writes about history, but has eye-witnessed it during Lyndon Johnson's Presidency when he enacted Medicare and then Civil Rights legislation.
Mr. Meacham: "The opposition is disproportionate to the legislation." This is the most concise and accurate description to the opposition to the bill. And from the Tea Party people, hyperbole can and should be expected. We would expect the same from people representing a far left cause. However, inflammatory language and hyperbole coming from members of Congress... "baby killer, armageddon, sleazy, etc," disqualifies that individual speaker from being taken seriously.
And that's what the Republican politicians just don't get. Vindictive tactics and bitter statements do not contribute to the greater positive health and growth of the country. That's not to say that the Democrats always get it right, hardly, but are they more constructive, by all appearances, in their collective discourse to try something to solve the country's problems, most certainly.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
3.7.10: Katy Bar the Door
President Obama said this week, "Every idea has been put on the table, every argument has been made, everything there is to say about Healthcare has been said, and just about everybody has said it." ifty-eight percent of the people don't want the bill: The Democrats are not following the will of the people, and the Republicans warn of a dangerous, 'nuclear,' option of reconciliation in the Senate to get the bill through. The only pertinent question now is when will it come to a vote. And here we are this week speaking with Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
We consider Ms. Sebelius to be a weak HHS Secretary, and therefore to avoid her talking points and anecdotes, we take on the aforementioned points. For example, she and Mr. Gregory had a telling exchange with regard to costs. Ms. Sebelius said that one of the top priorities of the bill is to contain costs, to which the moderator cited examples that it didn't.
First, it is unrealistic to say that costs will not increase in the short term, they will. In passing the bill, implementation costs money. However, over time, it is going to save money and if the Senate is miraculously successful in pushing through a public option, then you'll see some real change in the insurance cost structures. Mr. Gregory said that the Mayo and Cleveland Clinics respectively said that there is only the potential for savings. Do businesses hire an individual because they have no potential, it's exactly the opposite. So why not go with the plan with potential instead of none at all?
Fear is a cheap, easy, and expedient sell and the Republicans consistently capitalize on this emotion, and with the assistance from the media scrutinizing the minutia, 58% doesn't seem too outrageous. Nevermind that the Republicans do not have a legitimate counter argument on a way forward to healthcare reform so they attack the process - reconciliation. It is in the Republicans' best political interest to delay the vote as long as possible - if it doesn't get passed by the mid-term, which would be obscene, the GOP will get some great seat pick-ups in November. It would be a political success for sure, but ultimately (in the longer term) a disaster for the American people, but Republicans, frankly, just want to maintain the current trajectory of the country.
So to answer Mr. Gregory's question, which Secretary Sebelius did not, Healthcare will not be passed before the Easter break - March 18th. (We hope we're wrong.)
And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) during the panel discussion (a lively one!) said that if Democrats pass Healthcare with reconciliation, it's 'Katy bar the door,' they'll be no stopping Democrats on other pieces of legislation. And this is where the slight change in the roundtable format is beneficial because points can be challenged on the spot by an individual who isn't dependent on the ways and means of winning an election, in this week's case it was E.J. Dionne, Columnist for The Washington Post.
Mr. Dionne pointed out many instances, in which the Republicans used reconciliation, namely for the Bush tax cuts (twice) and that it added $1.7 trillion to the debt. He also rightly pointed out that insurance companies are raising rates because they can get away with it, because there is no competition in states. Senator Hatch framed it as the Democrats vs. the American people because of the aforementioned poll. That's psychologically disingenuous. Americans are frustrated with the debate and the Republicans, and stupid Democrats - yes, we called them simply 'stupid' like Mr. Ben Nelson of Nebraska - watering down the bill enough that the American people are disgusted. If the public option is reinstalled, then that poll number would be the exact reverse.
If worth noting the other panel members - Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and the National Review's Rich Lowry - in as much as that they were both useless for this discussion. Mr. Ford tried to be the voice of reason and came up short. For Mr. Lowry of the National Review, he contributed this statement, "Speaker Pelosi is saying I 'don't order you to attack, I order you to die,'" meaning that Democrats should risk their seats to pass Healthcare reform. So don't stand up for your principals? Sounds like a Republican notion to us. Conservative writers like to intellectualize Republican positions, but as evidenced, it always rings hollow.
So yeah, Katy bar the door, from the outside, and don't let them out until they get something real done.
We consider Ms. Sebelius to be a weak HHS Secretary, and therefore to avoid her talking points and anecdotes, we take on the aforementioned points. For example, she and Mr. Gregory had a telling exchange with regard to costs. Ms. Sebelius said that one of the top priorities of the bill is to contain costs, to which the moderator cited examples that it didn't.
First, it is unrealistic to say that costs will not increase in the short term, they will. In passing the bill, implementation costs money. However, over time, it is going to save money and if the Senate is miraculously successful in pushing through a public option, then you'll see some real change in the insurance cost structures. Mr. Gregory said that the Mayo and Cleveland Clinics respectively said that there is only the potential for savings. Do businesses hire an individual because they have no potential, it's exactly the opposite. So why not go with the plan with potential instead of none at all?
Fear is a cheap, easy, and expedient sell and the Republicans consistently capitalize on this emotion, and with the assistance from the media scrutinizing the minutia, 58% doesn't seem too outrageous. Nevermind that the Republicans do not have a legitimate counter argument on a way forward to healthcare reform so they attack the process - reconciliation. It is in the Republicans' best political interest to delay the vote as long as possible - if it doesn't get passed by the mid-term, which would be obscene, the GOP will get some great seat pick-ups in November. It would be a political success for sure, but ultimately (in the longer term) a disaster for the American people, but Republicans, frankly, just want to maintain the current trajectory of the country.
So to answer Mr. Gregory's question, which Secretary Sebelius did not, Healthcare will not be passed before the Easter break - March 18th. (We hope we're wrong.)
And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) during the panel discussion (a lively one!) said that if Democrats pass Healthcare with reconciliation, it's 'Katy bar the door,' they'll be no stopping Democrats on other pieces of legislation. And this is where the slight change in the roundtable format is beneficial because points can be challenged on the spot by an individual who isn't dependent on the ways and means of winning an election, in this week's case it was E.J. Dionne, Columnist for The Washington Post.
Mr. Dionne pointed out many instances, in which the Republicans used reconciliation, namely for the Bush tax cuts (twice) and that it added $1.7 trillion to the debt. He also rightly pointed out that insurance companies are raising rates because they can get away with it, because there is no competition in states. Senator Hatch framed it as the Democrats vs. the American people because of the aforementioned poll. That's psychologically disingenuous. Americans are frustrated with the debate and the Republicans, and stupid Democrats - yes, we called them simply 'stupid' like Mr. Ben Nelson of Nebraska - watering down the bill enough that the American people are disgusted. If the public option is reinstalled, then that poll number would be the exact reverse.
