What is clearly evident, as E.J. Dionne pointed, is that the President had sufficient warning that mandating free contraception from Catholic institutions issuing insurance, who would object as a matter of conscience, would cause a controversy.
Was it, in fact, overreach? Politically, yes, but constitutionally perhaps not since the Constitution says that we shall make no law with respect to religion, meaning that a religious belief should not factor into the law. But we get it, Republicans framed the argument as oppressing religious freedom and having the right to object to something based on those grounds. Should the President mandate the Catholic Church to do something? Well, the President granted them an exception, presented a compromise, essentially placing them outside the law that other insurance agencies have to follow. The Board of Catholic Bishops rejected the compromise.
Frankly, this discussion is ridiculous - that in 2012 we're debating a woman's right to contraception. Not to mention (and let's put some already used phrases together a little differently), that it's the Catholic Bishops that are leading the objections. Really, the Catholic Bishops? Talk about above or outside of the law. How are we supposed to take seriously a council that looked the other way and actively covered up sex crimes committed around the world over decades by priests under their watch? We simply should not.
However, given the state of the debate and the ease in which you can conflate any mention of sex and religion to something controversial, the President offered a concession. The real concession should be that if you want to sell insurance on the exchange being set up, and the coverage has to be comprehensive to include contraception, but you don't want to comply, you should have your tax exempt status revoked. That the Catholic Bishops are still a voice on conscience is a notion that should be dead. Peggy Noonan said that it was about more than contraception, but religious freedom. The notion that religious freedom is in any danger in this country is a silly notion. Fighting for your freedom from one entity so you can be oppressed by another aside, the debate should be that if a religious organization gets government subsidies, shouldn't it compromise with the government?
With all that said, the White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, didn't help the President's cause that much in his interview today. Despite noting the the Administration has the support of the Catholic Health Organization (and why isn't that good enough), the administration would move ahead with implementing the Affordable Health Care Act. We agree the Administration's stance on the issue, but not with its political handling of it. Although, as Mr. Scarborough noted, if the debate is about contraception, it's a loser for the Republicans.
However, two points that Mr. Lew did make that begins the Administration's new attempt to pivot the conversation back to the economy and off of social issues, is that the Congress should extend the payroll tax cut, which expires at the end of February. Additionally, Mr. Gregory brought up the budget and the Obama Administration hasn't had one in over one thousand days. It is ridiculous, but Mr. Lew correctly pointed out that the Congress has to approve the budget so we're in a cycle of the President drawing one up, the Congress rejecting it, and then the President going back to new drafts. It's something that neither side should mention, but it's a question that Mr. Gregory should ask because the only ones who have the right to complain about this is the American people. Both sides share in the responsibility of this failure of not passing a budget.
As long as Senator Rick Santorum is the front runner for the Republican nomination, social issues will be the focus. Mr. Santorum explained that the Obama Administration is acting in a way that they feel they know best, can give you a right but also how you can use that right. Mr. Obama is taking away people's rights, Mr. Santorum continued, by making decisions for individuals. He wants government to stay out of people's lives. And that's where the problem comes in with Mr. Santorum. He says that government should stay out of people's lives, but if he were President he would look to control women's bodies through reproductive law. The basic hypocrisy is troubling, especially since his stance on women's reproductive rights and gay rights seeks to set law according to a religious belief.
Another contradiction is what Mr. Santorum called 'judiciary tyranny' referring to the decision of the 9th circuit court in California overturning Proposition 8 which denied gay couples to marry. The court declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, and this decision overturns a majority vote by the public. Mr. Santorum objects to the court taking this kind of action, but he is the same person who lead the fight in the Terry Schiavo case where he wanted the court to intervene and lead a prayer on the floor of the House. To be fair, Mr. Santorum did say that as a matter of public policy, women should have access to contraception (despite the obstacles that would be politically created).
It can not be said that Mr. Santorum waivers on his extremely conservative social views, which is more you can say for his opponent in this now 'two-man race,' as he described it. When Mr. Santorum referred to it as a two-man race we could help but think that it was a direct dig at Mr. Gingrich. As today's panel entertainingly noted, Mitt Romney is the loser in this argument because there's nothing he can say about it with conviction as he's been on both sides of many social issues, though now he is hard right. When it's common knowledge/general consensus that you'll say anything to get elected as it is for Mr. Romney, your candidacy is ultimately doomed.
Round Table: Head of the Super PAC supporting Pres. Obama, Bill Burton; Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan; Washington Post's EJ Dionne, and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sunday, February 05, 2012
2.5.12: Mr. Romney, Lonely at the Top
With a win by Governor Mitt Romney in Nevada (48% meaning 83 delegates), he has strongly seized control of the race, and it showed on Newt Gingrich's face and in his oratory during his interview on today's program. Mr. Gingrich's stated goal is to make it to super Tuesday and the Texas primary where he believes true conservatives will come out for him. The truth is that the Texas political fat cats will throw their dollars in with Romney and he'll take the state. Mr. Gingrich was once again consistent in his attack of Mr. Romney saying today that he is pro-abortion, anti-gun, for more taxes. All indicators from Mr. Romney himself lead us to the conclusion that we're not sure where he actually will stand on many issues if he were elected President.
The key notion that Mr. Gingrich ignores and really has to ignore is that Republican primary voters are voting for Mr. Romney because they think he has the best chance to beat President Obama. However, they're proverbially holding their noses while casting that vote. How does a candidate win a Presidential election, not to mention lead the country, when no one on any side trusts him on what's he's going to do. Yet, he keeps winning primaries. Mr. Gingrich states many more policy positions than Mr. Romney (not difficult since Mr. Romney never states any) such as what he said today. He wants to create private savings accounts for Social Security for future recipients, have school choice for the very poor, a zero capitol gains tax. However, when a seasoned Republican strategist like Alex Castellanos says in the same program that Newt Gingrich has no path to the Presidency because he has now illustrated his instability and that in Nevada Mr. Romney won everyone exception divorce lawyers and narcissists. A sufficiently harsh critique. From here, if the Romney campaign keeps attacking hard on Mr. Gingrich, the former Speaker could go nuclear and try to smear Mr. Romney as much as he possibly can, damaging him to the point where a general election win is certainly less probable. However, if they secede the negativity, Mr. Gingrich could gain momentum.
