In the wake of the Senate vote this week on tax rates, you hear described in two different ways from two different Senators on today's program. The 'tax rate' we're referring to is to eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts for income over $250,000. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it was defeated in a bipartisan effort hence leaving things in place. Conversely, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) put the blame solely on the Republicans.
There are two facts you need to know to make your own interpretation of this. One, the final vote was 53-46 in favor of raising the tax rate for income over $250,000. So the measure did, in fact, win the majority. And in those 46 votes, 5 Democrats voted with the Republicans. The reason the measure will not go through is because of the 60-vote 'traditional' consensus that the Senate needs to ratify. So did the measure not really lose? Was the vote bi-partisan?
Mr. Gregory framed the show in terms of 'America's Anxiety,' and there is no doubt that Americans are anxious. What's interesting about the Senators' respectively segments is that Senator McConnell talked in terms of what the American people want as for how they voted in the midterms, but it is Senator Kerry who seemed to understand the true gravity of where America is right now in terms of the rest of the world. And the anxiety extends when we review a vote like the one above. With all due respect to the traditions of the Senate body, this measure should go through, the Democrats should invoke censure. And that's not to even say that the measure is the right thing to do. The Opinion believes that it is, but that's not the point. Americans become anxious about their government when it isn't decisive. There was not doubt that the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress was decisive and we learn later that some decisions, ok... many decisions were incorrect for the country, but Americans can live with it because it was taking action. The inaction we're experiencing today is killing this country.
Senator Kerry cited a sad reality. It was in the United States that solar panel technology was invented, but it is now in China where 60% of the world's solar panels are made. Six trillion dollars will be spent in the next 20 years for energy technology, and the United States is in line for only 10%. If you peer into the entrepreneurial future, it's centered on energy technology. Taking the environmental debate out of the question, it is where the money will be as more of the world requires more energy. Why isn't The United States capitalizing on this? Pun intended.
Is this the foundation for the future that President Obama is talking about? Essentially, this is the question that was posed by David Brooks and Tom Friedman of the New York Times during the panel. To properly lay this foundation, we need to get our house in order first of course with what everyone would agree need to be big moves. But frankly, there is no political will on either side of the aisle to make a tough choice. Senator McConnell still refuses any specifics on where the sacrifice is going to come from, and when asked about the bi-partisan appointed Debt Commission, he said the following, "I endorse the effort of the commission..." The effort? He refused to comment on whether he agrees with any of it's recommendations. He continued that he is not going to negotiate on a Sunday talk show. Ok, that's fair enough, but then that answer allows for the latitude to think that he doesn't have the conviction in his ideas to state them on a Sunday talk show. We guess that we'll just have to wait until January to find out what the Republicans are going to do. They are holding up actions that need to be taken, and we agree that Republicans are holding unemployment benefits for those out of work 'hostage,' to use his term, by not extending them unless those tax entitlements are kept in place for the wealthiest 1%.
It is still this larger question that is most disquieting, and that is what direction is America going in and where will we be in terms of the rest of the world in 20 years? Before we jump into that, a couple of quick bits on some of the answers given by the Senators.
First, when Senator McConnell says that he is following the lead of Senator John McCain on D.A.D.T., that means that Republicans in the Senate are going to stall repeal for as long as they can. Whether you want repeal or not, that's the Republican position.
Secondly, Senator Kerry did his best to defend the President and said, in opposition to Mr. Gregory's assertion, that Mr. Obama is not caving in on his beliefs and tough political decisions. Mr. Kerry cited that T.A.R.P. and the Recovery Act were politically unpopular but that the truth is, those measures staved off a much worse economic situation, and there really isn't any question that this is true. Most people would agree that it is, but would debate the merit in saving institutions/businesses that failed. The bottom line is that the President has been a disappointment when it comes to standing up to his political opposition. Mike Murphy, Republican strategist, said during the panel that the President has broken the hearts of the left. That's a bit dramatic, but to the extent that the left have lost pretty much all faith in the President is correct.
Lastly, Senator McConnell called Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder, a high-tech terrorist and Senator Kerry said this latest document dump, 'hurts.' Well, Mr. Assange is not a high-tech terrorist. That doesn't mean we think what he's doing is right, but he is really just a publisher of leaked information. As that publisher, he has put it all into focus - he did not commit the crime. However, we agree with Senator Kerry that it is counter productive to release such information because it doesn't uncover crimes like the Pentagon papers did. Ultimately, however, these leaked documents give us important perspective. Mr. Friedman, during the panel, illustrated that they show us that the United States is in a vicious cycle of addiction to oil and credit. We get the cash from China and then give it to the Saudis for their oil. They in turn take the money and fund terrorism against us. We borrow more money from China to combat the terrorism. Ms. Kay summed it up by saying that it made a superpower's power look not so super.
This leads us back to the larger point. America's greatness, and now we have to say re-emergence, is dependent on our ability to determine our own future. But if you look at Mr. Friedman's example, we're denying ourselves that ability. Senator Kerry said that we can not cut our way to greatness, but we do need to cut those respective controlling influence over us. What Senator Kerry was referring to were tax cuts and weakening government.
As a frame of reference, Katty Kay, from the BBC, pointed out that in Europe people have taken to the streets to demand more from their governments whereas in the United States the call is for government to stay out of the way. Mr. Friedman mentioned that we need a hybird approach, but what he really meant was a balance of philosophies. As Senator McConnell said, we have to figure out a way to work together. As this limbo lingers, no one benefits.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
11.28.10: Walk and Chew Gum
The only potential positive with regard to the political, possibly military, stand-off with North Korea is that it gives the United States the opportunity to speak with one unified voice. And that one unified voice needs to stand with South Korea. If Richard Engel, who was interviewed at the top of the program, is correct that this situation is to solidify Kim Jung Il's son's (Kim Jung Un) position as North Korea's military leader of strength, which will also sure up the dictatorial succession, then it is imperative that the United States continue the high road using dialogue with China to keep this situation under control.
It essential, in the mind of Kim Jung Il that his son take full control before the dictator passes, because one can conclude that if he passes before his son takes power, his son will not take power - the generals would challenge for power possibly in a coup. So as preposterous as Mr. Engel may sound that this is all for a 27 year-old, it is the warped reality that exists in North Korea. No in-fighting on our side in terms of communicating on this issue is essential.
Speaking of foreign policy and a unified voice, one of today's first guests was Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who said there is not enough time to ratify the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty because the Democrats, singling out Harry Reid, have an agenda for the lame duck session that doesn't allow time for S.T.A.R.T.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mr. Kyl's foil for the interview, said that Congress has three weeks to address 3 or 4 key issues and questioned Mr. Kyl why Congress couldn't get those few things done in that time. We know why - because Congress can not walk and chew gum at the same time.
This always baffled us here at The Opinion - Congress's inability to tackle issues in a timely manner. Just the fact that one Senator is holding up the treaty ratification sends a bad message and in the end is bad politics. Among Mr. Kyl's concerns is the modernization of our nuclear facilities, to which Mr. Obama has promised more money to renovate than was originally set aside. This is something that Republicans can join in on but refuse not to. And according to Mr. Kyl, the United States Congress can not address the Bush tax cuts, the S.T.A.R.T. treaty, and unemployment benefits at the same time during the lame duck session. When the productivity of the American worker is at an all time high while that individual's wages haven't budged, it's inexcusable that Congress can't get even a few things done. The only way to put is that is total bullshit. Everyone would agree. In a world where multi-tasking is required because of not enough time in the day, Mr. Kyl is conceding that Congress can't do that.
From today's interview, if there was any doubt before there is none now that Mr. Kyl is purely a smug political animal who doesn't seriously consider what the effects of his actions have on the American people. Case in point, the Bush taxes, which he said that they are not cuts. Current tax rates are now the standard structure,in place for ten years, and would hence just be an increase. Each one of his positions is compartmental political posturing, not caring how one position effects another.
For example, the most critical point that Mr. Durbin made, to keep Mr. Kyl in check, is that if the Congress enacted everyone of the recommended spending cuts but keep the Bush tax cuts for the richest one percent, there would be no reduction in the debt or the deficit - a zero-sum change. Mr. Kyl knows this and it's offensive that he doesn't acknowledge this. Mr. Kyl, as all Republicans do, mentioned small business feeling the burden of a tax increase. Again, good politics, but simply not true. President Obama has given many tax breaks to small businesses, so much so that going back to previous tax levels would not hurt them like the Republicans would have you believe. Within that position, Mr. Kyl wants to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but doesn't want to extend benefits to the unemployed. You be the judge of that.
So when Mr. Kyl says that there isn't time to tackle some critical issues, don't believe him. It's simply that he and other Republicans don't have the political inclination to cooperate on any legislation. [Rome ruined by the Senators.]
________
The Panel: The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Republican Strategist Ed Gillespie, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
The panel discussions have become increasingly frustrating, but for a few moments/statements because more and more whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative it's about staking out turf and dictating a political unreality. Peggy Noonan, talking as the President, says, "I've heard your [American electorate] and I'm going to make a lot of concessions." Not going to happen. Mr. Ed Gillespie, one individual we think we'd be better as a country if he were not in politics - in other words he's part of the problem, said, "The Democrats have their finger on the pulse of the country, I just don't know which one," a conversation stopper. Mr. Dionne stated that the President has already made too many premature concessions in regard to taxes. So who do we listen to, Mr. Dionne or Ms. Noonan? Managing expectations - Nutter.