If worth noting the other panel members - Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and the National Review's Rich Lowry - in as much as that they were both useless for this discussion. Mr. Ford tried to be the voice of reason and came up short. For Mr. Lowry of the National Review, he contributed this statement, "Speaker Pelosi is saying I 'don't order you to attack, I order you to die,'" meaning that Democrats should risk their seats to pass Healthcare reform. So don't stand up for your principals? Sounds like a Republican notion to us. Conservative writers like to intellectualize Republican positions, but as evidenced, it always rings hollow.
So yeah, Katy bar the door, from the outside, and don't let them out until they get something real done.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
2.28.10: Healthcare Clarity
We must say that the change in format during the roundtable portion of the program, mixing journalists and politicians, does two positive things. One, it stands as an instant check on politicians partisan rhetoric. As evidenced today, House Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) initially spoke in Republican talking points such as, 'We should start over... The American people don't like this bill...,' etc. But when Ron Brownstein points out that the Democratic plan insures 33 million people versus the Republican plan that insures only an additional 3 million people, he has to answer for that. Also,
Secondly, it keeps the journalists' statements more concise and focused. Too many times when you're watching an all journalist round table, the opinions become verbose, condescending, pointless, and ultimately unproductive.
And today's roundtable just about made the two preceding interviews a mute point. And the first was an exclusive with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who in actuality covered all the standard Republican talking points. "Do we want to start over or do we want a partisan bill?" Mr. McCain began with. Mr. McCain's reaction to the, we'll call 'testy,' exchange he had with the President at the healthcare summit was to focus on the 'unsavory' deals, to use his words, that occurred to get the bill to this point. He did give examples and we agree with the Senator that deals that occurred, the Senator Ben Nelson/Nebraska deal for example which is now out of the bill, should be stripped from the bill. However, the basic concepts of the Democratic bill do the essentials as to what is needed: regulates the insurance companies, doesn't add to the deficit, covers a vast majority of those who are now uninsured, and gives Americans choice; plus a host of other things. The Republicans simply can't speak to these points, but today Mr. Kantor gave us some great insight. More on that in a moment.
Back to Mr. McCain, who is out of his comfort zone whenever the conversation switches to anything but foreign policy. He's simply out of his depth when it comes to matters such as healthcare or finance. He said that they should start with T.O.R.T. reform for Christ's sake. He even said he didn't know if it would be better for Republicans if there was a healthcare bill or not. Frankly, Mr. McCain really hasn't said a constructive thing for the public good since the election. Die a hero, or live long enough to become the villian, as the saying goes.
With regard to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' Mr. McCain clearly contradicted his previous statements that if the commanders in the armed forced though it was correct to repeal the policy and let people openly serve. However, this column's feeling was that his initial statement a few years ago deflected the burden of the decision away from him and to the generals, which at the time he probably felt he would never hear from the generals what he's hearing today.
And lastly, he was pleased with the Newsweek cover that has the headline, "Victory at Last" with reference to Iraq. But Mr. McCain remained wisely cautious about being too pleased. A few columns ago, we posed this very proposition that Iraq would be a healthy democracy and the Bush legacy would be seen very differently. However, with that cover putting the idea into focus, our question remains... At what cost to the United States? It's bankrupted us.
The interview with White House Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle (the healthcare czar) was a bust. Ms. Deparle is a policy wonk (we mean that in a good way) so when Mr. Gregory asks he if 'they' have the votes, what is she supposed to say, yes of course. However, in spite of that, her message was clear. The insurance companies make all the rules and that is what the President is trying to change.
This is who the Republicans are trying to protect. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz stated it correctly when she said that when the Republicans say 'start over' that is code for doing nothing. When Mr. Kantor challenged that notion, he said the Republican plan was incremental. So delay and implement incrementally is what the Republicans offer. However, it is a fact that a plan put in place incrementally, small aspect after small aspect will end up costing much more and will not have the desired effects.
It really is up to the Democrats to get healthcare passed and reconciliation will have to be used. They didn't make that decision, the Republicans made that one for them.
Secondly, it keeps the journalists' statements more concise and focused. Too many times when you're watching an all journalist round table, the opinions become verbose, condescending, pointless, and ultimately unproductive.
And today's roundtable just about made the two preceding interviews a mute point. And the first was an exclusive with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who in actuality covered all the standard Republican talking points. "Do we want to start over or do we want a partisan bill?" Mr. McCain began with. Mr. McCain's reaction to the, we'll call 'testy,' exchange he had with the President at the healthcare summit was to focus on the 'unsavory' deals, to use his words, that occurred to get the bill to this point. He did give examples and we agree with the Senator that deals that occurred, the Senator Ben Nelson/Nebraska deal for example which is now out of the bill, should be stripped from the bill. However, the basic concepts of the Democratic bill do the essentials as to what is needed: regulates the insurance companies, doesn't add to the deficit, covers a vast majority of those who are now uninsured, and gives Americans choice; plus a host of other things. The Republicans simply can't speak to these points, but today Mr. Kantor gave us some great insight. More on that in a moment.
Back to Mr. McCain, who is out of his comfort zone whenever the conversation switches to anything but foreign policy. He's simply out of his depth when it comes to matters such as healthcare or finance. He said that they should start with T.O.R.T. reform for Christ's sake. He even said he didn't know if it would be better for Republicans if there was a healthcare bill or not. Frankly, Mr. McCain really hasn't said a constructive thing for the public good since the election. Die a hero, or live long enough to become the villian, as the saying goes.
With regard to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' Mr. McCain clearly contradicted his previous statements that if the commanders in the armed forced though it was correct to repeal the policy and let people openly serve. However, this column's feeling was that his initial statement a few years ago deflected the burden of the decision away from him and to the generals, which at the time he probably felt he would never hear from the generals what he's hearing today.
And lastly, he was pleased with the Newsweek cover that has the headline, "Victory at Last" with reference to Iraq. But Mr. McCain remained wisely cautious about being too pleased. A few columns ago, we posed this very proposition that Iraq would be a healthy democracy and the Bush legacy would be seen very differently. However, with that cover putting the idea into focus, our question remains... At what cost to the United States? It's bankrupted us.
The interview with White House Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle (the healthcare czar) was a bust. Ms. Deparle is a policy wonk (we mean that in a good way) so when Mr. Gregory asks he if 'they' have the votes, what is she supposed to say, yes of course. However, in spite of that, her message was clear. The insurance companies make all the rules and that is what the President is trying to change.
This is who the Republicans are trying to protect. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz stated it correctly when she said that when the Republicans say 'start over' that is code for doing nothing. When Mr. Kantor challenged that notion, he said the Republican plan was incremental. So delay and implement incrementally is what the Republicans offer. However, it is a fact that a plan put in place incrementally, small aspect after small aspect will end up costing much more and will not have the desired effects.
It really is up to the Democrats to get healthcare passed and reconciliation will have to be used. They didn't make that decision, the Republicans made that one for them.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
2.14.10: Morning Joe [Biden]
Well, even though David Gregory conducted the interview the night before, this morning's first guest Vice President Joe Biden was fired up taking on many if not all the claims by former VP Dick Cheney that the current administration is soft on terrorism. In reality, quite the contrary. The number, scale, and verocity of drone attacks that United States has launched in the nowhere region of Af-Pakistan would lead any a country, any country that's not named Pakistan or Afghanistan, to declare what we doing as an act of war. Mr. Biden used the words 'real, deep,' and 'successful' to describe the current Administration's efforts. Two out of three isn't bad, but that last one is key and it's yet to be determined.