In those aforementioned policy positions, Mr. Gingrich wants school choice for the very poor. It seems like a reasonable position, but our question is why can't we improve the local school so that the parents can choose that one. There's always talk, on the Democratic side at least, about the need for infrastructure rebuilding, but that must be narrowed to educational infrastructure rebuilding. This, literally, is where the future is, and we're seeing it crumble right in front of us. Furthermore, that Mr. Romney would say, in any context, that he's not concerned about the poor in this country because the school safety net works shows an unrecoverable distance between Mr. Romney's understanding of what's going economically and educationally and where people really are, way out of touch.
Also, making the capital gains tax 0% would do nothing (or very little) to create jobs. The disproportionate few with capital gains would be further enriched and sock away money that was simply made from having money. Not to mention that if you do that without closing some loop holes, a hedge fund manager for example can also claim his salary as a capital gain and then end up paying no taxes. Our debt would explode if capital gains was zero percent.
Crazy as it sounds, when Mr. Gregory half jokingly asked Mr. Gingrich about his comments with regard to space and bases on the moon, he made a good point. We've put billions into the space program and now we don't have a vehicle that could travel into orbit and back. It's not specifically that, but we agree with the general premise that gutting the space program is a mistake. We've unjustly diminished the contributions of NASA, from the technologies they bore that are now common place to the imaginative science it inspires.
But one last thing on Mr. Gingrich's interview - the Obama Administration's controversy with the Catholic Church and the rhetoric that went with it. Not that you would ever expect a minimum standard of discourse from a politician, it's not helpful when a figure like Mr. Gingrich emphatically states that the President of the United States has declared war on the Catholic Church without informing people what is actually going on. In the later round table discussion, they somewhat cleared it up, but here it is. When the Affordable Health Care Act goes into effect, all entities or companies that offer insurance coverage to individuals, they all must offer the same provisions. One of those provisions is contraception, that it should be covered. Here's the rub, the Catholic Church offers insurance through it's hospitals and they don't want to cover contraception because it's against their doctrine and institutional beliefs. The two sides of the argument follow these respective lines. Democrats, as articulated by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) today, say that if you offer insurance, all the standards have to be the same for everyone - no exceptions. The Republicans would argue that the Administration is trampling on the Church's religious liberties. It has the potential to become a very big issue and Mr. Gingrich framing it as secularism is crushing religious freedom is, in a word, ridiculous. First, demonizing the word 'secularism' is technically demonizing the constitution and the government's mandate to make decisions void of a religious perspective. Again, not helpful. If the Catholic Church is profiting from this insurance offering, then it must play by the same rules as everyone else. If the insurance offering is not for profit, then maybe it can be negotiated that they maintain their right to deny contraception coverage. That's a possible solution, though our general opinion is that banning contraception outright is not a good idea. If the Church decides to not obey the law, they'll come under debilitating fines. [Certainly, we don't weep for the Catholic Church on this front, and frankly, if they had practiced their own form of contraception and neutered some of their priests, they wouldn't have the financial problems they do.]
The 'Super Bowl' themed second segment featuring Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D), New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) struck us as a bit comical. When Mr. Daniels would say something, Mr. Bloomberg would say he agreed and then say completely contradictory. When Mr. Daniels called out President Obama regulations and taxes, Mr. Bloomberg agreed and then said we need to raise taxes on everyone, there's no way around it. That aside, Mr. Daniels stuck to his State of the Union rebuttal that President Obama has made the economy worse, that it is the worst recovery since we started keeping records on such things. This is a speculative argument and so is that if Mr. Romney were President the recovery would be better - something today's panel discussed. We would agree with Ms. Maddow that campaigning on that premise will hit a ceiling and is a thin argument. Mr. Romney needs to present more policy points on the trail instead of ugly renditions of 'America The Beautiful.'
Round Table: Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), NY Times columnist David Brooks, GOP strategist Alex Castellanos, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
The key notion that Mr. Gingrich ignores and really has to ignore is that Republican primary voters are voting for Mr. Romney because they think he has the best chance to beat President Obama. However, they're proverbially holding their noses while casting that vote. How does a candidate win a Presidential election, not to mention lead the country, when no one on any side trusts him on what's he's going to do. Yet, he keeps winning primaries. Mr. Gingrich states many more policy positions than Mr. Romney (not difficult since Mr. Romney never states any) such as what he said today. He wants to create private savings accounts for Social Security for future recipients, have school choice for the very poor, a zero capitol gains tax. However, when a seasoned Republican strategist like Alex Castellanos says in the same program that Newt Gingrich has no path to the Presidency because he has now illustrated his instability and that in Nevada Mr. Romney won everyone exception divorce lawyers and narcissists. A sufficiently harsh critique. From here, if the Romney campaign keeps attacking hard on Mr. Gingrich, the former Speaker could go nuclear and try to smear Mr. Romney as much as he possibly can, damaging him to the point where a general election win is certainly less probable. However, if they secede the negativity, Mr. Gingrich could gain momentum.
In those aforementioned policy positions, Mr. Gingrich wants school choice for the very poor. It seems like a reasonable position, but our question is why can't we improve the local school so that the parents can choose that one. There's always talk, on the Democratic side at least, about the need for infrastructure rebuilding, but that must be narrowed to educational infrastructure rebuilding. This, literally, is where the future is, and we're seeing it crumble right in front of us. Furthermore, that Mr. Romney would say, in any context, that he's not concerned about the poor in this country because the school safety net works shows an unrecoverable distance between Mr. Romney's understanding of what's going economically and educationally and where people really are, way out of touch.
Also, making the capital gains tax 0% would do nothing (or very little) to create jobs. The disproportionate few with capital gains would be further enriched and sock away money that was simply made from having money. Not to mention that if you do that without closing some loop holes, a hedge fund manager for example can also claim his salary as a capital gain and then end up paying no taxes. Our debt would explode if capital gains was zero percent.
Crazy as it sounds, when Mr. Gregory half jokingly asked Mr. Gingrich about his comments with regard to space and bases on the moon, he made a good point. We've put billions into the space program and now we don't have a vehicle that could travel into orbit and back. It's not specifically that, but we agree with the general premise that gutting the space program is a mistake. We've unjustly diminished the contributions of NASA, from the technologies they bore that are now common place to the imaginative science it inspires.