Finally, Mayor Nutter, at one point citing his Philadelphia as an example, said that people feel that things are getting better. Our general sense is that he is right to an extent. Things are getting slightly better, but new realities are also taking shape at the same time, namely a continual 9% unemployment rate and a shrinking middle class.
The 'economy' is one subject that has many moving parts (taxes, benefits, incentives) that require many different, specific conversations and solutions. The new reality, if we are to listen to Mr. Kyl, is that Congress can not even multi-task within a single issue. Congress continues to refuse of themselves what they demand from the American people - to get more than one thing done at a time.
It essential, in the mind of Kim Jung Il that his son take full control before the dictator passes, because one can conclude that if he passes before his son takes power, his son will not take power - the generals would challenge for power possibly in a coup. So as preposterous as Mr. Engel may sound that this is all for a 27 year-old, it is the warped reality that exists in North Korea. No in-fighting on our side in terms of communicating on this issue is essential.
Speaking of foreign policy and a unified voice, one of today's first guests was Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who said there is not enough time to ratify the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty because the Democrats, singling out Harry Reid, have an agenda for the lame duck session that doesn't allow time for S.T.A.R.T.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mr. Kyl's foil for the interview, said that Congress has three weeks to address 3 or 4 key issues and questioned Mr. Kyl why Congress couldn't get those few things done in that time. We know why - because Congress can not walk and chew gum at the same time.
This always baffled us here at The Opinion - Congress's inability to tackle issues in a timely manner. Just the fact that one Senator is holding up the treaty ratification sends a bad message and in the end is bad politics. Among Mr. Kyl's concerns is the modernization of our nuclear facilities, to which Mr. Obama has promised more money to renovate than was originally set aside. This is something that Republicans can join in on but refuse not to. And according to Mr. Kyl, the United States Congress can not address the Bush tax cuts, the S.T.A.R.T. treaty, and unemployment benefits at the same time during the lame duck session. When the productivity of the American worker is at an all time high while that individual's wages haven't budged, it's inexcusable that Congress can't get even a few things done. The only way to put is that is total bullshit. Everyone would agree. In a world where multi-tasking is required because of not enough time in the day, Mr. Kyl is conceding that Congress can't do that.
From today's interview, if there was any doubt before there is none now that Mr. Kyl is purely a smug political animal who doesn't seriously consider what the effects of his actions have on the American people. Case in point, the Bush taxes, which he said that they are not cuts. Current tax rates are now the standard structure,in place for ten years, and would hence just be an increase. Each one of his positions is compartmental political posturing, not caring how one position effects another.
For example, the most critical point that Mr. Durbin made, to keep Mr. Kyl in check, is that if the Congress enacted everyone of the recommended spending cuts but keep the Bush tax cuts for the richest one percent, there would be no reduction in the debt or the deficit - a zero-sum change. Mr. Kyl knows this and it's offensive that he doesn't acknowledge this. Mr. Kyl, as all Republicans do, mentioned small business feeling the burden of a tax increase. Again, good politics, but simply not true. President Obama has given many tax breaks to small businesses, so much so that going back to previous tax levels would not hurt them like the Republicans would have you believe. Within that position, Mr. Kyl wants to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but doesn't want to extend benefits to the unemployed. You be the judge of that.
So when Mr. Kyl says that there isn't time to tackle some critical issues, don't believe him. It's simply that he and other Republicans don't have the political inclination to cooperate on any legislation. [Rome ruined by the Senators.]
________
The Panel: The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, Republican Strategist Ed Gillespie, The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
The panel discussions have become increasingly frustrating, but for a few moments/statements because more and more whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative it's about staking out turf and dictating a political unreality. Peggy Noonan, talking as the President, says, "I've heard your [American electorate] and I'm going to make a lot of concessions." Not going to happen. Mr. Ed Gillespie, one individual we think we'd be better as a country if he were not in politics - in other words he's part of the problem, said, "The Democrats have their finger on the pulse of the country, I just don't know which one," a conversation stopper. Mr. Dionne stated that the President has already made too many premature concessions in regard to taxes. So who do we listen to, Mr. Dionne or Ms. Noonan? Managing expectations - Nutter.
Finally, Mayor Nutter, at one point citing his Philadelphia as an example, said that people feel that things are getting better. Our general sense is that he is right to an extent. Things are getting slightly better, but new realities are also taking shape at the same time, namely a continual 9% unemployment rate and a shrinking middle class.
The 'economy' is one subject that has many moving parts (taxes, benefits, incentives) that require many different, specific conversations and solutions. The new reality, if we are to listen to Mr. Kyl, is that Congress can not even multi-task within a single issue. Congress continues to refuse of themselves what they demand from the American people - to get more than one thing done at a time.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
11.21.10: Defer and Declare
One thing is for sure, Hillary Clinton sounds incredibly relieved to be the Secretary of State where the Clinton reputation is solid because she has the capability to stay beyond the fray of what has really become trivial politics. One can only imagine what political opponents of Mrs. Clinton would throw at her if she had won the Presidency. Both in tone and in content, you could sense during today interview that the Madam Secretary has had enough of the finger-pointing politik. When Mr. Gregory asked the sophomoric question as to how she felt about the mid-term election, the Secretary could laughingly decline to answer.
She stated, in response to Mr. Gregory's inquiry about Republicans lead by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) blocking that ratification of the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty, that their questions deserved to be answered and that everyone in the Administration is ready to answer them. She went on to say that once those questions are answered that she feels there will be the two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Mr. Gregory mentioned the possibility of simply political posturing by the Republicans, to which Mrs. Clinton reminded us of the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "Trust but verify." She obviously concluded that there is no verification without the treaty.
We agree with all that she said in as much as if there are questions, they should be answered, but again what is disappointing is that whether it was the Republicans themselves or the Press, the connotation is that it is a stall tactic to make political points. We sincerely hope this is not the case. There used to be a mentality in this country particularly in the Reagan era that no matter what the problems and differences were at home, we spoke with a unified voice on the international stage. We can't even get that together now, and you would think that since all the American people want is some compromise to get things done, international relations would be a good place start. We believe that ultimately we will and the treaty will be ratified by the Senate.
Conscientiously, Mr. Gregory discussed Afghanistan with Secretary Clinton and she said that 'hopefully' we'll be able to transition to Afghan lead security by 2014. What that says to us is that we're there in some capacity until at least 2020, and that's being hopeful, but we have no illusions that our involvement in Afghanistan is nothing but long term. Mrs. Clinton also said that permanent bases haven't even been considered yet, so let's do a little considering.
Having a permanent base there means a sustained military presence after all the major combat operations have left the country, so 2,000 troops...less? The military would advise to have such a base and it's understandable. From their point of view, the Taliban orchestrated by Al Qaeda is a grave threat to security in Afghanistan. It's the closest continually touch point that the Pentagon and the C.I.A. would have to this lawless region.
However, unlike any other base we have, even the ones we have in Iraq, permanent bases in Afghanistan should also be considered a continual streaming of the fighting there. Those bases will be under constant torment from the Taliban and assorted others. So what to do?
Well, we first have to concede that we're going to be there long term in a significant capacity, but by 2030 we should have no permanent base there at all. By that time, either Kabul has pulled the country up and there are signs of progress to enter the world community or it will remain destitute and corrupt. Either way, this is one place we should not stay permanently, like South Korea. No way.
But what's funny is that as silly as it seems, if we were able to kill or capture the Al Qaeda leadership, that would give The United States the political cover to get the hell out of there sooner, but it's not a priority.
Speaking of priorities, we're still trying to figure out where Governor Bobby Jindal's reside. What really bothered us about today's interview is that Governor Jindal (R-LA) came off as though he studied for it. It goes back to that disastrous Republican rebuttal to President Obama's first State of the Union address. He didn't articulate any point or message. By contrast, his answers we clearer and more concise. Believable or reassuring is another story. Mr. Jindal because of that one stumble is on the outside looking in when it comes to political relevance in the Republican party hierarchy.
However, it's not for lack of trying. Where Secretary Clinton deferred, Governor Jindal declared. Are the airport security measures excessive? Yes. Administration incompetent during the BP oil spill disaster? Absolutely. But let's wait one second...
Among these more-than-sure-of-himself statements, he said that this Administration has been lucky we haven't been hit with a major terrorist act from overseas, as if lucky has been the sole factor. Also, when he says that the Administration is more concerned about the Miranda rights of terrorists than American citizens' rights, who's he talking to? There is a limited amount of time during the interview, why waste our time with statements like that? Also, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Jindal sparred about whether sand berms worked, who did or didn't do what, but they never got to talking about what the current state of affairs is with the damage and the clean-up.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal reiterated the current Republican mantra, that they've learned from their mistakes and they deserve to be the majority party again... Really?
She stated, in response to Mr. Gregory's inquiry about Republicans lead by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) blocking that ratification of the S.T.A.R.T. Treaty, that their questions deserved to be answered and that everyone in the Administration is ready to answer them. She went on to say that once those questions are answered that she feels there will be the two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify the treaty.