So is Obama fighting the war on terrorism as if it is, in fact, a war? Most definitely. Mr. Biden said repeatedly during the interview that Mr. Cheney can not rewrite history unchallenged, and the former VP should be challenged hard. Something the Mr. Biden accomplished today.
However, what's interesting that David Gregory asked the Vice President about a statement he made recently would be a great success [we're paraphrasing] for the Obama Administration. Mr. Biden explained that the Administration have worked very hard with the various ethnically/religiously divided political parties of the country to arrive at consensus on a number of issues, a peaceful election is upcoming where everyone will participate, and lastly 90,000 combat soldiers will be out of the country by the end of the summer. And let's face it, if it were still the Bush Administration in office at this moment, all of that valuable diplomacy wouldn't have been happening and the troops movements - no way. Having Secretary Clinton heading up State, the United States' diplomacy IQ has been upgraded from the last administration.
But consider this... In 20 or so years, if Iraq is a stable democracy and thriving from all the oil we're buying from them direct, then - let's face it - the Bush Administration will be forgiven for a lot. If more democratic practices start popping up in the region because of the Iraqi inertia, then history will be rewritten that the Bush Administration was a brave one and perhaps that George Bush himself was correct that he'll let history judge what he did.... It's a possibility. And Mr. Cheney, in the short term, is going to do everything he can to discredit his detractors.
Before we say another word, we have to qualify the theoretical was just posed above. If that does happen, the reality is that the Bush Administration's motives to accomplish it were completely sinister and criminal at the least. So will they deserve the credit? No, because the whole thing was based on untruths that they knew where lies.
With regard to the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the Administration absolutely has to get on the same page. Having the trial in New York City has been withdrawn and now the location is yet to be determined. We have stated in this column before that military tribunals are not the way to go here. The whole line of questioning with regard to the possibility of acquittal shows a complete lack of confidence in our judicial system, which boils down to one thing - fear. We simply will never go forward as a country when leaders purposely or inadvertently stoke fear into the people. It's not what we are as Americans to live in fear. It seems that so many of us have forgotten that.
Moving to the topic of the economy, Mr. Gregory asserted to the Vice President the immeasurable claim of jobs saved due to the T.A.R.P. funds. We would agree that the number of jobs saved can be disputed, but not the fact that indeed jobs were saved - a lot them. So Mr. Gregory did have a point but without the actions taken by the Administration, the country would still be in a deeper hole than it is.
The other point that the Administration makes, whether consciously or unconsciously we don't know, is that in their answers, the basic family is always mentioned. Probably at this least it's conscious, but it can also be said that the two top dogs (The President and Vice President) actually sat at those tables themselves. It's a consistent showing of an understanding; it's important because it speaks to motive. With that, it does take some time to turn an aircraft carrier so turning this country even in a slightly different economic direction, either left or right, takes a significant amount of time - two years.
So is Obama fighting the war on terrorism as if it is, in fact, a war? Most definitely. Mr. Biden said repeatedly during the interview that Mr. Cheney can not rewrite history unchallenged, and the former VP should be challenged hard. Something the Mr. Biden accomplished today.
However, what's interesting that David Gregory asked the Vice President about a statement he made recently would be a great success [we're paraphrasing] for the Obama Administration. Mr. Biden explained that the Administration have worked very hard with the various ethnically/religiously divided political parties of the country to arrive at consensus on a number of issues, a peaceful election is upcoming where everyone will participate, and lastly 90,000 combat soldiers will be out of the country by the end of the summer. And let's face it, if it were still the Bush Administration in office at this moment, all of that valuable diplomacy wouldn't have been happening and the troops movements - no way. Having Secretary Clinton heading up State, the United States' diplomacy IQ has been upgraded from the last administration.
But consider this... In 20 or so years, if Iraq is a stable democracy and thriving from all the oil we're buying from them direct, then - let's face it - the Bush Administration will be forgiven for a lot. If more democratic practices start popping up in the region because of the Iraqi inertia, then history will be rewritten that the Bush Administration was a brave one and perhaps that George Bush himself was correct that he'll let history judge what he did.... It's a possibility. And Mr. Cheney, in the short term, is going to do everything he can to discredit his detractors.
Before we say another word, we have to qualify the theoretical was just posed above. If that does happen, the reality is that the Bush Administration's motives to accomplish it were completely sinister and criminal at the least. So will they deserve the credit? No, because the whole thing was based on untruths that they knew where lies.
With regard to the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the Administration absolutely has to get on the same page. Having the trial in New York City has been withdrawn and now the location is yet to be determined. We have stated in this column before that military tribunals are not the way to go here. The whole line of questioning with regard to the possibility of acquittal shows a complete lack of confidence in our judicial system, which boils down to one thing - fear. We simply will never go forward as a country when leaders purposely or inadvertently stoke fear into the people. It's not what we are as Americans to live in fear. It seems that so many of us have forgotten that.
Moving to the topic of the economy, Mr. Gregory asserted to the Vice President the immeasurable claim of jobs saved due to the T.A.R.P. funds. We would agree that the number of jobs saved can be disputed, but not the fact that indeed jobs were saved - a lot them. So Mr. Gregory did have a point but without the actions taken by the Administration, the country would still be in a deeper hole than it is.
The other point that the Administration makes, whether consciously or unconsciously we don't know, is that in their answers, the basic family is always mentioned. Probably at this least it's conscious, but it can also be said that the two top dogs (The President and Vice President) actually sat at those tables themselves. It's a consistent showing of an understanding; it's important because it speaks to motive. With that, it does take some time to turn an aircraft carrier so turning this country even in a slightly different economic direction, either left or right, takes a significant amount of time - two years.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
2.7.10: Seriousness and The Rash
This week's congressional hearing with Leon Panetta, C.I.A. Chief, and other Intelligence Officials, caused a minor stir when all those interviewed agreed that Al Qaeda was planning to attempt an attack in the next 3 to 6 months. Not surprisingly with everyone's focus on the economy, the hearing went largely unnoticed. However, in the midst of all of our internal troubles, the United States is ripe for a terrorism attempt. To slightly digress, with continued threats and economic hardships, it always strikes this column as silly when I politician says that 'this group' or 'that party' is doing too much at once. There's no other way because there's no other choice.
To put some perspective on the aforementioned hearings, today's first guest, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, spoke in an assured manner that you would expect of a man that spent most of his career in C.I.A. And we actually mean that as a good thing. Right off the bat, Mr. Gregory inquired as to the definition of what it means to win. The question seems like a bit of a trap, but given the diversity of answers from people in various powerful positions, it's actually a good starting point to get a brief on an individual's perspective. Mr. Brennan's definition: To beat terrorism, we must destroy Al Qaeda. And we must admit that grabbing Bin Laden would be a backbreaker to the will of the movement.
