Forty-eight hours before the Iowa Caucuses and Senator Rick Santorum is certainly measuring up in the Iowa polls sitting at 16 percent, and as David Brooks said today, he's definitely a better politician than he was when he lost his bid for Senatorial re-election in Pennsylvania. Mr. Santorum is finally getting his moment and the timing couldn't be better, but as Chuck Todd implored at the top of the program, he has to close the deal. The good news for Mr. Santorum is that in Iowa, since they are caucuses, you have the opportunity to do that.
With all that said, Mitt Romney is still at the top with 24% and Ron Paul sitting at 22 percent. Mr. Todd posed the question - is the Iowa Caucus going to be about who is most electable or who is the most consistent of a conservative. We tend to believe that it will indeed be a bit of both. Mr. Santorum will make the case well enough to finish second, and Ron Paul will disappoint because the swing isn't his way and he'll lose out big time with anyone who is outside his core hard core supporters. And for Newt Gingrich, there's no crying in Presidential politics. His weepy moment will not win the sympathy vote, and people never vote out of sympathy unless they're suckers. Rick Perry will be a wild card, but you have to conclude that Mr. Perry just doesn't bring enough substance to the table, even for Iowa evangelicals. We're not all too bold on predictions, but like we said, it is about a bit of both.
Mitt Romney is still not completely trustworthy among the Republican electorate as far as conservative credentials are concerned and will get the scare that Mark Halperin mentioned. If Rick Santorum does come in second and we were advising him, we'd high-tail it to New Hampshire for some campaign stops, give a speech in South Carolina on Thursday night and then get back on the stump in New Hampshire by Friday morning. To keep the momentum going, he has be top of mind in New Hampshire, but play hard for South Carolina where the conservatives will out-conservative the Iowa caucus.
And though, Mr. Santorum seemed to muddle his pro-life answer a bit on abortion exceptions, we agree with Mike Murphy that it will not damage his conservative position. However, what we found very newsworthy were his answers in terms of foreign policy, specifically with regard to Iran.
After saying that 'Iran will not have nuclear weapons on my watch,' and then pressed further by Mr. Gregory proposing air strikes, Mr. Santorum said yes. That's live from Iowa - essentially he issued a declaration of war against Iran. Make no mistake, attacking another country is a declaration of war, and if through legalise our system decides that it's not, it will most certainly be viewed as one by the Iranians. Mr. Santorum's foreign policy view reflects one that is religiously ideological in nature, at least when it comes the the Middle East. There can never be peace if the problems are only trying to be solved with such a narrow prism of options.
Mr. Santorum confirmed this position with his contradictory answer on Egypt and its revolution. He criticized the President for his lack of support of the Green Revolution in 2009 inside Iran and then his 'support' for the Muslim Brotherhood in taking control in Egypt following that country's successful revolution. And, in fact, Mr. Gregory called him on this, but the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically election in Egypt and if we support democracy we have to respect the outcomes of other countries' elections. However, based on ideology, Mr. Santorum disagrees. It just doesn't strike us as shrewd diplomacy, and frankly, it's reckless. In his five-point plan on how to deal with Iran, four of the five are what we are current doing, working with Israel and executing convert missions, but that fifth one makes a big, dangerous difference.
Mr. Santorum sees the Iowa Caucus this way - as three separate voter choices between the conservatives, the libertarians, and the establishment respectively. Regardless of that, the overriding message is that President Obama doesn't measure up as a leader, as the individual better suited than the eventual Republican nominee to guide the United States of America. This is the message that Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn repeated throughout his appearance (as he should if he's doing his job). Mr. Santorum tried to stay away from answering in terms of the other candidates in his interview segment, trying to focus on the President. This despite (unfortunately for him now) his 2008 endorsement of Mr. Romney as President, which definitely hurts his longevity in the race.
Mr. Gregory pointed to today's New York Times front page, on which it said that the Obama Campaign will focus its attacks on the Republicans in the House. This just says to us that The White House is going to essentially carry the campaign load for all Democrats in Congress, given the minority in the House and the weak majority in the Senate. They're certainly not measuring up with their overall approval rating in the dumpster, the Obama campaign sees this as its opportunity to make their case, which they definitely need to continue to make if Mr. Obama hopes to be re-elected.
Eventually, he'll have to run against someone, and by all indications, that some one looks to be Mitt Romney, despite his shortcomings as a Republican primary candidate. The question is, how far right will he have to end up going [and in essence the question the Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich posed with regard to how the Iowa Caucuses are viewed nationally] to survive and win in Iowa.
In this new year's infancy, we going to quickly see who's going to measure up.
Rountable: the Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich, GOP strategist Mike Murphy, the New York Times’ David Brooks, Time’s Mark Halperin, and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.
Postscript: We found Mr. Santorum's dig at Chicago politics amusing when he likened the Egyptian election results to the way political outcomes occur in Chicago, seemingly what ever the vote. Not only is that now overblown as compared to other cities around the country, but as any sort of campaign tool to use against your Chicago-based opponent it's worthless.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Sunday, December 11, 2011
12.11.11: Bain Capital Moments
It's very attractive to Americans, the notion of this country being more neutral and withdrawn when it comes to foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East specifically with the Israelis and the Palestinians as Congressman Ron Paul would like. There is some wisdom there in his notions on foreign policy. However, with many of Ron Paul's ideas, they do not address the practicality of the situation. For a multitude of reasons, both practical and political, the United States can not withdrawal from the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians such as the aid that we give and the lobbyists who fight for it to security on the ground meaning our presence in the region as a strategic deterrent to Iran. On the question of whether we should reduce on military presence around the world, we would agree with the Congressman, as we've stated before, but that's as far as it goes.
Congressman Paul not only wants an isolationist government in regard to foreign policy but also on domestic policy with the elimination of agencies such as education, energy, and the EPA. His overall proposition does play well with a devoted following but in a general election, how well does he do? Not very well.
Yet, there is something to be said for consistent positions. Six months ago we agreed and disagreed respectively with the same positions held by Congressman Paul's as we do today. This is unlike, as Mr. Paul accurately pointed out, Governor Mitt Romney and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who Ron Paul characterized as being from the same mold in terms of policy and the inconsistency of their respective positions. It's all in the nuance for these two.
There's an evident callousness on the part of both men for those who have less. On the part of Mr. Gingrich who believes that it's a good idea to put children in inner-city schools to work as the janitors of those schools, or when he said that the Palestinians were essentially an invented people. In the case of Mr. Romney, the $10,000 bet he attempted to make with Rick Perry during the debate last night. In fact, in the case of Mitt Romney, we'll call that a Bain Capital Moment. These moments are the reason, beside sadly his religious faith, that Republican primary voters have a distaste for the former Massachusetts Governor.
Try to disregard alone that fact of how odd it was that one of the candidates tried to make a wager with another during a debate. What really strikes a reaction is the amount. Another Bain Capital Moment would be when Mr. Romney called the pay roll tax cut a little band aid. "Corporations are people" would be another excellent candidate. And of course, there is the flattering photo of him and his associates at the firm.
On being from the same mold, Mr. Paul also explained that both these candidates are constantly on the defensive, which is true and doesn't bode well for either. Defensive positions are reactions and it will be difficult for either candidate to mount an ultimately successful campaign when in that position.
And before we get into the joint interview with Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), we'd like to comment on another politician who appeared on the program, Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA). Governor Branstad has appeared on Meet The Press before and he's a particular politician, from our perspective, that we'd like to forget. When Governors, in particular, consistently speak with such partisan rhetoric, it's disappointing whether it be from a Republican or Democrat. It gives a sense that this 'domestic general on the ground' isn't understanding or caring about the reality of the condition of the state. For Governor Branstad's part, he invoked Ronald Reagan as his conservative role model and inspiration, yet Ronald Reagan's positions when presented today are flatly rejected by today's conservative base of which the governor is a part. And as we've seen in Ohio and Wisconsin, when this one-sided partisan rhetoric is actually employed, it doesn't go well. It's a lack of seeing the totality of the situation.
This is something Senators have the opportunity to do as well - look at a problem from all sides and come up with a reasonable compromise that all sides can live with. However, it takes all of thirty seconds to realize that one will not see a compromise between the two players. Mr. Graham immediately blamed a failed presidency that has divided the nation, and held back economic growth. For his part, Senator Durbin spent his air time defending the President's policies in rote. Granted, given the amount of time, it may be difficult to get to an issue where the parties agree, but jeez...