But one last thing on Mr. Gingrich's interview - the Obama Administration's controversy with the Catholic Church and the rhetoric that went with it. Not that you would ever expect a minimum standard of discourse from a politician, it's not helpful when a figure like Mr. Gingrich emphatically states that the President of the United States has declared war on the Catholic Church without informing people what is actually going on. In the later round table discussion, they somewhat cleared it up, but here it is. When the Affordable Health Care Act goes into effect, all entities or companies that offer insurance coverage to individuals, they all must offer the same provisions. One of those provisions is contraception, that it should be covered. Here's the rub, the Catholic Church offers insurance through it's hospitals and they don't want to cover contraception because it's against their doctrine and institutional beliefs. The two sides of the argument follow these respective lines. Democrats, as articulated by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) today, say that if you offer insurance, all the standards have to be the same for everyone - no exceptions. The Republicans would argue that the Administration is trampling on the Church's religious liberties. It has the potential to become a very big issue and Mr. Gingrich framing it as secularism is crushing religious freedom is, in a word, ridiculous. First, demonizing the word 'secularism' is technically demonizing the constitution and the government's mandate to make decisions void of a religious perspective. Again, not helpful. If the Catholic Church is profiting from this insurance offering, then it must play by the same rules as everyone else. If the insurance offering is not for profit, then maybe it can be negotiated that they maintain their right to deny contraception coverage. That's a possible solution, though our general opinion is that banning contraception outright is not a good idea. If the Church decides to not obey the law, they'll come under debilitating fines. [Certainly, we don't weep for the Catholic Church on this front, and frankly, if they had practiced their own form of contraception and neutered some of their priests, they wouldn't have the financial problems they do.]
The 'Super Bowl' themed second segment featuring Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D), New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) struck us as a bit comical. When Mr. Daniels would say something, Mr. Bloomberg would say he agreed and then say completely contradictory. When Mr. Daniels called out President Obama regulations and taxes, Mr. Bloomberg agreed and then said we need to raise taxes on everyone, there's no way around it. That aside, Mr. Daniels stuck to his State of the Union rebuttal that President Obama has made the economy worse, that it is the worst recovery since we started keeping records on such things. This is a speculative argument and so is that if Mr. Romney were President the recovery would be better - something today's panel discussed. We would agree with Ms. Maddow that campaigning on that premise will hit a ceiling and is a thin argument. Mr. Romney needs to present more policy points on the trail instead of ugly renditions of 'America The Beautiful.'
Round Table: Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), NY Times columnist David Brooks, GOP strategist Alex Castellanos, and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
1.29.12: Candidates Making The Case... Against Each Other
Senator McCain called for the end of the debates as they are hurting the candidates and the Republican brand. Later in the program, Joe Scarborough concurred noting that all this in-fighting is damaging the Republican Party citing Sarah Palin comparing the Republican establishment to Stalin. Chuck Todd said, that they've made Gingrich not only unelectable but unacceptable. They Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin said she hadn't seen it this bad in quite some time, but at least they don't have a song like the one they had for Van Buren. [That's what we love about Mrs. Goodwin, it's not that when she tells these things, she makes you feel like you were there, but that she was there.]
With that in mind, here we sit with the Florida primary two days away and it's Romney up significantly over Newt Gingrich. During the joint interview with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), surrogate for Mr. Romney and former Senator Fred Thompson representing Newt Gingrich. Even though Mr. Thompson was there to speak on his reasons for endorsing Newt Gingrich, something he said struck us that speaks to the heart of why Mr. Gingrich's viability as the nominee is problematic at the least. Mr. Thompson said that all these 'establishment' Republicans coming out against Mr. Gingrich are just trying to settle some political scores. And that's the problem, margin is calling now because Mr. Gingrich has been exceptional in alienating his fellow Republicans as Speaker of the House. Every politician does it to someone else at some time, but Mr. Gingrich it seems he does not do one of the fundamental pillars of politics and that is to make friends. His enemies are many, and on the program they pointed out a recent damaging quote from Senator Bob Dole, who stopped the Government shutdown in 1995 that Mr. Gingrich created.
Senator McCain, for his part, described the explosion in earmarking that as Speaker, Mr. Gingrich ushered in to being. By extension, Mr. McCain, showing some of his former Maverick ways, said that the Citizens United ruling showed a naivete on the part of the Supreme court (a prominent Republican calling out ideologically Republican Supreme Court judges). The Romney campaign combined with its advocating Super PACs are outspending the Gingrich campaign 5 to 1 in Florida, nearly 20 million dollars in total. Regardless, because of all of the different political pockets that is Florida, it is a Romney state as Mr. Scarborough declared, and he would certainly know. Romney will get the certain win in Florida, but as everyone on the program agreed with was that the Republican primary campaign will go on for a while to the summer. By the end of March, the Republicans will have a nominee, most probably Mr. Romney, and remember Mr. Gingrich isn't even on the Virginia ballot.
The battle between the 'establishment' and the Tea Party, as David Axelrod noted, could go on for a while and all of that obviously benefits the President. Mr. Gregory described the President's State of the Union address as the campaign kick-off speech. He's correct, but that shouldn't be what the address is used for and if indeed that is now what it is then they should go back to the written address, just put it online, we'll get to it.
Mr. Axelrod continued to make the case that the President laid out in that speech, which is not the deficit and debt, but the way in which we cut and pay it down. So yes, the President wants to change the tax code where the wealthiest pay more taxes. When the President says that he wants to make things more fair, give everyone a fair shake as Mr. Axelrod termed it, that would mean raising the capital gains tax, which is essentially money making money on investments, not wage earning like with most Americans. It's an effective argument because of the large numbers shown to the public, and case number one is Mitt Romney who made over $40 million dollars in the last two years and paid 13.9% in taxes. He didn't break the rules, as Mr. Axelrod noted, but that they should be more fair. [The inherent problem aside that dissertations are written on what 'fairness' means in America.] Mr. Axelrod, however, was wrong that the policies of the last decade were the cause of income decline amongst the middle class. It's actually the policies of the past thirty years.
Republicans such as Mr. Scarborough and Senator McCain say that the President should have listened to the Simpson-Bowles commission and taken up its recommendations. Here is where fairness should come into play, politically it's called compromise, and among the commission's recommendations were tax increases, which Republican lawmakers were contending. However, as the President and Mr. Axelrod are saying, manufacturing is returning to the United States, but we haven't gotten their candid explanation as to why. Is it because of the lack of unions in right-to-work states and low taxes? But then again why would they ever make the case for the Republicans. They certainly aren't making for themselves.
