On Super Bowl Sunday, we must say that next football season can not come fast enough... for Egypt, which is when they will hold what most of the world hopes will be a free election in September. The list of demands from the opposition that NBC's Richard Engel rattled off at the top of today's program are going to be met with a lot of resistance from the Mubarak regime. The most significant of the demands being the end of martial law in the country for the last 30 years... a de facto releasing of the people.
The coverage of all the events in Egypt has been incredibly compelling, among other adjectives, so it was essential, and of the caliber of Meet The Press, to get the perspectives of two key up-front sources - Mohamed El Baradei and Egypt’s ambassador to the U.S., Sameh Shoukry.
We must first say that the Ambassador looked shell-shocked. Talk about a guy on the outside looking in, not knowing what his personal future will be. When Mr. Gregory pressed him on whether or not there is a new reality in his country, there was nothing he could say except that yes, there is. Though he did his regime approved diplomatic duty in denying that the 'goon squads,' as Mr. Gregory called them, were not sponsored by the Mubarak government. It was a last ditch effort by an authoritarian government who after 30 years was overwhelmed by its people.
Dr. El Baradei, who you may remember prior to this as a nuclear weapons inspector, pointed out the many concerns that the protesters have because from their perspective, they are probably in a state of disbelief that all this is actually happening. The transition is being managed by the regime so there is a lack of confidence in the government to be cooperative in the process. Dr. El Baradei also believes that Egypt can evolve into a democracy as India did, using his example, and he believes that peace and stability for the region 'starts and ends' with the democratic process. Lastly, and significantly he said that he assumed Egypt's peace treaty with Israel will continue, but he as most other Arabs believe there should be an independent Palestinian state.
This is where the U.S. comes in, and Senator John Kerry, on the program today, was correct when he said that ultimately all of this is up to the Egyptian people. Egypt's future is not for the United States to make. We can take a position, which the Obama Administration has and Senator Kerry reiterated on the program, "Let's be crystal clear, The President wants change immediately. Step aside gracefully to a caretaker government." The newly appointed Vice President of Egypt, Omar Suleiman, is doing that but it will only be genuine if opposition leaders are present. And that's the problem right now, who are the opposition leaders? We hear of the Muslim Brotherhood, and some commentators in this country are using them to stoke fear. This column isn't saying that we like the Muslim Brotherhood in any way, but more like... let's not live in fear of what hasn't yet happened. Egypt will determine it's own future. And speaking of that future, once there is a government in place and things stabilize into a new Egypt, the Israeli treaty will come up.
Here's what will happen, Egypt will use it as leverage for a two-state solution for the Palestinians and the Israelis. Egypt will want to establish a new Palestinian state as a partner in commerce, and with the United States involved, a resolution will occur. Two things will happen in the meantime, one predictable and one not so much. One, Prime Minister Netanyahu will not be leading Israel, and secondly, there will be more change in the Middle East. It will not happen in Iran so look to either Syria or Lebanon.
But for now, and James Baker, on the panel today, agreed that President Mubarak must be clear about the time table and the process by which the transition will occur. Our confidence resides, frankly, in Secretary of State Clinton who has been, rightly, in control of the U.S. messaging - one diplomatic envoy aside who was immediately recalled for saying that Mubarak should stay in power for now. Secretary Clinton was decisive in relieving him, and exhibited a firm grasp of the situation.
But as Mr. Gregory asked, are we romanticizing the situation of change in the Middle East? Mr. Baker said the jury's still out. Let's not romanticize the situation or conjure fear with respect to it - only eyes wide open and adapt quickly to the situation is the best plan.
Lastly, Ronald Reagan would have said that the United States would stand as a 'beacon of freedom,' Peggy Noonan said. On the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, we should keep a few things in mind about the 40th President. Today's Republicans name-check him so much because they aspire to be like him. But they will never be, because Ronald Reagan could work across party lines and he had appeal to a greater swath of the public then anyone Republican today. As James Baker clearly said, "he practiced bi-partisanship."
But like Egypt, let's not romanticize about Ronald Reagan. He said that 'government is the problem.' Granted he didn't mean that in every instance, but it has been twisted that way. And the debt and deficits that we face that Republicans today rail against were directly set in motion by the Reagan Administration, among other things of course.
And lastly lastly... we like the Steelers, but it's Green Bay's day: 28-24 Packers
Sunday, February 06, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
1.30.11: Egyptian Protests
In terms of reviewing what was reported on today's Meet The Press, and the commentary that went with it, we're compelled to discuss how this relates to foreign policy and the politicians who should and do weigh in on big events occurring outside of our borders.
The Tunisian protests were the appetizer for the main course for the Egyptian unrest we're seeing now. The U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, making her rounds on the Sunday political forums said that what the U.S. wants in Egypt, among other things, are free and fair elections. She also mentioned that the Egyptian government needs to be more responsive to their people now. And when Mr. Gregory asked and then stupidly reiterated the question, Secretary Clinton didn't take the bait of whether President Mubarak should lose power or not.
The Obama Administration has been smart publicly about Egypt and what is going on in the region as a whole. What we're seeing is actually something very hopeful, but dangerous. The peace protests that are spreading through out the Middle East are the result of a growing middle class of people who are frustrated to the point of protest that they have education but no opportunity to utilize it, and struggle each day to feed their families. The Obama Administration has done well to state its position, maintain a vocal engaged stance without overstating, which can have the consequence of overreaching. It's really the only thing you can do, but it's not just that you do it, it's how you do it.
However, the looting and the basic collapse of law and order, as NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent, Richard Engel, reported is of grave concern and there was the suggestion that the Mubarak government was letting it happen to show the people what the alternative is to them not being in charge. But President Mubarak is on the way out, also reported was that he feels personally threatened by the protests, as he should feel. An absence of leadership and the breakdown of law and order create a huge power vacuum, which is an invitation for the radical Muslim Brotherhood to take control and an Islamist government.
Even Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said that he had nothing to add to what Secretary Clinton said and had no criticism of how the President was handling the situation. This says two very important things. The first, was touched on at the very end of the program during the panel by Harold Ford. Yes, he finally made a good point, which was that no Republican in their leadership has stepped up on the foreign policy challenges we face.
The 'us vs. them' mentality that is taken up by both parties on domestic issues doesn't work when it comes to international affairs, and it is a tactic that Republican employ with more effectiveness to advance their ideas.