The Consumer Protection Agency exists, and it needs a commissioner. Republican Senators should not block hearings because they simply don't want the agency and are just taking the ball and going home. Mr. Graham misspoke when he said that the commissioner's policies would have no oversight. Mr. Cordray, if he were commissioner, would not be able to make policy, just enforce the laws that Congress passes. To say this seems like an abdication of responsibility, just as when Mr. Graham said that to achieve economic equality, we need to just grow, which is essentially the message that the market should take care of itself.
Senator Durbin called the payroll tax cut a 'make or break' moment for the middle class. If Republicans don't vote for it, it shows that they will cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and not for the middle class. Republicans require that it be paid for but not by a millionaire surtax imposed on money after the first million dollars as the Democrats want. If the sides can not come together, they have to find another place from which to take the money. This is where the Senate could excel, but they are unable. There are so many ways in which to do it, but the janitors shouldn't be fired and replaced with their kids.
Congressman Paul not only wants an isolationist government in regard to foreign policy but also on domestic policy with the elimination of agencies such as education, energy, and the EPA. His overall proposition does play well with a devoted following but in a general election, how well does he do? Not very well.
Yet, there is something to be said for consistent positions. Six months ago we agreed and disagreed respectively with the same positions held by Congressman Paul's as we do today. This is unlike, as Mr. Paul accurately pointed out, Governor Mitt Romney and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who Ron Paul characterized as being from the same mold in terms of policy and the inconsistency of their respective positions. It's all in the nuance for these two.
There's an evident callousness on the part of both men for those who have less. On the part of Mr. Gingrich who believes that it's a good idea to put children in inner-city schools to work as the janitors of those schools, or when he said that the Palestinians were essentially an invented people. In the case of Mr. Romney, the $10,000 bet he attempted to make with Rick Perry during the debate last night. In fact, in the case of Mitt Romney, we'll call that a Bain Capital Moment. These moments are the reason, beside sadly his religious faith, that Republican primary voters have a distaste for the former Massachusetts Governor.
Try to disregard alone that fact of how odd it was that one of the candidates tried to make a wager with another during a debate. What really strikes a reaction is the amount. Another Bain Capital Moment would be when Mr. Romney called the pay roll tax cut a little band aid. "Corporations are people" would be another excellent candidate. And of course, there is the flattering photo of him and his associates at the firm.
On being from the same mold, Mr. Paul also explained that both these candidates are constantly on the defensive, which is true and doesn't bode well for either. Defensive positions are reactions and it will be difficult for either candidate to mount an ultimately successful campaign when in that position.And before we get into the joint interview with Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), we'd like to comment on another politician who appeared on the program, Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA). Governor Branstad has appeared on Meet The Press before and he's a particular politician, from our perspective, that we'd like to forget. When Governors, in particular, consistently speak with such partisan rhetoric, it's disappointing whether it be from a Republican or Democrat. It gives a sense that this 'domestic general on the ground' isn't understanding or caring about the reality of the condition of the state. For Governor Branstad's part, he invoked Ronald Reagan as his conservative role model and inspiration, yet Ronald Reagan's positions when presented today are flatly rejected by today's conservative base of which the governor is a part. And as we've seen in Ohio and Wisconsin, when this one-sided partisan rhetoric is actually employed, it doesn't go well. It's a lack of seeing the totality of the situation.
This is something Senators have the opportunity to do as well - look at a problem from all sides and come up with a reasonable compromise that all sides can live with. However, it takes all of thirty seconds to realize that one will not see a compromise between the two players. Mr. Graham immediately blamed a failed presidency that has divided the nation, and held back economic growth. For his part, Senator Durbin spent his air time defending the President's policies in rote. Granted, given the amount of time, it may be difficult to get to an issue where the parties agree, but jeez...
The Consumer Protection Agency exists, and it needs a commissioner. Republican Senators should not block hearings because they simply don't want the agency and are just taking the ball and going home. Mr. Graham misspoke when he said that the commissioner's policies would have no oversight. Mr. Cordray, if he were commissioner, would not be able to make policy, just enforce the laws that Congress passes. To say this seems like an abdication of responsibility, just as when Mr. Graham said that to achieve economic equality, we need to just grow, which is essentially the message that the market should take care of itself.
Senator Durbin called the payroll tax cut a 'make or break' moment for the middle class. If Republicans don't vote for it, it shows that they will cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and not for the middle class. Republicans require that it be paid for but not by a millionaire surtax imposed on money after the first million dollars as the Democrats want. If the sides can not come together, they have to find another place from which to take the money. This is where the Senate could excel, but they are unable. There are so many ways in which to do it, but the janitors shouldn't be fired and replaced with their kids.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
11.20.11: The No-So Supers…
The not so super Congressional Super Committee has a deadline of tomorrow morning to put its proposal for deficit reduction in front of Congress, and the initial question is if the respective Republicans and Democrats will come to an agreement. Senator Kyl’s answer is that hope spring eternal, but this is no consolation or even acceptable as an answer in discussing the committee’s goals. The committee has neither achieved tax reform nor entitlement reform, and went on to explain that we would need to grow our way out of deficit spending and not tax ourselves out of deficit spending. This is in response to David Gregory’s assertion that the Bush Tax Cuts are going to add $3.7 Trillion dollars to the national debt and that most economists – Republican and Democrat recommend that they expire. Mr. Kyl was unfazed by this and went on to explain that we would increase revenue to the government by reforming the tax code. The problem with this is that Republicans want to reform the tax code by eliminating loops holes for corporations, but then also lower the overall tax rate, which becomes a wash – the lower rate offsets any gains that closing the loopholes offered. What he didn’t mention is that the lower tax rate would apply to everyone, “broadening the base,” which would levy taxes on families and individuals who have just enough income to meet monthly obligations, in other words the working poor.
For this opening segment, Senators Kyl and Kerry were introduced together but Mr. Gregory interviewed Mr. Kyl first while Mr. Kerry sat by. Then when Mr. Gregory interviewed Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kyl had left the set. Who set that parameter? The public needs to see and hear some of this debate, which was denied by this format. There was exchange at all, and this seems the typical way of Washington – deny listening opportunities. I’ll say what I have to and then you do the say and neither have to listen to the other.
Mr. Kerry explained in his segment that there are two things holding up any agreement that would cut $1.7 trillion dollars from the budget. One is that Republicans want to wait for the 2012 election so that they can take control and then implement their full agenda without Democratic opposition. Secondly, they will not let the Bush tax cuts expire and are subservient to Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes.
The entire point of the super committee was so that both sides would have to share in some sacrifice, and that if the committee could not come to an agreement automatic spending cuts would be implemented. For the Republicans, those cuts would effect defense spending. On this point, Secretary Panetta was cited that the cuts to defense would effect our national security. When Mr. Gregory confronted Mr. Kyl with this reality, The Arizona Senator eluded that they would try to work around it. Later in the segment, Senator Kerry took exception to this. This should have been a major point of the discussion, but today’s interview format did not allow for it – a mistake by the producers and the moderator.
Where we stand is that the Republicans won’t give in on the most major one demand that the Democrats have, which is to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire and given this, it has become all too easy for Democrats to blame Republicans of intransience. The end result is nothing will get done. To watch these two individuals just makes one bubble with frustration. The inability of the Senators of Rome caused its demise. We, the United States, are no better than Greece or Italy at this moment. The only difference is that we know the cash exists in the United States where it is nonexistent in these countries.
One last note on this dual interview and it’s something that Senator Kyl said that we take exception to. With regard to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Mr. Kyl said that these people didn’t understand the free market and how it works. This is clearly not true, but it does illustrate how out of touch Mr. Kyl and many of his party colleagues are in understanding the hardships of a shrinking middle class. With that said, we have to admit that after two months, the movement doesn’t have a clear message and they only have themselves to blame.
Speaking of only having yourself to blame, this is the Republican electorate given that their frontrunner for the nomination this week is Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, described by Dee Dee Meyers during today’s panel as a political sociopath – something that no one else on the panel could really dispute. Mr. Gingrich has clearly shown that he will take any position that is politically expedient. Republican strategist Mike Murphy demurred simply saying that he would be surprised if Mr. Gingrich is the nominee.
