In Star Wars parlance, a Sith Lord is the anti-Jedi. An oversimplification, but essentially in the films the Jedi is the accepted good and the Sith, the foil, is established as the villian. In Episode III (the last film made), the Jedi Obi-Wan-Kenobi says, " Only a Sith deals in absolutes." This is what we think of when we see, hear, or read an interview with Governor Scott Walker (R-WI); that he is a Sith.
Every week, deep into the round table, Mr. Gregory revisits the state of Presidential politics, mostly focusing on the wide Republican field. Well, one thing we know is that Governor Scott Walker (R-WI), today's first guest, will never be President. Like in today's interview and every one previous, the Governor instills no trust, mostly speaking in absolutes of 'my way or the highway.' Because of this, ultimately, he's not a good politician and here's why.
During this recent lame duck session, President Obama saw a bump in his approval ratings and why? Because bills were passed because of a compromise. It showed that he could lead and work with Republicans to get something done, judgment on the specifics of the bill aside. In Mr. Walker's handling of the labor situation in his state, he hasn't been able to bring all parties to the table to work out a compromise that shares the burden of the solution, a failure in terms of leadership.
The Governor is excellent when it comes to staying on message and in avoiding to answer questions directly, but in his answers inconsistencies are abundant, which makes for distrust. For example, Governor Walker said, "This is not a value judgement," when speaking about the inconsistency of his proposal that would exempt policeman and firefighters. But this is a value judgment! Holding one group in higher regard over another is, in fact, assigning value. And speaking of value, it has taken a beating as to how we assign it to teachers. Because they belong to a union, the Republicans are effectively framing them as villains. Teachers are the villians... the people we entrust with the care taking of our kids... crazy, right?
Also, on the pure politics of it, Mr. Walker screwed up. When the unions made the concessions on contributions, he could have taken that and declared victory, but what puts a distaste in people's mouths is that he kept going to try and strip of union of essentially being a union, which is collective bargaining. Now, if he loses this stand-off, the perception will be that simply, he lost and that doesn't look good politically. However, if he wins, he still looks bad politically because he'll disenfranchise some many citizens in his state.
And almost as an aside, but worth mentioning is that one of Governor Walker's main complaints is that he has to negotiate with unions and those negotiations take too long. Well first, is that his job to negotiate? And secondly, the Union came back after a week to say that they would accept his cuts and contribution adjustments. That's a pretty quick negotiation if you ask us.
President of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, during the round table, said that the governor is only providing one choice, give up your rights or give up your job. And as much as we would like to think that he's being hyperbolic, we can't say that because Mr. Walker, himself, has put that proposition out there. If there's no vote, he'll have no choice but to send out layoff notices.
Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) summed up the Republican thinking on collective bargaining during the round table, saying that people act like collective bargaining is a right, but it's not a right. This fundamental belief is being put into action in Wisconsin. Given this, one who would think that workers' rights are essentially human rights - dignity in the workplace - would be dismissed. No one on panel challenged this statement.
Instead, Lawrence O'Donnell attacked with the 'troublemaker' issue in the Governor's, now infamous, crank phone call, in which Mr. Walker said he considered recruiting 'troublemakers' to go into the crowds protesting his proposal. Because Mr. O'Donnell raged into it, the point that he 'rejected it, means he did consider it' was not followed up on by the rest of the panel, hence lost, and was not discussed as a serious matter, which it is and should be investigated. Mr. Gregory inexplicably did not press Mr. Walker with a follow-up on this question.
Columnist Kim Strassel, of the Wall Street Journal, said that essentially it comes down to budgets, which will perpetually in trouble because of collective bargaining. If that is true then why were Wisconsin's pensions 99% fully funded before the Governor enacted substantial corporate tax breaks? Ms. Strassel doesn't consider that which Mr. Walker pays only lip service - the concept of shared sacrifice. It's laughable when a politician speaks in these terms, but it's intellectually insulting and tragic when Mr. Walker brings it up because it's clear that's not what is happening. We say tragic because the long-term thinking that continually giving tax breaks to the most financially affluent, while asking the middle-class to carry most of the burden, and cutting services to those most in need of them is somehow going to benefit us all, it won't. It will make The United States look more like India.
And lastly, speaking of Asia, David Gregory also spoke with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who is presently in Cairo. And think about that in itself. Two weeks after a revolution that overthrew a 30-year dictatorship, United States Senators are in-country. They say that Mr. McCain is no longer a 'maverick' but he sure still is gung-ho. Saying that we should impose a no-fly zone and recognize a provisional government in the eastern part of the country is both premature and unnecessarily unilateral. A coalition consisting of the United States and the other countries in the region is the top priority and for this group to be on the stance page. Would this preclude The United States from making it's own statements? Of course, not.