Roundtable: MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, & NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd.
The Jan Brewer Finger Point: The visual which is all over the internet and also discussed on today's program is beneficial to no one - it's the conclusion that no one in the media is coming to. The finger point occurred on the tarmac because President Obama voiced his exception to a passage in Governor Brewer's book, which described their meeting in a poor light after she had said publicly that the meeting went very well. It was petty on the part of the President and poorly judged not recognizing that Mrs. Brewer is a panderer to her base. However, for Governor Brewer's part, to point your finger at the President, otherwise known as the most powerful man in the world, is disrespecting the Office that Mr. Obama holds. And to later say that she felt threatened was disrespectful to the individual that holds it.
With that in mind, here we sit with the Florida primary two days away and it's Romney up significantly over Newt Gingrich. During the joint interview with Senator John McCain (R-AZ), surrogate for Mr. Romney and former Senator Fred Thompson representing Newt Gingrich. Even though Mr. Thompson was there to speak on his reasons for endorsing Newt Gingrich, something he said struck us that speaks to the heart of why Mr. Gingrich's viability as the nominee is problematic at the least. Mr. Thompson said that all these 'establishment' Republicans coming out against Mr. Gingrich are just trying to settle some political scores. And that's the problem, margin is calling now because Mr. Gingrich has been exceptional in alienating his fellow Republicans as Speaker of the House. Every politician does it to someone else at some time, but Mr. Gingrich it seems he does not do one of the fundamental pillars of politics and that is to make friends. His enemies are many, and on the program they pointed out a recent damaging quote from Senator Bob Dole, who stopped the Government shutdown in 1995 that Mr. Gingrich created.
Senator McCain, for his part, described the explosion in earmarking that as Speaker, Mr. Gingrich ushered in to being. By extension, Mr. McCain, showing some of his former Maverick ways, said that the Citizens United ruling showed a naivete on the part of the Supreme court (a prominent Republican calling out ideologically Republican Supreme Court judges). The Romney campaign combined with its advocating Super PACs are outspending the Gingrich campaign 5 to 1 in Florida, nearly 20 million dollars in total. Regardless, because of all of the different political pockets that is Florida, it is a Romney state as Mr. Scarborough declared, and he would certainly know. Romney will get the certain win in Florida, but as everyone on the program agreed with was that the Republican primary campaign will go on for a while to the summer. By the end of March, the Republicans will have a nominee, most probably Mr. Romney, and remember Mr. Gingrich isn't even on the Virginia ballot.
The battle between the 'establishment' and the Tea Party, as David Axelrod noted, could go on for a while and all of that obviously benefits the President. Mr. Gregory described the President's State of the Union address as the campaign kick-off speech. He's correct, but that shouldn't be what the address is used for and if indeed that is now what it is then they should go back to the written address, just put it online, we'll get to it.
Mr. Axelrod continued to make the case that the President laid out in that speech, which is not the deficit and debt, but the way in which we cut and pay it down. So yes, the President wants to change the tax code where the wealthiest pay more taxes. When the President says that he wants to make things more fair, give everyone a fair shake as Mr. Axelrod termed it, that would mean raising the capital gains tax, which is essentially money making money on investments, not wage earning like with most Americans. It's an effective argument because of the large numbers shown to the public, and case number one is Mitt Romney who made over $40 million dollars in the last two years and paid 13.9% in taxes. He didn't break the rules, as Mr. Axelrod noted, but that they should be more fair. [The inherent problem aside that dissertations are written on what 'fairness' means in America.] Mr. Axelrod, however, was wrong that the policies of the last decade were the cause of income decline amongst the middle class. It's actually the policies of the past thirty years.
Republicans such as Mr. Scarborough and Senator McCain say that the President should have listened to the Simpson-Bowles commission and taken up its recommendations. Here is where fairness should come into play, politically it's called compromise, and among the commission's recommendations were tax increases, which Republican lawmakers were contending. However, as the President and Mr. Axelrod are saying, manufacturing is returning to the United States, but we haven't gotten their candid explanation as to why. Is it because of the lack of unions in right-to-work states and low taxes? But then again why would they ever make the case for the Republicans. They certainly aren't making for themselves.
Roundtable: MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, & NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd.
The Jan Brewer Finger Point: The visual which is all over the internet and also discussed on today's program is beneficial to no one - it's the conclusion that no one in the media is coming to. The finger point occurred on the tarmac because President Obama voiced his exception to a passage in Governor Brewer's book, which described their meeting in a poor light after she had said publicly that the meeting went very well. It was petty on the part of the President and poorly judged not recognizing that Mrs. Brewer is a panderer to her base. However, for Governor Brewer's part, to point your finger at the President, otherwise known as the most powerful man in the world, is disrespecting the Office that Mr. Obama holds. And to later say that she felt threatened was disrespectful to the individual that holds it.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
1.22.12: A Fracturing Win for Newt
Was yesterday's 12 point win over Mitt Romney by Newt Gingrich a shift in the plates or just a barbaric South Carolina yawp in the wilderness of frustration that is the Republican primary season? The answer is that it's the latter that has a long echo, one that can and will be heard in Florida. Mitt Romney needs to get his act together, and put his mouth where all that money is.
The money will win out in the end, but it needs to be acutely directed by the candidates statements, and Newt Gingrich has Mitt Romney on the severe defensive. When Mr. Gingrich attacks Mitt Romney on trying to not really answer any questions with regard to his record or his time at Bain, Mr. Romney has no response, no counter. He'll release his tax returns on Tuesday putting the issue to rest of why he was reluctant to release them in the first place, but immediately they will be scrutinized essentially becoming a whole separate issue.
Mr. Gingrich explained that the message to be taken from his South Carolina win is that there is real pain that people are feeling economically and that there is a real anger with the national establishment. We'll give a touch of credit to Mr. Gingrich in as much as that he has been listening to the electorate and has realized their collective hardship in this economy, However, this real anger with the national establishment, as Mr. Gingrich puts it, is very much his anger with the news media and the Republican party establishment in New York and Washington.
