4.3.11: Actions and Their Consequences

Why can't we be counted on to do the responsible thing? Fundamentalists in this country are acting irresponsibly and this week's violence in Afghanistan, the killing of 7 foreign workers, due to the Koran burning by the Christian Pastor Terry Jones in Florida is the latest example. Some months ago, when this was being debated in the press and Mr. Jones received international notoriety, we all knew the consequences of such actions. Then he went and did it anyway. Mr. Jones knew what the right thing to do was, but decided against it. What's inexplicable is how a man of God could act without empathy, without tolerance, and without compassion for other people.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), today's first guest, understated these actions calling them 'irresponsible conduct.' However, where he put his emphasis was on the other irresponsible actions going on in Congress with the budget negotiations. Mr. Durbin, as most of us do, understands the difficult position that House Speaker Boehner is in with the Tea Party Republican caucus. He has to placate them while trying to get some deal done so the government doesn't shutdown, which would be like sticking a sharp needle in the collective arm of the American people. If the government shuts down, checks don't go out, which is bad politically - a serious understatement. But the fact is while we agree that the government needs to cut spending, we find it disingenuous that the individuals calling for this most loudly are also advocating reducing the taxes for the richest Americans.

We agree with Senator Durbin when he explained that House Republicans loss all credibility in the budget talks when on insisting on political riders in a budget bill. That's the politics of politics we guess, but some of what House Republicans actually want to cut is irresponsible. No matter where you are on the spectrum of opinion on climate change, you would have to agree that the Environmental Protection Agency, which Mr. Durbin specifically mentioned along with Planned Parenthood, is essential of us to have. The agency that makes sure our water is clean to drink and that the air doesn't become too toxic. Cutting out the EPA and/or Planned Parenthood and/or NPR does in fact go beyond the mandate of last November's election. And if because of these riders, the government shuts down, the blame would have to squarely be put on Republican House members.

Republican strategist Mike Murphy, on today's panel, described it as a big game of chicken, but it doesn't have to be. Republicans should take the compromise of $33 billion in cuts because as pointed out, it is for this year's budget. They haven't even begun to discuss next year's. Ugh. And as E.J. Dionne pointed out, the pressure is on John Boehner. This is the first real test of his leadership of the House Republican caucus. Can he bring them all together? We'll see soon enough.

The key statistic to keep in mind that such cuts would eliminate over 700,000 jobs, which goes against what the mandate was supposed to be for in the first place, nullifying the last 8 months of job gains. Mr. Gregory asked the panel about 'morning in America,' referring to the recovering economy, but how will that morning look with unemployment among the black community at a steady 15.5%? It's easy to gloss over when you focus on the national percentage, but what is the number where people, nationally, will take notice?

***

What we found every encouraging was the reasoned answers from the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI). You may not agree on everything we're doing in Libya but at least it seems like the most engaged individuals like Senator Durbin and Congressman Rogers are on the same page both saying that the United States should continue to maintain the no-fly zone over the country and that continued pressure on the Qadhafi regime is in the interest of the United States.

Congressman Rogers clearly stated that Democrats and Republicans should stand with the President on our actions taken in Libya. It's just refreshing to hear a politician call for unified support on an issue. And it is true that at this point, Qadhafi staying in power is not an option and though the rebel forces are weak and ill-equipped, the pressure on the regime has been effective as evidenced by all the high-office defections, namely of Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa.

Throughout this Libyan crisis, President Obama's measured have been as appropriate as they can be. As Mr. Durbin said, the United States acted on the issuance of an international coalition consisting of the Arab League, the United Nations, and the European Community. And as explained by Congressman Rogers, in addition to dropping bombs, we've seized [frozen] over $60 billion of the regimes money. But no matter of intention of the actions, the consequences have to be accepted, and that's why you heard the President give a speech on energy this week.

Chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Daniel Yergin, said that $100 per barrel for oil is absorbable for the economy, but long term, it could be destructive. Destructive for whom is the question? Mike Murphy seemed to think that high oil prices in the long-term could be good in that it would force us to utilize other forms of energy to supplant the crude. Thinking off the cuff, we can only really think that it would be destructive for the speculators who drive the prices.

