What's happening with Vice-President Joe Biden? What happened to the great gaffes we've become accustomed to? Mr. Biden provided clear answers, not ones we agree with in totality, but has he become the Administration's voice of reason. But that's not without having to sell the President's policies and deals such as the one Mr. Obama made on taxes. By the end of the interview, we got our old Joe back.
Mr. Biden said that this tax deal will grow the economy faster in the short term, potentially by as much as 3.5% in 2011, and that will translate directly into jobs. However, the question needs to be asked, why haven't these tax cuts that have been in place for 10 years created significantly more jobs already? Is it because business feels a particular amount of uncertainty? Hardly... tax cuts for the top 2% only add to the deficit, and the government needs tax revenue and it's the least painfully effected place to get it. That tax increase is what would really stimulate the economy.
Mr. Gregory asked it was a broken promise on the part of the Administration. Mr. Biden said that he and the President feel that the tax cuts are morally troubling, but that they had to make this deal. He later also said that the President is a "progressive leader that understands that politics is the art of the possible." That sounds real nice and all, but what it really means is that the President has to be a pragmatist with regard to the Republican Senators to get anything he wants to do done. How the administration should clearly position this and have its spokespeople out there spreading the message is that here's what the tax deal accomplished for the middle class... boom. boom. boom... (unemployment insurance, small business tax breaks, etc.) and to get these things Republicans wanted tax cuts for the rich.
Did they break a promise? Yes. It's all due in part by a broken vision. President Obama had a vision on where he wanted to lead America, but underestimated Republican, frankly 'old-guard', opposition. Hence, deals are made and promises broken... he's not the first and certainly won't be the last President to do it. Mr. Biden summed it up saying, "We got to the end, we didn't make it, so we had to do something." And in this case, something was better than nothing.
Mr. Biden also, once again, made it clear that their view of the election is that the American people want Republicans and Democrats to work together. At the time of this interview, which was Saturday, the vote for Don't Ask Don't Tell was still pending. As of this writing, we know that in fact the measure is passed. In that vote, there were 8 Republican Senators who broke ranks with the Senator McCain-lead opposition. On what is such a controversial issue for some, it was refreshing to see Senators who would otherwise be talked into voting the Republican party line, go with how they felt. We single out the Republicans in this instance because we've seen Democratic Senators go against their party for self-interest [i.e. Senators Nelson (D-NE) and Landreau (D-LA)] to break up the Democratic agenda, but that's the way it goes. Republicans, on the other hand, are not known for doing this, especially in the last 20 years or so.
So working together can happen, but as you can see, Republican Senators are still holding up three important pieces of legislation and one of those is the START Treaty, who said that some of the Republican criticism is substantive, but also said that it is essential for U.S. Security. It can not be ignored or overstated the wide swath of foreign policy officials, Secretaries of State, and pundits on both sides say that this should be passed. This treaty puts our inspectors on the ground in Russia so that we can monitor what they have and where they have it. Our nuclear weapons are not in jeopardy of being stolen, theirs are.
And then... the Joe Biden we know and love... "Come Hell or High Water", The United States is out of Afghanistan by 2014. Definitely news-worthy, but despite Mr. Biden also saying, "Your word means something in this town [Washington D.C.]," we take this 2014 statement with a grain of salt. It is still completely ambiguous what us 'getting out' on that date will look like. Mr. Biden also mentioned counter-terrorism, the hunt of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, and we know that's not going to stop in we're not satisfied with the results at that time so it's a great sound bite, but we'll wait and see. And to go out onto somewhat of a limb, withdrawal in 2014 will still mean we'll have tens of thousands of people on the ground there... not much of a limb.
Lastly, Mr. Biden said that Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is closer to high-tech terrorist than being a reporter receiving the Pentagon Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers), and that he's made it much more difficult for the United States to work with its friends and allies. Frankly, in this digital information age, the onus is on the United States to keep sensitive digital cables secure. If it's not Julian Assange, it will be some one else who commits the leaks. Irrespective of how you classify his actions, it doesn't change the fact that it was our [The United States] break down, and if one of the costs is that the Vice President has to go it alone in a meeting with world leaders, then so be it.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
12.12.10: The Tax Cuts, The Deal...
