Talk about a difficult job... Attorney General Eric Holder can not do anything that is satisfactory to anyone, and he compounds this difficulty with statements that are not necessarily incorrect or wrong in judgement, but that he makes statements and then has to retreat backward because of political pressure such as the prospective Khalid Sheik Mohammad trial, which was addressed during today's program.
First, in the aftermath of this week's arrest of Faisal Shahzad, for the attempted Times Square car bombing, and the Arizona immigration law, racial profiling has come to the forefront. This column feels that racial profiliing, as the Attorney General explained today, is not good for law enforcement as it would pit the citizenry against law enforcement and this cooperation is key in the actual protection of the people. What if, out of fear of being detained himself, the Muslim-American man who alerted police, didn't? Tighter coordination amongst the various law enforcement agencies is what is required. Where racial profiling leads to is profiling people for other things - religion, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation. Now some people would say that that is hyperbole, but it isn't if you open the door to going down that road. Also, the introduction of this Liebermann-Brown that proposes to revoke citizenship of an individual if they've participated in an act of terrorism, or something to that effect. Well, what if you were detained accidentally and had no way to prove your innocence? You're citizenship is in jeopardy and due process under the law is thrown out because your Miranda rights are read to you. If it were you in that situation, you would say it's wrong.
So with regard to Mr. Shahzad, he is an American citizen and should be read his Miranda rights - all citizens have equal protections under the law. Ultimately, the Liebermann-Brown bill raises some eyebrows, but won't amount to much, frankly because one of the sponsors hasn't earned his credentials in the Senate yet and the other has been discredited.
Mr. Holder invoked the ticking time-bomb scenario when dealing with terror suspects and their Miranda rights, which means that if the threat is still grave and information is needed, then the reading is delayed. It's a middle ground that wins no fans for Mr. Holder on either side of the isle. And it is this middle ground position that the Attorney General continually takes such as in the trial location of Khalid Sheik Mohammad. First, he said that the trial would be in New York, and now it isn't? Or it's being reviewed... where are we?
Also, we stated in this column before our disappointment in many of our politicians that they don't have confidence in our Justice system, confidence in our law enforcement and investigators to bring a rock-solid case and present it in no uncertain terms or the courage to defend the process. "Home of the brave," don't we remember this. Mr. Holder emphatically (we mean this in complete facetiousness with regard to Mr. Holder's perpetual monotone) stated that failure is not an option and he would not be released. To which, you ask, "But how can that be guaranteed?" It doesn't have to be guaranteed. Mr. Wes Moore, author and former captain of the army who served in Afghanistan, said that it is more dangerous abroad if we abandon our rule of law. Katy Kay, Washington correspondent for the BBC also on today's panel, pointed out the double standard of the Bush Administration trying terrorists in civilian court versus the Obama Administration doing it. Lastly, E.J. Dionne, who was actually emphatic about the term 'lawyered up,' stated that we have faced it situation many times in our history and we have been able to maintain citizens' rights.
[It's worth noting here that Mr. Greogory, the moderator, was injecting his opinion way too much during the panel with regard to the Miranda discussion. Mr. Gregory needs to go back, look at the tape, and check himself for next time as the Moderator of Meet The Press.]
With all that, what are conservative politicians afraid of? Are they afraid that Khalid Sheik Mohammad might go free... be acquitted? Fine, he's acquitted and he goes free. If that high improbability actually happens, let's drop him off in the middle of the Michigan woods, make it public knowledge, and see if ever makes out.
Postscript: One other note with regard to something that was touched on at the end of the panel discussion is what happened in Utah with Senator Bob Bennett. In the state convention, he was ousted by conservatives for not being conservative enough. David Brookes pointed out that Mr. Bennett voted for the T.A.R.P. and tried to work across the aisle with Democrats, and voiced his contempt for this close-minded, uncompromising approach being taken by the local Republican caucuses. Divided Republicans will fall if they continue on this trajectory as they will marginalize themselves with ideological litmus tests.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
4.25.10: Lawyers, Guns, and Money
On the cusp of landing a banking reform bill on the Senate floor, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) showed up for a status report. Mr. Dodd, as it is well documented, has been the driving force behind the initiative, but Mr. Shelby has worked closely with him the entire way. However, the body language from both men were quite telling.