The second important point is that President Obama, shortly after being elected, went to Egypt and delivered a speech, basically to the Muslim world, as to how the United States under his leadership would now address the people of the region. This speech was widely criticized by Republican politicians and pundits as placating terrorists... being soft on terrorism... apologetic for the wars.
But this very speech can be pointed and referred to when addressing the people on the streets of Egypt and Tunsia and Yemen and Jordan as to say that United States stands with them and stands for democracy. How public opinion on these streets of the United States is ultimately shaped will not be the result of a single speech, but as it turns out, it was the right thing to do, even though, as The New York Times Tom Friedman pointed out, that we enabled President Mubarak and tolerated his government because of our 'war on terror.'
During Mr. Gregory's brief interview with former Mideast negotiator and Ambassador to Israel for President Clinton, Martin Indyk who said we're experiencing a twenty-first century revolution, the two men were surveying the Tweet Deck, which we honestly did find fascinating as it tracked a live feed of tweets coming out of Egypt. Let's be reminded that innovations that have originated in the United States that are NOT guns, are the tools being used to fuel revolutions. Those were the types of things that President Obama referred to in his State of the Union speech. Let's not praise the celebrity of those ideas but humbly appreciate the impact they have on people's lives.
What the Administration needs to continue doing is working the back channels and the phone lines with all the leaders in the region. Mike Murphy, on today's panel, was right, we can not afford to have another 1972-type situation, in which Israel is completely surrounded by governments hostile to them. That is obviously not in the best interest of the United States.
We'll give domestic squabbles a rest this week save for one. During Mr. Gregory's interview with Senator McConnell, he asked him about the potential of a government shutdown due to a fight on governmental spending. For as much criticism this column gives to Mr. McConnell because of the stances on various policies, we did like the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked the question as second time, as he always does (completely unnecessary in our opinion), Senator McConnell was firm in his answer that there are two places in which Republicans and the President can work together - a spending resolution and the debt ceiling vote. Without going into implications of both here, his tone and verbal framing of his answer were genuinely helpful.
Mr. Gregory, please stop asking a question the same exact way twice if you don't get the answer you want. Either at least rephrase the question or better yet, ask a good, related follow up. Much appreciated.
The Tunisian protests were the appetizer for the main course for the Egyptian unrest we're seeing now. The U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, making her rounds on the Sunday political forums said that what the U.S. wants in Egypt, among other things, are free and fair elections. She also mentioned that the Egyptian government needs to be more responsive to their people now. And when Mr. Gregory asked and then stupidly reiterated the question, Secretary Clinton didn't take the bait of whether President Mubarak should lose power or not.
The Obama Administration has been smart publicly about Egypt and what is going on in the region as a whole. What we're seeing is actually something very hopeful, but dangerous. The peace protests that are spreading through out the Middle East are the result of a growing middle class of people who are frustrated to the point of protest that they have education but no opportunity to utilize it, and struggle each day to feed their families. The Obama Administration has done well to state its position, maintain a vocal engaged stance without overstating, which can have the consequence of overreaching. It's really the only thing you can do, but it's not just that you do it, it's how you do it.
However, the looting and the basic collapse of law and order, as NBC's Chief Foreign Correspondent, Richard Engel, reported is of grave concern and there was the suggestion that the Mubarak government was letting it happen to show the people what the alternative is to them not being in charge. But President Mubarak is on the way out, also reported was that he feels personally threatened by the protests, as he should feel. An absence of leadership and the breakdown of law and order create a huge power vacuum, which is an invitation for the radical Muslim Brotherhood to take control and an Islamist government.
Even Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said that he had nothing to add to what Secretary Clinton said and had no criticism of how the President was handling the situation. This says two very important things. The first, was touched on at the very end of the program during the panel by Harold Ford. Yes, he finally made a good point, which was that no Republican in their leadership has stepped up on the foreign policy challenges we face.
The 'us vs. them' mentality that is taken up by both parties on domestic issues doesn't work when it comes to international affairs, and it is a tactic that Republican employ with more effectiveness to advance their ideas.
The second important point is that President Obama, shortly after being elected, went to Egypt and delivered a speech, basically to the Muslim world, as to how the United States under his leadership would now address the people of the region. This speech was widely criticized by Republican politicians and pundits as placating terrorists... being soft on terrorism... apologetic for the wars.
But this very speech can be pointed and referred to when addressing the people on the streets of Egypt and Tunsia and Yemen and Jordan as to say that United States stands with them and stands for democracy. How public opinion on these streets of the United States is ultimately shaped will not be the result of a single speech, but as it turns out, it was the right thing to do, even though, as The New York Times Tom Friedman pointed out, that we enabled President Mubarak and tolerated his government because of our 'war on terror.'
During Mr. Gregory's brief interview with former Mideast negotiator and Ambassador to Israel for President Clinton, Martin Indyk who said we're experiencing a twenty-first century revolution, the two men were surveying the Tweet Deck, which we honestly did find fascinating as it tracked a live feed of tweets coming out of Egypt. Let's be reminded that innovations that have originated in the United States that are NOT guns, are the tools being used to fuel revolutions. Those were the types of things that President Obama referred to in his State of the Union speech. Let's not praise the celebrity of those ideas but humbly appreciate the impact they have on people's lives.
What the Administration needs to continue doing is working the back channels and the phone lines with all the leaders in the region. Mike Murphy, on today's panel, was right, we can not afford to have another 1972-type situation, in which Israel is completely surrounded by governments hostile to them. That is obviously not in the best interest of the United States.
We'll give domestic squabbles a rest this week save for one. During Mr. Gregory's interview with Senator McConnell, he asked him about the potential of a government shutdown due to a fight on governmental spending. For as much criticism this column gives to Mr. McConnell because of the stances on various policies, we did like the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked the question as second time, as he always does (completely unnecessary in our opinion), Senator McConnell was firm in his answer that there are two places in which Republicans and the President can work together - a spending resolution and the debt ceiling vote. Without going into implications of both here, his tone and verbal framing of his answer were genuinely helpful.
Mr. Gregory, please stop asking a question the same exact way twice if you don't get the answer you want. Either at least rephrase the question or better yet, ask a good, related follow up. Much appreciated.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
1.23.11: Not The Leader We Need
Today's exclusive guest, the House majority leader, Eric Kantor (R-VA), stressed that investment should come from the private sector and not from government, and on the face of it, that's the way we want it to be. Even Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC), on today's panel, said that government should not create jobs. Where the difference comes in is that Republicans do not believe that government should do anything when it comes to the business sector. Conversely, Democrats believe that government can set the climate that serves as the impetus for the private sector to create jobs. What Mr. Kantor describes, and what most of his Republican colleagues want, is the trickle down economic model. This is to say that corporations and business owners should be given the most latitude and/or leniency in terms of regulation and taxation and thus that money will filter through the economic system to the rest of the country.