The down side is that Mr. Gingrich's policies, if implemented, are not going to be beneficial for the people who he purports to have sympathy for. As Joe Scarborough put it during the round table, the politics of grievance that Mr. Gingrich practices is not going to be enough to win a general election. The divisive language that he's been spouting toward the President is going to turn off the general electorate. Mr. Gingrich invokes Saul Alinsky, the Chicago community organizer, recognized as the originator of modern community organizing (sourced from the Wikipedia entry). Mr. Gingrich fully well knows that when he throws out a reference like that where most of the people he's talking to don't know who that is, but the name sounds 'foreign,' he provoking a kind of xenophobia that doesn't really exist. It's a variation of the birther code type of attacks on the President. The Keystone Pipeline and Saul Alinsky have nothing to do with one another, but Mr. Gingrich will tie the two together to instill the hint of fear.
Every time Mr. Gingrich is asked a question that he doesn't like, he turns the tables saying that he's appalled at the news media. Case in point today was when Mr. Gregory asked him about Mr. Gingrich positioning himself as an outsider when he was a 'strategic adviser' for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, what some would perceive as a lobbyist. With the exception of not registering as a lobbyist, that's exactly what he did for the mortgage giant. Governor Chris Christie even called that the oldest dodge in the book. Mr. Scarborough repeated said during the program that Mr. Gingrich isn't even a conservative.
Today's panel seemed to believe that the Republican party was on it's way to a brokered convention or the rise of a third party candidate. With that in mind, Chuck Todd said that yesterday's result was not about Mr. Gingrich, but really about Mitt Romney, or more accurately what Mr. Romney needs to be to win. The fact of the matter is that none of these candidates have what it takes to win the general election. And Governor Christie, during his interview today, did not help Mr. Romney's cause.
Mr. Christie said that the people going to work at Sports Authority and Staples have Mr. Romney to thank for that. Well, guess what? The people going to work at the Sports Authority are the same people going to work at Staples. Individuals who work there need both jobs to pay their bills, put food on the table, and maybe, possibly send their kids to college. These are the middle class jobs that America aspires to as described by Mr. Christie? We don't think so.
The Republican party is one that is truly fractured and in particular a Newt Gingrich nomination is not going to heal it. He said today that the establishment made a mess of things and should be shaken up. It's obviously clear that Mr. Scarborough and Mr. Murphy ("couldn't win a swing state if it were made of feathers") are not siding with him and that's just the tip of the establishment. The morning show host went on to say that beside not being a conservative, Mr. Gingrich is an opportunist we ran out of the Speakership, also noting that he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations, the report for which should absolutely be released - what were those violations?
Despite Ron Paul saying in his post-South Carolina primary speech that winning delegates is the name of the game and it's a game he'll be in until the end, his followers may demand the break. Paul supporters already clearly know that the candidate is not given his due deference during the debates. Ordinary Republicans are really sure how to react to Mr. Paul's answers because they clearly do not fit in with Republican orthodoxy.
Newt Gingrich winning in South Carolina is good for only Newt Gingrich. The Republican establishment wants Mitt Romney, the electorate wants Newt Gingrich. Ultimately, the country will come to find that they want neither.
Rountable: Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough, the BBC's Katty Kay, Republican Strategist Mike Murphy, and NBC's Chuck Todd
The money will win out in the end, but it needs to be acutely directed by the candidates statements, and Newt Gingrich has Mitt Romney on the severe defensive. When Mr. Gingrich attacks Mitt Romney on trying to not really answer any questions with regard to his record or his time at Bain, Mr. Romney has no response, no counter. He'll release his tax returns on Tuesday putting the issue to rest of why he was reluctant to release them in the first place, but immediately they will be scrutinized essentially becoming a whole separate issue.
Mr. Gingrich explained that the message to be taken from his South Carolina win is that there is real pain that people are feeling economically and that there is a real anger with the national establishment. We'll give a touch of credit to Mr. Gingrich in as much as that he has been listening to the electorate and has realized their collective hardship in this economy, However, this real anger with the national establishment, as Mr. Gingrich puts it, is very much his anger with the news media and the Republican party establishment in New York and Washington.
The down side is that Mr. Gingrich's policies, if implemented, are not going to be beneficial for the people who he purports to have sympathy for. As Joe Scarborough put it during the round table, the politics of grievance that Mr. Gingrich practices is not going to be enough to win a general election. The divisive language that he's been spouting toward the President is going to turn off the general electorate. Mr. Gingrich invokes Saul Alinsky, the Chicago community organizer, recognized as the originator of modern community organizing (sourced from the Wikipedia entry). Mr. Gingrich fully well knows that when he throws out a reference like that where most of the people he's talking to don't know who that is, but the name sounds 'foreign,' he provoking a kind of xenophobia that doesn't really exist. It's a variation of the birther code type of attacks on the President. The Keystone Pipeline and Saul Alinsky have nothing to do with one another, but Mr. Gingrich will tie the two together to instill the hint of fear.
Every time Mr. Gingrich is asked a question that he doesn't like, he turns the tables saying that he's appalled at the news media. Case in point today was when Mr. Gregory asked him about Mr. Gingrich positioning himself as an outsider when he was a 'strategic adviser' for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, what some would perceive as a lobbyist. With the exception of not registering as a lobbyist, that's exactly what he did for the mortgage giant. Governor Chris Christie even called that the oldest dodge in the book. Mr. Scarborough repeated said during the program that Mr. Gingrich isn't even a conservative.
Today's panel seemed to believe that the Republican party was on it's way to a brokered convention or the rise of a third party candidate. With that in mind, Chuck Todd said that yesterday's result was not about Mr. Gingrich, but really about Mitt Romney, or more accurately what Mr. Romney needs to be to win. The fact of the matter is that none of these candidates have what it takes to win the general election. And Governor Christie, during his interview today, did not help Mr. Romney's cause.
Mr. Christie said that the people going to work at Sports Authority and Staples have Mr. Romney to thank for that. Well, guess what? The people going to work at the Sports Authority are the same people going to work at Staples. Individuals who work there need both jobs to pay their bills, put food on the table, and maybe, possibly send their kids to college. These are the middle class jobs that America aspires to as described by Mr. Christie? We don't think so.