Senator Dodd said that the Goldman Sachs episode (where they made billions betting against the economy), there is a heightened need for reform. To which, Sen. Shelby countered that we need to end the casino atmosphere on Wall Street. Wait... not really a counter. In fact, through his Stepford tone, Mr. Shelby said things that pretty much put him on the same page as Mr. Dodd, but he couldn't show any kind of collective sense of accomplishment. His predicament is that banking reform is something everyone wants and that there isn't enough to disagree on, which doesn't help Republicans politically.
On the other hand, Mr. Dodd was trying to say that the bill should be named the Dodd-Shelby bill, but Sen. Shelby was cutting that down with a lack of acknowledgment all together. Maybe it was just the different temperament of the two men, or possibly it's just a reflection of the political climate. Republicans are obligated NOT to warm up to Democrats - we know this. And to further that point, Senator Shelby said that the bill doesn't, in fact, prevent too big to fail, and must be tightened up. Hence, Republicans will oppose the bill in its current form, which is very shrewd politically. By saying that the bill doesn't go far enough, Republicans will not vote it and in essence blocking a bill that they don't want to see pass even if it did have more teeth.
However, we do agree with Mr. Shelby in reference to the bail-outs. Mr. Gregory pointed out that most of the banks and the automakers have paid back their respective bail-outs. Mr. Shelby said that not all the bail-out money, even from those firms paying it back, will ever be reimbursed. That's just true, a lot of that money is just money down the drain to create some kind of solvency somewhere in a corner of the economy. It's sort of like that $9 Billion in cash that disappeared in Iraq. It paid someone somewhere for something that can't be discussed. And Mr. Shelby also quoted Paul Volker in saying that if you're too big to regulate, you're too big to exist - also true because we would still like to think that no one in this country is above the law.
Senator Dodd stated that the complexity of the bill is a red herring, and we agree simply because you can not oppose something because it seems too complex. Just master the complexity. Newsweek's Evan Thomas pointed out, on the panel, that we're not going to turn things around this time, 'growing out of it,' not without regulation. So in spite of what we said above about politically shrewd moves, the Republicans don't have the collective will to oppose banking regulation reform.
In a day where hard partisanship sells, here's an issue in which you can see consensus, but we can't bring ourselves to it. This plays into the other topic of discussion, for today's panel, which was the role of government. How much should it play a direct part of our daily lives? How strong of a hand should it have? Well first, that's a good question for Arizona.
For a state that leans way right and shouts complaints about government's big hand, they decided to act on immigration because the federal government has down nothing 'for decades' as the Arizona Governor put it. But they didn't quite act in a 'freedom loving' kind of way. Even before the bill was signed, the jokes about, "Where are your papers [with German accent]?" were flying around.
But even today's panel was unanimous in its opinion of what likely effect this new law will have, namely the potential for racial profiling. And it will happen, it's like physics. Arizona passed this lawyer to address illegal Mexican immigration and it's inevitable that American citizens are going to be required to show citizenship upon request. That's not freedom, that's nationalism, more in line with the fascist tendencies. And we're not saying that the Arizona legislature is a bunch of Nazis, not at all. They are just reacting in a drastic way to what they feel is a drastic problem... again social physics.
Also, as PBS's Michele Norris rhetorically asked, are they going to check Chinese immigrants or Irish immigrants or the Brit who overstayed his visa? Officially, maybe... but unofficially, absolutely no. So the essence of that is racial profiling of one group. And as Erin Burnett of CNBC pointed out, an expendable one. In her ever cavalier, corporatist view, she explained that corporations, though it would seem they like cheap labor, will still be able to get it despite this law. It's the Chinese and Indian immigrants that they welcome for the high tech.
Lastly, this has put immigration reform to the forefront of the Demcrats' agenda, New York Times David Brooks explained, simply for political reasons, not out of necessity - ahead of energy policy, which is a much higher priority. And why? Because everyone wants that Latino vote, with the exception of Senator John McCain, who endorsed the bill. In a hard turn right, Mr. McCain, who worked on immigration reform for years with the late Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was pointed out, went back on one of his well-established positions to get the right votes. But what ever votes he's courting, his endorsement doesn't line up with something we thought Mr. McCain was all about - the defense of freedom.
