Substituting for Mr. Gregory this week were NBC's Savannah Guthrie and Joe Scarborough respectively, with Mr. Scarborough taking the round table. In the opening interview, Rick Santorum said that what's worse than a contested convention is picking the wrong candidate. With due respect, Ms. Guthrie got the wrong candidate in grilling Mr. Santorum on getting out of the race. Those questions should really go to Newt Gingrich, who at this point is being completely ignored by the media. The general Republican consensus with the small wave of endorsements this week of Mitt Romney is that Republicans should start focusing on a one on one race. However, that's all that Rick Santorum wants, his chance to have a one on one primary votes with Mr. Romney. It's Mr. Santorum's only real chance to contend, possibly beat, Mr. Romney in Wisconsin and or Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum's home state and where it is now a dead heat.
In his campaign of inevitability, as Mr. Santorum correctly put it, Mitt Romney may be that 'wrong' candidate as his favorability rating is at 34 percent, damage done inadvertently by his Super PAC, so much negative advertising that it has turned people off. Also, there's the damage the candidate has done to himself with all of his changing on positions and the endless verbal gaffes, that Mika Brzezinski who essentially co-hosted today's round table, pointed out through a series of clips. We must admit it is fun to see how far Mitt Romney can take this vulgar display of wealth, and the house with the lobbyist and car elevator is a great way to one-up yourself.
Mr. Santorum was also making the case that the Republican nomination is not a done deal because more than half of the delegates in states where they've already had primaries have not yet committed to a candidate. But what is the end game for Mr. Santorum in taking this line of attack, a contested convention? It's at the convention where the establishment does take over, which is only a further benefit to Mr. Romney. It's a weak case on the part Rick Santorum for the nomination. But you never know, we agree with Tom Friedman who said today on the panel that the Republican Party is becoming a radical party. You could tell that the comment made his conservative colleague David Brooks cringe, as it should. In this Republican primary, the rhetoric has gone farther to the right than in the past 40 years at least.
And of course, speaking of weak cases, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) best answer in defense of two-thirds of the American people against the Affordable Healthcare Act is that once people get beyond all the horribles being touted about the bill, they'll see the benefits. What? However, he did say that the concept of the individual mandate came from the conservative Heritage Foundation back in 1993. For Democrats, this is a good nugget to be pulling out hammering home, that conservatives were for this but the Dems just haven't made the point effectively enough as Mr. Schumer did today. It wasn't as weak an argument as the case the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made for the law before the Supreme Court this week, according to all reports, blogs, and tweets.
Mr. Schumer did say that even given the weak argument, it's difficult to say how the court will judge. However, there will be significant negative effects if the court does not uphold the law, and those will be felt on all sides. From the round table, Jon Meacham stated that it would be a permanent black eye for the President if it's not upheld. It will be - he spent a year and a half working on a Health care law that was deemed unconstitutional. If the vote comes down 5-4 against, which looks like the anticipated tally, the court will be viewed by most to be ideological and partisan, and Republicans who will be thinking victory will once again be the grand party of 'no' because they'll offer no alternative but to cut benefits for Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest. Finally, what will ultimately be lost, and rather quickly, is Americans faith in our system of government. Congress can barely get anything done, and when they finally do pass something of significance, for good or ill, a court of 9 can negate the whole thing. It leads one to ask, what's the point?
There's no doubt that the court is ideological activist, the track record is there. We contended before in this column that the court makes decisions without considering the practical nature of their conclusions. Case in point is the Citizens United decision, where the court made a conclusion and now see the result in practice and there thinking that it's pretty awful what they unleashed. Since they've seen it now and the accompanying consequences, this time around with health care the judges are trying to consider the effect of the decision more. This is what leads a smart man to ask dumb questions about mandating people to eat broccoli.
It seems that the court is short in the overarching consideration for the Interstate Commerce Clause and the effect on it for striking down the law, a point that Senator Schumer rightly brought up. By ruling against the government, the court could put Congress's ability to regulate industries that operate state to state in real jeopardy. As Mr. Schumer mentioned, food safety standards could deteriorate. This and environmental protections, air and water, are underestimated in significance of importance in this country. We don't seem to understand that the better the food, the better the air, and the better the water, the less we'll be sick and... then require less health care.
Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times, Fmr. Newsweek Executive Editor Jon Meacham, Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) and MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski.