The Republican party is one that is truly fractured and in particular a Newt Gingrich nomination is not going to heal it. He said today that the establishment made a mess of things and should be shaken up. It's obviously clear that Mr. Scarborough and Mr. Murphy ("couldn't win a swing state if it were made of feathers") are not siding with him and that's just the tip of the establishment. The morning show host went on to say that beside not being a conservative, Mr. Gingrich is an opportunist we ran out of the Speakership, also noting that he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations, the report for which should absolutely be released - what were those violations?
Despite Ron Paul saying in his post-South Carolina primary speech that winning delegates is the name of the game and it's a game he'll be in until the end, his followers may demand the break. Paul supporters already clearly know that the candidate is not given his due deference during the debates. Ordinary Republicans are really sure how to react to Mr. Paul's answers because they clearly do not fit in with Republican orthodoxy.
Newt Gingrich winning in South Carolina is good for only Newt Gingrich. The Republican establishment wants Mitt Romney, the electorate wants Newt Gingrich. Ultimately, the country will come to find that they want neither.
Rountable: Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough, the BBC's Katty Kay, Republican Strategist Mike Murphy, and NBC's Chuck Todd
Sunday, January 15, 2012
1.15.12: Value, Character, and Behavior
All the talk of the upcoming South Carolina primary aside, the one thing that is sticking with us from this week's program is the fact that when Mr. Gregory asked Senator Reid how to overcome at 66% disapproval rating, the Senate Majority couldn't come up with any solutions. He had nothing. He couldn't even cite a single piece of legislation going through Congress that has bi-partisan support. This is a big obvious problem that our government faces, and no one can come up with solutions?
Senator Reid squarely blames the Republican Tea Party caucus for this problem and said that he hopes that their influence will wane in the next year. You can tell that the mention of the Republican Tea Party makes Mr. Reid blood curl, a wince on his face. This column has no love for the Republican Tea Party caucus either. Contrary to what the Tea Party heads would say, it does not also consist of 'many Democrats and Independents.' It's a Republican movement and the minions of this movement do not understand that they vote against their own best interest. It's simply difficult to take that seriously. That, coupled with the extreme, uncompromising views of its representatives in Congress who continually put the government on the brink of shutting down is so counter productive for the whole of the populace.
Fortunately for us, we don't have to work with them - it's not our job. But Senator Reid needs to find a way to get things done with these people in the room, it is his job. Another part of his job for the Democrats is maintaining their majority in the Senate. With 23 Democratic seats up for re-election and 10 for the Republicans, Senator Reid said he felt pretty good about the Democrats holding. We would not be as optimistic about that or about Mr. Bob Kerry's chances of winning re-election in Nebraska if he decides to run again.
We agree with Mr. Reid in terms of the tax policy he discussed issuing a surtax of one half of one percent on the additional millions that people earn. Comparatively it's a small amount that could pay for a lot, even it goes directly to paying down the debt. We appreciate Mr. Reid pugilist heritage and hence his style, but he has to come up with more solutions.
On the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich seems pretty confident he can make a splash in the state hammering on the theme that he is a real conservative and that Governor Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts moderate. What we still find interesting about that is that Mr. Gingrich wants you to vote for him of course, but the way he phrases it, "do you want a real conservative or...," clearly denotes the 'anybody but Romney (and Ron Paul)' notion. It's so obvious, it's kind of hysterical. He further explained that the candidate that can craft a bold, clear distinction between himself and President Obama has a better chance of winning, a Reagan conservative, as he put it. The person whose policies have best reflected President Reagan's has been Barack Obama so there goes that argument. Of course the problem with Mr. Romney is that his of late extremely conservative rhetoric scares Reagan Democrats and Independents, and Republicans like it but don't believe it. So how's he in the lead? Money and organization.
To the second part of that - organization - everyone agrees, Mr. Gingrich, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and Representative Tim Scott (R-SC) that the splintering of the evangelical vote amongst the other candidates benefits Romney, and his organization capitalizes on that. We, like other commentators, hope that Romney doesn't win in South Carolina because we'd just like to see the other primaries matter, but alas it will not be. Unless something big happens this week to negatively effect Romney's chances, he'll be hard to beat. And according to Lindsay Graham, South Carolina picks Presidents, referring to the fact that since 1980, every primary candidate who has won the state has also won the nomination. What he didn't say is who he endorses, and for that matter neither did Mr. Scott. Mr. Graham added that he might not even vote. We guess that they'll both just take the tact that the people of South Carolina have spoken and we'll endorse their choice. Frankly, that's... well... lame. The people of South Carolina look to these people for their insight and to abdicate the voice that people have bestowed on you does not speak well. Stand up for someone.
Mr. Gingrich mentioned that in selecting a candidate, it's about value, character, and behavior. None of today's guests unfortunately lived up to that measure in the answers. Mr. Gingrich with respect to attacks occupies no high ground than his primary opponents. That Mr. Reid repeated the phrase 'obstructionism on steroids' to make any point is disappointing. The South Carolina delegation essentially stating that they'll both respectively vote for anyone as long as they can beat Barack Obama says nothing for political conviction.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Reid discussed the recess appointment, technically proforma appointment, of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Congressional Republicans are saying that the appointment isn't valid because Congress never technically recessed, hence proforma. It's like being on call, but in this case there's no intention of returning even if the call comes, effectively a recess. Republicans simply do not like the newly formed Bureau in and of itself so they of course do not want to hold hearings. But the fact remains that the agency does exist, it was voted into being and now someone must head it. The void has existed for too long and now that the nominee is Richard Cordray, a Republican from Ohio, and not Elizabeth Warren, it's puts Senate Republicans in the awkward position of having to grill one of its own. Even thought, there seems to be no problem with that in the Republican presidential primaries. Shouldn't there be a procedure that when an agency, bureau, or cabinet position needs to be filled and the President nominates someone, there must be mandatory hearings held within a certain time frame? The appointment needed to be made.
Senator Reid squarely blames the Republican Tea Party caucus for this problem and said that he hopes that their influence will wane in the next year. You can tell that the mention of the Republican Tea Party makes Mr. Reid blood curl, a wince on his face. This column has no love for the Republican Tea Party caucus either. Contrary to what the Tea Party heads would say, it does not also consist of 'many Democrats and Independents.' It's a Republican movement and the minions of this movement do not understand that they vote against their own best interest. It's simply difficult to take that seriously. That, coupled with the extreme, uncompromising views of its representatives in Congress who continually put the government on the brink of shutting down is so counter productive for the whole of the populace.