Senator Dodd said that the Goldman Sachs episode (where they made billions betting against the economy), there is a heightened need for reform. To which, Sen. Shelby countered that we need to end the casino atmosphere on Wall Street. Wait... not really a counter. In fact, through his Stepford tone, Mr. Shelby said things that pretty much put him on the same page as Mr. Dodd, but he couldn't show any kind of collective sense of accomplishment. His predicament is that banking reform is something everyone wants and that there isn't enough to disagree on, which doesn't help Republicans politically.
On the other hand, Mr. Dodd was trying to say that the bill should be named the Dodd-Shelby bill, but Sen. Shelby was cutting that down with a lack of acknowledgment all together. Maybe it was just the different temperament of the two men, or possibly it's just a reflection of the political climate. Republicans are obligated NOT to warm up to Democrats - we know this. And to further that point, Senator Shelby said that the bill doesn't, in fact, prevent too big to fail, and must be tightened up. Hence, Republicans will oppose the bill in its current form, which is very shrewd politically. By saying that the bill doesn't go far enough, Republicans will not vote it and in essence blocking a bill that they don't want to see pass even if it did have more teeth.
However, we do agree with Mr. Shelby in reference to the bail-outs. Mr. Gregory pointed out that most of the banks and the automakers have paid back their respective bail-outs. Mr. Shelby said that not all the bail-out money, even from those firms paying it back, will ever be reimbursed. That's just true, a lot of that money is just money down the drain to create some kind of solvency somewhere in a corner of the economy. It's sort of like that $9 Billion in cash that disappeared in Iraq. It paid someone somewhere for something that can't be discussed. And Mr. Shelby also quoted Paul Volker in saying that if you're too big to regulate, you're too big to exist - also true because we would still like to think that no one in this country is above the law.
Senator Dodd stated that the complexity of the bill is a red herring, and we agree simply because you can not oppose something because it seems too complex. Just master the complexity. Newsweek's Evan Thomas pointed out, on the panel, that we're not going to turn things around this time, 'growing out of it,' not without regulation. So in spite of what we said above about politically shrewd moves, the Republicans don't have the collective will to oppose banking regulation reform.
In a day where hard partisanship sells, here's an issue in which you can see consensus, but we can't bring ourselves to it. This plays into the other topic of discussion, for today's panel, which was the role of government. How much should it play a direct part of our daily lives? How strong of a hand should it have? Well first, that's a good question for Arizona.
For a state that leans way right and shouts complaints about government's big hand, they decided to act on immigration because the federal government has down nothing 'for decades' as the Arizona Governor put it. But they didn't quite act in a 'freedom loving' kind of way. Even before the bill was signed, the jokes about, "Where are your papers [with German accent]?" were flying around.
But even today's panel was unanimous in its opinion of what likely effect this new law will have, namely the potential for racial profiling. And it will happen, it's like physics. Arizona passed this lawyer to address illegal Mexican immigration and it's inevitable that American citizens are going to be required to show citizenship upon request. That's not freedom, that's nationalism, more in line with the fascist tendencies. And we're not saying that the Arizona legislature is a bunch of Nazis, not at all. They are just reacting in a drastic way to what they feel is a drastic problem... again social physics.
Also, as PBS's Michele Norris rhetorically asked, are they going to check Chinese immigrants or Irish immigrants or the Brit who overstayed his visa? Officially, maybe... but unofficially, absolutely no. So the essence of that is racial profiling of one group. And as Erin Burnett of CNBC pointed out, an expendable one. In her ever cavalier, corporatist view, she explained that corporations, though it would seem they like cheap labor, will still be able to get it despite this law. It's the Chinese and Indian immigrants that they welcome for the high tech.
Lastly, this has put immigration reform to the forefront of the Demcrats' agenda, New York Times David Brooks explained, simply for political reasons, not out of necessity - ahead of energy policy, which is a much higher priority. And why? Because everyone wants that Latino vote, with the exception of Senator John McCain, who endorsed the bill. In a hard turn right, Mr. McCain, who worked on immigration reform for years with the late Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, it was pointed out, went back on one of his well-established positions to get the right votes. But what ever votes he's courting, his endorsement doesn't line up with something we thought Mr. McCain was all about - the defense of freedom.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
4.11.10: Foes
Before we start with anything, at the end of today's program, Mr. Gregory noted the tragedy in Russia where the President of Poland, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, died along with many in the top leadership of the Polish government, in a plane crash. We wanted to note it here - at the beginning. The author of this column lived in Poland for three years, in Lipno outside of Torun and in Warsaw, the capital.