It’s simply another illustration of how the Republican party is completely dissatisfied with their respective candidates. Herman Cain can not answer a questions on foreign policy then claimed his is there to “lead and not to read.” After that statement, there is no way to take him seriously. Governor Rick Perry, who Eugene Robinson thought still has a shot to unseat Mitt Romney as the favorite, is consistent, but consistently nonsensical in his answers. And as for Mr. Romney, conservatives just don’t believe in him. They would be right to say he’s not a true conservative. In a way, he’s like Newt Gingrich in that he’ll say what ever is most politically expedient, what ever answer it takes to get elected, Mitt Romney can be counted on for that answer.
Round Table: Democratic Strategist Dee Dee Meyers, Republican Strategist Mike Murphy, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, and former RNC Chairman, Ed Gillespie
Last thought: Statistic of Note (from today’s program) – Over the past thirty years, the richest 1%’s income has gone up 300 percent, while the middle class’ income has only increased 18 percent. Trickle down economics has worked if a trickle is all you’re trying to achieve.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
11.13.11: The Bystander Effect
David Brooks talked about the "Bystander Effect" in reference to the Penn State tragedy, and make no mistake, it is a tragedy. Mr. Brooks explained that study after study has shown that most people would just as soon as walk away or ignore criminality than do something to intervene. E.J. Dionne begged to differ with his colleague, but unfortunately David Brooks is correct and most would do nothing.
It is in an instant where the bystander effect appears. However, it is also that instant that produces heroes. In the case of Penn State, Mike McQuery - the assistant coach who witnessed and didn't stop Jerry Sandusky from sodomizing a boy in the shower - is no hero. In that moment, he could have done the right thing, he had the means. Mr. McQuery is a former Penn State quarterback - 6'5"/220. He's not a criminal, but he's no hero, something that has been sorely missed through out this entire investigation. And Mr. Paterno isn't one either, deserved to be fired and is too senile to understand that in trying to protect his legacy and his job, every moral fortitude he said he tried to instill in his players was never a factor in his own conduct. Many victims and no heroes define a tragedy. Today's first guest, Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA), didn't know if there were more victims, but there most certainly are - how could there not be when considering loved ones and family members.
Speaking of a bystander, Michele Bachmann was the latest on the "Meet The Candidate" series, and the reason for this designator is her answer on torture. She would reinstate it by allowing interrogators to use water boarding, which is in fact torture.
Congresswoman Bachmann said that the Penn State tragedy should start a national dialogue. On what? Morality? It's difficult to have that discussion with someone who has no moral dilemma when it comes to torturing people. Also, in being another candidate who would 'listen to the generals on the ground" when it comes to foreign policy, she won't listen to them when it comes to their collective opposition to water boarding.
Ms. Bachmann went on to explain to the key to winning the 'war on terror' comes in the form of interrogation, and that Mr. President is almost trying to lose the battle because of his lack of use of this torturing. It is exactly why we may be winning the war on Al Qaeda - because we're not using water boarding. What Michele Bachmann doesn't understand is that by not using torture, our moral compass in the view of the world has a better perception while we are in the midst of sending out more predator drones.
She then switched to the real right-wing fear mongering and pandering rhetoric, saying the the A.C.L.U. is running CIA, and that we have no prison for Al Qaeda terrorists refusing to acknowledge Mr. Gregory's reminder of the Guantanamo Bay Prison. She said that President Obama is 'losing the peace' in Iraq and that the Iraqis should pay back the United States the $800 billion it spend on the war and should also pay back the families of fallen soldiers.
But how about the 10's of thousands of Iraqi citizens killed in the war? What amount the millions who were displaced to other countries because of the war? What about the $9 billion dollars in cash the Secretary Rumsfeld lost, yes lost, in Baghdad?
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked the Congresswoman if it were a disqualifier for Herman Cain as a candidate if the sexual assault allegations turn out to be true, and her response was telling. She said it is up to the voters. Well, if those allegations are proven, then it's not up to the voters, it's up to the law, and in fact is a disqualifier. In this moment, Ms. Bachmann could have stood up in the face of a popular candidate (Mr. Cain), as she does when it comes to Mitt Romney's flip-flopping, and taken the right stand. By not doing it, she is suffering from the bystander effect.
Guests: Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, GOP candidate Representative Michele Bachmann, DNC Chair Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, roundtable with David Brooks and E.J. Dionne.
Post Script:
During the interview with Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), the congresswoman had a tough time defending President Obama's economic policy. And remember she is also the DNC chairperson. She pleaded the case that it's Republican obstruction that it causing the economy stagnate, outlined the job growth for the last 20 months versus the massive job losses prior.
So why do we say that she had a tough time - two reasons. One, the congresswoman did not possess a compelling answer for the mother of all political questions, are we better off than we were four years ago. She said the 'President's fighting,' Well everyone's 'fighting' right now literally and figuratively in this country so if the President wants to cut through the clutter, his DNC chair needs a list of accomplishments because Americans really like it when they see the government getting something done.
Secondly, the debt is blowing up and we're still at 41% deficit spending during this administration year over year with employment figures at 9%. Her rebuttal was that the debt needs to be reduced in a responsible way, but it would be more responsible to always have your budget in line, which frankly the Obama Administration does not.
One More Thing...
E.J. Dionne used the great word 'bellicose' in describing Mitt Romney's rhetoric on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr. Romney said during the second of two Republican debates this week that under President Obama's leadership, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, while under a Romney Administration they would not. We get it, it's a sexy Republican position to be rhetorically hard on Iran's nukes and threaten military action - a bad idea by the way. Another word should be added which was noted in the first debate - pandering. Jon Huntsmann said that Mitt Romney's economic stance on China was pandering, and with regard to Iran, his comments are just more of the same. It's not like when he's sitting in the White House and then Iran does indeed get nukes, he can just say, "Oops."
It is in an instant where the bystander effect appears. However, it is also that instant that produces heroes. In the case of Penn State, Mike McQuery - the assistant coach who witnessed and didn't stop Jerry Sandusky from sodomizing a boy in the shower - is no hero. In that moment, he could have done the right thing, he had the means. Mr. McQuery is a former Penn State quarterback - 6'5"/220. He's not a criminal, but he's no hero, something that has been sorely missed through out this entire investigation. And Mr. Paterno isn't one either, deserved to be fired and is too senile to understand that in trying to protect his legacy and his job, every moral fortitude he said he tried to instill in his players was never a factor in his own conduct. Many victims and no heroes define a tragedy. Today's first guest, Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA), didn't know if there were more victims, but there most certainly are - how could there not be when considering loved ones and family members.
Speaking of a bystander, Michele Bachmann was the latest on the "Meet The Candidate" series, and the reason for this designator is her answer on torture. She would reinstate it by allowing interrogators to use water boarding, which is in fact torture.
Congresswoman Bachmann said that the Penn State tragedy should start a national dialogue. On what? Morality? It's difficult to have that discussion with someone who has no moral dilemma when it comes to torturing people. Also, in being another candidate who would 'listen to the generals on the ground" when it comes to foreign policy, she won't listen to them when it comes to their collective opposition to water boarding.
Ms. Bachmann went on to explain to the key to winning the 'war on terror' comes in the form of interrogation, and that Mr. President is almost trying to lose the battle because of his lack of use of this torturing. It is exactly why we may be winning the war on Al Qaeda - because we're not using water boarding. What Michele Bachmann doesn't understand is that by not using torture, our moral compass in the view of the world has a better perception while we are in the midst of sending out more predator drones.
She then switched to the real right-wing fear mongering and pandering rhetoric, saying the the A.C.L.U. is running CIA, and that we have no prison for Al Qaeda terrorists refusing to acknowledge Mr. Gregory's reminder of the Guantanamo Bay Prison. She said that President Obama is 'losing the peace' in Iraq and that the Iraqis should pay back the United States the $800 billion it spend on the war and should also pay back the families of fallen soldiers.
But how about the 10's of thousands of Iraqi citizens killed in the war? What amount the millions who were displaced to other countries because of the war? What about the $9 billion dollars in cash the Secretary Rumsfeld lost, yes lost, in Baghdad?