With that said, Mr. Yergin was right that this worry extends far beyond Libya. He mentioned that even though Yemen is a small oil producer, it shares a large border with Saudi Arabia, which could become destabilized at worst, or just an easy thruway the terrorists and jihadists at best. Without a doubt there will be attacks on the Saudi regime cast from Yemen, and it will be the consequences the Saudis will face for their actions in Bahrain.

One hundred per barrel of oil officially gets penciled into the 'new normals' column.


Panel: The president of the National Urban League, Marc Morial; Republican strategist and columnist for TIME Magazine, Mike Murphy; columnist for the Washington Post, EJ Dionne; presidential historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Daniel Yergin.

3.31.2011: Attention Seniors (Something to Think About)

If you are a senior citizen in the United States, we think you'll find this very interesting. We've been noticing more and more in senior households a copy of AARP's magazine so we thought it important to highlight something. Also, we know that seniors have a very high voter turn out so we felt it important to add to your perspective with regard to how one party is treating the U.S. citizens who have indeed spent their lives working for this country.

This is from Roll Call, the United States Congressional Newspaper:

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_103/AARP-Is-Next-on-GOP-Target-List-204487-1.html

To break some things down for you, here's the headline:

AARP Is Next on GOP Target List

(Next meaning after Planned Parenthood, NPR, and the Environmental Protection Agency)

Some key quotes:

"The Ways and Means panel [House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee ] will hold an oversight hearing Friday on AARP’s organizational structure and finances."

"AARP was instrumental in killing President George W. Bush’s proposal to create private retirement accounts as part of Social Security reform."

Now, imagine if part of your Social Security savings was tied into the market, and then it tanked like it did in 2008. You would have lost at least 35% of your total Social Security.

This is happening because AARP believes it is in the best interest of seniors to support the Affordable Healthcare Act, and endorsed it. Think about that, but also think about this. Because Republicans do not like the AARP now, they are investigating them to defund them and and then end the AARP. Imagine if you were in the supermarket and got into an argument with a man who turned out to be the town's District Attorney. And now because he doesn't like you due to the argument, he decides to investigate you. How would you like that because that's what's happening.

Yes, the AARP is powerful, because they are the strongest lobby for seniors citizens... who look out for you and your Social Security. Just saying.

3.27.11: It's Secretary Clinton's Time

As Mr. Gregory said at the top of today's program, we're nine days into the established no-fly over Libya, but what is the plan, the end game if you will, that Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) asked about in his interview with the moderator?

That's still the big question that needs to be answered, but our actions were clearly articulated by Secretary of State Clinton, who appeared with Defense Secretary Gates at the top of the program. Even though Secretary Gates said that Libya was not in the vital interest of the United States, which then Mr. Gregory took out of context the rest of the program, he went on to explain that is in our interest to assist with the U.N. resolution and to help our allies. Then Mrs. Clinton further explained that in Afghanistan, NATO troops (French and English) are there with us and we need to join with them in the Libyan operation because it is in their vital interest.

With Mr. Lugar, David Gregory brought up the cost of this operation and where the funds would come from to support it. This is the Republican's opportunity to play politics with our international policy and as Savannah Guthrie pointed out later during the round table that the main grievance is the process by which the President went about the operation. Frankly, we find Republican budget objections without substance, because they are selective when it comes to who gets it. Without too much digression, the corporate tax cuts that Republican state governors are doling out, while making cuts and increasing the burden on the middle class is the essentially the same as to what is happening at the federal level. The funding is there, but the Republicans, inexplicably, can not be seen aligning with the President on any measure, including foreign policy.

Mrs. Clinton, as she's apt to do, made another good point in that Libya borders Egypt and Tunisia, two countries going through their own revolutions. And here's where Libya is in the vital interest of the United States, to which the Madam Secretary alluded. Egypt is squarely in the United States vital security interest, and for that matter Israel's, and to have a mass slaughter where refugees would go pouring into that country would cause further destabilization in the region. Additionally, as the Secretary also mentioned, if the United States had stood by and did nothing, we would have been criticized that much more.