Frankly, we've tried that, more than once, and it hasn't had the desired effect. The factual result is that the income gap between the wealthiest and the poorest keeps growing. The major flaw of this political thinking, which this column believes the Republicans fully understands but does not concern the party greatly, is that corporations are not held to a standard of having Americans' best interests in mind, the government does. A country needs economic borders as well as physical ones, and the government has to set those borders so that multi-national corporations who create jobs all over the world do not do it at the expense of The United States and its citizenry.
We think we can all agree that spending cuts need to be made, but that one, Republicans are looking in the wrong places and two, the Democrats do not have the political will to cut where it best serves the country in terms of our debt. It was interesting to hear CNBC's Erin Burnett say that Wall Street was very concerned about the debt and that there needs to be reduction measures. We believe that this is a concern of Wall Street because they hear that Republican politicians flirt with the notion of not extending the debt ceiling, which would then send The United States into default to its creditors, which would obviously be bad for business. We're not naive in thinking the government works this way, but it would be helpful for Congress to keep in mind that when an individual gets that notice in the mail that their credit limit has been increased, it doesn't mean that they have to them automatically max out his or her card. Point being, the government can extend the debt ceiling and still make cuts to dramatically slow the increase in borrowing.
So what cuts? Realistically, defense needs to be looked at first, which goes back to our point above about the respective parties. Mr. Kantor said that everything is on the table, but if you follow Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Road Map," which Mr. Kantor does believe in, defense is off the table for cuts, but Social Security and Medicare are subject to big cuts so everything is not on the table.
Republicans haven't been specific about what they would cut, and we didn't expect Mr. Kantor to give Mr. Gregory any specifics on today's program. When will the Republicans give specifics? When Frank Lunz has figured out a syntactically clever way to sell it to the American people. Then you'll get the announcement by Speaker Boehner at a podium surrounded by Mr. Kantor and many Republican colleagues. [A little cynical here - yes, but this is how it's been going.] Simply the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked about Social Security, Mr. Kantor framed his answer in terms of 'entitlements,' which is being spun as a bad thing. When he refers to entitlements, he's referring to Social Security. Depending on how you frame the question - Are you for cuts to entitlements for people? Most people would say yes. Are you for cuts to Social Security? The answer would be no.
There was mention of Speaker Boehner's health plan which would add 3 million people to the rolls, but this falls far short of any significant dent in the total number of the uninsured. During the panel, the good point was made that health care reform passed this time after so many failed tries was because so many groups understood that the status quo was no longer viable. Again, Mr. Kantor, as he did with the answer to spending cuts, explained that Republicans will break up into their respective committees to come up with an alternative health care bill.
But really what this interview told us, in our gut, is that Mr. Kantor is a good politician, but he is no leader... He tags on. He tags on to Congressmen Boehner and Ryan, but we've never heard him make a declarative with authority. And the case in point is the silly question of President Obama's citizenship, on which Mr. Gregory pressed Congressman Kantor. Body language says a lot as Mr. Kantor leaned back in his chair, looked upward at the lights instead of at Mr. Gregory and gave a resigned agreement that yes, Mr. Obama is a U.S. citizen - a weak display of strength in belief and leadership, even in the face of ridiculousness.
We were a little salty in this week's column but there is a reason. Karen Hughes, former advisor to George W. Bush, made some statements that need to be rebutted, because none of the other individuals on the roundtable today did. The very professional decorum of Meet The Press is one of the reasons why we write this column. Ms. Hughes said that we lost 800,000 jobs in the month Barack Obama took office, completely discounting and downplaying her former boss's instrumental role in causing that. She also said that the Bush tax cuts saved a massive tax increase on the American people. This is simply a false equivalent. The tax deal was for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, NOT the American people.
Frankly, we've tried that, more than once, and it hasn't had the desired effect. The factual result is that the income gap between the wealthiest and the poorest keeps growing. The major flaw of this political thinking, which this column believes the Republicans fully understands but does not concern the party greatly, is that corporations are not held to a standard of having Americans' best interests in mind, the government does. A country needs economic borders as well as physical ones, and the government has to set those borders so that multi-national corporations who create jobs all over the world do not do it at the expense of The United States and its citizenry.
We think we can all agree that spending cuts need to be made, but that one, Republicans are looking in the wrong places and two, the Democrats do not have the political will to cut where it best serves the country in terms of our debt. It was interesting to hear CNBC's Erin Burnett say that Wall Street was very concerned about the debt and that there needs to be reduction measures. We believe that this is a concern of Wall Street because they hear that Republican politicians flirt with the notion of not extending the debt ceiling, which would then send The United States into default to its creditors, which would obviously be bad for business. We're not naive in thinking the government works this way, but it would be helpful for Congress to keep in mind that when an individual gets that notice in the mail that their credit limit has been increased, it doesn't mean that they have to them automatically max out his or her card. Point being, the government can extend the debt ceiling and still make cuts to dramatically slow the increase in borrowing.
So what cuts? Realistically, defense needs to be looked at first, which goes back to our point above about the respective parties. Mr. Kantor said that everything is on the table, but if you follow Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "Road Map," which Mr. Kantor does believe in, defense is off the table for cuts, but Social Security and Medicare are subject to big cuts so everything is not on the table.
Republicans haven't been specific about what they would cut, and we didn't expect Mr. Kantor to give Mr. Gregory any specifics on today's program. When will the Republicans give specifics? When Frank Lunz has figured out a syntactically clever way to sell it to the American people. Then you'll get the announcement by Speaker Boehner at a podium surrounded by Mr. Kantor and many Republican colleagues. [A little cynical here - yes, but this is how it's been going.] Simply the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked about Social Security, Mr. Kantor framed his answer in terms of 'entitlements,' which is being spun as a bad thing. When he refers to entitlements, he's referring to Social Security. Depending on how you frame the question - Are you for cuts to entitlements for people? Most people would say yes. Are you for cuts to Social Security? The answer would be no.