Mr. Gregory mentioned the possibility of simply political posturing by the Republicans, to which Mrs. Clinton reminded us of the famous Ronald Reagan quote, "Trust but verify." She obviously concluded that there is no verification without the treaty.
We agree with all that she said in as much as if there are questions, they should be answered, but again what is disappointing is that whether it was the Republicans themselves or the Press, the connotation is that it is a stall tactic to make political points. We sincerely hope this is not the case. There used to be a mentality in this country particularly in the Reagan era that no matter what the problems and differences were at home, we spoke with a unified voice on the international stage. We can't even get that together now, and you would think that since all the American people want is some compromise to get things done, international relations would be a good place start. We believe that ultimately we will and the treaty will be ratified by the Senate.
Conscientiously, Mr. Gregory discussed Afghanistan with Secretary Clinton and she said that 'hopefully' we'll be able to transition to Afghan lead security by 2014. What that says to us is that we're there in some capacity until at least 2020, and that's being hopeful, but we have no illusions that our involvement in Afghanistan is nothing but long term. Mrs. Clinton also said that permanent bases haven't even been considered yet, so let's do a little considering.
Having a permanent base there means a sustained military presence after all the major combat operations have left the country, so 2,000 troops...less? The military would advise to have such a base and it's understandable. From their point of view, the Taliban orchestrated by Al Qaeda is a grave threat to security in Afghanistan. It's the closest continually touch point that the Pentagon and the C.I.A. would have to this lawless region.
However, unlike any other base we have, even the ones we have in Iraq, permanent bases in Afghanistan should also be considered a continual streaming of the fighting there. Those bases will be under constant torment from the Taliban and assorted others. So what to do?
Well, we first have to concede that we're going to be there long term in a significant capacity, but by 2030 we should have no permanent base there at all. By that time, either Kabul has pulled the country up and there are signs of progress to enter the world community or it will remain destitute and corrupt. Either way, this is one place we should not stay permanently, like South Korea. No way.
But what's funny is that as silly as it seems, if we were able to kill or capture the Al Qaeda leadership, that would give The United States the political cover to get the hell out of there sooner, but it's not a priority.
Speaking of priorities, we're still trying to figure out where Governor Bobby Jindal's reside. What really bothered us about today's interview is that Governor Jindal (R-LA) came off as though he studied for it. It goes back to that disastrous Republican rebuttal to President Obama's first State of the Union address. He didn't articulate any point or message. By contrast, his answers we clearer and more concise. Believable or reassuring is another story. Mr. Jindal because of that one stumble is on the outside looking in when it comes to political relevance in the Republican party hierarchy.
However, it's not for lack of trying. Where Secretary Clinton deferred, Governor Jindal declared. Are the airport security measures excessive? Yes. Administration incompetent during the BP oil spill disaster? Absolutely. But let's wait one second...
Among these more-than-sure-of-himself statements, he said that this Administration has been lucky we haven't been hit with a major terrorist act from overseas, as if lucky has been the sole factor. Also, when he says that the Administration is more concerned about the Miranda rights of terrorists than American citizens' rights, who's he talking to? There is a limited amount of time during the interview, why waste our time with statements like that? Also, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Jindal sparred about whether sand berms worked, who did or didn't do what, but they never got to talking about what the current state of affairs is with the damage and the clean-up.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal reiterated the current Republican mantra, that they've learned from their mistakes and they deserve to be the majority party again... Really?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
11.14.10: It's a Gut Thing
We have to start with today's column with this question: Is David Axelrod, The President's Senior Adviser, part of the problem? Because today, like every previous visit to Meet The Press, he comes off as defensive instead of being sure of himself and the Administration, in which he works.
At the top of the interview, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod about the challenges and rejections the President faced at this past week's G20 summit. He immediately called Mr. Gregory on highlighting the negative instead of the positive, which was The President's India Trip, securing $10 Billion in Trade in turn creating 50,000 jobs. Looking at this on the face of it, one would say, "Well, that's what he should do when asked a question like that." Well, many in the press and on cable agree that a big part of the problem for the Democratic loses this election season were due in part to The Administration not communicating its achievements effectively to the electorate. If you continually answer questions from the press in a defensive posture, like Mr. Axelrod does, no wonder people have doubts.
It's a gut thing. Americans like people who sound sure of themselves, and if the individual who's speaking doesn't, it earns skepticism from the people... it's a feeling in the gut. Now, it's too the point where sometimes the American people don't even realize the content of what's being said by politicians, as long as it comes out confidently.
With regard to the Bush-era tax cuts, Mr. Axelrod said there was no bending on the President's stance that they should not be extended for the wealthy. But this finally came after haggling over of the question. He initially said that he wasn't going to debate it with Mr. Gregory on today's program. He is the President's senior adviser. State the President's position, he knows what it is, and move on.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked about the 'draconian document' (Mr. Gregory's term) that it the Debt Commission's co-chair analysis that came out this week. Mr. Axelrod wouldn't even say if everything was on the table, probably afraid of future questions about whether that includes social security, which would then be spun as the Administration wants to cut your Social Security, afraid of being attacked.
We simply don't feel that Alan Simpson is a credible voice for the debt commission, though he was appointed by President Obama. Erskin Bowles is also suspect because the appointment of both these men automatically sets the agenda on a pro-corporate stance. If every is, in fact, on the table then it can not just be about one aspect.
Now, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could attack and upset people with the best of them, but the problem was not that he pissed off Republicans, but he also didn't have a lot of Democrats on board along the way. But like Republicans, he wasn't afraid to piss people off and to answer Mr. Gregory's question for Mr. Axelrod, the answer is 'no,' The President should not campaign for him, just focus on the bigger picture. The Democrats should take some of Mr. Emanuel's example.
Speaking of tempers, Senator John McCain is just getting plain weird. The farther to the center that his wife and daughter go, the more right he goes. Something is going on there, no matter what document you put in front of him, he wants 'THE' comprehensive study of D.A.D.T. and then hearings, despite what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to. Basically, Mr. McCain is doing everything he can to block or delay the end of this policy. This runs directly counter to what his wife and daughter advocate. We're not going to speculate as to why, several theories could be put forth, but what we do know if that Mr. McCain has backtracked on the progressive thinking that he was once known for and that's the disappointment. Even with that in mind, he stills holds credibility in the press when it concerns the reality on the ground of Afghanistan and Iraq.
One key point that he did make on today's program was that India, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan are all in a state of uncertainty as to whether the U.S. is going to stay the course in the region. It's a vital notion to consider because uncertainty breeds instability... just think about our economy. If anything needs to be achieved in Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan, it's some sort of stability. Unfortunately, as Mr. McCain also pointed out, the Afghanistan government is incredibly corrupt, which makes it doomed to fail. And yes, we agree that it is prudent to have a withdrawal timetable based solely on conditions on the ground. The one big problem with that is we only have an idea of what the conditions on the ground are, so it's difficult to have an idea of where they should be.
Mr. Gregory also asked Mr. McCain about the economy... why? Most of America is in consensus on the idea that if Mr. McCain were President, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now.
This brings us to today's panel: Fmr. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and Co-Author of "All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis”, Bethany McLean of Vanity Fair.
Dr. Greenspan, as Mr. Gregory addressed him, said that the high uncertainty in the business community is like he has never seen it before. Whether you agreed with his decisions as Fed Chair or not, he's been around and is an accurate judge. That is very worrisome but that statement should also not be interpreted as that President Obama is anti-business, something Mr. Gingrich contradicted in his first statement during the panel.
In his opinion, President Obama's view on the economy is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people we referred at the top of the column, one who sounds sure of himself that people will listen to despite the content.
But you know who was worse? The man sitting to his right, Harold Ford. Mr. Ford, in our opinion should continue to be denied access to regaining a position in Congress simply for the fact that he stands for so little. He runs as a Democrat but his business stance is Republican-right. One may site the Clinton model, but remember that Clinton went 'right' for business when he was already in office, his second term, in the name of expediency, but he didn't run on that initially to become President. He commended Mr. Gingrich's effort for a new American majority. Didn't we ultimately reject the Contract with America. What does Harold Ford stand for?
He continually agreed with Mr. Gingrich on several points, namely loosening regulations on business and cutting corporate tax. Voters don't know what to get from him going in as he portrays himself as the calm, middle voice, which in some circumstances is ok, but in his case it is a bit of pandering.
But let's get back to Mr. Gingrich and his content, just on today's program. He said that one way in which the government can cut costs without asking any sacrifice from the American people is Medicare fraud, which he said was to the tune of "$70 to $120 billion dollars a year." Yet, he would endorse a candidate like the now Governor-elect Republican Rick Scott who before political life was the C.E.O. of Columbia HCA, which was charged with Medicare fraud and had to pay the largest fine in history, $1.7 billion dollars. And then to top it off, Mr. Gregory gave him the last word and he said that he thought we would see the economy marginally improve over the next year.
However, the star of today's program was author, Ms. Bethany McLean who spelled out the hard reality, to which no one at the table could answer. First she challenged that in the face of the government being 90% of the housing market, she didn't know of anyone who had the guts to end government involvement without sending the economy into another tailspin.
Telling like it is, no matter who is at the table goes a long way, don't you think?