Lastly, Mr. Gregory asked the Congresswoman if it were a disqualifier for Herman Cain as a candidate if the sexual assault allegations turn out to be true, and her response was telling. She said it is up to the voters. Well, if those allegations are proven, then it's not up to the voters, it's up to the law, and in fact is a disqualifier. In this moment, Ms. Bachmann could have stood up in the face of a popular candidate (Mr. Cain), as she does when it comes to Mitt Romney's flip-flopping, and taken the right stand. By not doing it, she is suffering from the bystander effect.
Guests: Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, GOP candidate Representative Michele Bachmann, DNC Chair Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, roundtable with David Brooks and E.J. Dionne.
Post Script:
During the interview with Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), the congresswoman had a tough time defending President Obama's economic policy. And remember she is also the DNC chairperson. She pleaded the case that it's Republican obstruction that it causing the economy stagnate, outlined the job growth for the last 20 months versus the massive job losses prior.
So why do we say that she had a tough time - two reasons. One, the congresswoman did not possess a compelling answer for the mother of all political questions, are we better off than we were four years ago. She said the 'President's fighting,' Well everyone's 'fighting' right now literally and figuratively in this country so if the President wants to cut through the clutter, his DNC chair needs a list of accomplishments because Americans really like it when they see the government getting something done.
Secondly, the debt is blowing up and we're still at 41% deficit spending during this administration year over year with employment figures at 9%. Her rebuttal was that the debt needs to be reduced in a responsible way, but it would be more responsible to always have your budget in line, which frankly the Obama Administration does not.
One More Thing...
E.J. Dionne used the great word 'bellicose' in describing Mitt Romney's rhetoric on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Mr. Romney said during the second of two Republican debates this week that under President Obama's leadership, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, while under a Romney Administration they would not. We get it, it's a sexy Republican position to be rhetorically hard on Iran's nukes and threaten military action - a bad idea by the way. Another word should be added which was noted in the first debate - pandering. Jon Huntsmann said that Mitt Romney's economic stance on China was pandering, and with regard to Iran, his comments are just more of the same. It's not like when he's sitting in the White House and then Iran does indeed get nukes, he can just say, "Oops."
Monday, November 07, 2011
11.6.11: A Bridge Too Far
Today’s blog title doesn’t come from the show directly but from a clip of Representative Darrel Issa (R-CA) that Mr. Gregory highlighted. In the clip, Mr. Issa explained that when he first ran for office, his challenge was going from the business world to Congress. He went on to say that in the case of Mr. Herman Cain and his candidacy for President, going from business man to the Presidency is a ‘bridge too far.”
However, as Chris Matthews pointed out, Mr. Cain is exactly what conservatives are looking for – a southern business man. This is where Republicans have government horribly wrong – the United States government should not, repeat should not, be run like a business. A government is not in the business of profit, it is in the business of the general welfare of its people. Should we be running huge deficits? Of course not, but Republicans seem to conveniently forget that it was Vice President Dick Cheney who said that deficits don’t matter.
Mr. Cain, with all due respect to his business acumen, is not Presidential material. The sexual harassment allegations swirling around his campaign aside for a moment, in an interview this week Mr. Cain talked about China aspiring to have nuclear weapons. The layman that writes this column has known that China has had nuclear weapons since 1964 so how could a Presidential candidate not know this. To quote Mr. Matthews, “it’s like he hasn’t read newspapers for the last 50 years.” To use a Hillary Clinton metaphor, if Mr. Cain were the President, that 3am phone call would go to voicemail. Mr. Cain as President is a bridge too far.
Also, that he would scold the news media, attempting to put the blame on them, for these sexual assault allegations is cowardice and irresponsible. Is this man not willing to take responsibility for his actions. Governor Haley Barbour on today’s program said that this smelled of what Judge Clarence Thomas went through with his confirmation hearing, explaining that if Herman Cain weren’t running for President, these allegations wouldn’t matter. But the fact is that he is running for President, and he needs to be vetted like everyone else. Because Mr. Cain doesn’t want to answer such questions, doesn’t mean they will stop coming. The long he delays in getting the facts out, the more amount of people will start digging, and dig deep they will, and should. Mr. Matthews described Herman Cain as the most confident man he’s ever seen in politics. We would amend that to be the most arrogant, evidenced by his campaign staff e-mailing the journalism code of ethics to Politico as pointed out by senior reporter Maggie Haberman.
Also a bridge too far is the personhood amendment being pushed by the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. Never in the forty years since the Roe vs. Wade decision, has women’s rights in this country been under such assault – life beginning at fertilization is a ridiculous notion. Mr. Barbour said he’s not a physician and not a theologian, but… and that’s where he should stop. It implies that theology, counter to what it says in the First Amendment of the Constitution, should be taken into consideration when making law in this country. Forget about health care mandates for a moment, these actions by Republicans, if based on the majority of the party’s faith is unconstitutional. Governor Bill Richardson is correct that this is dangerous action.
Presidential candidate who appear on the program as part of the "Meet the Candidate" series, said that fertilization goes too far, though he is pro-life with, as he explained, a few exceptions in the case of rape or incest. Throughout the interview, this column couldn't help thinking that if the Republican Party weren't so far to the right, Jon Huntsman could be the nominee. He has the approach that would draw in independent voters, especially when he says that we can not run away from mainstream science in particular on climate change.
However, Mr. Huntsman has his flaws as well, specifically on health care, which Mr. Gregory pointed out that previously the candidate said that mandates had to be worked in some way as part of the solution of reforming health care, but now he is firmly against them. We can not really hold Jon Huntsman's feet too hard to the fire on health care as every candidate and the President have had changing views on health care. It's the most complex issue that we have domestically and unless the two sides can meet in the middle, there will be no solution - too far left or too far right won't work.
With that said, the one person who is disqualified on this issue is Mitt Romney because he implemented a policy as governor of Massachusetts that works, and instead of defending the policy and explaining it thoroughly, he ran away from his original position. This has become a bad trend on many issues for the candidate. And in relation to Mr. Romney, David Gregory asked Mr. Huntsman about his Mormon and if America was ready for a Mormon President. Mr. Huntsman said that America has moved beyond religion in this election cycle.
This is naivete reminiscent of President Obama on race. There are those in the Republican party who will fight with everything they have to make sure the Republican nominee is of Christian faith, where the base of the party is firmly entrenched. One could say that the ever-changing positions of Mitt Romney are the cause for his poll numbers never really rising above 30% amongst Republican voters, but make no mistake, his Mormon faith plays a big role. It's why he won't win the Iowa Caucus. It doesn't draw confidence from the base, and it sours any potential conservative allies.
Speaking of friends, apparently President Obama doesn't have any, and it's hurting his chances for reelection. Some of the time, we look at this Republican field and think that President Obama's chances for reelection are great, but then we here a panel discussion such as this and then we think, maybe not so much. In particular, Chris Matthews pointed out that the President hasn't formed the close bonds that help a President muscle through tough legislative situations, people who willing to drop everything else to fight for him. He has many endorsers/advocates but not political warriors. Mr. Matthews cited his new book on President Kennedy as a key example of a President who could commandere such loyalty. Everyone on the panel agreed that since President Obama has been taking his American Jobs Act to the American people, there haven't been any Democratic politicians willing to stand with him. "There are more Clinton people out there then there are Obama people," Mr. Matthews said. In essence, Mr. Obama hasn't instilled fear in his opponents, he hasn't in fact bridged the apparent gap between his stand and where the others are standing.
Round Table: Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Kim Strassel, Senior Political Reporter for Politico, Maggie Haberman and author of the new book "Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero," and host of MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews.
Last Note: This Sunday was Meet The Press's 67th Anniversary - the longest running television program in history. The genius to make this the first show - putting our leaders on the spot and having them be accountable for their actions - is the reason why this column exists.
Happy Anniversary.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
10.23.11: Iraq and Beyond War
Secretary Clinton said that Iraq is taking care of it's own security and that President Obama is following a withdrawal timetable that was set by the Bush administration. That timetable for withdrawal concludes at the end of this year. She also said that President Obama has passed the '3 am phone call test' with flying colors, but Republicans are not convinced and have criticized the administration saying that security in country and Iranian influence still pose a great threat.
The reality is that there is still the prospect of sectarian violence in Iraq and as any laymen knows, Iran's influence in Iraq is real in history, the present, and will be in the future. Neighboring countries have relationships and it will always be that way, whether the United States government approves of those relationships or not. It's denying a reality that will be present whether the United States military is in country for the next two months or the next two decades. It's also silly to think that the United States will ultimately determine the relationship between the different sects inside Iraq or the relationship between the Shia of Iraq and their religious brethren in Iran.