So is the deal President Obama cut on taxes with Senate Republicans a good one? Essentially, the only topic of today's Meet The Press, we'll break it down. But first, again, we have to eviscerate Harold Ford, who was on today's panel, because we're still trying to figure out how he is even a Democrat. He said that President Obama should lean in more for the deal saying it is good. Then he tries to take down Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) saying that the Democrats' views were resoundingly voted down on November 2nd in as much as that taxes should not be raised on anyone. Mr. Ford plays himself off as a Clinton economic Democrat but in reality is way to the right.
Also, with regard to this past midterm election, the Democrats views were not rejected. It's just that their views weren't communicated in an effective way that would rally the base. The Democrats made the mistake in the midterms of trying to go to the center. That's fine for a Presidential election, but in a midterm - you go hard to the base to churn out every vote you can. Independents are unreliable in a midterm election - it's just fact.
With that, there is no way to feel good when hearing the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee endorse the deal while saying a major portion of it isn't good. To the average American who cares about these things but doesn't have time to research these things more deeply, that rings hollow coming off as a sign of lack of principle.
Is the deal a good one? Contrary to the stupid Mr. Ford would say, no it isn't. The different question is do the Democrats have to make this deal? Yes. NBC White House correspondent, Savannah Guthrie, on the panel, reminded us that the Democrats didn't make it a campaign issue, which some in the caucus wanted to do. But again, the Democrats' failure was that they should have brought this point to bear much before the election. If they had ingrained this notion that to bring spending under control, tax cuts for the rich would have to expire a year ago, then it's possible you could have seen the Tea Party, so strong with Republicans as we know, echoing that message in their own way. This notion of discontinuing the tax cuts for the rich could have evolved into conventional wisdom for when we were at this moment.
Instead, we're at the point where Republicans can protect their interests while the Democrats - center and left - can argue about the wisdom of this compromise amongst themselves because big increases for the middle class are at stake.
When the President, earlier this week, said to the effect that Republicans are taking hostages, that phrase resonated throughout cable news and the opinion columns. Imagine if the Democrats had 6 months to pound away at the Republicans with the soundbite. The outcome would be different.
Mr. Goolsbee did say that he felt 2012 would be a growth year for the U.S. economy, which it would have to be for the President to be reelected, but more importantly, we can not afford a 'lost decade' like the Japanese experienced in the 1990's. But what Mr. Goolsbee is seeing is that by doing this deal, the Republicans' corporate masters will feel more comfortable with the Obama policy direction and start investing money into America again.
Is President Obama, or for that matter former President Clinton, for continued tax cuts for the rich? Of course not, but they both endorsed the deal with Senate Republicans because at this late juncture, they have no choice if they want to save the middle class. What's really appalling is that in the vote last week to continue the tax cuts for the middle class, but suspend them for the wealthiest 2%, 5 Democrats in the Senate voted against the measure. And that's why this deal had to be made.
Now, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, today's ever-optimistic second guest, said we should be encouraged by all of this because at least it is something that it bipartisan. He explained that it better for individuals to be spending money to get the economy going than it is for the government to spend it. That's true, but with 38% of the money, as Congressman Weiner pointed out, going to the top 2% percent, how much is actually going to be spent?
During the panel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot pointed out that this deal is simply maintaining the status quo. And the status quo, at this point as we all know, is unacceptable... unsustainable. What Mr. Gigot did not articulate is that the status quo is the Republican agenda. They do not advocate for larger tax reform as he suggested there should be.
Mr. Bloomberg pointed out that we're not investing in basic research and that we need immigrants in this county so that the inventions spawned from the research are invented here in The United States. Does he mean basic research like stem-cell research? He clearly stated that an immigrant attaining an graduate degree should get a green card upon completion and a path to citizenship.
You see where we're going with this. Republicans have lined up staunchly against the Dream Act and they have never been for stem cell research. Oh, how about energy research? Not if it's not done by an oil company. The common sense that Mr. Bloomberg is explaining is frankly not shared by half the people in power.
He also spoke about confidence, and how the lack of it is the single most significant impediment to growth. On all levels, people need to have the confidence to spend. Sadly, the remedies he's suggesting, research and immigration, are opposed on the basis of fear and suspicion, two qualities that never inspire confidence.
Post Note: For the record, we opine that there should be no debate on whether to move forward with stem-cell research. How would medicine have ever advanced if we did not pick apart our own bodies? How many cadavers in the name of medicine? Now, one would say that the embryonic stem cell is not dead and is the essence of life. If it is the essence of life then that makes it all the more important to study it. And it's not dead, it's just a cell frozen, immobile. The 'essence' is a religious argument and is thus a false basis on which to base any biological theory. We're done with the days of amputating limbs to see how they are connected. We're at the cellular/molecular stage now and this research is too vital to ever turn back.