_______
Today's Panel: Former head of the RNC, Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS); chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO); host of MSNBC's "The Last Word," Lawrence O'Donnell; president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka; and editorial board member and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Kim Strassel.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
2.20.11: Really Just a Matter of Dignity
'Protests' would most certainly be the word of the week as we're seeing them at fever pitch here at home and abroad. Many commentators and pundits are drawing dots to make their own correlations between what it happening in the Middle East and in the Middle West of the United States. The reality is that what they do have in common is the inspiration to have voices heard. However, where as in the Middle East, people are protesting against oppression - socially and economic oppression and in the case of the latter it's a matter of not spending enough on the people. In the Midwest, the fight is framed around the idea that we've spent too much on the poeple and that they need contribute more.
The U.S. United Nations Ambassador, Susan Wright, has stated that our position is that peaceful protests need to be respected and that we stand for democratic reforms that the people in these various middle eastern countries want. In a general sense, whether you are a Republican or a Democratic you can agree with that stance. In the speculative or more hypothetical realm, some of us (American politicians and pundits) would say that stability is the most important element. However, as the rhetoric of freedom is throw around in the country through the airwaves, you have to remember that you can't have it both ways. The United States did not start these protests in the Middle East and really if we support freedom, we have to accept it with all its consequences. Saying that we're for individual freedoms except only the ones we like, doesn't cut. In the case of the middle east and Egypt specifically, if we stand with the people's right to choose their own destiny then we have to accept the outcome. It's hypocritical to say that we support the Egyptian people's freedom, but if the new leaders are not ones we agree with that a dictator should be back in power. Ms. Wright said that in terms of the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no indication that they will take complete control of the country. She continued to say that she and by extension that the Administration has faith in the Egypt people, which by all indications what a more secular government.
Another example would be Jordan, where we've little in terms of unrest but there is some there. King Abdullah is a tremendous ally of The United States, but he is a ruling monarch with final say on all affairs within the country. If the people of Jordan decide that this is unacceptable, then we have to accept the consequences of the outcome. Luckily for King Abdullah, his monarch is moderate and being who he is, the King is trying to get ahead of the unrest by making reforms to appease the citizenry.
In the case of Libya and Iran, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), on today's program, said he would like to see regime change in both countries. Sure, most people here would like that but by what means? What should be made clear is that the means should not be determined by the United States. Can we lead by example, most certainly, but to impose democracy with a gun as we did in Iraq is not the right way to go about change. The Libyans and Iranians have to determine their own future and what we can do is be there to catch the shoe drop, on which ever side it happens to fall. What we can do and where Senator Graham was correct is that we should put pressure on U.S. companies that do business there and they should not be rewarded with tax breaks, for example, for doing business there. And as we said in last week's column, we find it helpful that Republicans are, for the most part, standing with the President and his position of Egypt.
And succinctly, the reason that Bahrain, a small country of 1.2 million people (the graphic that Meet The Press projected on the program was misprinted as 1.2 billion), is receiving so much attention is because that is where the middle east and the world meet to do business. And when the world's business centers are disrupted, the media reacts.
And speaking of business and economics, there is a $61 billion gap between the cuts that Democrats and Republicans want to make in the United States budget. Senator Graham said that the last Congress was 'fired' (voted out) because they spent too much. The deficit ballooned under the Obama Administration. However, what Republicans do not acknowledge is that President Obama put Medicare Part D, the Iraq war and the Afghan war on the books. These three huge expenses were all off budget under the Bush Administration and not accounted for so when they are put on the books of course our deficit will increase in a big way. To Mr. Obama's credit, he is being fiscally honest about what we're spending and he is trying to adjust accordingly. Now, if the government shuts down, Social Security payments and payments to the troops will not go out. As former Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) said, this would be a disaster for both sides.
The problem with the debt commission and what former Congressman Harold Ford said today on the program about raising the retirement age for Social Security and having a means test for the amount of benefits, is that they are based in the reality of the working men and women of this country. Frankly, these are millionaires speaking and making decisions in a bubble of not having to figure out day to day, week to week, how they are going to pay their bills and feed their kids. The reality is playing out in Wisconsin. The union workers in Wisconsin, as widely reported, is willing to make the financial concessions need to balance the budget, but that is not good enough for Governor Walker. He wants to see the union's ability to collective bargain dismantled. His motivation is political and where Senator Graham is very wrong is that the Governor doesn't have a mandate to roll over these people. A mandate doesn't exist when you only win with 51% of the vote.