The Republican candidates throughout the debates and their respective campaign stops have advocated that government should get out of the way in people's lives - let people help themselves and to determine their own success. Why shouldn't that apply to the rest of the world? There's a large amount of naivete in that question, and you could dismiss it because there remains the grave threat to the security of the United States. However, as Secretary Clinton pointed out, the United States still maintains a significant presence in the region, and at some point we must the United States must move beyond Iraq and perpetual war.
Cynically, our military industrial complex will remain in tact as we are training and supporting the Iraqi military as they are buying our military equipment. Our role as the biggest arms dealer in the world remains in tact as we pull troops out of country. On the other hand, as the Madam Secretary pointed out, we've paid too high a price to not let Iraq go forward with democracy - their own democracy. And that price - 823 billion dollars and 4,500 American lives lost, over 35,000 injured.
You just can't have it both ways. Democracy on our terms isn't democracy and as Iraq decides its own fate, we have live with the consequences of our actions and their decisions. It's time to get out. Actually, the time to get out has passed as we should have been out sooner.
Mrs. Clinton said that she is out of politics, is not talking about it and doesn't want to look back. All of this was in response to Mr. Gregory's question as to whether or not she regretted her vote on the Iraq war. What is always painfully obvious, and this time was no exception, was that by avoiding the question, the answer was obviously yes. She does regret her vote and she can not admit that, which in essence makes it a political answer.
Mr. Gregory's more important question was if the Iraq war was worth it? Secretary Clinton stated that we'll have to wait a long time to find out. As nebulous as this answer is, it's correct, but the time that we have to wait can only begin when we leave the country.
Now according to Presidential candidate Ron Paul, who appeared on the program today, 15,000 troops at the U.S. embassy in Iraq, the largest embassy we've ever built, is not an exit, and he would be right. These days, unfortunately, leaving 15,000 troops in country constitutes a withdrawal. Dr. Paul's ideal of the role of the U.S. military is where most Americans would like to see the United States, not bogged down in perpetual troop presence in every corner of the world serving as the world's policeman.
However, where most would agree with Dr. Paul's assessment of government withdrawal from people's lives abroad, his views on the student loans, Fannie and Freddie, the Fed, and entitlement programs simply isn't realistic. The draconian cuts that got us out of the great depression that he mentioned is an inaccurate statement. The cuts that Republicans made after Roosevelt instituted the New Deal set the country back on a course of recession, not prosperity. He failed to mention the role of WWII that ultimately forced the United States government to employ the country which in turn lifted the country out of the depression. He went on to explain that taxation is immoral and that tax policy was amended in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like taxation.
With this last statement, can you not see how problematic it is? First, the Founding Fathers did not dislike taxation, more accurately taxation without representation. The Founding Fathers understood that taxes were necessary. More over, we amended the law in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like it? That's about 130 years after the fact. He statement absolutely made no sense. Dr. Paul said there aren't any real differences between the Republican candidates and President Obama when it comes to major policy issues, social issues yes, but not the things that would change the trajectory of the country. This may be true but Ron Paul refuses to recognize that his libertarian ideal would not only leave millions out in the cold, disenfranchised, but also without the means to help themselves.
In his assessments, he separates himself from the other Republican candidates, but as far as providing solutions for all of American, he's just one in the same.
Round Table
NYT’s David Brooks; former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.; former Chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch; and Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent for NBC News, Andrea Mitchell.
The reality is that there is still the prospect of sectarian violence in Iraq and as any laymen knows, Iran's influence in Iraq is real in history, the present, and will be in the future. Neighboring countries have relationships and it will always be that way, whether the United States government approves of those relationships or not. It's denying a reality that will be present whether the United States military is in country for the next two months or the next two decades. It's also silly to think that the United States will ultimately determine the relationship between the different sects inside Iraq or the relationship between the Shia of Iraq and their religious brethren in Iran.
The Republican candidates throughout the debates and their respective campaign stops have advocated that government should get out of the way in people's lives - let people help themselves and to determine their own success. Why shouldn't that apply to the rest of the world? There's a large amount of naivete in that question, and you could dismiss it because there remains the grave threat to the security of the United States. However, as Secretary Clinton pointed out, the United States still maintains a significant presence in the region, and at some point we must the United States must move beyond Iraq and perpetual war.
Cynically, our military industrial complex will remain in tact as we are training and supporting the Iraqi military as they are buying our military equipment. Our role as the biggest arms dealer in the world remains in tact as we pull troops out of country. On the other hand, as the Madam Secretary pointed out, we've paid too high a price to not let Iraq go forward with democracy - their own democracy. And that price - 823 billion dollars and 4,500 American lives lost, over 35,000 injured.
You just can't have it both ways. Democracy on our terms isn't democracy and as Iraq decides its own fate, we have live with the consequences of our actions and their decisions. It's time to get out. Actually, the time to get out has passed as we should have been out sooner.
Mrs. Clinton said that she is out of politics, is not talking about it and doesn't want to look back. All of this was in response to Mr. Gregory's question as to whether or not she regretted her vote on the Iraq war. What is always painfully obvious, and this time was no exception, was that by avoiding the question, the answer was obviously yes. She does regret her vote and she can not admit that, which in essence makes it a political answer.
Mr. Gregory's more important question was if the Iraq war was worth it? Secretary Clinton stated that we'll have to wait a long time to find out. As nebulous as this answer is, it's correct, but the time that we have to wait can only begin when we leave the country.
Now according to Presidential candidate Ron Paul, who appeared on the program today, 15,000 troops at the U.S. embassy in Iraq, the largest embassy we've ever built, is not an exit, and he would be right. These days, unfortunately, leaving 15,000 troops in country constitutes a withdrawal. Dr. Paul's ideal of the role of the U.S. military is where most Americans would like to see the United States, not bogged down in perpetual troop presence in every corner of the world serving as the world's policeman.
However, where most would agree with Dr. Paul's assessment of government withdrawal from people's lives abroad, his views on the student loans, Fannie and Freddie, the Fed, and entitlement programs simply isn't realistic. The draconian cuts that got us out of the great depression that he mentioned is an inaccurate statement. The cuts that Republicans made after Roosevelt instituted the New Deal set the country back on a course of recession, not prosperity. He failed to mention the role of WWII that ultimately forced the United States government to employ the country which in turn lifted the country out of the depression. He went on to explain that taxation is immoral and that tax policy was amended in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like taxation.
With this last statement, can you not see how problematic it is? First, the Founding Fathers did not dislike taxation, more accurately taxation without representation. The Founding Fathers understood that taxes were necessary. More over, we amended the law in 1913 because the Founding Fathers didn't like it? That's about 130 years after the fact. He statement absolutely made no sense. Dr. Paul said there aren't any real differences between the Republican candidates and President Obama when it comes to major policy issues, social issues yes, but not the things that would change the trajectory of the country. This may be true but Ron Paul refuses to recognize that his libertarian ideal would not only leave millions out in the cold, disenfranchised, but also without the means to help themselves.
In his assessments, he separates himself from the other Republican candidates, but as far as providing solutions for all of American, he's just one in the same.
Round Table
NYT’s David Brooks; former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.; former Chairman and CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch; and Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent for NBC News, Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
10.16.11: The Herman Cain Interview
The message is well constructed and it's simple, and the messenger stays on point with it, and that goes a long way. That's why Herman Cain is at the top of the polls for the Republican nomination for President. Many people are taking the line that at least Mr. Cain has a plan, more than can be said for Rick Perry, the governor of Texas.
In today's interview, Mr. Cain's simplistic '9-9-9' tax plan was front and center, and the news is that he admitted that in fact some people would pay more in taxes, while acknowledging that some would certainly pay less. This does go against the grain of what is now standard Republican doctrine in that it raises taxes on people. Grover Norquist is not an advocate for the plan, not because the raised taxes will be on the poor, but because the sales taxes on goods that are not taxed now would be raised.