There was mention of Speaker Boehner's health plan which would add 3 million people to the rolls, but this falls far short of any significant dent in the total number of the uninsured. During the panel, the good point was made that health care reform passed this time after so many failed tries was because so many groups understood that the status quo was no longer viable. Again, Mr. Kantor, as he did with the answer to spending cuts, explained that Republicans will break up into their respective committees to come up with an alternative health care bill.
But really what this interview told us, in our gut, is that Mr. Kantor is a good politician, but he is no leader... He tags on. He tags on to Congressmen Boehner and Ryan, but we've never heard him make a declarative with authority. And the case in point is the silly question of President Obama's citizenship, on which Mr. Gregory pressed Congressman Kantor. Body language says a lot as Mr. Kantor leaned back in his chair, looked upward at the lights instead of at Mr. Gregory and gave a resigned agreement that yes, Mr. Obama is a U.S. citizen - a weak display of strength in belief and leadership, even in the face of ridiculousness.
We were a little salty in this week's column but there is a reason. Karen Hughes, former advisor to George W. Bush, made some statements that need to be rebutted, because none of the other individuals on the roundtable today did. The very professional decorum of Meet The Press is one of the reasons why we write this column. Ms. Hughes said that we lost 800,000 jobs in the month Barack Obama took office, completely discounting and downplaying her former boss's instrumental role in causing that. She also said that the Bush tax cuts saved a massive tax increase on the American people. This is simply a false equivalent. The tax deal was for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, NOT the American people.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
1.16.11: Reality Change
Make no mistake, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is hard right in his political views, but also know that in the midst of the burning health care debate, he said that Nancy Pelosi was nice person and that he liked her. He took considerable heat for that as if he committed a mortal sin. The op-ed column written by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in today's Washington Post, that David Gregory referred to, called President Obama a patriot. Talk radio hasn't given up the defensive and finger-pointing, but where it counts the most, with the elected officials, civility exists within politics.
In today's discussion with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the aforementioned Senator Coburn centered around guns and mental health, the latter prompted the raising of the larger health care issue.
One can not help have the solidified notion that gun control laws, such as renewing the assault weapons ban, are completely off the table, even in the wake of the Tucson shooting. The NRA has a lock on politicians that no one seems willing to break. It's not sad that Senator Coburn doesn't feel that anything is wrong with our gun laws. It is sad that one lobby can have a disproportionate amount of influence on our government. This makes us think of the much larger question about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rights... The Bill of Rights was written by men, contained within the document is not God-given. Are rights something to be earned? And if so, in our humble assessment, is that the American citizenry has not earned the responsibility of owning a gun, in what ever form they want to own one. What we mean by that is that there have to be restrictions put in place. Americans haven't maintained the right to own assault weapons. This column doesn't advocate taking away people's guns, we actually find hunting to be a noble American tradition, but where do assault weapons fit into that equation?
We strongly disagree with Senator Coburn's notion that if more people had guns, everyone would be safer. There's no empirical evidence to support that notion and we can only conclude from last week's episode that more guns on the scene could have escalated the situation unnecessarily. He also said that criminals will find a way to get guns if they want to use so why put restrictions in place. To which we would ask, but why make it easy and not more difficult to get them? Mr. Loughner went into a Walmart to buy bullets and he was refused. He left and went to another one, where he was indeed able to buy them.
Senator Schumer said that something needs to be done about guns, but seemed resigned that nothing significant would altered in the law. We hope that the legislation introduced to ban the sale of extended magazine clips with go through Congress, but we have no illusions.
The other aspect of the discussion, mental health, which, frankly, in the context of civil discourse, is used by Republican politicians as a diversion issue away from any substantial gun debate, can not stay within its sole context without raising the issue of health care reform. In the new health care law, there are provisions for the coverage of mental health.
We find it so curious that Senator Coburn, a doctor, doesn't feel that there are any aspects of the health care bill that are good, at least he won't say. One would think that in a 2,500 page bill, there would be something he would like. Instead, he stated clearly on today's program that he is for full repeal.
Senator Schumer suggested that the vote was good as well as it would give Democrats 'a second chance to make a first impression,' meaning they have the opportunity to point out all the good things in the bill. Frankly, that's not reassuring for Democrats who need their representatives to get it right the first time or nothing is ever going to get done.
The panel elaborated on the health care, specifically mental health, in which David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, suggested that in some cases someone has to step in a be able to remove some one who is mentally unbalanced out of society to get help. To which, Rev. Al Sharpton asked, "Who is the someone?" If this were the gun debate where someone decides who gets one and who doesn't, the Republican and Democratic roles would be reversed. On the discussion of 'death panels,' same thing. Financial reform, same logic applied. Ultimately the key notion to be taken away about suffers of disabilities, mental or physical, was summed up best by the Tim Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics, that those who suffer live in isolation without an sense of community - that's where it starts. Everyone needs to feel a sense of community.
Lastly, Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, waxed that she appreciated that Dr. King always spoke in the larger context [we're paraphrasing] and that the strength and seriousness of his tone made people listen. She had a romantic air reflecting on the powerful words of Martin Luther King Jr., but Rev. Sharpton clarified something very vital in our memory of him. While he spoke of the larger context, it came with specific, concrete goals - gaining assess to better education and equal opportunity.
That last notion needs to be re-instilled in all the citizens of this country. Mental health issues and isolation and fear are all exacerbated by that lack of access, which more and more Americans are feeling. The lack of access added to the stress of making ends meet are taking its toll - you can almost feel. What would change this? Strengthen the middle class. If Congress enacted policies that were all aimed at that, the wealthiest would still get theirs and then some. Strengthening the middle class will lead to access and instill hope for the largest number of people in this country. As Rev. Sharpton noted, what we need now is for someone to do what Dr. King did, change reality.
In today's discussion with Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and the aforementioned Senator Coburn centered around guns and mental health, the latter prompted the raising of the larger health care issue.
One can not help have the solidified notion that gun control laws, such as renewing the assault weapons ban, are completely off the table, even in the wake of the Tucson shooting. The NRA has a lock on politicians that no one seems willing to break. It's not sad that Senator Coburn doesn't feel that anything is wrong with our gun laws. It is sad that one lobby can have a disproportionate amount of influence on our government. This makes us think of the much larger question about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rights... The Bill of Rights was written by men, contained within the document is not God-given. Are rights something to be earned? And if so, in our humble assessment, is that the American citizenry has not earned the responsibility of owning a gun, in what ever form they want to own one. What we mean by that is that there have to be restrictions put in place. Americans haven't maintained the right to own assault weapons. This column doesn't advocate taking away people's guns, we actually find hunting to be a noble American tradition, but where do assault weapons fit into that equation?