We're all for less spending, but steep cuts so quickly will reek havoc on the economy so with that in mind, Senator Dubin (D-IL) was correct in that the House went too far too fast in making cuts. Cuts need to be progressive and not slash and burn. Mr. Gregory said that today's discussion shouldn't be about collective bargaining, but that's exactly what it's all about. If the Mr. Walker breaks the union in Wisconsin, there will be a domino effect in other states. Ed Gillespie, on today's program, said that there should be a vote every year by the people on whether they want a union or not. This is a ridiculous notion and stupid. Simply because if you take Governor Walker's complain that union contract negotiations take too long now, imagine if there had to be an election every year. Those contract negotiations would take even longer.
Also, by eliminating unions, which is the underlying goal here, would lower wages in this country to the point where the middle class would cease to exist and would become the working poor. And a working poor that works to 70 years of age? Rick Santelli, CNBC Editor and cited as one of the inspirations of the Tea Party movement, said today that no one volunteers to take money out of his or her own pocket, but that's exactly what the Union leaders in Wisconsin did. They conceded their money, but the Republican politicians what them to concede their dignity as well. We say don't do it!
The U.S. United Nations Ambassador, Susan Wright, has stated that our position is that peaceful protests need to be respected and that we stand for democratic reforms that the people in these various middle eastern countries want. In a general sense, whether you are a Republican or a Democratic you can agree with that stance. In the speculative or more hypothetical realm, some of us (American politicians and pundits) would say that stability is the most important element. However, as the rhetoric of freedom is throw around in the country through the airwaves, you have to remember that you can't have it both ways. The United States did not start these protests in the Middle East and really if we support freedom, we have to accept it with all its consequences. Saying that we're for individual freedoms except only the ones we like, doesn't cut. In the case of the middle east and Egypt specifically, if we stand with the people's right to choose their own destiny then we have to accept the outcome. It's hypocritical to say that we support the Egyptian people's freedom, but if the new leaders are not ones we agree with that a dictator should be back in power. Ms. Wright said that in terms of the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no indication that they will take complete control of the country. She continued to say that she and by extension that the Administration has faith in the Egypt people, which by all indications what a more secular government.
Another example would be Jordan, where we've little in terms of unrest but there is some there. King Abdullah is a tremendous ally of The United States, but he is a ruling monarch with final say on all affairs within the country. If the people of Jordan decide that this is unacceptable, then we have to accept the consequences of the outcome. Luckily for King Abdullah, his monarch is moderate and being who he is, the King is trying to get ahead of the unrest by making reforms to appease the citizenry.
In the case of Libya and Iran, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), on today's program, said he would like to see regime change in both countries. Sure, most people here would like that but by what means? What should be made clear is that the means should not be determined by the United States. Can we lead by example, most certainly, but to impose democracy with a gun as we did in Iraq is not the right way to go about change. The Libyans and Iranians have to determine their own future and what we can do is be there to catch the shoe drop, on which ever side it happens to fall. What we can do and where Senator Graham was correct is that we should put pressure on U.S. companies that do business there and they should not be rewarded with tax breaks, for example, for doing business there. And as we said in last week's column, we find it helpful that Republicans are, for the most part, standing with the President and his position of Egypt.
And succinctly, the reason that Bahrain, a small country of 1.2 million people (the graphic that Meet The Press projected on the program was misprinted as 1.2 billion), is receiving so much attention is because that is where the middle east and the world meet to do business. And when the world's business centers are disrupted, the media reacts.
And speaking of business and economics, there is a $61 billion gap between the cuts that Democrats and Republicans want to make in the United States budget. Senator Graham said that the last Congress was 'fired' (voted out) because they spent too much. The deficit ballooned under the Obama Administration. However, what Republicans do not acknowledge is that President Obama put Medicare Part D, the Iraq war and the Afghan war on the books. These three huge expenses were all off budget under the Bush Administration and not accounted for so when they are put on the books of course our deficit will increase in a big way. To Mr. Obama's credit, he is being fiscally honest about what we're spending and he is trying to adjust accordingly. Now, if the government shuts down, Social Security payments and payments to the troops will not go out. As former Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) said, this would be a disaster for both sides.