See clip:
At the top of the interview, Mr. Gregory asked Mr. Axelrod about the challenges and rejections the President faced at this past week's G20 summit. He immediately called Mr. Gregory on highlighting the negative instead of the positive, which was The President's India Trip, securing $10 Billion in Trade in turn creating 50,000 jobs. Looking at this on the face of it, one would say, "Well, that's what he should do when asked a question like that." Well, many in the press and on cable agree that a big part of the problem for the Democratic loses this election season were due in part to The Administration not communicating its achievements effectively to the electorate. If you continually answer questions from the press in a defensive posture, like Mr. Axelrod does, no wonder people have doubts.
It's a gut thing. Americans like people who sound sure of themselves, and if the individual who's speaking doesn't, it earns skepticism from the people... it's a feeling in the gut. Now, it's too the point where sometimes the American people don't even realize the content of what's being said by politicians, as long as it comes out confidently.
With regard to the Bush-era tax cuts, Mr. Axelrod said there was no bending on the President's stance that they should not be extended for the wealthy. But this finally came after haggling over of the question. He initially said that he wasn't going to debate it with Mr. Gregory on today's program. He is the President's senior adviser. State the President's position, he knows what it is, and move on.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked about the 'draconian document' (Mr. Gregory's term) that it the Debt Commission's co-chair analysis that came out this week. Mr. Axelrod wouldn't even say if everything was on the table, probably afraid of future questions about whether that includes social security, which would then be spun as the Administration wants to cut your Social Security, afraid of being attacked.
We simply don't feel that Alan Simpson is a credible voice for the debt commission, though he was appointed by President Obama. Erskin Bowles is also suspect because the appointment of both these men automatically sets the agenda on a pro-corporate stance. If every is, in fact, on the table then it can not just be about one aspect.
Now, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel could attack and upset people with the best of them, but the problem was not that he pissed off Republicans, but he also didn't have a lot of Democrats on board along the way. But like Republicans, he wasn't afraid to piss people off and to answer Mr. Gregory's question for Mr. Axelrod, the answer is 'no,' The President should not campaign for him, just focus on the bigger picture. The Democrats should take some of Mr. Emanuel's example.
Speaking of tempers, Senator John McCain is just getting plain weird. The farther to the center that his wife and daughter go, the more right he goes. Something is going on there, no matter what document you put in front of him, he wants 'THE' comprehensive study of D.A.D.T. and then hearings, despite what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified to. Basically, Mr. McCain is doing everything he can to block or delay the end of this policy. This runs directly counter to what his wife and daughter advocate. We're not going to speculate as to why, several theories could be put forth, but what we do know if that Mr. McCain has backtracked on the progressive thinking that he was once known for and that's the disappointment. Even with that in mind, he stills holds credibility in the press when it concerns the reality on the ground of Afghanistan and Iraq.
One key point that he did make on today's program was that India, Pakistan, and of course Afghanistan are all in a state of uncertainty as to whether the U.S. is going to stay the course in the region. It's a vital notion to consider because uncertainty breeds instability... just think about our economy. If anything needs to be achieved in Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan, it's some sort of stability. Unfortunately, as Mr. McCain also pointed out, the Afghanistan government is incredibly corrupt, which makes it doomed to fail. And yes, we agree that it is prudent to have a withdrawal timetable based solely on conditions on the ground. The one big problem with that is we only have an idea of what the conditions on the ground are, so it's difficult to have an idea of where they should be.
Mr. Gregory also asked Mr. McCain about the economy... why? Most of America is in consensus on the idea that if Mr. McCain were President, we'd be a lot worse off than we are now.
This brings us to today's panel: Fmr. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Fmr. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) and Co-Author of "All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis”, Bethany McLean of Vanity Fair.
Dr. Greenspan, as Mr. Gregory addressed him, said that the high uncertainty in the business community is like he has never seen it before. Whether you agreed with his decisions as Fed Chair or not, he's been around and is an accurate judge. That is very worrisome but that statement should also not be interpreted as that President Obama is anti-business, something Mr. Gingrich contradicted in his first statement during the panel.
In his opinion, President Obama's view on the economy is fundamentally wrong. Mr. Gingrich is one of those people we referred at the top of the column, one who sounds sure of himself that people will listen to despite the content.
But you know who was worse? The man sitting to his right, Harold Ford. Mr. Ford, in our opinion should continue to be denied access to regaining a position in Congress simply for the fact that he stands for so little. He runs as a Democrat but his business stance is Republican-right. One may site the Clinton model, but remember that Clinton went 'right' for business when he was already in office, his second term, in the name of expediency, but he didn't run on that initially to become President. He commended Mr. Gingrich's effort for a new American majority. Didn't we ultimately reject the Contract with America. What does Harold Ford stand for?
He continually agreed with Mr. Gingrich on several points, namely loosening regulations on business and cutting corporate tax. Voters don't know what to get from him going in as he portrays himself as the calm, middle voice, which in some circumstances is ok, but in his case it is a bit of pandering.
But let's get back to Mr. Gingrich and his content, just on today's program. He said that one way in which the government can cut costs without asking any sacrifice from the American people is Medicare fraud, which he said was to the tune of "$70 to $120 billion dollars a year." Yet, he would endorse a candidate like the now Governor-elect Republican Rick Scott who before political life was the C.E.O. of Columbia HCA, which was charged with Medicare fraud and had to pay the largest fine in history, $1.7 billion dollars. And then to top it off, Mr. Gregory gave him the last word and he said that he thought we would see the economy marginally improve over the next year.
However, the star of today's program was author, Ms. Bethany McLean who spelled out the hard reality, to which no one at the table could answer. First she challenged that in the face of the government being 90% of the housing market, she didn't know of anyone who had the guts to end government involvement without sending the economy into another tailspin.
Telling like it is, no matter who is at the table goes a long way, don't you think?
See clip:
Sunday, November 07, 2010
11.7.10: Wait and See
Jim DeMint says he's not the leader of the Tea Party, and he may be telling the truth. On today's program, he explained that he doesn't think Americans want to change the health care system we have now. He means the one that consumes 17% of our total GDP and is steadily increasing. The one that keeps the insurance and the pharmaceutical companies on their current obscene profit trajectory; he sounds like a regular Republican to us.
However, he does say that he would vote against increasing debt ceiling, which is very much a consideration of the Tea Party. They could filibuster the increase in the Senate, to which some pundits say would complete crash the economy. Thank you very much for another doomsday scenario.
And let's face, Jim DeMint didn't have to answer any of the 'lay up' questions that Mr. Gregory posed to him today, and he has every right to be smug. The Democrats got 'schlacked,' in the President's words. Where we all need to wait and see is where the Republicans intend to make cuts to the budget.
Given what Governor Chris Christie said in the following interview that he cut New Jersey's state spending 9% across the board in every program. The Republicans will probably look to that, but Jim DeMint also mentioned Paul Ryan's (R-WI) plan for the 'way forward,' which does in fact call for the privatizing of the Social Security system, which wonder in fact render it no longer 'social' nor 'secure.' It should be interesting.
Mr. DeMint also said that he also wants to 'defund' the new Healthcare legislation, try to repeal it, but in the meantime slow the implementation of it. Fundamentally, this is not the correct thing to do. Granted when Democrats do in fact do something, they do it messy, but in the end Americans seem to look back at those initiatives and think, how could we have done without this, like Medicare for example. However, Republicans are corporatists so it stands to reason why they would want to completely scrap the new law.
And the other cuts, Senator DeMint talked about earmarks, which could be a deal-breaker between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans as Mr. Gregory proposed. Actually, that should be their official moniker - Tea Party Republicans, there aren't any Tea Party Democrats in office.
The Republicans won the day last week and now they feel like they have a mandate despite anyone saying anything to the contrary. The President, last Wednesday, gave a concession press conference, almost literally confirming that he's not in touch with the American people. He better get his act together or frankly, the President is going to get his ass handed to him in the next two years.
Where Senator DeMint truly does represent the far-right of the Republican party, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) comes off as a moderate Republican, to which of course, Mr. Gregory asked him about the Presidency. Ugh, enough already with the asking everyone if they are running for President on Meet The Press. Mr. Christie, as we said above, is slashing spending across all municipalities for the most part, which includes things like teacher pensions, hence taking money out of retirees' pockets. [And as these are just words on a page and you can say to yourself, "well, that's not me," it's becoming more and more likely that it is or will be you.
So it all sounds and in some case is all sensible, but make no mistake that it makes life for the individual much more difficult. And speaking of sensible, we agree with Governor Christie with regard to the tunnel project in as much as that it can't be a blank check of overruns in costs. He also mentioned that New York City nor state is contributing to the project, which we believe they should. Let's wait and see.
The Panel: Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; Former Adviser to Pres. George W. Bush Karen Hughes; President of the National Urban League, Marc Morial and Republican Strategist Mike Murphy.
With regard to the panel, it breaks down like this: Anita Dunn, please... she's one of the reasons why the message didn't get out. She confessed to assume some responsibility for that. You think? Her lack of responsibility translates directly into a lack of credibility so she had nothing to offer.
Karen Hughes, former adviser to President Bush, said the election was a complete repudiation of President Obama's agenda. "Turn that baby around," she repeated. Do the American people dislike the direction the country is going and did their vote confirm that. All yes, but it should not be characterized in the way Ms. Hughes did it. You know that person who is always convinced he or she is always right, but no matter what the person says it's always wrong? That's Karen Hughes. Marc Morial, the only valid voice on today's panel, was correct in refuting that on air.