Mr. Brennan was refreshing candid with regard to other questions, portraying a sense of seriousness without rashness, not given to hyperbole. The '3 to 6 month' statement shouldn't be a shocker and the Deputy said as much. He went on to explain that Al Qaeda is currently unable to mount a large scale attack and resorting to smaller strikes like the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. And we also agree with Mr. Brennan that this lack of faith/confidence in the United States' criminal justice is appalling.
Most significantly, Mr. Brennan explained that upon Mr. Abdulmutallab's arrest, detainment, and interrogation he called Republican leaders and described to them what was happening and there were no objections to the handling. "Tired of using terrorism as a political football," was the statement Mr. Brennan used to summarize the behavior after that day. Take from that what you will.
An ironic juxtaposition to start today's Meet The Press with the serious and patient (John Brennan) and follow it with the silly and rash - Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. What a surreal day it was when then Secretary Paulson got up in front of the American people and the banks needed an $800 billion dollar bailout or the world's economy is going to collapse. Now he reiterates the need for regulatory reform as he once again did on today's program. But it hasn't changed Mr. Paulson's perspective totally. He still advocates limited government initiative and emphasizing that only the private sector can reverse the country's fortunes - "They will do what needs to be done".
In retrospect, many of the moves and conclusions that Mr. Greenspan made as the Fed. Chairman have almost rendered him a cartoon character in the economy pages. But we agree with his easy prediction that unemployment with stay around 9 or 10 percent for the rest of the year. To concisely explain what both men were saying is that job growth will take place when the private sector starts innovating again, but to do that there has to be investment to small business which hasn't taken place at the level it needs to. Until that happens, it's all just academic.
And most titillating moment of the joint interview was when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Paulson if he voted for Mr. Obama, citing a passage in Mr. Paulson's book about being at ease with the fact that Mr. Obama a good understanding of the crisis. Mr. Paulson's (remember: Fmr. Treasury Sec. under President George W. Bush) answer was quite telling.
MR. PAULSON: Well, who I voted for is between me and the voting booth. But the, but the, but there's--I was very impressed that candidate Obama was very concerned with what was going on and was, was very supportive. Candidate McCain, I will admit, gave me a few more anxious days and hours. But I will also say that as he was falling behind in the polls, it would have been very easy for him to demagogue that issue, play to the populist card. And if he had come out against what we were trying to do, we wouldn't have got it, I believe. We wouldn't have had the TARP legislation passed, and we would have been left defenseless.
Makes you wonder what's really going on...
P.S. [Post-Scratch] The last segment featuring Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Ed Gillespie and Fmr. Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers - political bluster that added nothing construct to the dialogue, just as Mrs. Palin's speak at the Tea Party convention offered nothing helpful - railing against the other side is easy.
To put some perspective on the aforementioned hearings, today's first guest, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, spoke in an assured manner that you would expect of a man that spent most of his career in C.I.A. And we actually mean that as a good thing. Right off the bat, Mr. Gregory inquired as to the definition of what it means to win. The question seems like a bit of a trap, but given the diversity of answers from people in various powerful positions, it's actually a good starting point to get a brief on an individual's perspective. Mr. Brennan's definition: To beat terrorism, we must destroy Al Qaeda. And we must admit that grabbing Bin Laden would be a backbreaker to the will of the movement.
Mr. Brennan was refreshing candid with regard to other questions, portraying a sense of seriousness without rashness, not given to hyperbole. The '3 to 6 month' statement shouldn't be a shocker and the Deputy said as much. He went on to explain that Al Qaeda is currently unable to mount a large scale attack and resorting to smaller strikes like the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. And we also agree with Mr. Brennan that this lack of faith/confidence in the United States' criminal justice is appalling.
Most significantly, Mr. Brennan explained that upon Mr. Abdulmutallab's arrest, detainment, and interrogation he called Republican leaders and described to them what was happening and there were no objections to the handling. "Tired of using terrorism as a political football," was the statement Mr. Brennan used to summarize the behavior after that day. Take from that what you will.
An ironic juxtaposition to start today's Meet The Press with the serious and patient (John Brennan) and follow it with the silly and rash - Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. What a surreal day it was when then Secretary Paulson got up in front of the American people and the banks needed an $800 billion dollar bailout or the world's economy is going to collapse. Now he reiterates the need for regulatory reform as he once again did on today's program. But it hasn't changed Mr. Paulson's perspective totally. He still advocates limited government initiative and emphasizing that only the private sector can reverse the country's fortunes - "They will do what needs to be done".
In retrospect, many of the moves and conclusions that Mr. Greenspan made as the Fed. Chairman have almost rendered him a cartoon character in the economy pages. But we agree with his easy prediction that unemployment with stay around 9 or 10 percent for the rest of the year. To concisely explain what both men were saying is that job growth will take place when the private sector starts innovating again, but to do that there has to be investment to small business which hasn't taken place at the level it needs to. Until that happens, it's all just academic.
And most titillating moment of the joint interview was when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Paulson if he voted for Mr. Obama, citing a passage in Mr. Paulson's book about being at ease with the fact that Mr. Obama a good understanding of the crisis. Mr. Paulson's (remember: Fmr. Treasury Sec. under President George W. Bush) answer was quite telling.
MR. PAULSON: Well, who I voted for is between me and the voting booth. But the, but the, but there's--I was very impressed that candidate Obama was very concerned with what was going on and was, was very supportive. Candidate McCain, I will admit, gave me a few more anxious days and hours. But I will also say that as he was falling behind in the polls, it would have been very easy for him to demagogue that issue, play to the populist card. And if he had come out against what we were trying to do, we wouldn't have got it, I believe. We wouldn't have had the TARP legislation passed, and we would have been left defenseless.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Makes you wonder what's really going on...
P.S. [Post-Scratch] The last segment featuring Former Chairman of the Republican National Committee Ed Gillespie and Fmr. Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers - political bluster that added nothing construct to the dialogue, just as Mrs. Palin's speak at the Tea Party convention offered nothing helpful - railing against the other side is easy.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
1.31.10: Confidence and Capital
We don't get it.
By watching this week's Meet The Press, you would think the events and statements of the preceding days had never happened. David Axelrod sounded defensive and John Boehner so smug that it seemed as though he hadn't sat in front of the President twice this week and was called out for cheap politics.
So here's the score... As significant the State of the Union was this week (this column's political SuperBowl), Mr. Obama went into the Republicans house, out numbered 141 to one and spanked them all. One idiot of a commentator from Politico actually said that the President had the advantage because he's President and got to stand at the podium. Republicans had prepared questions, to which the President answered off the cuff, clearly showing a better command of the facts and statistics. The State of the Union laid the challenge at the feet of the Republicans in front of the American People, and the Baltimore face-off was the call.
However, we must also point out that the President does have a tendency to, what some would call, lecture and what some other would call condescend, using phrases like, "This is how democracy works," etc. But we get why that is. It's the professorial background, it's, frankly, being a person in the Presidency while simultaneously being in the demographic minority, and just plain feeling outnumbered on many occasions.