We strongly disagree with Senator Coburn's notion that if more people had guns, everyone would be safer. There's no empirical evidence to support that notion and we can only conclude from last week's episode that more guns on the scene could have escalated the situation unnecessarily. He also said that criminals will find a way to get guns if they want to use so why put restrictions in place. To which we would ask, but why make it easy and not more difficult to get them? Mr. Loughner went into a Walmart to buy bullets and he was refused. He left and went to another one, where he was indeed able to buy them.
Senator Schumer said that something needs to be done about guns, but seemed resigned that nothing significant would altered in the law. We hope that the legislation introduced to ban the sale of extended magazine clips with go through Congress, but we have no illusions.
The other aspect of the discussion, mental health, which, frankly, in the context of civil discourse, is used by Republican politicians as a diversion issue away from any substantial gun debate, can not stay within its sole context without raising the issue of health care reform. In the new health care law, there are provisions for the coverage of mental health.
We find it so curious that Senator Coburn, a doctor, doesn't feel that there are any aspects of the health care bill that are good, at least he won't say. One would think that in a 2,500 page bill, there would be something he would like. Instead, he stated clearly on today's program that he is for full repeal.
Senator Schumer suggested that the vote was good as well as it would give Democrats 'a second chance to make a first impression,' meaning they have the opportunity to point out all the good things in the bill. Frankly, that's not reassuring for Democrats who need their representatives to get it right the first time or nothing is ever going to get done.
The panel elaborated on the health care, specifically mental health, in which David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, suggested that in some cases someone has to step in a be able to remove some one who is mentally unbalanced out of society to get help. To which, Rev. Al Sharpton asked, "Who is the someone?" If this were the gun debate where someone decides who gets one and who doesn't, the Republican and Democratic roles would be reversed. On the discussion of 'death panels,' same thing. Financial reform, same logic applied. Ultimately the key notion to be taken away about suffers of disabilities, mental or physical, was summed up best by the Tim Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics, that those who suffer live in isolation without an sense of community - that's where it starts. Everyone needs to feel a sense of community.
Lastly, Peggy Noonan, of the Wall Street Journal, waxed that she appreciated that Dr. King always spoke in the larger context [we're paraphrasing] and that the strength and seriousness of his tone made people listen. She had a romantic air reflecting on the powerful words of Martin Luther King Jr., but Rev. Sharpton clarified something very vital in our memory of him. While he spoke of the larger context, it came with specific, concrete goals - gaining assess to better education and equal opportunity.
That last notion needs to be re-instilled in all the citizens of this country. Mental health issues and isolation and fear are all exacerbated by that lack of access, which more and more Americans are feeling. The lack of access added to the stress of making ends meet are taking its toll - you can almost feel. What would change this? Strengthen the middle class. If Congress enacted policies that were all aimed at that, the wealthiest would still get theirs and then some. Strengthening the middle class will lead to access and instill hope for the largest number of people in this country. As Rev. Sharpton noted, what we need now is for someone to do what Dr. King did, change reality.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
1.9.11: Second Amendment Remedies
As we sit to write this column, medical reports of the condition of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) keeping rolling through along with commentary from the spectrum of members of Congress, five of whom appeared, visibly shaken, on today's Meet The Press.
[Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), and newly-elected Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID).]
At this point, Ms. Giffords is in critical condition and has been slightly responsive, but has also been put into a coma to relieve some pressure on the brain. And there are also 6 people dead including a Federal Judge and a 9-year old girl along with 14 wounded.
The representatives on the program had nothing but gracious statements for Congresswomen Giffords, with whom we admittedly weren't too familiar. There was reflection on the state of our political discourse, which to use the word everyone uses is toxic. At the top of the program, Lester Holt (reporting) said that there didn't seem to be a concrete political agenda at work in the shooting. What he meant was that there was no political agenda at work that could have been cut nicely into either Republican or Democrat.
This column isn't going to sit here and just be cynical, however, what all the members of Congress on the program admitted is that there is a problem with the discourse in this country. Newly-elected Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) reminded us that there are extremists on both sides, which is true, but to not be honest and to not say that "The Right" is more to blame isn't acknowledging an ugly truth.
The title of today's column is not to shock but to illustrate the power of words that our prospective leaders utter and to show that those words do have consequences. It starts with our leaders and what they say and what they don't repudiate.
The sound bite going around is from We have become the mecca for prejudice and biogotry - Clarence Dupnik, PIMA Country Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who said, "We [Arizona] have become the mecca prejudice for and biogotry." This was an angry, upset, and honest response, and those negatives are stoked by the rhetoric fear, this country's greatest destroyer of progress.
There will be a truly triumphant day when Congresswoman Giffords walks back onto the floor of the Congress - it will happen.
And though we will remain ever hopeful for that day, we sadly acknowledge what ultimately will not happen. Those who hope for stricter guns laws, won't get them. Vitriolic speech coming from right-wing talk show radio will not become more civil. [We call out 'the right' here because they outnumber liberal talk 9 to 1 in hours.] The demonizing of President Obama will not cease, may be from politicians for a while, but not from hateful commentators.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that this is a moment. This Congress now has to seize this moment with this mandate: To lead all of us to a better future, not just 'their side.'
[Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), and newly-elected Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID).]
At this point, Ms. Giffords is in critical condition and has been slightly responsive, but has also been put into a coma to relieve some pressure on the brain. And there are also 6 people dead including a Federal Judge and a 9-year old girl along with 14 wounded.
The representatives on the program had nothing but gracious statements for Congresswomen Giffords, with whom we admittedly weren't too familiar. There was reflection on the state of our political discourse, which to use the word everyone uses is toxic. At the top of the program, Lester Holt (reporting) said that there didn't seem to be a concrete political agenda at work in the shooting. What he meant was that there was no political agenda at work that could have been cut nicely into either Republican or Democrat.
This column isn't going to sit here and just be cynical, however, what all the members of Congress on the program admitted is that there is a problem with the discourse in this country. Newly-elected Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) reminded us that there are extremists on both sides, which is true, but to not be honest and to not say that "The Right" is more to blame isn't acknowledging an ugly truth.
The title of today's column is not to shock but to illustrate the power of words that our prospective leaders utter and to show that those words do have consequences. It starts with our leaders and what they say and what they don't repudiate.