As for Mike Murphy's opinion today. He admitted that he ran Meg Whitman's campaign in California. He's so DQ'ed from the conversation.
So where does this all leave us? Well, President Obama has great words and he needs to lead with great actions, which he hasn't done. The Republicans don't say anything and that's what's scary, so you have no idea what they're really going to do. We're in a holding pattern. We really need to land this plane as we're running out of fuel so we can't just keep circling like this.
However, he does say that he would vote against increasing debt ceiling, which is very much a consideration of the Tea Party. They could filibuster the increase in the Senate, to which some pundits say would complete crash the economy. Thank you very much for another doomsday scenario.
And let's face, Jim DeMint didn't have to answer any of the 'lay up' questions that Mr. Gregory posed to him today, and he has every right to be smug. The Democrats got 'schlacked,' in the President's words. Where we all need to wait and see is where the Republicans intend to make cuts to the budget.
Given what Governor Chris Christie said in the following interview that he cut New Jersey's state spending 9% across the board in every program. The Republicans will probably look to that, but Jim DeMint also mentioned Paul Ryan's (R-WI) plan for the 'way forward,' which does in fact call for the privatizing of the Social Security system, which wonder in fact render it no longer 'social' nor 'secure.' It should be interesting.
Mr. DeMint also said that he also wants to 'defund' the new Healthcare legislation, try to repeal it, but in the meantime slow the implementation of it. Fundamentally, this is not the correct thing to do. Granted when Democrats do in fact do something, they do it messy, but in the end Americans seem to look back at those initiatives and think, how could we have done without this, like Medicare for example. However, Republicans are corporatists so it stands to reason why they would want to completely scrap the new law.
And the other cuts, Senator DeMint talked about earmarks, which could be a deal-breaker between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republicans as Mr. Gregory proposed. Actually, that should be their official moniker - Tea Party Republicans, there aren't any Tea Party Democrats in office.
The Republicans won the day last week and now they feel like they have a mandate despite anyone saying anything to the contrary. The President, last Wednesday, gave a concession press conference, almost literally confirming that he's not in touch with the American people. He better get his act together or frankly, the President is going to get his ass handed to him in the next two years.
Where Senator DeMint truly does represent the far-right of the Republican party, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) comes off as a moderate Republican, to which of course, Mr. Gregory asked him about the Presidency. Ugh, enough already with the asking everyone if they are running for President on Meet The Press. Mr. Christie, as we said above, is slashing spending across all municipalities for the most part, which includes things like teacher pensions, hence taking money out of retirees' pockets. [And as these are just words on a page and you can say to yourself, "well, that's not me," it's becoming more and more likely that it is or will be you.
So it all sounds and in some case is all sensible, but make no mistake that it makes life for the individual much more difficult. And speaking of sensible, we agree with Governor Christie with regard to the tunnel project in as much as that it can't be a blank check of overruns in costs. He also mentioned that New York City nor state is contributing to the project, which we believe they should. Let's wait and see.
The Panel: Former Obama White House Communications Director Anita Dunn; Former Adviser to Pres. George W. Bush Karen Hughes; President of the National Urban League, Marc Morial and Republican Strategist Mike Murphy.
With regard to the panel, it breaks down like this: Anita Dunn, please... she's one of the reasons why the message didn't get out. She confessed to assume some responsibility for that. You think? Her lack of responsibility translates directly into a lack of credibility so she had nothing to offer.
Karen Hughes, former adviser to President Bush, said the election was a complete repudiation of President Obama's agenda. "Turn that baby around," she repeated. Do the American people dislike the direction the country is going and did their vote confirm that. All yes, but it should not be characterized in the way Ms. Hughes did it. You know that person who is always convinced he or she is always right, but no matter what the person says it's always wrong? That's Karen Hughes. Marc Morial, the only valid voice on today's panel, was correct in refuting that on air.
As for Mike Murphy's opinion today. He admitted that he ran Meg Whitman's campaign in California. He's so DQ'ed from the conversation.
So where does this all leave us? Well, President Obama has great words and he needs to lead with great actions, which he hasn't done. The Republicans don't say anything and that's what's scary, so you have no idea what they're really going to do. We're in a holding pattern. We really need to land this plane as we're running out of fuel so we can't just keep circling like this.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
10.31.10: The Bad, The Ugly, and The Fun
With only forty-eight hours before the midterm elections, it was a prudent decision to open today's Meet The Press with the Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan. As he stated, "They [Al Qaeda in Yeman] are at war with us, and we're very much at war with them." The point being, let's not forget what is going on around us as we focus on our little of bubble in the world.
What we found interesting about the conversation is that Mr. Brennan kept speaking about Yemen and Al Qaeda in Yeman, but never mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki by name, the head of this faction on the Arabian pennisula. Al-Awlaki is a U.S. Citizen targeted for assassination by the Obama Administration. So you can say what you will about President Obama's domestic policies, but he is continuing and enhancing the aggressive stance of the United States started by the Bush Administration when it concerns our "war on terrorism."
Some have argued that the United States can not target one of it's own citizens for execution without any charges or trial, and technically that is true, but Al-Awlaki stopped being a U.S. Citizen a long time ago. We're not usually given to cavalier opinions in this column, but in regard to this one individual, we'll make an exception. There is no other figure in Al Qaeda right now more dangerous. And at this stage, we'll not see a situation like we did with Al-Zarqawi in Iraq.
He was thrown to the wolves for becoming too powerful and too much the focus of Al Qaeda in general. Al-Awlaki could potentially be elevated to the top spot, succeeding Osama Bin Laden. The myth created that an American Muslim comes to lead the one Muslim organization willing to fight against the United States is a powerful message for the disenfranchised Muslim masses.
Now we understand that Mr. Brennan did not mention to specifically not put a face on this Yemeni faction, but it's vital to know the background to understand the why. For Al-Awlaki, who was once a moderate Iman in American denouncing the September 11th attacks, but obviously not so now. The biggest fatal flaw that the United States military and intelligence operations should exploit with these people is their respective egos. Al-Awlaki figured it was better to live as a famous radical than an anonymous moderate. They are trying every possible angle to break through our security systems and we can certainly expect more of these kinds of smaller-scale attempts.
This week's bomb-package plots aboard cargo planes wasn't the top story but for one day and it reminds us that this is a time for serious people, people we're not going to get anew as these midterms come about.
Mr. Brennan's short interview gave way to a longer segment with Governor Haily Barbour of Mississippi and DNC Chair (former Governor of VA) Tim Kaine, which typically was less informative because of all the spin with every answer.
Mr. Kaine, for his trouble, said that he thinks the Democrats will hold both houses of Congress. We get it, he's the DNC chair, but in the real world, his optimism truly rings hollow and come to think of it, he had no conviction in the statement. However, it is absolutely correct that the Republicans under President Bush created a lost decade. Where he's wrong is that we think he's mis-identifying which decade. This decade starting in 2010 is the one that's lost! It will take us to at least 2018 to resolve the deep crisis that this country is in - directly caused by the Bush Administration's policies.
And only a Republican of the ilk of a Haley Barbour could raise our cynicism about politicians' intentions higher than hearing false optimism. He said that this midterm election is a repudiation of "Obama's policies." [Reason we put that in quotes is that Mr. Barbour doesn't have the inclination to address the man by his proper title.] Republicans will take the House of Representatives, but not the Senate though they'll get close. Our politicians are just that, not leaders. Governor Barbour said that Republicans will cut $100 billion in spending from the budget. Great, but they never say how they are going to do it. Lowering taxes is not the answer. No one likes to pay higher taxes, but the reality is that something has to give. Do we get rid of Social Security like the Tea Party candidates want, or do we raise taxes to pay for it? Do we repeal the Healthcare Reform Bill and eliminate Medicare for future generations? Governor Barbour said that if Healthcare isn't fully repealed that it will be changed so much that it won't look anything like it does now. But how can we keep the current system, one the Republicans want to bring back, afloat? Republicans don't talk about sacrifices because their prism is through a corporate one, and the Democrats are politically scared to outline the reality.
Serious people stick by their convictions and the Democrats haven't done that. Republicans are exceptional at stoking fear and blame and winning elections, but they can not seriously govern for all the people.
"Americans are angry," NPR's Michelle Norris said, to which Mark Halperin concurred during today's round table. However, on the right at least, it is a manipulated anger - citizens advocating against their own interest - it's sad to watch. We keep thinking that this is no where more illustrated than in the race for Senate in Nevada. Sure, Senator Harry Reid is terrible majority leader, but who will benefit from the election of Sharon Angle? Remember Nevada, this is for 6 years, and if you think some of her views are radical (We'd describe it more accurately as Draconian), imagine her in the Senate actually pushing her anti-American agenda. Yes, 'anti-American' is completely accurate. When ever you invoke that God and religion should play a role in the policies of the United States, that is in direct contrast to our Constitution.