Fortunately for us, we don't have to work with them - it's not our job. But Senator Reid needs to find a way to get things done with these people in the room, it is his job. Another part of his job for the Democrats is maintaining their majority in the Senate. With 23 Democratic seats up for re-election and 10 for the Republicans, Senator Reid said he felt pretty good about the Democrats holding. We would not be as optimistic about that or about Mr. Bob Kerry's chances of winning re-election in Nebraska if he decides to run again.
We agree with Mr. Reid in terms of the tax policy he discussed issuing a surtax of one half of one percent on the additional millions that people earn. Comparatively it's a small amount that could pay for a lot, even it goes directly to paying down the debt. We appreciate Mr. Reid pugilist heritage and hence his style, but he has to come up with more solutions.
On the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich seems pretty confident he can make a splash in the state hammering on the theme that he is a real conservative and that Governor Mitt Romney is a Massachusetts moderate. What we still find interesting about that is that Mr. Gingrich wants you to vote for him of course, but the way he phrases it, "do you want a real conservative or...," clearly denotes the 'anybody but Romney (and Ron Paul)' notion. It's so obvious, it's kind of hysterical. He further explained that the candidate that can craft a bold, clear distinction between himself and President Obama has a better chance of winning, a Reagan conservative, as he put it. The person whose policies have best reflected President Reagan's has been Barack Obama so there goes that argument. Of course the problem with Mr. Romney is that his of late extremely conservative rhetoric scares Reagan Democrats and Independents, and Republicans like it but don't believe it. So how's he in the lead? Money and organization.
To the second part of that - organization - everyone agrees, Mr. Gingrich, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and Representative Tim Scott (R-SC) that the splintering of the evangelical vote amongst the other candidates benefits Romney, and his organization capitalizes on that. We, like other commentators, hope that Romney doesn't win in South Carolina because we'd just like to see the other primaries matter, but alas it will not be. Unless something big happens this week to negatively effect Romney's chances, he'll be hard to beat. And according to Lindsay Graham, South Carolina picks Presidents, referring to the fact that since 1980, every primary candidate who has won the state has also won the nomination. What he didn't say is who he endorses, and for that matter neither did Mr. Scott. Mr. Graham added that he might not even vote. We guess that they'll both just take the tact that the people of South Carolina have spoken and we'll endorse their choice. Frankly, that's... well... lame. The people of South Carolina look to these people for their insight and to abdicate the voice that people have bestowed on you does not speak well. Stand up for someone.
Mr. Gingrich mentioned that in selecting a candidate, it's about value, character, and behavior. None of today's guests unfortunately lived up to that measure in the answers. Mr. Gingrich with respect to attacks occupies no high ground than his primary opponents. That Mr. Reid repeated the phrase 'obstructionism on steroids' to make any point is disappointing. The South Carolina delegation essentially stating that they'll both respectively vote for anyone as long as they can beat Barack Obama says nothing for political conviction.
Lastly, Mr. Gregory and Mr. Reid discussed the recess appointment, technically proforma appointment, of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Congressional Republicans are saying that the appointment isn't valid because Congress never technically recessed, hence proforma. It's like being on call, but in this case there's no intention of returning even if the call comes, effectively a recess. Republicans simply do not like the newly formed Bureau in and of itself so they of course do not want to hold hearings. But the fact remains that the agency does exist, it was voted into being and now someone must head it. The void has existed for too long and now that the nominee is Richard Cordray, a Republican from Ohio, and not Elizabeth Warren, it's puts Senate Republicans in the awkward position of having to grill one of its own. Even thought, there seems to be no problem with that in the Republican presidential primaries. Shouldn't there be a procedure that when an agency, bureau, or cabinet position needs to be filled and the President nominates someone, there must be mandatory hearings held within a certain time frame? The appointment needed to be made.
Sunday, January 08, 2012
1.8.12: The Debate - Analysis and Impressions
It makes complete sense for Meet The Press to host a debate of this sort, given that it is at the top of the significance pecking order for news programs in general. Mr. Gregory, equipped with 30 extras minutes and two additional questionaires, effectively steered the questions back and forth from substantive (policy) to the provocative, from which we'll cover some of the more telling highlights.
However, no matter how you slice it, it was the run for second place as the five other candidates continually took aim at Mr. Romney - his positions and his record. Newt Gingrich initially sniped that the red light (stop signal for answering a question) didn't apply to the frontrunner and then took every opportunity he could find to take the Governor down a notch or three, leading into the New Hampshire primary, calling him a Massachusetts moderate and pointing out that Massachusetts had the 4th worst jobs record while he was governor.
And speaking of which, why didn't Mitt Romney run for re-election? His answer, not well presented, explained that he wasn't a career politician and that he came to Massachusetts to fix and problems and the get out. Every politician, at any level, wants a second term, maybe not a fifth or sixth, but definitely a second. He said that running for a second term would then be able him. Well, the selflessness is stunning... and unbelievable. And Even if you know you think you may not win, you still go after it unless you're not built to lead. Perhaps that is Mitt Romney. We now know it's not Sarah Palin. Mr. Gingrich surmised that the reason Mr. Romney isn't a career politician is because he lost. It is the more accurate assessment to be sure.
Most assuredly, the gloves did indeed come off in this last forum before the first primary. Mr. Santorum stated that Ron Paul has always operated on the margins, having sponsored over 600 bills with only one ever becoming a law, and therefore was not fit to lead in bringing a new tone to Washington and its dysfunctional ways.
Mr. Paul's views on citizens' rights sound idyllic in that he doesn't believe in designators of rights - gay rights, minority rights, affirmative action, civil rights and that we should just focus on the rights of liberty. However, practically, in this country, that doesn't work. This philosophy negates the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which was essential in the societal progress of the United States.
We take it on its face that the candidates are serious people and are serious about what they believe on how to lead the United States. However, among all these debates and this morning's Meet The Press debate was no exception, there is a thread of silliness running through them. It's comes through the continual contradicts.
For example, this morning, Governor Perry said that he was a 10th amendment guy - this is his more reasoned stance on secessionist comments he had made before entering the race - and that more decisions should be pushed to the state level. However, when asked about 'right to work' and the outlawing of mandatory union dues (essentially breaking them) should be a federal law.