The problem with the debt commission and what former Congressman Harold Ford said today on the program about raising the retirement age for Social Security and having a means test for the amount of benefits, is that they are based in the reality of the working men and women of this country. Frankly, these are millionaires speaking and making decisions in a bubble of not having to figure out day to day, week to week, how they are going to pay their bills and feed their kids. The reality is playing out in Wisconsin. The union workers in Wisconsin, as widely reported, is willing to make the financial concessions need to balance the budget, but that is not good enough for Governor Walker. He wants to see the union's ability to collective bargain dismantled. His motivation is political and where Senator Graham is very wrong is that the Governor doesn't have a mandate to roll over these people. A mandate doesn't exist when you only win with 51% of the vote.
We're all for less spending, but steep cuts so quickly will reek havoc on the economy so with that in mind, Senator Dubin (D-IL) was correct in that the House went too far too fast in making cuts. Cuts need to be progressive and not slash and burn. Mr. Gregory said that today's discussion shouldn't be about collective bargaining, but that's exactly what it's all about. If the Mr. Walker breaks the union in Wisconsin, there will be a domino effect in other states. Ed Gillespie, on today's program, said that there should be a vote every year by the people on whether they want a union or not. This is a ridiculous notion and stupid. Simply because if you take Governor Walker's complain that union contract negotiations take too long now, imagine if there had to be an election every year. Those contract negotiations would take even longer.
Also, by eliminating unions, which is the underlying goal here, would lower wages in this country to the point where the middle class would cease to exist and would become the working poor. And a working poor that works to 70 years of age? Rick Santelli, CNBC Editor and cited as one of the inspirations of the Tea Party movement, said today that no one volunteers to take money out of his or her own pocket, but that's exactly what the Union leaders in Wisconsin did. They conceded their money, but the Republican politicians what them to concede their dignity as well. We say don't do it!
Sunday, February 13, 2011
2.13.11: We're Broke! Get Charles Grodin...
As we write this column, Egypt's military is taking provisional control of the country and as we heard from Richard Engel of NBC News, the following immediate changes are taking place: the constitution will be reformed so it is suspended for now, parliament is suspended, and the head of the military is making the de facto decisions of the Egyptian presidency. On the face of it, all of that doesn't sound good, but in this time, it was declared that Egypt will honor all of its international agreements, which is prudent as they get their internal house in order. With regard to military control, the Egyptians have a deep respect for their military, unlike other Arab countries where the military is the primary control apparatus of the population. That job in Egypt goes to the secret police.
The Egyptian military turned its guns away from protesters as they advance on a Presidential palace and has show that they will not fired on the its own population so at this moment we should, again, stay cautiously optimistic about what's happening there. Because of the mutual respect between the military and the citizenry, we believe that the transition to a civilian government will happen and it will be accomplished peacefully. And before any one accuses this column of being naive or anything of the sort, we'll also say this. Cynically, if the military doesn't give up power, they were in league with Mr. Mubarak so their foreign policy stance as it relates to the concerns of the United States wouldn't presumably change.
Also, the transition, frankly, over the next few months will go more smoothly as other protests in the region come to a boil, essentially taken the attention away from Egypt. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk seemed to think that what happened in Egypt will spread across the region, a 'ripple effect' he called it. And if these protests actually manifest themselves it will also signal to Egypt that they have gone too far in a set direction to turn back and only enact reform half way.
When asked by Mr. Gregory, today's guest House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that the President has handled it as well as can be expected and then followed with something which we believe everyone can agree and that is that we don't want a radical government in Egypt. But Mr. Boehner backed up President Barack Obama.... of like now they need the guy who so many in their party think is a secret Muslim. Those scary Arab people in Egypt can relate to our 'Muslim' leader so we'll let him handle it. Is that what the Republican party is really thinking? Some wayward souls in the party are probably thinking that, but we were being facetious of course, but it is telling that Mr. Boehner would say that given that immediately prior, Mr. Gregory played a clip from this weekend's CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee), in which Rick Santorum spouted that while we shouldn't have been against the protesters, but... implying that we should have stuck with Hosni Mubarak?
From the Santorum clip and what Mr. Boehner actually said immediately after, what we can glean is that with regard to foreign policy, Republicans don't do nuance all that well. This is what we've come to expect that Republican platforms are communicated in more absolute terms while Democrats always try to explain that it's 'complicated.' Mr. Boehner even refused to levy any criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency for not being 'in the know' of the revolution before it happened. On domestic issues, Americans like decisiveness so they appreciate the Republican tact more, but in foreign policy, especially with these events in Egypt, nuance is required because it really is a complicated situation.