Tom Brokaw cited some useful history for the discussion. He recalled that at Reagan's first midterm election, unemployment was higher than it is now and his approval rating was lower than President Obama's at this time. What he didn't have time to include in his answer is what Reagan then did. He lowered corporate taxes significantly and increase our national debt by trillions so as corporate America boomed in the 80's, most still struggled to keep it all together. Mr. Brokaw also said that some are nervous about how the Republicans will get it together and lead this country. This column's concern is deep and real.... think Sharon Angle as one of our leaders. Just thinking of her winning feels like a punch in the gut and is singularly emblematic of how America's reputation as a country of innovative thinkers is tarnished.... crumbled.
With that said, here's how we'll officially weigh in on some of the races - the bad, the ugly, and the fun:
Nevada
Harry Reid (D) and Sharon Angle (R)
Winner: Sharon Angle. She has the benefit of the anonymous corporate dollar throwing millions toward the race to defeat Mr. Reid. In these last days, Mr. Reid is out of the stump and Mrs. Angle is staying out of sight to avoid any late gaffs with the press, who she has literally run away from for the entire campaign... This is a real leader? All of America losses on this one.
Delaware
Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell (R)
Winner: Chis Coons. Please... even Americans can draw this line. Let's face it, Republicans have given up on the Delaware race because they know that Mr. Coons, even though he's a Democrat, he's better for the Senate than Ms. O'Donnell.
California
Barbara Boxer (D) and Carli Fiorina
Winner: Barbara Boxer. The only good thing that Ms. Fiorina has brought to this race is that hopefully she woke Senator Boxer who seems to have been resting on the privilege of her position for too long. With that said, she still represents the best interests of her state, whereas Ms. Fiorina would simply be a 'yes' for Republican corporatists at ever turn. Laying off 30,000 at HP in the United States will never ever get our vote.
Pennsylvania
Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Sestak (D)
Winner: Pat Toomey. And this one is devastating on a number of levels - many you may not realize. One, Mr. Toomey is one of the 'fathers' of the Tea Party philosophy... doing away with Social Security and privatizing the VA... real conservative backward stuff. On another level, the administration played this one as badly as you can play it. They backed Arlen Spector, an individual who should have been voted out of office years ago , and go with a great Democratic candidate in Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral. Because of this, he's had to do it all on his own with no support of substance from the Administration. And Mr. Sestak supports the President's policies, and he's still in the race but it looks bleak.
Alaska
Joe Miller (R) and Scott McAdams (D) and Lisa Murkowski (I)
Winner: Lisa Murkowski... as a write-in. Ms. Murkowski will make history and even though she's a Republican it's something that we can all take some kind of pride in. Mr. McAdams is the best representative that Alaska could have. With an Alaska Democrat in the Senate, the utterly stupid 'Mama Grizzly' will have to go into hibernation, the state will be the better for it - more money will roll into the state. However, the two conservative candidates have the cash with the distinct difference being the Joe Miller through any political capital he had down the toilet while his security was handcuffing a journalist. Hence, Murkowski squeezes in.
One last thing: Go and Vote on Tuesday!
What we found interesting about the conversation is that Mr. Brennan kept speaking about Yemen and Al Qaeda in Yeman, but never mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki by name, the head of this faction on the Arabian pennisula. Al-Awlaki is a U.S. Citizen targeted for assassination by the Obama Administration. So you can say what you will about President Obama's domestic policies, but he is continuing and enhancing the aggressive stance of the United States started by the Bush Administration when it concerns our "war on terrorism."
Some have argued that the United States can not target one of it's own citizens for execution without any charges or trial, and technically that is true, but Al-Awlaki stopped being a U.S. Citizen a long time ago. We're not usually given to cavalier opinions in this column, but in regard to this one individual, we'll make an exception. There is no other figure in Al Qaeda right now more dangerous. And at this stage, we'll not see a situation like we did with Al-Zarqawi in Iraq.
He was thrown to the wolves for becoming too powerful and too much the focus of Al Qaeda in general. Al-Awlaki could potentially be elevated to the top spot, succeeding Osama Bin Laden. The myth created that an American Muslim comes to lead the one Muslim organization willing to fight against the United States is a powerful message for the disenfranchised Muslim masses.
Now we understand that Mr. Brennan did not mention to specifically not put a face on this Yemeni faction, but it's vital to know the background to understand the why. For Al-Awlaki, who was once a moderate Iman in American denouncing the September 11th attacks, but obviously not so now. The biggest fatal flaw that the United States military and intelligence operations should exploit with these people is their respective egos. Al-Awlaki figured it was better to live as a famous radical than an anonymous moderate. They are trying every possible angle to break through our security systems and we can certainly expect more of these kinds of smaller-scale attempts.
This week's bomb-package plots aboard cargo planes wasn't the top story but for one day and it reminds us that this is a time for serious people, people we're not going to get anew as these midterms come about.
Mr. Brennan's short interview gave way to a longer segment with Governor Haily Barbour of Mississippi and DNC Chair (former Governor of VA) Tim Kaine, which typically was less informative because of all the spin with every answer.
Mr. Kaine, for his trouble, said that he thinks the Democrats will hold both houses of Congress. We get it, he's the DNC chair, but in the real world, his optimism truly rings hollow and come to think of it, he had no conviction in the statement. However, it is absolutely correct that the Republicans under President Bush created a lost decade. Where he's wrong is that we think he's mis-identifying which decade. This decade starting in 2010 is the one that's lost! It will take us to at least 2018 to resolve the deep crisis that this country is in - directly caused by the Bush Administration's policies.
And only a Republican of the ilk of a Haley Barbour could raise our cynicism about politicians' intentions higher than hearing false optimism. He said that this midterm election is a repudiation of "Obama's policies." [Reason we put that in quotes is that Mr. Barbour doesn't have the inclination to address the man by his proper title.] Republicans will take the House of Representatives, but not the Senate though they'll get close. Our politicians are just that, not leaders. Governor Barbour said that Republicans will cut $100 billion in spending from the budget. Great, but they never say how they are going to do it. Lowering taxes is not the answer. No one likes to pay higher taxes, but the reality is that something has to give. Do we get rid of Social Security like the Tea Party candidates want, or do we raise taxes to pay for it? Do we repeal the Healthcare Reform Bill and eliminate Medicare for future generations? Governor Barbour said that if Healthcare isn't fully repealed that it will be changed so much that it won't look anything like it does now. But how can we keep the current system, one the Republicans want to bring back, afloat? Republicans don't talk about sacrifices because their prism is through a corporate one, and the Democrats are politically scared to outline the reality.
Serious people stick by their convictions and the Democrats haven't done that. Republicans are exceptional at stoking fear and blame and winning elections, but they can not seriously govern for all the people.
"Americans are angry," NPR's Michelle Norris said, to which Mark Halperin concurred during today's round table. However, on the right at least, it is a manipulated anger - citizens advocating against their own interest - it's sad to watch. We keep thinking that this is no where more illustrated than in the race for Senate in Nevada. Sure, Senator Harry Reid is terrible majority leader, but who will benefit from the election of Sharon Angle? Remember Nevada, this is for 6 years, and if you think some of her views are radical (We'd describe it more accurately as Draconian), imagine her in the Senate actually pushing her anti-American agenda. Yes, 'anti-American' is completely accurate. When ever you invoke that God and religion should play a role in the policies of the United States, that is in direct contrast to our Constitution.
Tom Brokaw cited some useful history for the discussion. He recalled that at Reagan's first midterm election, unemployment was higher than it is now and his approval rating was lower than President Obama's at this time. What he didn't have time to include in his answer is what Reagan then did. He lowered corporate taxes significantly and increase our national debt by trillions so as corporate America boomed in the 80's, most still struggled to keep it all together. Mr. Brokaw also said that some are nervous about how the Republicans will get it together and lead this country. This column's concern is deep and real.... think Sharon Angle as one of our leaders. Just thinking of her winning feels like a punch in the gut and is singularly emblematic of how America's reputation as a country of innovative thinkers is tarnished.... crumbled.
With that said, here's how we'll officially weigh in on some of the races - the bad, the ugly, and the fun:
Nevada
Harry Reid (D) and Sharon Angle (R)
Winner: Sharon Angle. She has the benefit of the anonymous corporate dollar throwing millions toward the race to defeat Mr. Reid. In these last days, Mr. Reid is out of the stump and Mrs. Angle is staying out of sight to avoid any late gaffs with the press, who she has literally run away from for the entire campaign... This is a real leader? All of America losses on this one.
Delaware
Chris Coons (D) and Christine O'Donnell (R)
Winner: Chis Coons. Please... even Americans can draw this line. Let's face it, Republicans have given up on the Delaware race because they know that Mr. Coons, even though he's a Democrat, he's better for the Senate than Ms. O'Donnell.
California
Barbara Boxer (D) and Carli Fiorina
Winner: Barbara Boxer. The only good thing that Ms. Fiorina has brought to this race is that hopefully she woke Senator Boxer who seems to have been resting on the privilege of her position for too long. With that said, she still represents the best interests of her state, whereas Ms. Fiorina would simply be a 'yes' for Republican corporatists at ever turn. Laying off 30,000 at HP in the United States will never ever get our vote.