The sound bite going around is from We have become the mecca for prejudice and biogotry - Clarence Dupnik, PIMA Country Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who said, "We [Arizona] have become the mecca prejudice for and biogotry." This was an angry, upset, and honest response, and those negatives are stoked by the rhetoric fear, this country's greatest destroyer of progress.
There will be a truly triumphant day when Congresswoman Giffords walks back onto the floor of the Congress - it will happen.
And though we will remain ever hopeful for that day, we sadly acknowledge what ultimately will not happen. Those who hope for stricter guns laws, won't get them. Vitriolic speech coming from right-wing talk show radio will not become more civil. [We call out 'the right' here because they outnumber liberal talk 9 to 1 in hours.] The demonizing of President Obama will not cease, may be from politicians for a while, but not from hateful commentators.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that this is a moment. This Congress now has to seize this moment with this mandate: To lead all of us to a better future, not just 'their side.'
Sunday, January 02, 2011
1.2.11: Happy New Year
We're happy and thankful to be moving forward with the Meet The Press Opinion in 2011, and we hope this post finds everyone well. So let's get down to business and even though it's a new year, we're getting the same stories, be it there is a slight bit of hope for cooperation, but make no mistake the divisions remain deep between the Republicans and the Democrats.
Today's first guest, an exclusive with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), showed that Republicans have no intention of compromising their positions for what is perceived as the greater good to bring everyone of board with consensus ideas to move the country forward. Mr. Graham banally predicted that the recovery would be slow in the coming year. Certainly not an intellectual stretch to say that because of the conditions that have been set through the tax cut deal.
There was much talk of sacrifice during the panel discussion and the concept of what that actually means, but the sacrifice of the tax revenue given up in the tax deal isn't going to help with the murky problem of state pensions as Yale law professor and author Stephen Carter (first time on Meet The Press) pointed out.
Mr. Graham emphatically stated that entitlement reform is essential to get spending under control and it's not that we disagree with that stance, it's just that when you push for tax cuts for the richest 2% of citizens and then tell us that we have to raise the retirement age to receive the benefits. And who does that effect the least, the people with the most money, to which Mr. Graham also mentioned a 'means test' for benefits among older citizens.
What does that mean exactly? If you don't need it, you don't get it? Also, who will determine who has the means and who doesn't, the government? What Mr. Graham is suggesting here goes directly against Republican principles that staunchly advocate for government to get out of the way. A what point in one's life will it be determined that you no longer need the benefits?
That hint of cooperation could come through reform of the Prescription Part D benefit put in place during the Bush Administration, where it is accepted common knowledge that it was a big give away to the pharmaceutical companies. Hopefully, everyone can agree that closing the doughnut hole is in the best interest of all seniors to keep their individual costs down, but we fear that the ability to negotiate prices for drugs with these companies will be taken off the table.
Mr. Graham said that Republicans have been given a new lease on life by the electorate. He also stated that he hope the party have learned the lessons the Democrats' mistakes from the last Congress. He didn't articulate what those lessons were, but given his answers leading up to that point, we have to conclude that he means government overreach. Mr. Graham wasted no time in his interview to remind viewers of the battle coming over health care, and the Republicans' new domestic boogieman deemed 'Obamacare.'
And here's where Republicans organize much better than Democrats. The House will vote to defund the new law, one which goes straight down party lines. The first thing Mr. Graham mentioned, 'defund and start over.' The second course of action would be for the states to opt out of the individual mandates, like the ones in place in Massachusetts. With 33 Republican governors running the states, most will opt out, making for unanimous party philosophy at all levels. What the proposed solutions are is anyone's guess at this point, but as with past Republican-controlled Congresses, they'll only say what they are going to do when they are in a position of solidified strength. So we'll wait and see.
So that new lease on life that Mr. Graham referred to, we also have to conclude that doesn't mean that the Republican agenda/philosophy will change. We're trying to stay optimistic on the first Sunday of the year, but after listening to Mr. Graham's answers, it's awfully difficult.
David Brooks, during today's panel, said that the number that matters the most is the percentage of people who believe can be a positive influence in their lives. In the 60's and 70's, he said, that number was around 80%, but now it's down around 19%. Mr. Brooks still believes that his party's politicians (make the clear designation between party politicians and the common electorate) think there is a balance between government involvement versus them staying out of the way. However, Republican politicians are about limited government, period.
Senator-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA), on today's panel as well, said that there are things that both parties can agree on such as trade and tax reform, but said regulatory overreach will be tough. Mr. Toomey, a Tea-Party Republican, advocates for less government regulation of business and industry as part of the overall conservative philosophy of market freedom. A free market is what we want but not at the expense of the country as a whole. Lax regulation lead to the severe housing crisis that we still face, one in which Mr. Graham said today, could be helped by privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We're not for government ownership of the housing industry or the automotive industry or any industry for that matter, but what we've seen is that left to its own devices, the private sector will bend and break rules for the sake of profit.
All of these fiscal matters are going to be hashed out between establishment Republicans and the Tea-Party wing of the Republicans, and it will be difficult. Even if it's not articulated in this way by the pundits or the Democrats, what you are going to see is the Republican party enacting policies that in actuality go against the Tea Party Republican electorate's own best interest.
Mr. Graham that he needed to see an actual financial reform plan before he would vote for a raising of the debt ceiling, a veiled threat really. This vote comes up in the spring and there will not be a consensus plan in place by that time. This isn't the balance of philosophies, at which the panel was later driving.
What was missing from the panel was the Democratic party line guy, which we could say is Mr. Dionne from the Washington Post, but we're thinking an elected official. We harp on the Republicans pretty good in this column, but that doesn't mean the Democrats get a free pass.
Lastly, Senator Graham called for the United States to construct permanent military bases in Afghanistan, a declarative sentence. He said that these are required and if the Afghans want to have a serious relationship with the United States, they have to earn it. We find this second part much more misguided than the first part. How in the world could Senator Graham actually think that the Karzai Government of Afghanistan wants a serious relationship with us? President Karzai is waiting for us to get out of the way so he can then take to full dictator mode. Then we have to decide whether we want to support that dictatorship. Regardless, our embassy in Kabul might as well be the permanent base.