I just want to say that today I think of the good friends that are still there and how hard this must be for them. Poland is a special place, one of the key historical countries in understanding not only Europe, but the world. It's people are warm, highly intelligent, and gracious hosts. The profound lessons I learned there have stayed with me for my entire life. My heart is with them today and always.
-----
What is so frustrating and will eventually seriously cripple this country is we can't get together on anything. Senator Sessions (R-AL), in today's interview alongside Senator Leahy (D-VT), that the government is overreaching against the will of the American people, but we would contend that some in Mr. Sessions party would say that the government isn't doing enough on job creation. But isn't the government overreaching when they start tampering with the job market? We could go around and around on this ad nausea.
With regard to the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, following Justice Steven's retirement announcement, Senator Leahy said today that the court now is an activist court. Justice Stevens, known as the leading liberal on the court, it was noted, said that he hadn't changed but the court dynamic has in fact changed. To which, Senator Sessions disagreed, but it's difficult to agree when the court, along ideological line that favor conservatives, the court empowered corporations further by ruling that they could contribute monetarily to political campaigns. Who wouldn't be against that?
New York Times columnist David Brooks, later in the program, feels that since the court is dominated by Harvard/ Yale grads that President Obama will go outside of that sphere and nominate more a man [person] of the people. One who has more of the 'common man' experience. And we all hope as Senator Leahy stated that it is some one who brings the country together. But that's highly doubtful. Of the mentioned nominees, Janet Napolitano's name came up, and we're not convinced. She's been exceedingly mediocre as the Secretary of Homeland Security, almost as if her opinion doesn't care any weight. Politics is perception as they always say and the court is now political. We've reached a dangerous stage in that regard and given that, Ms. Napolitano would definitely not be our choice. However, we do strongly believe that another woman is needed for the court, most importantly for the fact that woman are underrepresented!
Finally, Senator Sessions left open the possibility of a filibuster of the nominee, after he once stated that it would not be a good idea. If in fact the Republicans do filibuster, which this column suspects they will if the nominee is deemed 'too liberal,' there will be a sea change in our political system where bipartisanship will cease to exist in any context - foreign or domestic policy. Both parties will be reduced to crippled foes.
With regard to our foreign adversaries, namely Iran and its nuclear ambitions, the Administration is taking the correct and shrewd approach event though the Republicans and their brethren [e.g. Ms. Palin and the Tea Party] don't think so, but here's why. Signing the S.T.A.R.T. treaty with Russia is a smart move. It reduces our and Russia's respective stockpiles, which now only gives our countries the ability to kill each other a hundred times over instead of a thousand times over. So when these two major nuclear powers focus their attention, the rest of the world will listen and Russia is an essential in making this happen. The nuclear summit will additionally raise the world governments' collective consciousness.
In addition to the necessary subversive tactics being employed by us and our allies, these initial moves will compel others to step up sanctions and other diplomatic pressure on Iran to hamper its nuclear ambitions. We have previously stated in this column that Iran as a nuclear power is inevitable - unfortunately and the we shouldn't make it easy. As strongly as our stance is with regard to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, we would under no circumstances advocate for war.
Also, as Secretary Gates stated, in today's joint interview with Secretary of State Clinton, we still have a very powerful nuclear arsenal (see above), but with our advanced technology with regard to missile defense, we have the capability of protecting ourselves via more conventional means.
There seems to be a dearth of shrewd thinking in this country when it comes to our foreign adversaries. This acting from the gut with false bravado stems from our need for instant gratification. Shrewd thinking takes time and patience, it just knowing when that patience needs to be turned into action. However, as David Sanger pointed out, in the roundtable, President Obama hasn't definitely what that redline is. Also, given what Secretary Gates said about us not really knowing even when or if Iran has assembled a nuclear weapon, is The President being shrewd by not saying? We would hope so but it does appear that he hasn't exactly defined it himself. Kathleen Parker made the good point that engagement is not foreign policy. However, it is a necessary tool. Remember that a great chess champion always wants to sit opposite is his most dangerous opponent - to beat him face to face.
Again, Secretary Clinton stated this this treaty in no way makes us weaker but tactically it gives us greater leverage with other countries, foes and allies alike.
P.S. David Brooks had a great Newt Gingrich quote on today's program that's worth noting. Newt Gingrich has a billion ideas, six hundred of which as good.