Pennsylvania
Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Sestak (D)
Winner: Pat Toomey. And this one is devastating on a number of levels - many you may not realize. One, Mr. Toomey is one of the 'fathers' of the Tea Party philosophy... doing away with Social Security and privatizing the VA... real conservative backward stuff. On another level, the administration played this one as badly as you can play it. They backed Arlen Spector, an individual who should have been voted out of office years ago , and go with a great Democratic candidate in Joe Sestak, a retired Navy Admiral. Because of this, he's had to do it all on his own with no support of substance from the Administration. And Mr. Sestak supports the President's policies, and he's still in the race but it looks bleak.
Alaska
Joe Miller (R) and Scott McAdams (D) and Lisa Murkowski (I)
Winner: Lisa Murkowski... as a write-in. Ms. Murkowski will make history and even though she's a Republican it's something that we can all take some kind of pride in. Mr. McAdams is the best representative that Alaska could have. With an Alaska Democrat in the Senate, the utterly stupid 'Mama Grizzly' will have to go into hibernation, the state will be the better for it - more money will roll into the state. However, the two conservative candidates have the cash with the distinct difference being the Joe Miller through any political capital he had down the toilet while his security was handcuffing a journalist. Hence, Murkowski squeezes in.
One last thing: Go and Vote on Tuesday!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
9.19.10: General Colin Powell/ President Bill Clinton
Mr. Gregory uttered the phrase, "ride the tiger," with regard to established Republican politicians attaching themselves to the Tea Party movement. For certain, Tea Party candidates are collectively ferocious, but we all know the end result of being on the back of a tiger too long - bitten and mauled.
The declarative statement that was today's Meet The Press will hopefully become a news-site endless clip reel. General Powell put it directly to the Tea Party movement, "you have to have an agenda, not just slogans." However, he does feel that this movement is healthy for the country because they have tapped into an anxiety about debt, spending, and taxes, he explained. He went further and opined that it would be good for the President if one of the houses were under control of Republicans. This way, Republicans would be forced to govern and make the hard choices.
However, if Tea Party Republicans have not given any indication that they can make these hard choices, becoming too wrapped up in their own bluster of rhetoric. In theory, the General is probably correct, but his theoretical Republican Party is vastly different than the one vying for control of Congress.
Colin Powell is a voice of reason and an essential leader for America. His position on immigration, outlining the Dream Act [an undocumented/illegal resident can work his/her way to citizenship through going to college or into the military] is sensible and realistic given his arguument with regard to the eligible working-age population, but his position undoubtedly disqualifies him from today's Republican party, they simply don't want to tolerate such a moderate voice. General Powell in fact described himself as a moderate Republican, but is there such a thing anymore. The ones who view themselves like that are not shunned from the overall political discourse, just from the party machinery. That's now run by Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina. Regardless of whether you agree with all or some of his positions, he conducts himself and his discourse in a manner of which people should listen. This above statement does in no way let us forget General Powell's sad performance in front of the U.N. Assembly making the case for Iraq's weapons program, but in a country that facilitates, encourages redemption for so many of the wrong people, perhaps the redemption of Colin Powell is coming. Especially since his strategic position with regard to Iran is most responsible one we've heard from any politician right now. Use steep sanctions if Iran doesn't comply with international inspections of their nuclear facilities, get Russia and China involved, and use diplomacy. Very sound, but again, where was this exact strategy when the conversation was about Iraq?
What we really appreciated most was the following:
He pretty much sums it up right at the end there, it's the base from which the international community should work.
As for the second half interview with President Bill Clinton on this notably episode, we must first say that now we know who is rebuilding Haiti. Bill Clinton is rebuilding Haiti. In just the few minutes in which he spoke about the rebuilding, you just know that it doesn't happen without his effort to bring forth donors to meet with the Haitian government to see it through. His detailed description of the realities on the ground briefly exhausted David Gregory and he has to move on.
We didn't particularly like the fact that President Clinton laughed off the incendiary comments of Former Speaker Newt Gingrich ['anti-colonial, kenyan mentality,' et al]. It is comments such as those that General Powell implored against in the front half of the program. And it is this coded rhetoric that fuel a movement, of which both guests questioned specifics of its agenda.
We wish the Obama Administration would take some lessons from the former President on how to frame their ideas and accomplishments. It's the one thing that Bill Clinton does better than any politician. He has the ability to take distill a topic so that the everyday American can understand how it would effect him.
The obvious example from today's interview is the subject of healthcare. Within this, the President outlined out in 2009, insurance company profits were up 26% and that our government pays one trillion dollars more per year on healthcare than any other country. How does this relate to the ordinary citizen? Under the new healthcare bill, 85% of a person's premium payments will not go to actual care instead of most to the industry's buracracy and profit margins from dropping coverage. And when he said that there were some things to fix in the healthcare bill, that was his code for saying that the amendments/concessions that the Democrats let slide need to be repaired.
Today's program has lead us, actually reminds us of this axiom: In the United States, there are too many politicians and a dearth of statesmen.
The declarative statement that was today's Meet The Press will hopefully become a news-site endless clip reel. General Powell put it directly to the Tea Party movement, "you have to have an agenda, not just slogans." However, he does feel that this movement is healthy for the country because they have tapped into an anxiety about debt, spending, and taxes, he explained. He went further and opined that it would be good for the President if one of the houses were under control of Republicans. This way, Republicans would be forced to govern and make the hard choices.
However, if Tea Party Republicans have not given any indication that they can make these hard choices, becoming too wrapped up in their own bluster of rhetoric. In theory, the General is probably correct, but his theoretical Republican Party is vastly different than the one vying for control of Congress.
Colin Powell is a voice of reason and an essential leader for America. His position on immigration, outlining the Dream Act [an undocumented/illegal resident can work his/her way to citizenship through going to college or into the military] is sensible and realistic given his arguument with regard to the eligible working-age population, but his position undoubtedly disqualifies him from today's Republican party, they simply don't want to tolerate such a moderate voice. General Powell in fact described himself as a moderate Republican, but is there such a thing anymore. The ones who view themselves like that are not shunned from the overall political discourse, just from the party machinery. That's now run by Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina. Regardless of whether you agree with all or some of his positions, he conducts himself and his discourse in a manner of which people should listen. This above statement does in no way let us forget General Powell's sad performance in front of the U.N. Assembly making the case for Iraq's weapons program, but in a country that facilitates, encourages redemption for so many of the wrong people, perhaps the redemption of Colin Powell is coming. Especially since his strategic position with regard to Iran is most responsible one we've heard from any politician right now. Use steep sanctions if Iran doesn't comply with international inspections of their nuclear facilities, get Russia and China involved, and use diplomacy. Very sound, but again, where was this exact strategy when the conversation was about Iraq?
What we really appreciated most was the following:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
He pretty much sums it up right at the end there, it's the base from which the international community should work.
As for the second half interview with President Bill Clinton on this notably episode, we must first say that now we know who is rebuilding Haiti. Bill Clinton is rebuilding Haiti. In just the few minutes in which he spoke about the rebuilding, you just know that it doesn't happen without his effort to bring forth donors to meet with the Haitian government to see it through. His detailed description of the realities on the ground briefly exhausted David Gregory and he has to move on.
We didn't particularly like the fact that President Clinton laughed off the incendiary comments of Former Speaker Newt Gingrich ['anti-colonial, kenyan mentality,' et al]. It is comments such as those that General Powell implored against in the front half of the program. And it is this coded rhetoric that fuel a movement, of which both guests questioned specifics of its agenda.
We wish the Obama Administration would take some lessons from the former President on how to frame their ideas and accomplishments. It's the one thing that Bill Clinton does better than any politician. He has the ability to take distill a topic so that the everyday American can understand how it would effect him.
The obvious example from today's interview is the subject of healthcare. Within this, the President outlined out in 2009, insurance company profits were up 26% and that our government pays one trillion dollars more per year on healthcare than any other country. How does this relate to the ordinary citizen? Under the new healthcare bill, 85% of a person's premium payments will not go to actual care instead of most to the industry's buracracy and profit margins from dropping coverage. And when he said that there were some things to fix in the healthcare bill, that was his code for saying that the amendments/concessions that the Democrats let slide need to be repaired.
Today's program has lead us, actually reminds us of this axiom: In the United States, there are too many politicians and a dearth of statesmen.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
9.12.10: Speaking of Quotes
We've probably referenced this quote some time in the past before, but we haven't heard anything more concise than Lewis Black's. "The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans suck and Democrats blow."
And it is the latter that we more concerned with today because really, Democrats hold all the cards. They're just not playing them well. How lame is it that Democrats pass historic healthcare reform and none of them campaign on it, but David Axelrod, today's first guest, stated concise bullet points as to why they should and they still won't do it. In the roundtable discussion, Ron Brownstein said that there is a disconnect between performance and results for the Democrats, but additionally it's not seeming to have confidence in their convictions. We not talking about President Obama and his administration, we're talking about Congress people.
1. Seniors paying less for prescription drugs
2. Not being denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition
3. Not being dropped by your insurance company if you get sick
Those three right there are more than enough to win people over. Explain to people that they have more control over their healthcare than an insurance company.
The explanations have not been clearly put forward by the two most important messengers after the President and those are Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid. This is another much longer conversation but as readers of this column you should have a good concept of why we're making that statement.