"What do you win if you win?" as Mr. Gregory asked. Mr. Carter: What counts as victory? The answer to these is nothing. We win nothing. Mr. Dionne summed it up by saying that the focus would go back to weakening the Taliban and fighting terrorism - the Biden approach. That should have been the mission all along, not to build some version of Afghanistan that we can tolerate at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of American and N.A.T.O. soldiers.
At this point, we should just state it for what it is. We're in Afghanistan so that we have a launching place for attacks we're conducting in Pakistan on Al Qaeda and Islamic Extremists. We're killing the Taliban, who are working with the Pakistani ISI, because they both are trying to prevent us from these operations. There it is.
If you want a time line, here's one: Deliver the heads of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on a stick [read simply: bring to justice in custody or... ok, verified dead] and that will give the U.S. a legitimate excuse to get out.
Today's first guest, an exclusive with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), showed that Republicans have no intention of compromising their positions for what is perceived as the greater good to bring everyone of board with consensus ideas to move the country forward. Mr. Graham banally predicted that the recovery would be slow in the coming year. Certainly not an intellectual stretch to say that because of the conditions that have been set through the tax cut deal.
There was much talk of sacrifice during the panel discussion and the concept of what that actually means, but the sacrifice of the tax revenue given up in the tax deal isn't going to help with the murky problem of state pensions as Yale law professor and author Stephen Carter (first time on Meet The Press) pointed out.
Mr. Graham emphatically stated that entitlement reform is essential to get spending under control and it's not that we disagree with that stance, it's just that when you push for tax cuts for the richest 2% of citizens and then tell us that we have to raise the retirement age to receive the benefits. And who does that effect the least, the people with the most money, to which Mr. Graham also mentioned a 'means test' for benefits among older citizens.
What does that mean exactly? If you don't need it, you don't get it? Also, who will determine who has the means and who doesn't, the government? What Mr. Graham is suggesting here goes directly against Republican principles that staunchly advocate for government to get out of the way. A what point in one's life will it be determined that you no longer need the benefits?
That hint of cooperation could come through reform of the Prescription Part D benefit put in place during the Bush Administration, where it is accepted common knowledge that it was a big give away to the pharmaceutical companies. Hopefully, everyone can agree that closing the doughnut hole is in the best interest of all seniors to keep their individual costs down, but we fear that the ability to negotiate prices for drugs with these companies will be taken off the table.
Mr. Graham said that Republicans have been given a new lease on life by the electorate. He also stated that he hope the party have learned the lessons the Democrats' mistakes from the last Congress. He didn't articulate what those lessons were, but given his answers leading up to that point, we have to conclude that he means government overreach. Mr. Graham wasted no time in his interview to remind viewers of the battle coming over health care, and the Republicans' new domestic boogieman deemed 'Obamacare.'
And here's where Republicans organize much better than Democrats. The House will vote to defund the new law, one which goes straight down party lines. The first thing Mr. Graham mentioned, 'defund and start over.' The second course of action would be for the states to opt out of the individual mandates, like the ones in place in Massachusetts. With 33 Republican governors running the states, most will opt out, making for unanimous party philosophy at all levels. What the proposed solutions are is anyone's guess at this point, but as with past Republican-controlled Congresses, they'll only say what they are going to do when they are in a position of solidified strength. So we'll wait and see.
So that new lease on life that Mr. Graham referred to, we also have to conclude that doesn't mean that the Republican agenda/philosophy will change. We're trying to stay optimistic on the first Sunday of the year, but after listening to Mr. Graham's answers, it's awfully difficult.
David Brooks, during today's panel, said that the number that matters the most is the percentage of people who believe can be a positive influence in their lives. In the 60's and 70's, he said, that number was around 80%, but now it's down around 19%. Mr. Brooks still believes that his party's politicians (make the clear designation between party politicians and the common electorate) think there is a balance between government involvement versus them staying out of the way. However, Republican politicians are about limited government, period.
Senator-elect Pat Toomey (R-PA), on today's panel as well, said that there are things that both parties can agree on such as trade and tax reform, but said regulatory overreach will be tough. Mr. Toomey, a Tea-Party Republican, advocates for less government regulation of business and industry as part of the overall conservative philosophy of market freedom. A free market is what we want but not at the expense of the country as a whole. Lax regulation lead to the severe housing crisis that we still face, one in which Mr. Graham said today, could be helped by privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We're not for government ownership of the housing industry or the automotive industry or any industry for that matter, but what we've seen is that left to its own devices, the private sector will bend and break rules for the sake of profit.
All of these fiscal matters are going to be hashed out between establishment Republicans and the Tea-Party wing of the Republicans, and it will be difficult. Even if it's not articulated in this way by the pundits or the Democrats, what you are going to see is the Republican party enacting policies that in actuality go against the Tea Party Republican electorate's own best interest.
Mr. Graham that he needed to see an actual financial reform plan before he would vote for a raising of the debt ceiling, a veiled threat really. This vote comes up in the spring and there will not be a consensus plan in place by that time. This isn't the balance of philosophies, at which the panel was later driving.
What was missing from the panel was the Democratic party line guy, which we could say is Mr. Dionne from the Washington Post, but we're thinking an elected official. We harp on the Republicans pretty good in this column, but that doesn't mean the Democrats get a free pass.
Lastly, Senator Graham called for the United States to construct permanent military bases in Afghanistan, a declarative sentence. He said that these are required and if the Afghans want to have a serious relationship with the United States, they have to earn it. We find this second part much more misguided than the first part. How in the world could Senator Graham actually think that the Karzai Government of Afghanistan wants a serious relationship with us? President Karzai is waiting for us to get out of the way so he can then take to full dictator mode. Then we have to decide whether we want to support that dictatorship. Regardless, our embassy in Kabul might as well be the permanent base.
"What do you win if you win?" as Mr. Gregory asked. Mr. Carter: What counts as victory? The answer to these is nothing. We win nothing. Mr. Dionne summed it up by saying that the focus would go back to weakening the Taliban and fighting terrorism - the Biden approach. That should have been the mission all along, not to build some version of Afghanistan that we can tolerate at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of American and N.A.T.O. soldiers.
At this point, we should just state it for what it is. We're in Afghanistan so that we have a launching place for attacks we're conducting in Pakistan on Al Qaeda and Islamic Extremists. We're killing the Taliban, who are working with the Pakistani ISI, because they both are trying to prevent us from these operations. There it is.
If you want a time line, here's one: Deliver the heads of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri on a stick [read simply: bring to justice in custody or... ok, verified dead] and that will give the U.S. a legitimate excuse to get out.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
12.26.10: Seriously...