Mr. Santorum said that the difference between North Korea and Pakistan having nuclear capabilities versus Iran having them and how we deal with these countries is that Iran is a theocracy. It is because of this and Iran's Islamic doctrine (his interpretation of it) that make air strikes a real necessity. Mr. Santorum says he's for an individual's rights, but does not agree with changing laws to reflect the recognition of a particular groups rights. The operative example from today's debate would be the rights and gays and lesbians to marry or adopt children.
Mr. Romney, in his defense or culpability in terms of Super PAC attack ads, said that of course friends of his run these organizations but that he hasn't viewed them. Then he recited specific points of one of the attack ads against Mr. Gingrich. It's utter silliness that that these candidates can stand on the stage and continually talk out both sides of their faces. More importantly, when challenged on his conservative credentials, Mr. Romney said that all you had to do was look at his record as Governor of Massachusetts. No one called him on this at the moment of statement that he was the steward of the state's successful single payer health program.
And straight up, what kind of message did Mr. Romney send to general election voters when he said that he wouldn't have a federal government that would try to end poverty in the country? There's a reason why populist statement are called what they are. It's because the population agrees with them. By saying this, Mr. Romney doesn't fulfill a societal need in terms of being Americans, that we're all in this together and hence problems need to be solved this way.
This plays into our last example when Mr. Romney said to Jon Huntsman that the person representing the Republican party shouldn't have called President Obama a remarkable leader. To this, Mr. Huntsman directed his answer to the moderator and said, "Our country is divided, David, because of attitudes like that [*full exchange below]."
Of course this doesn't fit with the other previously cited examples because Mr. Huntsman spoke to a notion that somehow in today's Republican party is in direct contradiction to what to what they believe. It won't be surprising that Mr. Huntsman, despite staking his campaign on the New Hampshire primary, is going to get creamed on Tuesday.
However, no matter how you slice it, it was the run for second place as the five other candidates continually took aim at Mr. Romney - his positions and his record. Newt Gingrich initially sniped that the red light (stop signal for answering a question) didn't apply to the frontrunner and then took every opportunity he could find to take the Governor down a notch or three, leading into the New Hampshire primary, calling him a Massachusetts moderate and pointing out that Massachusetts had the 4th worst jobs record while he was governor.
And speaking of which, why didn't Mitt Romney run for re-election? His answer, not well presented, explained that he wasn't a career politician and that he came to Massachusetts to fix and problems and the get out. Every politician, at any level, wants a second term, maybe not a fifth or sixth, but definitely a second. He said that running for a second term would then be able him. Well, the selflessness is stunning... and unbelievable. And Even if you know you think you may not win, you still go after it unless you're not built to lead. Perhaps that is Mitt Romney. We now know it's not Sarah Palin. Mr. Gingrich surmised that the reason Mr. Romney isn't a career politician is because he lost. It is the more accurate assessment to be sure.
Most assuredly, the gloves did indeed come off in this last forum before the first primary. Mr. Santorum stated that Ron Paul has always operated on the margins, having sponsored over 600 bills with only one ever becoming a law, and therefore was not fit to lead in bringing a new tone to Washington and its dysfunctional ways.
Mr. Paul's views on citizens' rights sound idyllic in that he doesn't believe in designators of rights - gay rights, minority rights, affirmative action, civil rights and that we should just focus on the rights of liberty. However, practically, in this country, that doesn't work. This philosophy negates the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which was essential in the societal progress of the United States.
We take it on its face that the candidates are serious people and are serious about what they believe on how to lead the United States. However, among all these debates and this morning's Meet The Press debate was no exception, there is a thread of silliness running through them. It's comes through the continual contradicts.
For example, this morning, Governor Perry said that he was a 10th amendment guy - this is his more reasoned stance on secessionist comments he had made before entering the race - and that more decisions should be pushed to the state level. However, when asked about 'right to work' and the outlawing of mandatory union dues (essentially breaking them) should be a federal law.
Mr. Santorum said that the difference between North Korea and Pakistan having nuclear capabilities versus Iran having them and how we deal with these countries is that Iran is a theocracy. It is because of this and Iran's Islamic doctrine (his interpretation of it) that make air strikes a real necessity. Mr. Santorum says he's for an individual's rights, but does not agree with changing laws to reflect the recognition of a particular groups rights. The operative example from today's debate would be the rights and gays and lesbians to marry or adopt children.
Mr. Romney, in his defense or culpability in terms of Super PAC attack ads, said that of course friends of his run these organizations but that he hasn't viewed them. Then he recited specific points of one of the attack ads against Mr. Gingrich. It's utter silliness that that these candidates can stand on the stage and continually talk out both sides of their faces. More importantly, when challenged on his conservative credentials, Mr. Romney said that all you had to do was look at his record as Governor of Massachusetts. No one called him on this at the moment of statement that he was the steward of the state's successful single payer health program.
And straight up, what kind of message did Mr. Romney send to general election voters when he said that he wouldn't have a federal government that would try to end poverty in the country? There's a reason why populist statement are called what they are. It's because the population agrees with them. By saying this, Mr. Romney doesn't fulfill a societal need in terms of being Americans, that we're all in this together and hence problems need to be solved this way.
This plays into our last example when Mr. Romney said to Jon Huntsman that the person representing the Republican party shouldn't have called President Obama a remarkable leader. To this, Mr. Huntsman directed his answer to the moderator and said, "Our country is divided, David, because of attitudes like that [*full exchange below]."
Of course this doesn't fit with the other previously cited examples because Mr. Huntsman spoke to a notion that somehow in today's Republican party is in direct contradiction to what to what they believe. It won't be surprising that Mr. Huntsman, despite staking his campaign on the New Hampshire primary, is going to get creamed on Tuesday.
*
FMR. GOV. ROMNEY: I think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and doing everything in our power to promote an agenda that does not include President Obama's agenda. I think the decision to go and work for President Obama is one which you took. I don't, don't disrespect your decision to do that. I just think it's most likely that the person who should represent our party running against President Obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in China.
FMR. GOV. HUNTSMAN: This nation is divided, David, because of attitudes like that. The American people are tired of the partisan division. They have had enough. There is no trust left among the American people and the institutions of power and among the American people and our elected officials.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
1.1.12: Measuring Up (The Iowa Caucuses)
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)