Mr. Axelrod issued a warning today that with Republicans in power, they will repeat the policies that put the country in the financial hole we're still in now. When Mr. Gregory asked him about a timeframe for when people would see the results of the policies they've put in place, he skirted around it... wisely and we rarely condone a non-aswer. In this case, if Mr. Axelrod said any number, the clip would be everywhere and if it were not to come to fruition it would obviously become a shot in ones own foot. Additionally, Mr. Axelrod, as well as everyone else, knows that we can not afford to extend the tax cuts for the top 2%, and we do not expect the Administration to flinch on their position, Congress on the other hand, again, we're not so sure. Conversely, and sadly, we find out today courtesy of The New York Times that more and more families are moving into homeless shelters.
Also noteworthy is that Mr. Axelrod was looking much thinner today. His suit and shirt were too big. Other Democrats [read: Congress] could really stand to lose some weight and sweat it out legislating and talking to the people... and do it on television... make that news.
Speaking of quotes, Vice President Joe Biden said it best simplifying Mayor Giuliani to "Noun, verb, and 9/11." The former Mayor is a cartoon character at this point, you can not trust what he says anymore it seems. Not to mention that we find it a bit of a shame that with every anniversary of this tragedy, it's necessary to have Mr. Giuliani's perspective every time... as if only seeing that event through his prism. Lastly, Author Reza Azlan, at the top of the roundtable made a good point that anti-muslim sentiment is becoming mainstream due to people, like Mr. Giuliani painting all muslims, moderate and radical alike, with the same brush. It is bigotry, as Mr. Azlan put forthworth, but what he didn't qualify is the case of Mr. Giuliani is that it is now at an unconcious level.
And it is the latter that we more concerned with today because really, Democrats hold all the cards. They're just not playing them well. How lame is it that Democrats pass historic healthcare reform and none of them campaign on it, but David Axelrod, today's first guest, stated concise bullet points as to why they should and they still won't do it. In the roundtable discussion, Ron Brownstein said that there is a disconnect between performance and results for the Democrats, but additionally it's not seeming to have confidence in their convictions. We not talking about President Obama and his administration, we're talking about Congress people.
1. Seniors paying less for prescription drugs
2. Not being denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition
3. Not being dropped by your insurance company if you get sick
Those three right there are more than enough to win people over. Explain to people that they have more control over their healthcare than an insurance company.
The explanations have not been clearly put forward by the two most important messengers after the President and those are Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Leader Harry Reid. This is another much longer conversation but as readers of this column you should have a good concept of why we're making that statement.
Mr. Axelrod issued a warning today that with Republicans in power, they will repeat the policies that put the country in the financial hole we're still in now. When Mr. Gregory asked him about a timeframe for when people would see the results of the policies they've put in place, he skirted around it... wisely and we rarely condone a non-aswer. In this case, if Mr. Axelrod said any number, the clip would be everywhere and if it were not to come to fruition it would obviously become a shot in ones own foot. Additionally, Mr. Axelrod, as well as everyone else, knows that we can not afford to extend the tax cuts for the top 2%, and we do not expect the Administration to flinch on their position, Congress on the other hand, again, we're not so sure. Conversely, and sadly, we find out today courtesy of The New York Times that more and more families are moving into homeless shelters.
Also noteworthy is that Mr. Axelrod was looking much thinner today. His suit and shirt were too big. Other Democrats [read: Congress] could really stand to lose some weight and sweat it out legislating and talking to the people... and do it on television... make that news.
Speaking of quotes, Vice President Joe Biden said it best simplifying Mayor Giuliani to "Noun, verb, and 9/11." The former Mayor is a cartoon character at this point, you can not trust what he says anymore it seems. Not to mention that we find it a bit of a shame that with every anniversary of this tragedy, it's necessary to have Mr. Giuliani's perspective every time... as if only seeing that event through his prism. Lastly, Author Reza Azlan, at the top of the roundtable made a good point that anti-muslim sentiment is becoming mainstream due to people, like Mr. Giuliani painting all muslims, moderate and radical alike, with the same brush. It is bigotry, as Mr. Azlan put forthworth, but what he didn't qualify is the case of Mr. Giuliani is that it is now at an unconcious level.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
9.5.10: Pavlov and The Republicans
If you think our cultural climate has been grossly, politically charged this year so far, get ready because after this Labor Day weekend, the pols are going to be strapping on the battery booster packs for the run up to Nov. 2nd, and let's face it, President Obama is getting hammered from every side and the key overarching questions for today's program were, Is the President an asset or liability for Democrats leading up to that date and is what his administration doing right for this country. With regard to the latter, for the Republicans the answer will always be no so we have to try and give some perspective.
Every Republican politician you see on television these days has to practically stop him/herself from salivating on camera when discussing the November midterms. Collectively, they are supremely confident that they will take control and the Congress. The mainstream Republicans are embracing the Tea Party Republicans to capture that majority and according to every pundit, it is a certainty. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), today's first guest, was no exception in his confidence.
The Senator's tactical logic for both topics of discussion, Iraq and the economy, was that it didn't matter at this point what initial actions were responsible for the state of both, but now that we're here, it is President Obama that bares the burden of history for both.
We, at The Opinion, are not at all excited by this Administration's messaging since the election, where they had done so well with communication, and in the town of spin the Administration is dizzy and confused. They are unable to make people understand the chain of events and they aren't being honest about timing.
Usually, any Administration's policy choices are felt by the people years down the line, and when we say years we mean if something is passed in the months after a President's first term, you will not see the effect until perhaps half way through his second term. Maybe even after he's out of office. This is the exact dynamic you had with the Bush Administration, but he was no exception and neither willl be Obama. The point is, that the United States is a huge ship that takes years to turn just 90 degrees (forget about 180 degrees), and people simply don't have the patience to wait for the full turn.
So when Lindsey Graham says on today's Meet The Press, that right now the government taxes and spends too much you have to wonder about his judgement. By extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans, in terms of wealth, as he advocated today, the debit will rise even more, hence we're spending more money we don't have.
With regard to the Healthcare Bill, he saying that we headed for government run healthcare and the we should replace the just-passed bill with something the puts control into the private sector. This is just another way of saying that the insurance companies should continue to dictate the terms of coverage. The result: everyone's premiums will continue to climb and the government will continue to put even more money adding, again, to the debt and spending more money we don't have. He also said that the Democrats used every parliamentary trick to pass the bill, which is simply political posturing and not true. The bill ended up being compromised to the point where the base of the Democratic Party was dissatisfied, and no Republican was voting for it any way.
MSNBC's Erin Burnett, pointed out twice (during the today's roundtable) that from her reporting and researching she has found that the recovery from this particular recession is the fastest of any in the past 25 years, hence turning the ship faster than normal.
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne advised to pick a fight over the Bush tax cuts but that could be a losing proposition because tax cuts are an easy sell, the wrong thing to do, but an easy sell. Additionally, when asked if the President was an asset or a liability, he said 'both.' Well, if the President can get his message across to the people, you'll definitely see a vote of no confidence.
Every Republican politician you see on television these days has to practically stop him/herself from salivating on camera when discussing the November midterms. Collectively, they are supremely confident that they will take control and the Congress. The mainstream Republicans are embracing the Tea Party Republicans to capture that majority and according to every pundit, it is a certainty. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), today's first guest, was no exception in his confidence.
The Senator's tactical logic for both topics of discussion, Iraq and the economy, was that it didn't matter at this point what initial actions were responsible for the state of both, but now that we're here, it is President Obama that bares the burden of history for both.
We, at The Opinion, are not at all excited by this Administration's messaging since the election, where they had done so well with communication, and in the town of spin the Administration is dizzy and confused. They are unable to make people understand the chain of events and they aren't being honest about timing.
Usually, any Administration's policy choices are felt by the people years down the line, and when we say years we mean if something is passed in the months after a President's first term, you will not see the effect until perhaps half way through his second term. Maybe even after he's out of office. This is the exact dynamic you had with the Bush Administration, but he was no exception and neither willl be Obama. The point is, that the United States is a huge ship that takes years to turn just 90 degrees (forget about 180 degrees), and people simply don't have the patience to wait for the full turn.
So when Lindsey Graham says on today's Meet The Press, that right now the government taxes and spends too much you have to wonder about his judgement. By extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans, in terms of wealth, as he advocated today, the debit will rise even more, hence we're spending more money we don't have.
With regard to the Healthcare Bill, he saying that we headed for government run healthcare and the we should replace the just-passed bill with something the puts control into the private sector. This is just another way of saying that the insurance companies should continue to dictate the terms of coverage. The result: everyone's premiums will continue to climb and the government will continue to put even more money adding, again, to the debt and spending more money we don't have. He also said that the Democrats used every parliamentary trick to pass the bill, which is simply political posturing and not true. The bill ended up being compromised to the point where the base of the Democratic Party was dissatisfied, and no Republican was voting for it any way.
MSNBC's Erin Burnett, pointed out twice (during the today's roundtable) that from her reporting and researching she has found that the recovery from this particular recession is the fastest of any in the past 25 years, hence turning the ship faster than normal.
The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne advised to pick a fight over the Bush tax cuts but that could be a losing proposition because tax cuts are an easy sell, the wrong thing to do, but an easy sell. Additionally, when asked if the President was an asset or a liability, he said 'both.' Well, if the President can get his message across to the people, you'll definitely see a vote of no confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)