The inequity of the 9-9-9 plan is easily evident. There are a few echoing complaints about how there are so many people do not pay federal taxes. These complaints remain echoes due to the reason, which is that many people do not make enough money to pay - the working poor. It's precisely this group of the electorate that is hit the hardest by Mr. Cain's plan while the wealthiest Americans will see another overall tax reduction. When the candidates speak of 'broadening the base' in terms of taxes, this is one of those approaches. Broadening the base means having the poorest Americans pay more in taxes.
Speaker John Boehner, quoted by Mr. Gregory, said that tax reform in this political climate would be difficult. To which, Mr. Cain countered that public support and simplicity would cut through the difficulties and his plan will go through. The unfortunate reality for Mr. Cain is that he will need powerful advocates within the beltway to champion his plan. Whether we like it or not, that's how our system works now, and there is just not that support. The Wall Street journal points out that the 9 percent federal sales tax combined with a state sales tax will in effect put a 17% levy on consumption. That number, no matter how you try to wring it out through explanation, becomes a simplistic 'no' in the minds of voters.
Finally, Mr. Cain's tax plan takes so much revenue out of the federal government, that it is a mathematical reality that cuts will have to be made in government programs. Mr. Cain has not outlined those cuts, which will not be in defense as Mr. Cain stated.
He stood by his statement that liberals in the United States have the objective of destroying this nation. It's a notion that he believes, which is certainly not a way to lead, automatically alienating a large part of the electorate. He explained that because of liberal economic policy, we need to cut defense, which is something he will not do as President.
When speaking about foreign policy, Mr. Cain invoked Ronald Reagan in as much as to achieve peace, we must do it through strength and clarity, strength through a robust military and clarity by clearly outlining who our friends and enemies are respectively. He went on to say that many positive things have come out of our war in Iraq and he would not reduce troops. However, that is as far as that answer went. Mr. Cain said that he would listen to the generals on the ground as to the best way to proceed in regard to military matters. This is distinct substance that Mr. Cain lacks in his approach to foreign policy. We are left to glean how he would act by the sources he looks to for his foreign policy philosophy, which include John Bolton and Henry Kissinger. Given these two references, we would have to conclude that Mr. Cain, as President, would be inclined to take preemptive military action. The type of action that Mr. Bolton advocated in Iraq and the kind that Mr. Kissinger proposed in Cambodia.
With regard to Afghanistan, Mr. Cain outlined victory as when the Afghan people can defend themselves. To extrapolate this out, we presume he means that the central government of Afghanistan under President Karzai has a military large enough to keep the peace in country with the ability to quash any resistance from the Taliban, for example. This definition is the conventional thinking, but if there is one aspect in which we need a difficult line of thought it is with regard to Afghanistan. Within that different line of thinking should be a way to get U.S. troops out of country as quickly as possible.
This column just finds it generally troublesome that prospective leaders in this country automatically defer to the 'generals on the ground' for their military advice. This notion assumes that we consistently have generals on the ground, which is an unsustainable approach to foreign policy, both in man power and money. When the generals aren't on the ground, what would you do as President?
Mr. Cain said he's a 'Main Street' executive as opposed to Mr. Romney being a 'Wall Street' executive, implying that he's more in tune with the American populace as a whole. He stated the President Obama is outside the mainstream in an experiential sense [read: no business experience]. Keeping these two views in mind, Mr. Cain will first have to explain what programs he is going to cut that will directly effect the middle class. And why would we ever want to discount state experience and the knowledge of foreign policy as Mr. Cain does? The market is so volatile right now because of what is happening in Europe and their euro debt crisis. It's the curiosity to understand something like this and make decisions accordingly that vets the best Presidential candidate.
Herman Cain is not that candidate.
Quick Note: The back third of the program featured Governor Bobby Jindal and former Governor and Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty advocating for their prospective nominees; Mr. Jindal for Rick Perry and Mr. Pawlenty for Mitt Romney.
Tim Pawlenty, when played the MTP clip of himself from July in which he said the Mr. Romney couldn't be the nominee because of the Massachusetts health care law, said that he believes Mr. Romney when he said that he would repeal 'Obamacare.' Mr. Pawlenty said he looked into Mr. Romney's eyes. Yeah, just like George Bush looked into Mr. Putin's soul and knew what kind of man he was. Mr. Pawlenty said, in reference to Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, that there should be no religious litmus test, it's prohibited by the constitution. This is a statement of expediency as religious attacks from the right have bombarded President Obama throughout his entire term in office. No a very good surrogate for Mr. Romney.
And as for Mr. Perry, he'll certainly need a more convincing advocate than Bobby Jindal. Hard stop.
In today's interview, Mr. Cain's simplistic '9-9-9' tax plan was front and center, and the news is that he admitted that in fact some people would pay more in taxes, while acknowledging that some would certainly pay less. This does go against the grain of what is now standard Republican doctrine in that it raises taxes on people. Grover Norquist is not an advocate for the plan, not because the raised taxes will be on the poor, but because the sales taxes on goods that are not taxed now would be raised.
The inequity of the 9-9-9 plan is easily evident. There are a few echoing complaints about how there are so many people do not pay federal taxes. These complaints remain echoes due to the reason, which is that many people do not make enough money to pay - the working poor. It's precisely this group of the electorate that is hit the hardest by Mr. Cain's plan while the wealthiest Americans will see another overall tax reduction. When the candidates speak of 'broadening the base' in terms of taxes, this is one of those approaches. Broadening the base means having the poorest Americans pay more in taxes.
Speaker John Boehner, quoted by Mr. Gregory, said that tax reform in this political climate would be difficult. To which, Mr. Cain countered that public support and simplicity would cut through the difficulties and his plan will go through. The unfortunate reality for Mr. Cain is that he will need powerful advocates within the beltway to champion his plan. Whether we like it or not, that's how our system works now, and there is just not that support. The Wall Street journal points out that the 9 percent federal sales tax combined with a state sales tax will in effect put a 17% levy on consumption. That number, no matter how you try to wring it out through explanation, becomes a simplistic 'no' in the minds of voters.
Finally, Mr. Cain's tax plan takes so much revenue out of the federal government, that it is a mathematical reality that cuts will have to be made in government programs. Mr. Cain has not outlined those cuts, which will not be in defense as Mr. Cain stated.
He stood by his statement that liberals in the United States have the objective of destroying this nation. It's a notion that he believes, which is certainly not a way to lead, automatically alienating a large part of the electorate. He explained that because of liberal economic policy, we need to cut defense, which is something he will not do as President.
When speaking about foreign policy, Mr. Cain invoked Ronald Reagan in as much as to achieve peace, we must do it through strength and clarity, strength through a robust military and clarity by clearly outlining who our friends and enemies are respectively. He went on to say that many positive things have come out of our war in Iraq and he would not reduce troops. However, that is as far as that answer went. Mr. Cain said that he would listen to the generals on the ground as to the best way to proceed in regard to military matters. This is distinct substance that Mr. Cain lacks in his approach to foreign policy. We are left to glean how he would act by the sources he looks to for his foreign policy philosophy, which include John Bolton and Henry Kissinger. Given these two references, we would have to conclude that Mr. Cain, as President, would be inclined to take preemptive military action. The type of action that Mr. Bolton advocated in Iraq and the kind that Mr. Kissinger proposed in Cambodia.
With regard to Afghanistan, Mr. Cain outlined victory as when the Afghan people can defend themselves. To extrapolate this out, we presume he means that the central government of Afghanistan under President Karzai has a military large enough to keep the peace in country with the ability to quash any resistance from the Taliban, for example. This definition is the conventional thinking, but if there is one aspect in which we need a difficult line of thought it is with regard to Afghanistan. Within that different line of thinking should be a way to get U.S. troops out of country as quickly as possible.
This column just finds it generally troublesome that prospective leaders in this country automatically defer to the 'generals on the ground' for their military advice. This notion assumes that we consistently have generals on the ground, which is an unsustainable approach to foreign policy, both in man power and money. When the generals aren't on the ground, what would you do as President?
Mr. Cain said he's a 'Main Street' executive as opposed to Mr. Romney being a 'Wall Street' executive, implying that he's more in tune with the American populace as a whole. He stated the President Obama is outside the mainstream in an experiential sense [read: no business experience]. Keeping these two views in mind, Mr. Cain will first have to explain what programs he is going to cut that will directly effect the middle class. And why would we ever want to discount state experience and the knowledge of foreign policy as Mr. Cain does? The market is so volatile right now because of what is happening in Europe and their euro debt crisis. It's the curiosity to understand something like this and make decisions accordingly that vets the best Presidential candidate.