However, Tom Ricks, senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security, said it is sort of like 'give war a chance,' citing, extremely interestingly, Obama taking an Eisenhower type approach in that he should not get stuck in a conflict, but try and effect the outcome. But the anecdote Mr. Ricks described when rebels lined up to shake the hand of a downed American pilot and embraced him is very telling commentary on how President Obama, and, equally, Hillary Clinton are conducting American foreign policy in a more responsible manner, by world perceptions, than the Republicans could hope to do. And as Ted Koppel summarized, Republicans right now have the luxury and the wait and see what happens and then take a hard position.

Mr. Lugar did definitively say that we should not be involved in the Libyan civil war, and we would agree. That is a narrow slicing of a position - enable the rebels by bombing the dictator - is getting involved. But by not getting involved, the humanitarian would have been grave. Mr. Koppel reminded us of the 1982 protests in Syria where Assad killed approximately 80,000 people to suppress an uprising. Consensus would say that we can not allow that to happen again, especially now, with the African Union calling for change, the Arab League urging for this action, and with the aforementioned UN resolution. With this in mind, there is some insidiousness going go that we'll get to in a minute.

Savannah Guthrie called what happening in the Middle East the 'Arab Spring,' but Bob Woodward called this President Obama's '9/11.' Ms. Guthrie's terminology is hopeful, which is something we remain, but the realists we are here at the column would call this a cultural shift, the equivalent of a 9.0 earthquake. Mr. Woodward explained it as a huge management problem, the size and scope of 9/11, and factoring in the relief effort in Japan, and our own domestic troubles, it becomes much more than that. And again, to touch on our domestic troubles, Republican policy initiatives seem petty when set along aside what is going on in the world. Corporate tax cuts? Busting unions? Limiting women's rights? Cutting education? Going in the opposite direction on every one of those initiatives would actually strengthen our country and while the world outside of ours is experiencing seismic shifts, natural and man-made, it is what we need to do most right now.

So with Libya, it's day to day as Secretary Clinton described, and the President will explain it all to the country on Monday night. We can only hope that Mrs. Clinton has her hands all over the explanation. Mrs. Clinton has shown responsible leadership, the type in the air of our finest Secretaries of State, and we do not say that lightly. In simply hearing her and the Defense Secretary describe the scope of our responsibilities in the world, you realize the our domestic problems are quite solvable, don't you? And where's the responsible, reasonable leadership on that in the House of Representatives?

So we conclude that the United States' actions, though not desired, were responsible given the world consensus, and by no means should there be boots on the ground... unless those boots are special ops people or the CIA, which will be the case. However, we do like it when someone like Tom Ricks explains that there are tight restrictions on the military with close watch against 'mission creep,' which indeed connotes U.S. personnel in some aspect on the ground there.

Lastly, the insidiousness that we mentioned earlier is in regard to Saudia Arabia, possibly our most hypocritical, wrong-headed 'friendship' we have. What the Saudis are doing in Bahrain by sending troops in is reprehensible even though the Monarch there requested it, and adding to the disgust is that the United States, mainly, and everyone else aren't saying anything officially about it. It's all because of oil of course, which defines our two countries' relationship. And since, as Secretary Gates noted, we just recently sold them the largest amount of arms in their history, we should be leery as to how those weapons are used, which could eventually be against us. Now, we're not saying that we should cut ties with Saudi Arabia, and we do not think the relationship is 'ruptured' as it was termed on today's program. Ruptured would mean that the oil stops flowing to us, that's ruptured. But what we are saying is that the United States can no longer afford to have oil dominate the terms of the relationship. That's on us and eliminating foreign sources of energy. That is our vital national security interest.

Panel: The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the BBC's Ted Koppel; senior fellow for the Center for a New American Security and author, Tom Ricks; and NBC News White House Correspondent, Savannah Guthrie.

3.25.11: Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Gadhafi, Kadafi, Qadhafi... Moamer Khadafi

A variation of this title appeared on Boston.com so we should give credit where credit is due, but what we'd like to touch on is not just the different spellings of a despot's name, but what it represents. (We'll get to that in a moment.) And yes, we're writing this column late in the week, forgive us our indulgences for the timing of this post.

Much has happened since the Sunday Meet The Press interview with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but there are still some significant questions still lingering from said interview. Namely, what is our policy on Qadhafi? The Admiral outlined that the military mission is not to oust the dictator and that one of the outcomes of our actions is that Qadhafi stays in power. However, President Obama has said that U.S. policy is that Qadhafi must go.