Postscript: Oh yeah, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) was on the program today to endorse Mitt Romney. We guess that is what you would call 'mild news' given the upcoming Wisconsin primary. Important? Hardly, no one's listening, not even in Wisconsin.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
3.25.12: The Anguish and the Anger of a Natural Sin
Mr. Gregory said that the President seemed reluctant to take the lead in discussing race at this time in the aftermath of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL. But David Plouffe, in his interview segment, said that the President's leadership has been profound. Really, he's stayed somewhat measured in his responses, as he's had to be, and he doesn't need to lead the conversation. The discussion, the way it's playing out in the public forum, is how the discussion needs to progress, and the President should weigh in and observe (as should Congress) about what the American people are saying - they are leading the discussion.
In response to something tragic, the nature first reaction is outrage, but more so anguish, as NPR's Michele Norris described it, because it has reinforced the existing reality of race relations in the United States of America, and specifically as Mr. Ben Jealous described it, African-American men being 'born suspect.' The anger will instill cause in individuals and the conversation will turn productive. It will happen, and we'll progress positively but it takes time. Mr. Jealous said he's already seen a coming together of the public.
As for the President's comments this week with regard to Trayvon Martin, of course it's going to touch him in profound way, he's an African-American and a father, he made a personal comment, and race is a component here. David Brooks described it as a nature sin, that we have to fight, and the only way to fight it is to bring it out in the open. We can not deny the reality so we find it distasteful for the Republican candidates for President, specifically Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, to say that President Obama has politicized this with his statements. Newt Gingrich went so far as to practically accuse the President of reverse-racism, that's disgraceful. Mr. Gingrich marginalizes himself from the conversation with such responses.
Moving on to another nature sin, the Obama Administration's energy policy has been 'cagey,' as Mr. Brooks described it. Mr. Obama has acted , in this area more so than all others, in a true political way, in that he's trying to make everyone happy and like what's he's doing. With his announcement of starting construction of the southern part of the keystone pipeline is the object example. This announcement is clearly aimed to placate his Republican opponents in an attempt to tamper down the rhetoric. All the while, he's also turning to his left and saying I'm holding that up for environmental concerns.
However, if the President doesn't announce plans to build the northern portion, even if it could devastate the environment, then what he has is the pipeline to nowhere. In other words, a political loser on both sides of the argument. With that said, the discussion in the media hasn't focused on at all on alternatives to the pipeline or on how we're building it. Are there any? It doesn't seem that way so it comes down to a do or don't do. Even though the pipeline won't be finished and producing until President Obama is significantly out of office, the call will have been his to make. He's not being completely honest with part of his base, and so that's the risk he takes politically, but we get it. He's trying to head off the politics of Keystone before he gets to the head to head with Mitt Romney, who Haley Barbour said is to be the nominee unless he steps on a landmine. (Even given the media downplaying of Rick Santorum winning big in the Louisiana primary yesterday.) Despite the reality that any President can not control gas prices, he's the one who gets blamed, and they all have thin skin on this issue, Mr. Obama being no exception. We guess what President Obama could say is that his policy on Keystone is just like one that Mitt Romney would agree with - I'm for the pipeline over here, but not over there, taking both sides.
Where the President will not, can not, should not play both sides is in the health care law debate. Right now, he is staying out of the argument while others make it in front of the Supreme Court this week. David Plouffe seemed confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the law, most probably calculating that the mostly conservative court could not possibly take the hit that they are partisan in their decisions, as it was perceived in the Citizens United case, and evident in the Bush vs. Gore decision.
We not going to underestimate the Supreme Courts capabilities in this case, they could very well repeal it, perception or no perception. What's funny is that Republicans are basically putting down what they in fact originally proposed, thanks to lefties like Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. Getting millions of more people into the market and potentially bringing costs down could be a bad thing. Our feeling is that Obamacare will be policy that years down the road will be one of those things, like Social Security, where everyone is saying, why wasn't this way before. Then is 40 more years, the whole thing will go haywire and we'll have to figure it out again.
Round table: Fmr. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R); head of the NAACP, Ben Jealous; NPR’s Michele Norris; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the New York Times’ David Brooks.
Post: We commend Rachel Maddow for her engaging in the conversation, through her book Drift, about America's constant state of war and the military superstructure that exists. The notion of Americans being comfortable with it is worrisome at the very least even though 60% of of the people say that we should get out of Afghanistan. It renders us with no moral high ground that we as Americans like to occupy, but in even cold financial terms, we spend too much money on the military superstructure. That's not the troops, who we need to spend more on, but the industries, contractors, and lobbies that push an agenda. What makes us slightly hopeful is that for all this to change, the conversation has to start somewhere and this one is starting in the right places. Way on one political side, the left, is Rachel Maddow talking about it. On the other end is Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. If you could get those two in the same room, on the same page talking about this, people would take notice.