Herman Cain is not that candidate.
Quick Note: The back third of the program featured Governor Bobby Jindal and former Governor and Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty advocating for their prospective nominees; Mr. Jindal for Rick Perry and Mr. Pawlenty for Mitt Romney.
Tim Pawlenty, when played the MTP clip of himself from July in which he said the Mr. Romney couldn't be the nominee because of the Massachusetts health care law, said that he believes Mr. Romney when he said that he would repeal 'Obamacare.' Mr. Pawlenty said he looked into Mr. Romney's eyes. Yeah, just like George Bush looked into Mr. Putin's soul and knew what kind of man he was. Mr. Pawlenty said, in reference to Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, that there should be no religious litmus test, it's prohibited by the constitution. This is a statement of expediency as religious attacks from the right have bombarded President Obama throughout his entire term in office. No a very good surrogate for Mr. Romney.
And as for Mr. Perry, he'll certainly need a more convincing advocate than Bobby Jindal. Hard stop.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
9.18.11: Conflict and Cooperation
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is a political operative, not a legislator. We'd like to be able to say differently, but when sifting through his statements, there's nothing we can find that's helpful to moving this country forward. President Clinton talked about cooperation and conflict, in which conflict makes for good politics, and that is Mr. McConnell's forte, creating conflict. It's unfortunate because Americans obviously need a lot more 'leadership' from their leaders right now and the creation of conflict is unhelpful. Mr. McConnell reminded us that the election is not this year, but next year and there are steps that legislators can take to help the economy before then.
To remove the 'wet blanket,' as the Senator termed it, over the economy, Mr. McConnell focused on tax and entitlement reform, but there's so much more that needs to be done to get the economy back on track. When you pair these two reforms together it is simply a money shuffle, eventually transferring from one group to another. The goal for tax reform, in Republican terms,
is to lower the tax rate, not necessarily make it more fair. As we've seen for the past thirty years, lowering the tax rate has not increased middle-America's earnings. Simply doing tax reform will not put people back to work. Entitlement reform is a euphemism for decreasing benefits. These aren't notions that people don't understand, they're quite banal, but for whatever reason the general public looks beyond these truths.
Mr. Gregory wanted to get the Senator's reaction to a clip from earlier this week in which John Boehner in a speech first said that the 'my way or the highway' approach to politics is not good for the country and then later said that tax increases were 'off the table,' talking 'out of two side of his mouth.' Mr. McConnell parried on the question and went back into tax reform. But later in the interview, Mr. McConnell said this,
"...I would simply go back to what the President said last December and signing a two-year extension of the current tax rates is a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn. and of course the economy somewhat argues even worse now than it was when the President signed the extension of the current tax rates back in December."
That's a direct quote and it makes no sense, it's 'talking out of the two sides of your mouth.' The President said that signing this tax extension is bad for the economy, something that Republicans wanted. Then Mr. McConnell turns around then says that because of this tax extension, the indication from the economy, is that they made it worse and he blamed the President?
The Republicans will get these two reforms out of the President in negotiations. The other reality is that the President will not get the concessions that he is seeking from Republicans, and this is why the President's reelection is tenuous.
Even President Clinton, the answer man, couldn't really come up with any additional solutions, as per his usual, in terms of the other side of the equation - cooperation. He did endorse President Obama's job plan, but didn't seem convinced that the President could sell it. Mr. Clinton could sell it, because his presentation of the facts breathes authority. He explained that an economic downturn such as we had usually takes 5 years to recover from, but also that a broad range of economists say that we'll have growth of 1.4 to 2 percent if we enact the President's proposals. Sadly, Mr. Obama could say that same thing and no one would believe it.
Mr. Clinton also said that for the President to be reelected, he has to win the argument to the American people that his plan is sound, and that it is Republicans who have done nothing but obstruct. (This is given the 9.1% unemployment rate.) Cooperation was certainly not part of the answer on how Mr. President Obama could win.
New York Times White Correspondent Helene Cooper said that the voters will not tolerate doing nothing, and that falls squarely on the President. Even if he does successfully make the argument, as Mr. Clinton advised, the public will go with the person that they believe can get something done with regard to the economy. As it stands, they don't believe that that person is Barack Obama. Whom ever the Republican nominee given the current field, that individual instantly has the advantage over the President even if his or her 'do something' doesn't do anything. Just making the claim may be good enough.
Round Table: Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, Senior political analyst for TIME Magazine, Mark Halperin and NY Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper. The Buffett Rule
To remove the 'wet blanket,' as the Senator termed it, over the economy, Mr. McConnell focused on tax and entitlement reform, but there's so much more that needs to be done to get the economy back on track. When you pair these two reforms together it is simply a money shuffle, eventually transferring from one group to another. The goal for tax reform, in Republican terms,
is to lower the tax rate, not necessarily make it more fair. As we've seen for the past thirty years, lowering the tax rate has not increased middle-America's earnings. Simply doing tax reform will not put people back to work. Entitlement reform is a euphemism for decreasing benefits. These aren't notions that people don't understand, they're quite banal, but for whatever reason the general public looks beyond these truths.
Mr. Gregory wanted to get the Senator's reaction to a clip from earlier this week in which John Boehner in a speech first said that the 'my way or the highway' approach to politics is not good for the country and then later said that tax increases were 'off the table,' talking 'out of two side of his mouth.' Mr. McConnell parried on the question and went back into tax reform. But later in the interview, Mr. McConnell said this,
"...I would simply go back to what the President said last December and signing a two-year extension of the current tax rates is a bad thing to do in the middle of an economic downturn. and of course the economy somewhat argues even worse now than it was when the President signed the extension of the current tax rates back in December."
That's a direct quote and it makes no sense, it's 'talking out of the two sides of your mouth.' The President said that signing this tax extension is bad for the economy, something that Republicans wanted. Then Mr. McConnell turns around then says that because of this tax extension, the indication from the economy, is that they made it worse and he blamed the President?
The Republicans will get these two reforms out of the President in negotiations. The other reality is that the President will not get the concessions that he is seeking from Republicans, and this is why the President's reelection is tenuous.
Even President Clinton, the answer man, couldn't really come up with any additional solutions, as per his usual, in terms of the other side of the equation - cooperation. He did endorse President Obama's job plan, but didn't seem convinced that the President could sell it. Mr. Clinton could sell it, because his presentation of the facts breathes authority. He explained that an economic downturn such as we had usually takes 5 years to recover from, but also that a broad range of economists say that we'll have growth of 1.4 to 2 percent if we enact the President's proposals. Sadly, Mr. Obama could say that same thing and no one would believe it.
Mr. Clinton also said that for the President to be reelected, he has to win the argument to the American people that his plan is sound, and that it is Republicans who have done nothing but obstruct. (This is given the 9.1% unemployment rate.) Cooperation was certainly not part of the answer on how Mr. President Obama could win.
New York Times White Correspondent Helene Cooper said that the voters will not tolerate doing nothing, and that falls squarely on the President. Even if he does successfully make the argument, as Mr. Clinton advised, the public will go with the person that they believe can get something done with regard to the economy. As it stands, they don't believe that that person is Barack Obama. Whom ever the Republican nominee given the current field, that individual instantly has the advantage over the President even if his or her 'do something' doesn't do anything. Just making the claim may be good enough.
Round Table: Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, Senior political analyst for TIME Magazine, Mark Halperin and NY Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper. The Buffett Rule
Sunday, September 04, 2011
9.4.11: The Role of Government Discussion
On this last Sunday of the summer, today's discussion was big picture - where the country is going, how we're adapting to the ever-evolving global market and workplace, and the role of government in this country going forward.
To boil it down, here are the two competing philosophies. Democrats believe in a bottom up structure to achieve economic success, which means starting with the middle class and programs that are centered on that group to facilitate overall growth - this requires more government. Conversely, the Republicans approach it top down, by focuses on growth in the corporate sector first, which will in turn in theory filter down to the middle class and build it that way - this way advocates for less government.
So you have to choose, while considering what government means to you. It's easy to go cynical in both directions. The Democrats want socialism and the Republicans want corporatism, but regardless, there are some issues that transcend politics that are crucial to the future success of the United States and one in particular discussed today is education.