And this these are the kinds of contradicitons that we entrap ourselves in when we are dealing with a dictator who represents as close to a Machiavellian ideal as you can have on the world stage. Depending on which spelling you assign to what phase of Qadhafi (we're being consistent in the post for the sake of sanity), you get a different play.

In 1986, President Reagan dropped 60 tons of bombs on Tripoli in response to a Libyan terror attack in a Berlin nightclub. In 1998, Pam Am Flight 103 goes down over Lockerbie, Scotland in a terrorist bombing larger believed to be the responsibility of Qadhafi. Later, Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi is convcted of mass murder for the act. In 2004, the Bush Administration normalizes relations with the dictator as he vowed to give up in nuclear ambitions (now our concerns focus on the chemical weapons he may have). In August 2009, said bomber is released back to Libya on behalf of medical mercy. In September 2009, Qadhafi makes his first appearance at the U.N. and gives a 90 minute rambling diatribe about all his perceived enemies. In 2010, a Libyan official confirms that it was Qadhafi who personally ordered the Lockerbie Bombing. In 2011, Qadhafi fires rockets on his own people. The various lives of Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. There's your two-bit history.

So Operation Odyssey Dawn is another in a list of military conflicts we've had with him over the years so we understand that Qadhafi must go, but we have to completely stop giving him any rope. However, with this operation, there is no going back, no recognizing him as leader of Libya. The long term is that we'll have to use our resources to isolate him, and unfortunately the people of Libya, in a way that rivals North Korea. The extended term strategy is not clear at all that has to be addressed.

The other big issue is the double standard of what's going on in Bahrain, with the protesters there being fired upon by the Monarchy, and also the Saudi Army. When the United States has to not longer turn a blind eye to the actions of Saudi Arabia, it will be a liberating one. The Administration's response about our position with regard to stopping the violence in Bahrain is basically non-existent.

The Senatorial panel of John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levins (D-MI), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) all seemed measured in their responses, but Senator Kerry clarified that this is not a war with another Arab country. It's a debatable point based on what constitutes war these days, but what it does do is show support for the President, which Senator Levin showed as well even though he's being watchful for mission creep. For clarification, this is when ulterior military motives are indulged within the depth of another mission, something we certainly can not have in the case of Libya. Even Senator Sessions, who rightfully questioned what the endgame is for this action would be, was supportive of the President's actions. Where he is at time of this writing, we can only speculate.

In extricating ourselves from the front lines of these coalition strikes against Colonel Qadhafi and his military quickly, we're doing the right thing. Before anyone settles into a consistent line of thinking that we're at war with another Arab country, we need to get out of there. This doesn't mean that the President shouldn't explain what happened, what's going on, and what's coming down the line.


Panel: NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, and the New York Times’ Helene Cooper. Plus insights on what the conflict could mean for the U.S. militarily and the president’s agenda from former CIA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.

3.13.11: How Would We Do? / Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN)

What we've been thinking about most since the earthquake and resulting tsunami in Japan is the resolve of its people. It is in the days to come, a year or two from now even when people in this country should be taking instruction from the Japanese people. And what do we mean by that? Well, if there is one thing we know about, it is the Japanese will to overcome a great disaster and recover strong than before. It just makes us wonder if the United States would be able to do the same. And we actually have our answer, it's no. Think about New Orleans and how 5 1/2 years later, there are still areas dilapidated and in disrepair. How about Ground Zero? It's been ten years and there is still no sign of a building.

The Japanese Ambassador for the United States showed that resolve with great grace on today's program, thanking the United States Military for its rescue and relief efforts. It's unfortunate that it is only a massive natural disaster that shines a positive light on the American military in other countries. Accompanying the military are nuclear experts because of concern that there could be a meltdown to the reactor core, something for which the Japanese have prepared but you can never know until something happens.

And to that point, Marvin Fertel, President of our Nuclear Energy Institute, said that post-9/11, we have put in safe guards at our nuclear plants in case of something unfortunate. It's good to know that we have taken these steps with our reactors, but it would be reassuring to know if we've redoubled those efforts. There are mentions constantly in the news about the strict building codes and safety regulations in Japan that probably prevented even more fatalities, and it makes us wonder about what we're thinking in this country where we (Republican politicians) want to ease regulations to make it better for business. But making everything better for business isn't always better. Making a little less money so that we're all safer isn't really considered in this country and it shows where our priorities are, and frankly, where we're headed.