What we really didn't hear articulated in the press was that what Mr. Obama was doing was putting the Democrats on his back, for at least this week, in the face of the recent Senate loss in Massachusetts. Of course, Mr. Axelrod would never say as much in todays interview. We give credit to Mr. Gregory for putting the President's senior advisor on the defensive, but Mr. Axelrod is not a solid counter puncher.
Beginning with the subject of the Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial and saying that Attorney General Eric Holder did not consult the President beforehand on where the trial should be held. Actually, the A.G. doesn't really have to consult with the President on that call. No matter where you try Mr. Mohammad, it will cost money. A military tribunal gets televised where a federal criminal trial does not. But what's really disappointing about all this pull back from trying this man in New York City is to see fear kick in, and that we don't want 'to provoke other terror attacks' in the city. Frankly, that's not the New York City that I know. The one we're familiar with would say, "Put that bastard on the stand." It's not even the country that we know that would back away.
Again, the opposition to the trial mainly comes from the Republicans, once again using the tactics of fear. Mr. Axelrod should a bit more confidence because our law enforcement is more than ably fit to handle security for such a trial. What they should do is hold Mr. Mohammed outside the city while the trial is in recess, for prudence sake. Mr. Axelrod's soft form messaging doesn't resonate and we think that translates to the President's unclear rhetoric as well.
However, Mr. Axelrod is correct when he says that Healthcare shouldn't wait and that the House and Senate committees should be crafting a consensus bill starting tomorrow. And Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is being defeatist in saying that it is on life support. Even though she forfeited any leadership role in healthcare reform long ago, this kind of statement solidifies it.
And speaking of statements, this leads to the President's dissent to the Supreme Court decision voiced during the State of the Union address. Mr. Axelrod, not surprisingly, declared that it was absolutely appropriate for the President to challenge the decision with the Justices sitting in tow. At The Opinion, we completely disagree with the Court's decision, which essentially equates a corporation to an individual with regard to the Bill of Rights. The decision was activist at the least, corporate fascist at best. However, was that the forum to confront the decision? Not really, but you earn the bully pulpit, you're just not given that and when you have it, you have to use it. It was unprecedented but this was no ordinary ruling - it rolled back 100 years of various legislation.
"So are we better off now comparatively to a year ago?" Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod. He said 'yes' but said that they is much to be done. That sounds about right. We really aren't better off, it's more like we're not worse. It's a lack of capital, in all its different capacities. People have less money, less spirit to take risk, and a dearth of innovation right now paralyzing us all.
__
And one of the main culprits of the paralysis was the program's next guest Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) who lead off with, "As the minority party, we have the obligation to stand on principal." But this is a laughable statement and because he didn't explain it, we'll have to. And what he means about principals, Republican principals to be exact, are small government, fiscal restraint, and little regulation. These principals themselves are not at issue, it's the failure to live up to them. Mr. Boehner uses these principals only when it's political expedient. Not long ago, the Republicans controlled all three branches and spending was out of control and the lack of regulation that produced unreasonably risking financial bets practically crashed the world's economy.
Mr. Boehner said that Republicans are getting back to the principals, that they've learned their lesson on spending. They can now stand on those principals because they have no responsibility to govern. And when they were governing, their principals completely dropped by the wayside. For all practical purposes, Republicans have long spent their political capital, only 25% of the electoral identify themselves as Republican.
Given this, the House Minority Leader emphatically stated that the Republicans have offered better solutions on all aspects of the country, but alas have been shut out of the conversation by the Democrats. However, what he fails to say is that there is no conversation if the Republicans are not willing to compromise on any piece of legislation. Compounding this is that fact that Democrats continually place another hurtle in front of them impeding a reach for the finish on any bill. But getting back to the point of 'better solutions,' even most pundits have trouble naming any clear cut Republican proposal with the possible except on TORT reform within the healthcare debate. TORT Reform [limiting the payments of damages in cases of malpractice] is not a panacea for solving our out-of-control healthcare expenditures, but you would think so listening to Mr. Boehner.
He continued to say that he doesn't want to see a government take over of healthcare. Fine, but that's not what is being proposed. This column likes the idea of extending Medicare for people at age 55, however, the cost of doing that is a great concern. The counter to that would be to have a public option insurance plan among the choices of the other private insurance plans. Both of those seek to insure more Americans across the country and both are being rejected by Republicans. Democrats are unable to use the majority leverage that they have to push through their agenda so that leaves the American people in limbo, wondering if, not when, things will get better - our confidence broken.
The entire citizenry suffers for the politically expedient actions of any one party. Dogmatic ideology will be this country's undoing.
And lastly, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Boehner about Mr. Obama's State of the Union declaration to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy of having gays serve in the military. With everything going on, Mr. Boehner explained, why would we want to have this debate? This column believes that there is no debate to be had - repeal this policy and let gays and lesbians serve in the military. And the American people are ahead of the Republican politicians on this. They seem uniformly offended that Mr. Obama would even bring up this subject, which is offensive in and of itself.
By watching this week's Meet The Press, you would think the events and statements of the preceding days had never happened. David Axelrod sounded defensive and John Boehner so smug that it seemed as though he hadn't sat in front of the President twice this week and was called out for cheap politics.
So here's the score... As significant the State of the Union was this week (this column's political SuperBowl), Mr. Obama went into the Republicans house, out numbered 141 to one and spanked them all. One idiot of a commentator from Politico actually said that the President had the advantage because he's President and got to stand at the podium. Republicans had prepared questions, to which the President answered off the cuff, clearly showing a better command of the facts and statistics. The State of the Union laid the challenge at the feet of the Republicans in front of the American People, and the Baltimore face-off was the call.
However, we must also point out that the President does have a tendency to, what some would call, lecture and what some other would call condescend, using phrases like, "This is how democracy works," etc. But we get why that is. It's the professorial background, it's, frankly, being a person in the Presidency while simultaneously being in the demographic minority, and just plain feeling outnumbered on many occasions.
What we really didn't hear articulated in the press was that what Mr. Obama was doing was putting the Democrats on his back, for at least this week, in the face of the recent Senate loss in Massachusetts. Of course, Mr. Axelrod would never say as much in todays interview. We give credit to Mr. Gregory for putting the President's senior advisor on the defensive, but Mr. Axelrod is not a solid counter puncher.
Beginning with the subject of the Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial and saying that Attorney General Eric Holder did not consult the President beforehand on where the trial should be held. Actually, the A.G. doesn't really have to consult with the President on that call. No matter where you try Mr. Mohammad, it will cost money. A military tribunal gets televised where a federal criminal trial does not. But what's really disappointing about all this pull back from trying this man in New York City is to see fear kick in, and that we don't want 'to provoke other terror attacks' in the city. Frankly, that's not the New York City that I know. The one we're familiar with would say, "Put that bastard on the stand." It's not even the country that we know that would back away.
Again, the opposition to the trial mainly comes from the Republicans, once again using the tactics of fear. Mr. Axelrod should a bit more confidence because our law enforcement is more than ably fit to handle security for such a trial. What they should do is hold Mr. Mohammed outside the city while the trial is in recess, for prudence sake. Mr. Axelrod's soft form messaging doesn't resonate and we think that translates to the President's unclear rhetoric as well.