Also, with regard to this past midterm election, the Democrats views were not rejected. It's just that their views weren't communicated in an effective way that would rally the base. The Democrats made the mistake in the midterms of trying to go to the center. That's fine for a Presidential election, but in a midterm - you go hard to the base to churn out every vote you can. Independents are unreliable in a midterm election - it's just fact.
With that, there is no way to feel good when hearing the Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee endorse the deal while saying a major portion of it isn't good. To the average American who cares about these things but doesn't have time to research these things more deeply, that rings hollow coming off as a sign of lack of principle.
Is the deal a good one? Contrary to the stupid Mr. Ford would say, no it isn't. The different question is do the Democrats have to make this deal? Yes. NBC White House correspondent, Savannah Guthrie, on the panel, reminded us that the Democrats didn't make it a campaign issue, which some in the caucus wanted to do. But again, the Democrats' failure was that they should have brought this point to bear much before the election. If they had ingrained this notion that to bring spending under control, tax cuts for the rich would have to expire a year ago, then it's possible you could have seen the Tea Party, so strong with Republicans as we know, echoing that message in their own way. This notion of discontinuing the tax cuts for the rich could have evolved into conventional wisdom for when we were at this moment.
Instead, we're at the point where Republicans can protect their interests while the Democrats - center and left - can argue about the wisdom of this compromise amongst themselves because big increases for the middle class are at stake.
When the President, earlier this week, said to the effect that Republicans are taking hostages, that phrase resonated throughout cable news and the opinion columns. Imagine if the Democrats had 6 months to pound away at the Republicans with the soundbite. The outcome would be different.
Mr. Goolsbee did say that he felt 2012 would be a growth year for the U.S. economy, which it would have to be for the President to be reelected, but more importantly, we can not afford a 'lost decade' like the Japanese experienced in the 1990's. But what Mr. Goolsbee is seeing is that by doing this deal, the Republicans' corporate masters will feel more comfortable with the Obama policy direction and start investing money into America again.
Is President Obama, or for that matter former President Clinton, for continued tax cuts for the rich? Of course not, but they both endorsed the deal with Senate Republicans because at this late juncture, they have no choice if they want to save the middle class. What's really appalling is that in the vote last week to continue the tax cuts for the middle class, but suspend them for the wealthiest 2%, 5 Democrats in the Senate voted against the measure. And that's why this deal had to be made.
Now, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, today's ever-optimistic second guest, said we should be encouraged by all of this because at least it is something that it bipartisan. He explained that it better for individuals to be spending money to get the economy going than it is for the government to spend it. That's true, but with 38% of the money, as Congressman Weiner pointed out, going to the top 2% percent, how much is actually going to be spent?
During the panel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot pointed out that this deal is simply maintaining the status quo. And the status quo, at this point as we all know, is unacceptable... unsustainable. What Mr. Gigot did not articulate is that the status quo is the Republican agenda. They do not advocate for larger tax reform as he suggested there should be.
Mr. Bloomberg pointed out that we're not investing in basic research and that we need immigrants in this county so that the inventions spawned from the research are invented here in The United States. Does he mean basic research like stem-cell research? He clearly stated that an immigrant attaining an graduate degree should get a green card upon completion and a path to citizenship.
You see where we're going with this. Republicans have lined up staunchly against the Dream Act and they have never been for stem cell research. Oh, how about energy research? Not if it's not done by an oil company. The common sense that Mr. Bloomberg is explaining is frankly not shared by half the people in power.
He also spoke about confidence, and how the lack of it is the single most significant impediment to growth. On all levels, people need to have the confidence to spend. Sadly, the remedies he's suggesting, research and immigration, are opposed on the basis of fear and suspicion, two qualities that never inspire confidence.
Post Note: For the record, we opine that there should be no debate on whether to move forward with stem-cell research. How would medicine have ever advanced if we did not pick apart our own bodies? How many cadavers in the name of medicine? Now, one would say that the embryonic stem cell is not dead and is the essence of life. If it is the essence of life then that makes it all the more important to study it. And it's not dead, it's just a cell frozen, immobile. The 'essence' is a religious argument and is thus a false basis on which to base any biological theory. We're done with the days of amputating limbs to see how they are connected. We're at the cellular/molecular stage now and this research is too vital to ever turn back.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
12.5.10: America's Anxiety
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)