New York Times columnist Thom Friedman described high imagination countries and low imagination countries, and though this column agrees with his overall premise that the high imagination countries will win out, it's problematic to call the United States a low imagination country. As a country, yes, we are definitely low imagination, but as individuals, Americans perhaps the most imaginative in the world. Mr. Friedman mentioned Twitter, Facebook, Skype, apps (think Apple)... All of those are American innovations.
Education starts with how we set the priorities as a society and we've failed in stressing the importance of it. Then you think of South Korea, China, and India all being ahead of the United States in math and science. To innovatively educate of youth in this country, we have to invest so much more than we do now, with a necessity of having a robust and strong public education system. Frankly, a school system of this sort is what launched this country into the technology age, leading the world in the 50's and 60's. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said that many cities and states are going are cutting education to a four-day school week. This is exactly what we should not be doing, and in fact, we should have more schooling, more after-school programs everything from the chess club to the school newspaper to the debate team to football to field hockey. With a four-school week, kids will get part time jobs on the other three days, then probably putting the priority on working and making money instead of educating themselves to a high level. So what could be the result? A very large uneducated workforce earning minimum wage.
Investing tremendously in public education - that would be going big, politically fraught but big. Which brings us to the upcoming speech by President Obama on Thursday. [By the way, the Administration should not have requested to address Congress on the same day as the Republican debate. They knew what they were doing and it was not politically shrewd. Our two cents.] The talk is whether the President's job plan will be big or more modest, i.e. supposedly politically feasible.
Congresswoman Waters insisted the President be bold and call for a trillion-dollar jobs program. Conservative columnist Paul Gigot, understanding that the officials in the Administration are advocating for an FDR type approach, said that the President should go more into Republican territory, 'changing the debate,' and start with tax reform.
Politically, a trillion-dollar jobs investment won't fly. The Republicans would never go for it, called it more stimulus and you know the rest. From the Democratic point of view, we agree with the number, but Democrats should do like Republicans. When negotiating, start with a huge number that the other side would never go for but start from there. In a tug of war, you actually want to be on your heels. We do believe that there has to be some type of investment regardless.
Simply doing tax reform won't jump start job growth quickly enough not taking hold fast enough, would be a slow process in legislating, and wouldn't as beneficial to the middle class as it should be. Tax reform in necessary but is just a part of the answer, not the answer. Mr. Friedman also stated that we do, in fact, need a 'shock to the system.' What that shock would be is anyone's guess, but we're afraid it might not be one that has a positive result.
We can right ourselves economically if we could only right ourselves politically and the two political parties are fighting it out on the role of government. This is the core argument. However, if you think of government in terms of how Presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin did, that government not only includes Washington but also our local teachers, policemen, and firemen, then government will always have a large role in our lives, it's unavoidable. So when Rick Perry says that he wants to make government as inconsequential as possible in the lives of Americans he just not being realistic. It sounds good on the stump but it's not at all practical. Ms. Goodwin also blurted out that it didn't make any sense to her why people who hate government are involved in government. It doesn't make sense to us either but if the motivation is money and individual power then it makes perfect sense.
The panel discussed five pillars for our success - education, infrastructure, the rules for capital investment, government funded research, and immigration. Also, it is the private sector-government partnership that can stabilize these five pillars. These require two things - compromise and regulations (otherwise known as rules) for the chance of successful implementation, but the two words have some badly been taboo'ed in Washington that we're set in a debilitating political paralysis. The debt ceiling debate's negative consequences are still rippling through people's minds, ensuring a no-confidence vote.
It's a big political week coming up, with both the Republican candidates, highlighted by Mr. Perry's first national appearance, getting their big stage on Wednesday followed by the President and his spotlight on Thursday. We hope that it will be an essential informative way for Americans to decide as to which path they want to take.
Tom Friedman; editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot; congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters (D); co-founder of No Labels, Mark McKinnon; and Presidential Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin.
To boil it down, here are the two competing philosophies. Democrats believe in a bottom up structure to achieve economic success, which means starting with the middle class and programs that are centered on that group to facilitate overall growth - this requires more government. Conversely, the Republicans approach it top down, by focuses on growth in the corporate sector first, which will in turn in theory filter down to the middle class and build it that way - this way advocates for less government.
So you have to choose, while considering what government means to you. It's easy to go cynical in both directions. The Democrats want socialism and the Republicans want corporatism, but regardless, there are some issues that transcend politics that are crucial to the future success of the United States and one in particular discussed today is education.
New York Times columnist Thom Friedman described high imagination countries and low imagination countries, and though this column agrees with his overall premise that the high imagination countries will win out, it's problematic to call the United States a low imagination country. As a country, yes, we are definitely low imagination, but as individuals, Americans perhaps the most imaginative in the world. Mr. Friedman mentioned Twitter, Facebook, Skype, apps (think Apple)... All of those are American innovations.
Education starts with how we set the priorities as a society and we've failed in stressing the importance of it. Then you think of South Korea, China, and India all being ahead of the United States in math and science. To innovatively educate of youth in this country, we have to invest so much more than we do now, with a necessity of having a robust and strong public education system. Frankly, a school system of this sort is what launched this country into the technology age, leading the world in the 50's and 60's. Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said that many cities and states are going are cutting education to a four-day school week. This is exactly what we should not be doing, and in fact, we should have more schooling, more after-school programs everything from the chess club to the school newspaper to the debate team to football to field hockey. With a four-school week, kids will get part time jobs on the other three days, then probably putting the priority on working and making money instead of educating themselves to a high level. So what could be the result? A very large uneducated workforce earning minimum wage.
Investing tremendously in public education - that would be going big, politically fraught but big. Which brings us to the upcoming speech by President Obama on Thursday. [By the way, the Administration should not have requested to address Congress on the same day as the Republican debate. They knew what they were doing and it was not politically shrewd. Our two cents.] The talk is whether the President's job plan will be big or more modest, i.e. supposedly politically feasible.
Congresswoman Waters insisted the President be bold and call for a trillion-dollar jobs program. Conservative columnist Paul Gigot, understanding that the officials in the Administration are advocating for an FDR type approach, said that the President should go more into Republican territory, 'changing the debate,' and start with tax reform.
Politically, a trillion-dollar jobs investment won't fly. The Republicans would never go for it, called it more stimulus and you know the rest. From the Democratic point of view, we agree with the number, but Democrats should do like Republicans. When negotiating, start with a huge number that the other side would never go for but start from there. In a tug of war, you actually want to be on your heels. We do believe that there has to be some type of investment regardless.
Simply doing tax reform won't jump start job growth quickly enough not taking hold fast enough, would be a slow process in legislating, and wouldn't as beneficial to the middle class as it should be. Tax reform in necessary but is just a part of the answer, not the answer. Mr. Friedman also stated that we do, in fact, need a 'shock to the system.' What that shock would be is anyone's guess, but we're afraid it might not be one that has a positive result.
We can right ourselves economically if we could only right ourselves politically and the two political parties are fighting it out on the role of government. This is the core argument. However, if you think of government in terms of how Presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin did, that government not only includes Washington but also our local teachers, policemen, and firemen, then government will always have a large role in our lives, it's unavoidable. So when Rick Perry says that he wants to make government as inconsequential as possible in the lives of Americans he just not being realistic. It sounds good on the stump but it's not at all practical. Ms. Goodwin also blurted out that it didn't make any sense to her why people who hate government are involved in government. It doesn't make sense to us either but if the motivation is money and individual power then it makes perfect sense.
The panel discussed five pillars for our success - education, infrastructure, the rules for capital investment, government funded research, and immigration. Also, it is the private sector-government partnership that can stabilize these five pillars. These require two things - compromise and regulations (otherwise known as rules) for the chance of successful implementation, but the two words have some badly been taboo'ed in Washington that we're set in a debilitating political paralysis. The debt ceiling debate's negative consequences are still rippling through people's minds, ensuring a no-confidence vote.
It's a big political week coming up, with both the Republican candidates, highlighted by Mr. Perry's first national appearance, getting their big stage on Wednesday followed by the President and his spotlight on Thursday. We hope that it will be an essential informative way for Americans to decide as to which path they want to take.
Tom Friedman; editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal, Paul Gigot; congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters (D); co-founder of No Labels, Mark McKinnon; and Presidential Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)