But speaking of declaratives, with regard to the U.S. government's spending, Mr. Boehner declared that, "We're [The United States] broke." He went on to explain that we need to cut spending and do it now, and stick with the Republicans "Pledge to America" that that sum will be approximately $100 billion.
They haven't gotten there yet and Mr. Boehner defended the fact that it is a start and entitlement reform (Social Security and Medicare reform) will come. On the panel, David Brooks reasserted his statement from his earlier New York Times column that anyone who doesn't support entitlement cuts is an enabler of big government spending - a challenge to his own Republican party. Mr. Boehner also mentioned a letter he sent to the President with the signatures of 150 economists says that cutting government spending will create jobs. He didn't go into how, and that's what we want to know. He also said that the American people don't truly know the problem with Social Security.
What we do know is this column doesn't support an increase in the retirement age, but doesn't support a 3.5% tax increase on individuals making over $1 million dollars a year, which would bring their tax level to Clinton-era rates with a .5% increase. Yes, we're communists here... give us a break. This is just one of the sacrifices that needs to be made, just being realistic. Why do it on the backs of Americans who've worked hard for over 40 years to make ends meet? Nothing wrong with a little idealism. We also believe that government spending can be cut by consolidating government agencies, which would eliminate huge amounts of wasteful spending and make the government truly smaller. Why don't the Republicans really get behind that, which would in turn be... should we say it?... bipartisan, characteristics that Mr. Boehner himself described.
What is also working against Mr. Boehner from taking a stance is the Tea Party Republican caucus represented on today's program by newly elected Congressman Bobby Schilling (R-IL). Mr. Schilling did say that the leadership is giving the Tea Party caucus of the Republican a voice and that's simply because right now the leadership isn't getting their votes. However, that voice really isn't saying much. When someone in the Republican Tea Party caucus says that everything is on the table, as Mr. Schilling did today, it doesn't instill any confidence whatsoever. Granted President Obama's budget comes out tomorrow, but if you're paying attention even a little you know where some cuts should be made like in defense.
And as Mr. Boehner said, the housing market, Fannie and Freddie in particular. Now, this is one thing that we have to honestly admit we're not experts in here at The Opinion - housing, but here's an axiom to think about. The more one entity controls something, the longer the transition time will be to change that control dynamic away from that entity. So when Mr. Boehner says that the U.S. government has to get out of the housing market, you would on the face of it agree. However, Fannie and Freddie paved the way for huge home sales, which Republicans advocate, but now this one entity supports 90% of the housing market. This is, by the way, just a symptom of the problem that middle class Americans don't have enough liquid equity because the tax code so overwhelmingly favors corporations, which don't necessarily do what's right for the country.
But doing back to Fannie and Freddie and phasing it out, you would have to think that the phasing out time would be as long as a thirty-year mortgage, any time less would probably be a shockwave to the system because of all the derivatives attached to Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages.
So pardon the unusual number of digressions today and just know that despite what Speaker Boehner says, we're not broke, we just need to manage our money a lot better. We need Charles Grodin's character from the movie Dave to come in and give us to us straight like Alanta Mayor Kasim Reed said, "Just tell us the truth, and let us get on with our business."
Today's Full Panel: The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed (D); freshman member of congress supported by the Tea Party, Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-IL); former Clinton White House press secretary, Dee Dee Myers; columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks; and Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin.
The Egyptian military turned its guns away from protesters as they advance on a Presidential palace and has show that they will not fired on the its own population so at this moment we should, again, stay cautiously optimistic about what's happening there. Because of the mutual respect between the military and the citizenry, we believe that the transition to a civilian government will happen and it will be accomplished peacefully. And before any one accuses this column of being naive or anything of the sort, we'll also say this. Cynically, if the military doesn't give up power, they were in league with Mr. Mubarak so their foreign policy stance as it relates to the concerns of the United States wouldn't presumably change.
Also, the transition, frankly, over the next few months will go more smoothly as other protests in the region come to a boil, essentially taken the attention away from Egypt. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk seemed to think that what happened in Egypt will spread across the region, a 'ripple effect' he called it. And if these protests actually manifest themselves it will also signal to Egypt that they have gone too far in a set direction to turn back and only enact reform half way.