However, Mr. Axelrod is correct when he says that Healthcare shouldn't wait and that the House and Senate committees should be crafting a consensus bill starting tomorrow. And Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana is being defeatist in saying that it is on life support. Even though she forfeited any leadership role in healthcare reform long ago, this kind of statement solidifies it.
And speaking of statements, this leads to the President's dissent to the Supreme Court decision voiced during the State of the Union address. Mr. Axelrod, not surprisingly, declared that it was absolutely appropriate for the President to challenge the decision with the Justices sitting in tow. At The Opinion, we completely disagree with the Court's decision, which essentially equates a corporation to an individual with regard to the Bill of Rights. The decision was activist at the least, corporate fascist at best. However, was that the forum to confront the decision? Not really, but you earn the bully pulpit, you're just not given that and when you have it, you have to use it. It was unprecedented but this was no ordinary ruling - it rolled back 100 years of various legislation.
"So are we better off now comparatively to a year ago?" Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod. He said 'yes' but said that they is much to be done. That sounds about right. We really aren't better off, it's more like we're not worse. It's a lack of capital, in all its different capacities. People have less money, less spirit to take risk, and a dearth of innovation right now paralyzing us all.
__
And one of the main culprits of the paralysis was the program's next guest Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) who lead off with, "As the minority party, we have the obligation to stand on principal." But this is a laughable statement and because he didn't explain it, we'll have to. And what he means about principals, Republican principals to be exact, are small government, fiscal restraint, and little regulation. These principals themselves are not at issue, it's the failure to live up to them. Mr. Boehner uses these principals only when it's political expedient. Not long ago, the Republicans controlled all three branches and spending was out of control and the lack of regulation that produced unreasonably risking financial bets practically crashed the world's economy.
Mr. Boehner said that Republicans are getting back to the principals, that they've learned their lesson on spending. They can now stand on those principals because they have no responsibility to govern. And when they were governing, their principals completely dropped by the wayside. For all practical purposes, Republicans have long spent their political capital, only 25% of the electoral identify themselves as Republican.
Given this, the House Minority Leader emphatically stated that the Republicans have offered better solutions on all aspects of the country, but alas have been shut out of the conversation by the Democrats. However, what he fails to say is that there is no conversation if the Republicans are not willing to compromise on any piece of legislation. Compounding this is that fact that Democrats continually place another hurtle in front of them impeding a reach for the finish on any bill. But getting back to the point of 'better solutions,' even most pundits have trouble naming any clear cut Republican proposal with the possible except on TORT reform within the healthcare debate. TORT Reform [limiting the payments of damages in cases of malpractice] is not a panacea for solving our out-of-control healthcare expenditures, but you would think so listening to Mr. Boehner.
He continued to say that he doesn't want to see a government take over of healthcare. Fine, but that's not what is being proposed. This column likes the idea of extending Medicare for people at age 55, however, the cost of doing that is a great concern. The counter to that would be to have a public option insurance plan among the choices of the other private insurance plans. Both of those seek to insure more Americans across the country and both are being rejected by Republicans. Democrats are unable to use the majority leverage that they have to push through their agenda so that leaves the American people in limbo, wondering if, not when, things will get better - our confidence broken.
The entire citizenry suffers for the politically expedient actions of any one party. Dogmatic ideology will be this country's undoing.
And lastly, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Boehner about Mr. Obama's State of the Union declaration to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy of having gays serve in the military. With everything going on, Mr. Boehner explained, why would we want to have this debate? This column believes that there is no debate to be had - repeal this policy and let gays and lesbians serve in the military. And the American people are ahead of the Republican politicians on this. They seem uniformly offended that Mr. Obama would even bring up this subject, which is offensive in and of itself.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
1.24.10: We Can Not See Clearly Now
Is it just us, or is Senior White House Advisor Valerie Garrett scary when it comes to speaking on behalf of the Administration. With every question, the tone of her answer comes off as defensive, and then made a huge gaffe in saying that the Administration has turned the economy around. Rightly challenged by Mr. Gregory. Yes, they have brought it back from the brink as she later revised in the interview. However right now as it stands, enough hasn't been done.
Yes, healthcare is important, essential we'll say, but most people view it as an extension of their employment situation. The Democrats have had the view that by fixing healthcare, jobs we'll return. That logic is definitely flawed. Skipping ahead in today's program, it's important to listen to Senator Lloyd Benson's comments in the Minute The Press Minute.
He mentions at the end of the clip in instilling self-confidence in the American people through creating jobs and getting people on the payrolls again. This is the key. Most people feel that if they had a job, they'd have access to healthcare or at least the means to get it if their employer doesn't provide it. Change is difficult in this country when circumstances of the economy are good. With joblessnes in its current state, change is like root canal without novocain. You don't even want to sit in the chair. Self-confidence is what the American citizenry lacks, the confidence to step into a progressive agenda because the foundation to do so hasn't solidified. Putting people to work creates this confidence and then people will be able to look ahead and be more open to new ways of doing things.
With regard to the stewardship of one crucial aspect of the economy, The Federal Reserve, we really haven't heard anyone get very vocal in opposition and Mr. Bernanke will be confirmed. It has been an interviewer's requisite question for all politicians this week to the point of being a non-story. Perhaps the Fed is the one place where the status quo is the best course, but then again it is essentially a reactionary entity.
Speaking of reactionary entities, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said as much with regard to his party on today's program - 'he [President Obama] and we react.' Does anyone else see a problem with that? Republicans keep saying that they haven't been given a say and haven't been involved in the conversations, but that simply isn't true. Mr. Gregory confronted the Senator on this point, asking rhetorically if there are Republicans on the Finance Committee, hence they are involved. Given Senator McConell's non-answer on what Republicans would keep in the current healthcare bill, the answer is nothing. Mr. McConnell ticked of T.O.R.T. Reform, buying insurance across state lines, and of course tax breaks. (Republicans never fully explain the details of their tax break plans... because they never seem to help the people who need them the most.) He continued saying that Republicans right now are acting on principal, but what does that mean anymore? When Mr. Gregory asked the Senator if he wanted to see everyone in this country with healthcare coverage, all he said was that he wanted it expanded without even saying how much, a disgusting display to say the least.
And lastly, with Republican rhetoric in mind, Mr. McConnell responded with the requisite party talking point with regard to this week's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, "It's an important victory for the first amendment." We remember during Chief Robert's confirmation hearings he said that his role was to call 'balls and strikes.' But with this decision, activism was definitely at work on the part of the conservative judges on the court. May we remind that 'activism' was a grave concern for Republicans during the Sotomeyer confirmation hearings. We'll even grant that given a good enough argument, the first amendment should be applied to corporations, but in most Americans' minds, the Bill of rights is meant for the individual, not the corporation. Not to mention that this ruling is contrary to the common good and all the things you hear about corporations now being able to essentially buy candidates is true. This is a prime example of how poisonous Republican rhetoric can be - spouting about freedom and then giving the most who have the most, the little guy be damned. And just so we're clear, Democratic rhetoric is so much poisonous as it is mind-numbing.