In response to something tragic, the nature first reaction is outrage, but more so anguish, as NPR's Michele Norris described it, because it has reinforced the existing reality of race relations in the United States of America, and specifically as Mr. Ben Jealous described it, African-American men being 'born suspect.' The anger will instill cause in individuals and the conversation will turn productive. It will happen, and we'll progress positively but it takes time. Mr. Jealous said he's already seen a coming together of the public.
As for the President's comments this week with regard to Trayvon Martin, of course it's going to touch him in profound way, he's an African-American and a father, he made a personal comment, and race is a component here. David Brooks described it as a nature sin, that we have to fight, and the only way to fight it is to bring it out in the open. We can not deny the reality so we find it distasteful for the Republican candidates for President, specifically Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, to say that President Obama has politicized this with his statements. Newt Gingrich went so far as to practically accuse the President of reverse-racism, that's disgraceful. Mr. Gingrich marginalizes himself from the conversation with such responses.
Moving on to another nature sin, the Obama Administration's energy policy has been 'cagey,' as Mr. Brooks described it. Mr. Obama has acted , in this area more so than all others, in a true political way, in that he's trying to make everyone happy and like what's he's doing. With his announcement of starting construction of the southern part of the keystone pipeline is the object example. This announcement is clearly aimed to placate his Republican opponents in an attempt to tamper down the rhetoric. All the while, he's also turning to his left and saying I'm holding that up for environmental concerns.
However, if the President doesn't announce plans to build the northern portion, even if it could devastate the environment, then what he has is the pipeline to nowhere. In other words, a political loser on both sides of the argument. With that said, the discussion in the media hasn't focused on at all on alternatives to the pipeline or on how we're building it. Are there any? It doesn't seem that way so it comes down to a do or don't do. Even though the pipeline won't be finished and producing until President Obama is significantly out of office, the call will have been his to make. He's not being completely honest with part of his base, and so that's the risk he takes politically, but we get it. He's trying to head off the politics of Keystone before he gets to the head to head with Mitt Romney, who Haley Barbour said is to be the nominee unless he steps on a landmine. (Even given the media downplaying of Rick Santorum winning big in the Louisiana primary yesterday.) Despite the reality that any President can not control gas prices, he's the one who gets blamed, and they all have thin skin on this issue, Mr. Obama being no exception. We guess what President Obama could say is that his policy on Keystone is just like one that Mitt Romney would agree with - I'm for the pipeline over here, but not over there, taking both sides.
Where the President will not, can not, should not play both sides is in the health care law debate. Right now, he is staying out of the argument while others make it in front of the Supreme Court this week. David Plouffe seemed confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the law, most probably calculating that the mostly conservative court could not possibly take the hit that they are partisan in their decisions, as it was perceived in the Citizens United case, and evident in the Bush vs. Gore decision.
We not going to underestimate the Supreme Courts capabilities in this case, they could very well repeal it, perception or no perception. What's funny is that Republicans are basically putting down what they in fact originally proposed, thanks to lefties like Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. Getting millions of more people into the market and potentially bringing costs down could be a bad thing. Our feeling is that Obamacare will be policy that years down the road will be one of those things, like Social Security, where everyone is saying, why wasn't this way before. Then is 40 more years, the whole thing will go haywire and we'll have to figure it out again.
Round table: Fmr. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R); head of the NAACP, Ben Jealous; NPR’s Michele Norris; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the New York Times’ David Brooks.
Post: We commend Rachel Maddow for her engaging in the conversation, through her book Drift, about America's constant state of war and the military superstructure that exists. The notion of Americans being comfortable with it is worrisome at the very least even though 60% of of the people say that we should get out of Afghanistan. It renders us with no moral high ground that we as Americans like to occupy, but in even cold financial terms, we spend too much money on the military superstructure. That's not the troops, who we need to spend more on, but the industries, contractors, and lobbies that push an agenda. What makes us slightly hopeful is that for all this to change, the conversation has to start somewhere and this one is starting in the right places. Way on one political side, the left, is Rachel Maddow talking about it. On the other end is Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. If you could get those two in the same room, on the same page talking about this, people would take notice.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
3.18.12: Connecting the Dots
Today's program was seemingly all over the map with discussions on the Republican Primary races, Super PACs, Afghanistan and the tragic act committed by Sgt. Robert Bales, the crisis in Syria, and finally the discussion of what is happening in the Sudan with George Clooney and John Prendergast. However, there are three consistently interwoven threads that connect them all and those are the United States, Russia, and China.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), making his 64th appearance on Meet The Press, said point blank that Mitt Romney needs to do a better job campaigning if he wants the nomination. Mr. Romney, on the campaign trail, consistently speaks of increasing military spending so that there will be no question around the world as to which country has the most military power. But we already have that supremacy, 10-fold in fact. Rarely does he speak of diplomacy in solving the problems that the U.S. faces abroad. Diplomacy requires nuance and as evidenced on the campaign, this is something that Mr. Romney sorely lacks.