When asked by Mr. Gregory, today's guest House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that the President has handled it as well as can be expected and then followed with something which we believe everyone can agree and that is that we don't want a radical government in Egypt. But Mr. Boehner backed up President Barack Obama.... of like now they need the guy who so many in their party think is a secret Muslim. Those scary Arab people in Egypt can relate to our 'Muslim' leader so we'll let him handle it. Is that what the Republican party is really thinking? Some wayward souls in the party are probably thinking that, but we were being facetious of course, but it is telling that Mr. Boehner would say that given that immediately prior, Mr. Gregory played a clip from this weekend's CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee), in which Rick Santorum spouted that while we shouldn't have been against the protesters, but... implying that we should have stuck with Hosni Mubarak?
From the Santorum clip and what Mr. Boehner actually said immediately after, what we can glean is that with regard to foreign policy, Republicans don't do nuance all that well. This is what we've come to expect that Republican platforms are communicated in more absolute terms while Democrats always try to explain that it's 'complicated.' Mr. Boehner even refused to levy any criticism of the Central Intelligence Agency for not being 'in the know' of the revolution before it happened. On domestic issues, Americans like decisiveness so they appreciate the Republican tact more, but in foreign policy, especially with these events in Egypt, nuance is required because it really is a complicated situation.
But speaking of declaratives, with regard to the U.S. government's spending, Mr. Boehner declared that, "We're [The United States] broke." He went on to explain that we need to cut spending and do it now, and stick with the Republicans "Pledge to America" that that sum will be approximately $100 billion.
They haven't gotten there yet and Mr. Boehner defended the fact that it is a start and entitlement reform (Social Security and Medicare reform) will come. On the panel, David Brooks reasserted his statement from his earlier New York Times column that anyone who doesn't support entitlement cuts is an enabler of big government spending - a challenge to his own Republican party. Mr. Boehner also mentioned a letter he sent to the President with the signatures of 150 economists says that cutting government spending will create jobs. He didn't go into how, and that's what we want to know. He also said that the American people don't truly know the problem with Social Security.
What we do know is this column doesn't support an increase in the retirement age, but doesn't support a 3.5% tax increase on individuals making over $1 million dollars a year, which would bring their tax level to Clinton-era rates with a .5% increase. Yes, we're communists here... give us a break. This is just one of the sacrifices that needs to be made, just being realistic. Why do it on the backs of Americans who've worked hard for over 40 years to make ends meet? Nothing wrong with a little idealism. We also believe that government spending can be cut by consolidating government agencies, which would eliminate huge amounts of wasteful spending and make the government truly smaller. Why don't the Republicans really get behind that, which would in turn be... should we say it?... bipartisan, characteristics that Mr. Boehner himself described.
What is also working against Mr. Boehner from taking a stance is the Tea Party Republican caucus represented on today's program by newly elected Congressman Bobby Schilling (R-IL). Mr. Schilling did say that the leadership is giving the Tea Party caucus of the Republican a voice and that's simply because right now the leadership isn't getting their votes. However, that voice really isn't saying much. When someone in the Republican Tea Party caucus says that everything is on the table, as Mr. Schilling did today, it doesn't instill any confidence whatsoever. Granted President Obama's budget comes out tomorrow, but if you're paying attention even a little you know where some cuts should be made like in defense.
And as Mr. Boehner said, the housing market, Fannie and Freddie in particular. Now, this is one thing that we have to honestly admit we're not experts in here at The Opinion - housing, but here's an axiom to think about. The more one entity controls something, the longer the transition time will be to change that control dynamic away from that entity. So when Mr. Boehner says that the U.S. government has to get out of the housing market, you would on the face of it agree. However, Fannie and Freddie paved the way for huge home sales, which Republicans advocate, but now this one entity supports 90% of the housing market. This is, by the way, just a symptom of the problem that middle class Americans don't have enough liquid equity because the tax code so overwhelmingly favors corporations, which don't necessarily do what's right for the country.
But doing back to Fannie and Freddie and phasing it out, you would have to think that the phasing out time would be as long as a thirty-year mortgage, any time less would probably be a shockwave to the system because of all the derivatives attached to Fannie and Freddie backed mortgages.
So pardon the unusual number of digressions today and just know that despite what Speaker Boehner says, we're not broke, we just need to manage our money a lot better. We need Charles Grodin's character from the movie Dave to come in and give us to us straight like Alanta Mayor Kasim Reed said, "Just tell us the truth, and let us get on with our business."
Today's Full Panel: The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed (D); freshman member of congress supported by the Tea Party, Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-IL); former Clinton White House press secretary, Dee Dee Myers; columnist for the New York Times, David Brooks; and Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin.
Sunday, February 06, 2011
2.6.11: Can't Wait for Next Season
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
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)