Peggy Noonan, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, said on two occasions on this week's Meet The Press that serious people need to step up and do serious things. With regard to spending and the new Congress, she said that Republicans need to move in a serious way. And for the 2012 Presidential election, she said that Republicans need a credible alternative, a serious person, to which Bob Woodward interjected that that would rule out Sarah Palin. Who she has in mind for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination is anyone's guess because when she says 'someone serious,' we're hard pressed to find someone on the Republican side who is serious. As for Republicans moving in a serious way in the new Congress, we'll have to wait and see, but the tax cuts for the top 2% that the Republicans negotiated for did two things. One, it disqualified them as being serious about cutting spending and the debt. Secondly, it opened up the gates for President Obama to score a series of victories during the lame duck session. And on this note, we have to question Ms. Noonan's seriousness because she mentioned entitlement spending as a serious issue but didn't mention superfluous tax cuts for the rich.
As for the President's part, Mr. Obama was being pragmatic, to use a word from Valerie Jarrett on today's program. Not weak for compromising? Given the consequences of not making the deal and knowing the number of votes he had, or didn't have, pragmatism was the President's only course. However, these kinds of compromises may be good looking politically, but the reality of this kind of compromise will bring down the whole economic house.
So when Ms. Noonan kept interjecting her tidbits about how awful and wrong the healthcare bill is, it's difficult to take her seriously. She said the people don't understand the new healthcare coverage. That misunderstanding didn't just come from hearing the facts. Opposition to healthcare reform put out hundreds of millions of dollars worth of misinformation to try and defeat it. Ms. Noonan, with all due respect, is not even on a long list of people we'd seek out to get the pulse of the people.
On the other hand, the President, at least, acknowledged that he did not connect enough with the people this year and legislated too much instead of going and listening - this is according to Ms. Jarrett. The economic crisis sucked up too much of his time, she said, to have him spend more time out in the countryside. Nor did it allow him time to think about Sarah Palin, Ms. Jarrett's answer to Mr. Gregory's stupid question. That's like asking Timothy Geithner if he thinks about a game show host when trying to solve fiscal issues.
[What the press needs to do with Sarah Palin is to stop covering her, especially the liberal leaning press which is fixated on her more than the right, all in an attempt to further discredit her. Our advice is to just let Ms. Palin discredit herself as she weighs in on serious issues, and then this issue, will take care of itself.]
First and foremost, Mr. Brokaw said it best when he said that the President had a good month but let's not get ahead of ourselves. However, there was the defining of 'austerity,' which was presented on the screen as such: enforced or extreme economy. The joke is that everyone sitting at that table thinks of that all in the hypothetical, not the reality of it. Certainly, Washington throws that around without understanding, or feeling, the real consequences of their actions. And for Tea Party Republicans, the elected political figures talk austerity at the expense of the the citizenry of this movement who voted for them.
Which brings us back again to Ms. Noonan. She said in her sympathetic but I know better way, that 40 million people in this country are on food stamps, that there are entrenched state employee unions, and that we need a leader that we can trust. Excuse us for asking, but for her being a Republican, who the hell is she talking about? Mitch McConnell? John Boehner? These people are compromised lawmakers - completely in the pocket of the multi-national corporations. And that she would mention food stamps and state unions in the same breath subliminally equating the two is the type of Republican intellectualism that empowers the narrative and agenda of such politicians as McConnell and Boehner.
Ms. Noonan also mentioned political change in that adults today realize that their children won't have it better than they did so there is a lot of pessimism right now. It's these adults who created this situation in the first place. Anymore, Ms. Noonan is an ideologue, not a serious thinker, to which she calls.
As for the President's part, Mr. Obama was being pragmatic, to use a word from Valerie Jarrett on today's program. Not weak for compromising? Given the consequences of not making the deal and knowing the number of votes he had, or didn't have, pragmatism was the President's only course. However, these kinds of compromises may be good looking politically, but the reality of this kind of compromise will bring down the whole economic house.
So when Ms. Noonan kept interjecting her tidbits about how awful and wrong the healthcare bill is, it's difficult to take her seriously. She said the people don't understand the new healthcare coverage. That misunderstanding didn't just come from hearing the facts. Opposition to healthcare reform put out hundreds of millions of dollars worth of misinformation to try and defeat it. Ms. Noonan, with all due respect, is not even on a long list of people we'd seek out to get the pulse of the people.
On the other hand, the President, at least, acknowledged that he did not connect enough with the people this year and legislated too much instead of going and listening - this is according to Ms. Jarrett. The economic crisis sucked up too much of his time, she said, to have him spend more time out in the countryside. Nor did it allow him time to think about Sarah Palin, Ms. Jarrett's answer to Mr. Gregory's stupid question. That's like asking Timothy Geithner if he thinks about a game show host when trying to solve fiscal issues.
[What the press needs to do with Sarah Palin is to stop covering her, especially the liberal leaning press which is fixated on her more than the right, all in an attempt to further discredit her. Our advice is to just let Ms. Palin discredit herself as she weighs in on serious issues, and then this issue, will take care of itself.]
First and foremost, Mr. Brokaw said it best when he said that the President had a good month but let's not get ahead of ourselves. However, there was the defining of 'austerity,' which was presented on the screen as such: enforced or extreme economy. The joke is that everyone sitting at that table thinks of that all in the hypothetical, not the reality of it. Certainly, Washington throws that around without understanding, or feeling, the real consequences of their actions. And for Tea Party Republicans, the elected political figures talk austerity at the expense of the the citizenry of this movement who voted for them.
Which brings us back again to Ms. Noonan. She said in her sympathetic but I know better way, that 40 million people in this country are on food stamps, that there are entrenched state employee unions, and that we need a leader that we can trust. Excuse us for asking, but for her being a Republican, who the hell is she talking about? Mitch McConnell? John Boehner? These people are compromised lawmakers - completely in the pocket of the multi-national corporations. And that she would mention food stamps and state unions in the same breath subliminally equating the two is the type of Republican intellectualism that empowers the narrative and agenda of such politicians as McConnell and Boehner.
Ms. Noonan also mentioned political change in that adults today realize that their children won't have it better than they did so there is a lot of pessimism right now. It's these adults who created this situation in the first place. Anymore, Ms. Noonan is an ideologue, not a serious thinker, to which she calls.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
12.19.10: Vice President Joe Biden Interview
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)