Mr. McCain is correct to complain about Super PACs, but you get what you pay for. In the case of Newt Gingrich's campaign, Sheldon Adelson funds his campaign on the promise that the United States will wage a war on Iran to protect Israel. In strict constructionist terms, the First Amendment guarantees free speech but does not designate the difference between a collective or an individual so technically the decision was correct, however, in practicality this decision is a disaster. It's created the nastiest campaign, to use the Senator's words, that he's ever seen. So will our foreign policy be dictated by the whims of a few? Senator McCain said that there would be scandals (with regard to Super PAC funding) and then we'll have to 're-legislate,' but really it's a 're-litigate.'
The Senator also stated that Iran would be dealt a crippling blow in its influence if the United States were to engage militarily with Syria, and given the evidence that Russia is supplying the Assad Government with arms, he concludes that we should arm the insurgents. In effect this will create another proxy war with Russia, which we can not afford. What would a President Romney do? Would he look into the soul of President Putin, as President Bush did, and conclude that we trust them? Russia is loving what is happening in Afghanistan with the United States being bogged down in a prolonged war in that country, seeing our finances and human resources stretched beyond capacity.
The good Senator said that we needed to be committed to victory in Afghanistan instead of consistently emphasizing withdrawal plans. However, if you listened to the round table discussion today, 'victory' is a murky proposition. Author John Krakauer deemed the counter-insurgency doomed to fail at the start. The point being that a military trained to fight can not win hearts and minds with the barrel of a gun. To buttress that, Ms. Cooper pointed out that the population does not feel safe with the presence of the U.S. Military in country. Of course this is punctuated by this latest tragedy of Sgt. Robert Bales' mass shooting of Afghan civilians. These realities, along with many others, should be the impetus for us to get out of country.
Paul Rieckhoff stated that at this moment the suicide rate among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans is higher than the casualty rate among our soldiers. This is the direct product of too few fighting too much, over ten years of war and more than 200,000 traumatic brain injuries in ten years. So to Senator McCain, where's the victory in this? The panel threw around comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan with some of the members pointing to the commonalities and others disagreeing. But here's how that stacks up given that we've executed a troop surge in both countries. The similarities are few. Afghanistan is no where near as stable as Iraq, and that's saying something. The Iraqis have had the sense of what a functioning government looks like and the network of bureaucracy that is needed to create stability. Also, a distinct difference between both counter-insurgency efforts is that in Afghanistan we are paying people whereas in Iraq we enriched people with money, and power. For dissident Iraqis there was the incentive of control. There is no sense of control in Afghanistan.
Mr. Gregory, in the interview segment with Senator McCain asked about the contraception law in Arizona that if passed would require women to inform their employers why they would want birth control. The Senator doesn't think that this will pass, and when asked about the Republican (clearly Republican initiated) 'War on Women,' he said that this needed to be fixed. What Mr. Gregory didn't point out is the distinct irony that in Afghanistan we're fighting for women's rights (Republicans advocating for continued/escalated fighting) while here at home Republicans are trying to take rights from women. Frankly, this is a disgrace.
Lastly, in addition to the human cost, our finances are so strained because of our extended wars, it renders the United States with little leverage in dealing with China, and in the example of today's program, the Sudan which Mr. Gregory discussed with George Clooney and John Prendergast. Though Mr. Clooney effectively puts it in financial terms, China has little incentive to do cooperative business with us because they can outbid and outspend the United States at every turn in the procuring natural resources [read: petroleum]. As long as the United States is engaged in protracted wars, Mr. Clooney will have to continue to solely rely on his celebrity because the U.S. government, though would like to have his back, can not afford it.
Round table: Author and Afghanistan War veteran Wes Moore; author of the bestselling book “Where Men Win Glory” about the death of Pat Tillman, Jon Krakauer; Founder and Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Paul Rieckhoff; the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward; and the New York Times’ Helene Cooper.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), making his 64th appearance on Meet The Press, said point blank that Mitt Romney needs to do a better job campaigning if he wants the nomination. Mr. Romney, on the campaign trail, consistently speaks of increasing military spending so that there will be no question around the world as to which country has the most military power. But we already have that supremacy, 10-fold in fact. Rarely does he speak of diplomacy in solving the problems that the U.S. faces abroad. Diplomacy requires nuance and as evidenced on the campaign, this is something that Mr. Romney sorely lacks.