It was this point that Chuck Todd, weakly filling in for David Gregory this week, posed to Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) who was reminded of his advocacy for expanding nuclear power. Mr. Schumer reiterated the obvious fact that The United States needs to free itself from foreign oil dependency, something we hear a lot of from both sides of the isle. The Republicans want more drilling here, which doesn't address our addiction to the fuel, and the Democrats 'greener' suggestions don't yield enough energy to make it cost efficient. It's this sort of problem and all the politics that go with it that we feel can not be solved by today's American political leaders. The Japanese would make it there mission to solve this problem. You see the difference here?

In the matter of the budget, is a metaphoric tsunami coming in this country? It is a hopeful sign when Mr. Schumer pointed out that a number of riders (non-budgetary related items like same-sex marriage amendments that have nothing to do with the budget) were taken out of the budget to raise its chances of being passed. This is good news but how many continuing resolutions to keep the government going are they going to pass? With all the energy put into this, other important matters will fall out of focus.

And speaking of non-budgetary issues, Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) wanted a truce on such things, but conservative Republicans won't have it. To defend his position, Mr. Daniels asked, "Are you more committed to results or rhetoric?" Right now, it's the cultural warriors in the Republican party who are exerting the most influence there. Our cultural wars revolve around religion and frankly, there's no place for it in our governing system according to the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, religious conservatives have been the ones, as of late, who have been throwing this document in everyone's faces, especially the Tea Party Republicans.

What we've seen from them is that their compromise is 'their way or nothing,' as in Wisconsin. Govern Daniels mentioned that the government shouldn't go after collective bargaining, but also said that public employees shouldn't have collective bargaining rights. We would respectfully disagree for among other reasons, this one: Collective bargaining in the public sector is necessary because it is an essential vehicle in which the people of this country have leverage to stand up against it's government at a time when an election is not pending. Rights are a continual process that has to been diligently looked after and not only in election years. Taking away public sector collective bargaining eliminates a necessary check in the check-and-balance system, on government to safeguard against abuse.

And why didn't they have that discuss today on Meet The Press? Because the show is continually, stupidly obsessed with Presidential politics. Instead of delving more in depth to what is happening in Wisconsin and how these same issues are playing out in the Governor's state of Indiana, Mr. Todd needed to ask him about a potential run for President, to which he said he agreed to consider it. Remember that Mr. Daniels used to be the budget director for George W. Bush so he talks a good fiscal game, but when Mr. Todd asked him about Medicare Part D and that it shouldn't have been enacted because we couldn't pay for it was that it cost a lot less than most people thought. That was his answer? Remember that the budget director is also responsible for keeping two wars off the books.

And when Mr. Todd questioned Mr. Daniels on the wisdom that shrinking the government will produce jobs, which has not been the result, he stated that that is what a catastrophic recession will do - stagger job growth. It was caused by the policies of the Administration, for which he worked.

It's difficult, and unlikely, to advise that we would choose Governor Mitch Daniels for President because of the fact that his fiscal rhetoric doesn't at all match with the results he's produced as a part of the Bush Administration or as Governor of Indiana. However, most people don't know or realize these facts, which brings us to a point that NPR's Michelle Norris made during the roundtable with regard to the potential Republican nominees not having declared yet as it is getting late comparatively to the last election.

She pointed out that in the last election, people had a long time to vet the candidates, especially Barack Obama, and that this time around people won't have as much time. She missed the real insight to her own point, which is that the Republican nominees do not want to be vetted for any period of time. They know that the less the people know, the better it is for a successful election. The more people find out - for example seniors who would consider voting for Mr. Daniels because he's conservative but may not realize that he's the one whose causing their hardship with prescription drugs - the less likely one would be to get the vote. For the Republicans in this case, less is more.

***

Two last things we'd like to touch on. One, David Broder was never our favorite on Meet The Press, but 401 times on the program does make him The Dean. And more times than not, he was the voice of rationality in the face of stupidity [example: rebutting Robert Novak].