___
Today's panel consisted of The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; BBC's Katty Kay; The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan; and NBC News' Chuck Todd. The conversation revolved around an interesting theme given the completion of President Obama's first year and that is how can the great communicator of our generation fail in getting his message across? Phrases such as "Wall Street Liberals," coming from Mr. Dionne and "The White House arrogance," from Ms. Kay.
Let's provide a little context. It is true that an individual can be so convinced in the rightness of what he or she is doing that blindness to how others are perceiving you sets in. This is the arrogance that Ms. Kay was referring to and she continue to say that it seems as though the White House didn't need to explain itself to the people. In terms of explaining an agenda, the Republicans are always more effective because they present issues in black or white. But it's also been proven that they do not govern well because it reality, issues are a complex grey. The Democrats understand the nuances but do not know how to cut through them when explaining their proposed solution. This is exactly what the current Administration is suffering from, and dare we say that the individuals who asked way back when, "Well, he can give a good speech, but can he govern?" could have a point.
However, we do believe that President Obama can govern if he more decisively takes control of the issues and the agenda instead of leaving it to Congress. Ms. Noonan, perpetually mired in her own dogmatic pontifications, suggested that the communication problem may be the result of a 'faulty product' that the Administration is selling and buttressed the statement with the recent election results in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. She then focused on New Jersey electing a Republican Governor, but that's not without precedent in that state, by any means. And what the Massachusetts election really showed was that Democrats know how to screw up a campaign so badly that it ensures a loss.
When historic legislation is on the table and the opposition is settling for nothing short of blood, politically screw ups are unacceptable and that's what Massachusetts was. Now, you're hearing all sorts of Democrats saying all sorts of stupid things about dead bills, no votes, tough races ahead as if they're tentative because they are trying to anticipate the blinding headlight they feel is coming. It's simply not the way to act as the majority party.
Yes, healthcare is important, essential we'll say, but most people view it as an extension of their employment situation. The Democrats have had the view that by fixing healthcare, jobs we'll return. That logic is definitely flawed. Skipping ahead in today's program, it's important to listen to Senator Lloyd Benson's comments in the Minute The Press Minute.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
He mentions at the end of the clip in instilling self-confidence in the American people through creating jobs and getting people on the payrolls again. This is the key. Most people feel that if they had a job, they'd have access to healthcare or at least the means to get it if their employer doesn't provide it. Change is difficult in this country when circumstances of the economy are good. With joblessnes in its current state, change is like root canal without novocain. You don't even want to sit in the chair. Self-confidence is what the American citizenry lacks, the confidence to step into a progressive agenda because the foundation to do so hasn't solidified. Putting people to work creates this confidence and then people will be able to look ahead and be more open to new ways of doing things.
With regard to the stewardship of one crucial aspect of the economy, The Federal Reserve, we really haven't heard anyone get very vocal in opposition and Mr. Bernanke will be confirmed. It has been an interviewer's requisite question for all politicians this week to the point of being a non-story. Perhaps the Fed is the one place where the status quo is the best course, but then again it is essentially a reactionary entity.
Speaking of reactionary entities, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said as much with regard to his party on today's program - 'he [President Obama] and we react.' Does anyone else see a problem with that? Republicans keep saying that they haven't been given a say and haven't been involved in the conversations, but that simply isn't true. Mr. Gregory confronted the Senator on this point, asking rhetorically if there are Republicans on the Finance Committee, hence they are involved. Given Senator McConell's non-answer on what Republicans would keep in the current healthcare bill, the answer is nothing. Mr. McConnell ticked of T.O.R.T. Reform, buying insurance across state lines, and of course tax breaks. (Republicans never fully explain the details of their tax break plans... because they never seem to help the people who need them the most.) He continued saying that Republicans right now are acting on principal, but what does that mean anymore? When Mr. Gregory asked the Senator if he wanted to see everyone in this country with healthcare coverage, all he said was that he wanted it expanded without even saying how much, a disgusting display to say the least.
And lastly, with Republican rhetoric in mind, Mr. McConnell responded with the requisite party talking point with regard to this week's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, "It's an important victory for the first amendment." We remember during Chief Robert's confirmation hearings he said that his role was to call 'balls and strikes.' But with this decision, activism was definitely at work on the part of the conservative judges on the court. May we remind that 'activism' was a grave concern for Republicans during the Sotomeyer confirmation hearings. We'll even grant that given a good enough argument, the first amendment should be applied to corporations, but in most Americans' minds, the Bill of rights is meant for the individual, not the corporation. Not to mention that this ruling is contrary to the common good and all the things you hear about corporations now being able to essentially buy candidates is true. This is a prime example of how poisonous Republican rhetoric can be - spouting about freedom and then giving the most who have the most, the little guy be damned. And just so we're clear, Democratic rhetoric is so much poisonous as it is mind-numbing.
___
Today's panel consisted of The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne; BBC's Katty Kay; The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan; and NBC News' Chuck Todd. The conversation revolved around an interesting theme given the completion of President Obama's first year and that is how can the great communicator of our generation fail in getting his message across? Phrases such as "Wall Street Liberals," coming from Mr. Dionne and "The White House arrogance," from Ms. Kay.
Let's provide a little context. It is true that an individual can be so convinced in the rightness of what he or she is doing that blindness to how others are perceiving you sets in. This is the arrogance that Ms. Kay was referring to and she continue to say that it seems as though the White House didn't need to explain itself to the people. In terms of explaining an agenda, the Republicans are always more effective because they present issues in black or white. But it's also been proven that they do not govern well because it reality, issues are a complex grey. The Democrats understand the nuances but do not know how to cut through them when explaining their proposed solution. This is exactly what the current Administration is suffering from, and dare we say that the individuals who asked way back when, "Well, he can give a good speech, but can he govern?" could have a point.
However, we do believe that President Obama can govern if he more decisively takes control of the issues and the agenda instead of leaving it to Congress. Ms. Noonan, perpetually mired in her own dogmatic pontifications, suggested that the communication problem may be the result of a 'faulty product' that the Administration is selling and buttressed the statement with the recent election results in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. She then focused on New Jersey electing a Republican Governor, but that's not without precedent in that state, by any means. And what the Massachusetts election really showed was that Democrats know how to screw up a campaign so badly that it ensures a loss.
When historic legislation is on the table and the opposition is settling for nothing short of blood, politically screw ups are unacceptable and that's what Massachusetts was. Now, you're hearing all sorts of Democrats saying all sorts of stupid things about dead bills, no votes, tough races ahead as if they're tentative because they are trying to anticipate the blinding headlight they feel is coming. It's simply not the way to act as the majority party.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
1.10.10: California Edition
The incredible partisanship that we have been seeing since Barack Obama took office will be our undoing. Many in this country wish for bipartisanship and for the country to realize a new future. But in the media celebrates political partisanship, no big mystery as its a money maker. And before we get to the two key faces within that celebration (respective National Committee Chairs - Republican Michael Steele & Democrat Tim Kaine), it's worth opining that this may be the worst state of governmental futility in the past thirty years, and yes, that includes the Clinton years when the government was brought to a halt by the Republicans of that era. The congressional Republicans compel their party members to stick with the concept of group think and hence, no one really has an answer for the problems facing this country, just solid opposition to the party 'in power,' the Democrats. The obvious problem with the Democrats is the same problem that always plagues them. Indecisiveness and sheepishness. They have never been willing to push through a unified agenda for fear of alienating the Stupeks and Nelsons of this congress. What they should do is sink those people and if they have to go with cloture to push through their agenda.