I just want to say that today I think of the good friends that are still there and how hard this must be for them. Poland is a special place, one of the key historical countries in understanding not only Europe, but the world. It's people are warm, highly intelligent, and gracious hosts. The profound lessons I learned there have stayed with me for my entire life. My heart is with them today and always.
-----
What is so frustrating and will eventually seriously cripple this country is we can't get together on anything. Senator Sessions (R-AL), in today's interview alongside Senator Leahy (D-VT), that the government is overreaching against the will of the American people, but we would contend that some in Mr. Sessions party would say that the government isn't doing enough on job creation. But isn't the government overreaching when they start tampering with the job market? We could go around and around on this ad nausea.
With regard to the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, following Justice Steven's retirement announcement, Senator Leahy said today that the court now is an activist court. Justice Stevens, known as the leading liberal on the court, it was noted, said that he hadn't changed but the court dynamic has in fact changed. To which, Senator Sessions disagreed, but it's difficult to agree when the court, along ideological line that favor conservatives, the court empowered corporations further by ruling that they could contribute monetarily to political campaigns. Who wouldn't be against that?
New York Times columnist David Brooks, later in the program, feels that since the court is dominated by Harvard/ Yale grads that President Obama will go outside of that sphere and nominate more a man [person] of the people. One who has more of the 'common man' experience. And we all hope as Senator Leahy stated that it is some one who brings the country together. But that's highly doubtful. Of the mentioned nominees, Janet Napolitano's name came up, and we're not convinced. She's been exceedingly mediocre as the Secretary of Homeland Security, almost as if her opinion doesn't care any weight. Politics is perception as they always say and the court is now political. We've reached a dangerous stage in that regard and given that, Ms. Napolitano would definitely not be our choice. However, we do strongly believe that another woman is needed for the court, most importantly for the fact that woman are underrepresented!
Finally, Senator Sessions left open the possibility of a filibuster of the nominee, after he once stated that it would not be a good idea. If in fact the Republicans do filibuster, which this column suspects they will if the nominee is deemed 'too liberal,' there will be a sea change in our political system where bipartisanship will cease to exist in any context - foreign or domestic policy. Both parties will be reduced to crippled foes.
With regard to our foreign adversaries, namely Iran and its nuclear ambitions, the Administration is taking the correct and shrewd approach event though the Republicans and their brethren [e.g. Ms. Palin and the Tea Party] don't think so, but here's why. Signing the S.T.A.R.T. treaty with Russia is a smart move. It reduces our and Russia's respective stockpiles, which now only gives our countries the ability to kill each other a hundred times over instead of a thousand times over. So when these two major nuclear powers focus their attention, the rest of the world will listen and Russia is an essential in making this happen. The nuclear summit will additionally raise the world governments' collective consciousness.
In addition to the necessary subversive tactics being employed by us and our allies, these initial moves will compel others to step up sanctions and other diplomatic pressure on Iran to hamper its nuclear ambitions. We have previously stated in this column that Iran as a nuclear power is inevitable - unfortunately and the we shouldn't make it easy. As strongly as our stance is with regard to Iran and its nuclear ambitions, we would under no circumstances advocate for war.
Also, as Secretary Gates stated, in today's joint interview with Secretary of State Clinton, we still have a very powerful nuclear arsenal (see above), but with our advanced technology with regard to missile defense, we have the capability of protecting ourselves via more conventional means.
There seems to be a dearth of shrewd thinking in this country when it comes to our foreign adversaries. This acting from the gut with false bravado stems from our need for instant gratification. Shrewd thinking takes time and patience, it just knowing when that patience needs to be turned into action. However, as David Sanger pointed out, in the roundtable, President Obama hasn't definitely what that redline is. Also, given what Secretary Gates said about us not really knowing even when or if Iran has assembled a nuclear weapon, is The President being shrewd by not saying? We would hope so but it does appear that he hasn't exactly defined it himself. Kathleen Parker made the good point that engagement is not foreign policy. However, it is a necessary tool. Remember that a great chess champion always wants to sit opposite is his most dangerous opponent - to beat him face to face.
Again, Secretary Clinton stated this this treaty in no way makes us weaker but tactically it gives us greater leverage with other countries, foes and allies alike.
P.S. David Brooks had a great Newt Gingrich quote on today's program that's worth noting. Newt Gingrich has a billion ideas, six hundred of which as good.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
4.4.10: Into The Woods
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)