Secondly, NPR and public funding. As Ms. Norris defended, it about more than just NPR, PBS and Sesame Street and all the other information services where in some areas of the country it is the only source of information. Yes, those areas she's referring to are... you guessed it... the poorest areas of the country. James O'Keefe got his 'gotcha' moment, and it in the end it means nothing because it was only destructive, not constructive in any way, which relegates him to being part of the problem and not the solution. NPR should continue to be funded.

3.6.11: Michelle Bachmann is Anti-American... There, We Said It.

Sterns, Benton, Washington, Anoka, Wright, and Sherburne. You might think that this is some high-powered law firm, sure sounds like it. But what these names comprise are the six counties that make of the 6th Congressional district of Minnesota. In all the sound bites over the last two years, It's a district that never gets mentioned by its representative, Michelle Bachmann. Seriously, we never heard her talk about her own district. And the reason we mention this because given some of her statements, it makes you wonder what the people in those counties are thinking.

Interestingly, Ms. Bachmann, dubbed the leader of the Tea Party [Republican] caucus in the House, said that the Tea Party was a broad-based coalition. However, how can a 'broad-based' coalition have such very narrow views? A real leader of a broad coalition would not refer to her own President as a gangster as she did not back down on her 'gangster government' statement when pressed by David Gregory. She further explained that the actions of the administration are corrupt, and referred to a specific $105 billion appropriation in last year's health care bill.

Today's first, and exclusive, guest Chief of Staff William Daley said that the health care reform would say over one trillion dollars of the next twenty years, to which Mr. Gregory dismissed as a perspective of accounting, but when Ms. Bachmann answer the first handful of questions with the same answer - $105 billion - he didn't confront her on that. And by not acknowledging her 105 billion point, it shows the he doesn't take her 'facts' seriously, so why should we? If you read this column then you'll know that we don't carry that much water for Mr. Gregory, but you get the point. [For the record, we do believe Mr. Greogory was the best NBC choice for Meet The Press.]

Ms. Bachmann's views are so narrow and her criticism of the Administration closed in perspective that she can not even see that when she says that, for example, on Libya we need to listen to General Petraeus. While Mr. Daley just said in the prior interview that to go in and use military force (a no-fly zone) simply doesn't understand the full risks of that. Why would the White House Chief of Staff say that if the Administration hadn't consulted with the Joint Chiefs of the Military. But Michelle Bachmann is convinced that President Barack Obama has anti-American views so no support for the President is acceptable in any form.

While we agree with Mr. Daley with regard to the extreme caution in considering any military involvement, naval blockades whatever, and the freezing of $30 billion of Gaddafi's assets, we agree with David Brooks today when he said that the Administration should have articulated the country's principles more clearly and with much more affirmation. Let's face it, that the President said this week that Colonel Gaddafi has to leave, is pretty weak when he should be out front of other countries, leading the dialogue.

Also, we find it funny that Mr. Daley said that no one wants a government shutdown, but that's exactly what we're going to get if the Republicans follow Ms. Bachmann's lead on the debt ceiling and the impending need for an increase. Ms. Bachmann approaches this problem solely in ideological terms without considering the greater repercussions of that vote. And where Mr. Daley said he wouldn't presume to speculate as to whether the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, can control his caucus, but we will. The debt ceiling debate and impending vote is whether any civility between establishment Republicans and the Tea Party Republican caucus breaks down with the potential of the wheels coming completely off. Mr. Boehner knows that the United States should not default on its debt payments, which is what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised. A double dip on the recession would become real.

Ms. Bachmann, in a clip shown during the program, asked whether America would endure and she answered that she didn't think so. When Mr. Gregory asked for clarification on this, Ms. Bachmann explained that our debt has national security implications. Well, if that broad generalized statement is true, imagine what defaulting on that debt would do.

We could go on like this ad nauseum but to what end? Some good advice for Ms. Bachmann would be to not harp on a problem if you don't bring a solution to it with you. Ms. Bachmann has no solutions, or at the very least we wouldn't know because she never focuses her energy in that way, and that's not the American attitude. Americans are problem solvers. You're either part of the solution, part of the problem, or part of the landscape as Robert DeNiro once said. So until Ms. Bachmann can start offering solutions, she'll always be on the sideline and never in the game.

2.27.11: Scott Walker... Skywalker he is not.

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.

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!

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.