We've heard that to enact cloture so that the Senate would not require 60 votes is a long and tedious process, one which they should have started as soon as they started even discussing healthcare. Democrats have to be willing to piss people off, but not like they are doing now. People are angry with them because they are tip-toeing around instead of throwing around the hammer. You get what we mean.
First off, let's just say that Michael Steele and Tim Kaine are both counterproductive in the conversation about solving the nation's problems. Their jobs are to win elections, hence creating partisanship is what they do, but they make for some colorful commentary.
For example, there is a bit of a bruhaha about some statements that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said about Barack Obama, referring to his electability because of his light skin and non-accent. Mike Steele insisted on today's program that Mr. Reid should step down. And that Democrats are hypocritical when it comes to statements about race as Republicans feel Democrats would be all over them for something like that had the roles been reversed.
Another Sunday morning political distraction that sucks more oxygen out of the room. However, one thing that Mr. Steele did say does concern us. He said that Republicans are not politicizing terrorism and national security. For the record, they most certainly are, and we could go into examples, but just the fact the Mr. Steele also said on today's program that President Obama is unwilling to use the word 'terrorism,' and then wrongly extrapolating that if he can't say the word, he can't fight against terrorism tactics. Frankly, this is childish reasoning and hence disqualifies Mr. Steele from the discussion.
On the other hand, Mr. Kaine didn't really have anything constructive to say either. How many times are you going to repeat that the Republicans are the party of 'no?' Granted it is true and we realize that it is a statement that stems from frustration, but the Democrats need a solid wordsmith to create the narrative of Republican irrelevance.
On a program note, we realize that the program is experimenting with little twists and tweaks here and there, but doing a debate style interview like the one with Mr. Steele and Mr. Kaine without all the players, including the moderator in the same room just doesn't resonate - contrived and edited.
However irritating it was to sit through the first segment listening to those two individuals, the interview with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was, dare we say, refreshing. This is one frustrated individual, but one that should be listened to. Here is a Republican Governor that has to work with a Democratically controlled state government to get things done, and with one year left in his term, he is more free to speak his mind then anyone else.
What people should understand is that California is the barometer for the entire country. The economic meltdown cripple California first and then moved across the country. As the Governor pointed out, California has the most diverse economy of any state so given this diversity, the state needs to experiment for the benefit of the rest of the country. A lab if you will.
It was good to hear the Mr. Schwarzenegger's outrage by the deal cut for Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with regard to free Medicare expansion in Nebraska at the expense of the other states. He was right to say that reform of this type should not be voted for. It is deals like these, where entrenched Senators from less populated states get larger benefits and/or concessions while population centers suffer. (Yes, we'd love to see Mr. Schwarzenegger get Mr. Nelson in a hammer lock until he pledges to shut up for good.) But the Governor is correct, the vote was bought, the asking price was clear and to get the vote, Democrats and the country have to pay, figuratively and literally. Whether you agree with Mr. Schwarzenegger's politics or not, there was nothing petty in his statements during the interview. A Republican, a moderate, or as the Governor described himself, a reformer, would not fly in a normal primary race. Base Republicans do not even consider him as a part of their party, except for when they need a good celebrity reference.
"You have to be a servant of the people, not the party," the Governor stated. It's an essential reminder for all politicians so let's just leave it there.
(Good to back in the new year. - we keep striving to do better than the last.)
We've heard that to enact cloture so that the Senate would not require 60 votes is a long and tedious process, one which they should have started as soon as they started even discussing healthcare. Democrats have to be willing to piss people off, but not like they are doing now. People are angry with them because they are tip-toeing around instead of throwing around the hammer. You get what we mean.
First off, let's just say that Michael Steele and Tim Kaine are both counterproductive in the conversation about solving the nation's problems. Their jobs are to win elections, hence creating partisanship is what they do, but they make for some colorful commentary.
For example, there is a bit of a bruhaha about some statements that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said about Barack Obama, referring to his electability because of his light skin and non-accent. Mike Steele insisted on today's program that Mr. Reid should step down. And that Democrats are hypocritical when it comes to statements about race as Republicans feel Democrats would be all over them for something like that had the roles been reversed.
Another Sunday morning political distraction that sucks more oxygen out of the room. However, one thing that Mr. Steele did say does concern us. He said that Republicans are not politicizing terrorism and national security. For the record, they most certainly are, and we could go into examples, but just the fact the Mr. Steele also said on today's program that President Obama is unwilling to use the word 'terrorism,' and then wrongly extrapolating that if he can't say the word, he can't fight against terrorism tactics. Frankly, this is childish reasoning and hence disqualifies Mr. Steele from the discussion.
On the other hand, Mr. Kaine didn't really have anything constructive to say either. How many times are you going to repeat that the Republicans are the party of 'no?' Granted it is true and we realize that it is a statement that stems from frustration, but the Democrats need a solid wordsmith to create the narrative of Republican irrelevance.
On a program note, we realize that the program is experimenting with little twists and tweaks here and there, but doing a debate style interview like the one with Mr. Steele and Mr. Kaine without all the players, including the moderator in the same room just doesn't resonate - contrived and edited.
However irritating it was to sit through the first segment listening to those two individuals, the interview with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was, dare we say, refreshing. This is one frustrated individual, but one that should be listened to. Here is a Republican Governor that has to work with a Democratically controlled state government to get things done, and with one year left in his term, he is more free to speak his mind then anyone else.
What people should understand is that California is the barometer for the entire country. The economic meltdown cripple California first and then moved across the country. As the Governor pointed out, California has the most diverse economy of any state so given this diversity, the state needs to experiment for the benefit of the rest of the country. A lab if you will.
It was good to hear the Mr. Schwarzenegger's outrage by the deal cut for Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska with regard to free Medicare expansion in Nebraska at the expense of the other states. He was right to say that reform of this type should not be voted for. It is deals like these, where entrenched Senators from less populated states get larger benefits and/or concessions while population centers suffer. (Yes, we'd love to see Mr. Schwarzenegger get Mr. Nelson in a hammer lock until he pledges to shut up for good.) But the Governor is correct, the vote was bought, the asking price was clear and to get the vote, Democrats and the country have to pay, figuratively and literally. Whether you agree with Mr. Schwarzenegger's politics or not, there was nothing petty in his statements during the interview. A Republican, a moderate, or as the Governor described himself, a reformer, would not fly in a normal primary race. Base Republicans do not even consider him as a part of their party, except for when they need a good celebrity reference.
"You have to be a servant of the people, not the party," the Governor stated. It's an essential reminder for all politicians so let's just leave it there.
(Good to back in the new year. - we keep striving to do better than the last.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)