Mr. McCain is correct to complain about Super PACs, but you get what you pay for. In the case of Newt Gingrich's campaign, Sheldon Adelson funds his campaign on the promise that the United States will wage a war on Iran to protect Israel. In strict constructionist terms, the First Amendment guarantees free speech but does not designate the difference between a collective or an individual so technically the decision was correct, however, in practicality this decision is a disaster. It's created the nastiest campaign, to use the Senator's words, that he's ever seen. So will our foreign policy be dictated by the whims of a few? Senator McCain said that there would be scandals (with regard to Super PAC funding) and then we'll have to 're-legislate,' but really it's a 're-litigate.'
The Senator also stated that Iran would be dealt a crippling blow in its influence if the United States were to engage militarily with Syria, and given the evidence that Russia is supplying the Assad Government with arms, he concludes that we should arm the insurgents. In effect this will create another proxy war with Russia, which we can not afford. What would a President Romney do? Would he look into the soul of President Putin, as President Bush did, and conclude that we trust them? Russia is loving what is happening in Afghanistan with the United States being bogged down in a prolonged war in that country, seeing our finances and human resources stretched beyond capacity.
The good Senator said that we needed to be committed to victory in Afghanistan instead of consistently emphasizing withdrawal plans. However, if you listened to the round table discussion today, 'victory' is a murky proposition. Author John Krakauer deemed the counter-insurgency doomed to fail at the start. The point being that a military trained to fight can not win hearts and minds with the barrel of a gun. To buttress that, Ms. Cooper pointed out that the population does not feel safe with the presence of the U.S. Military in country. Of course this is punctuated by this latest tragedy of Sgt. Robert Bales' mass shooting of Afghan civilians. These realities, along with many others, should be the impetus for us to get out of country.
Paul Rieckhoff stated that at this moment the suicide rate among Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans is higher than the casualty rate among our soldiers. This is the direct product of too few fighting too much, over ten years of war and more than 200,000 traumatic brain injuries in ten years. So to Senator McCain, where's the victory in this? The panel threw around comparisons between Iraq and Afghanistan with some of the members pointing to the commonalities and others disagreeing. But here's how that stacks up given that we've executed a troop surge in both countries. The similarities are few. Afghanistan is no where near as stable as Iraq, and that's saying something. The Iraqis have had the sense of what a functioning government looks like and the network of bureaucracy that is needed to create stability. Also, a distinct difference between both counter-insurgency efforts is that in Afghanistan we are paying people whereas in Iraq we enriched people with money, and power. For dissident Iraqis there was the incentive of control. There is no sense of control in Afghanistan.
Mr. Gregory, in the interview segment with Senator McCain asked about the contraception law in Arizona that if passed would require women to inform their employers why they would want birth control. The Senator doesn't think that this will pass, and when asked about the Republican (clearly Republican initiated) 'War on Women,' he said that this needed to be fixed. What Mr. Gregory didn't point out is the distinct irony that in Afghanistan we're fighting for women's rights (Republicans advocating for continued/escalated fighting) while here at home Republicans are trying to take rights from women. Frankly, this is a disgrace.
Lastly, in addition to the human cost, our finances are so strained because of our extended wars, it renders the United States with little leverage in dealing with China, and in the example of today's program, the Sudan which Mr. Gregory discussed with George Clooney and John Prendergast. Though Mr. Clooney effectively puts it in financial terms, China has little incentive to do cooperative business with us because they can outbid and outspend the United States at every turn in the procuring natural resources [read: petroleum]. As long as the United States is engaged in protracted wars, Mr. Clooney will have to continue to solely rely on his celebrity because the U.S. government, though would like to have his back, can not afford it.
Round table: Author and Afghanistan War veteran Wes Moore; author of the bestselling book “Where Men Win Glory” about the death of Pat Tillman, Jon Krakauer; Founder and Executive Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Paul Rieckhoff; the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward; and the New York Times’ Helene Cooper.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
3.11.12: What Happened to 'God's Green Earth?'
All the talk about the delegate count and whether or not Newt Gingrich should get out of the race between Rick Santorum and Mr. Gregory this morning is a bit frivolous in as much as there's no telling at this moment where the Republican primary race is going to go. Mr. Santorum mentioned uncommitted delegates and super delegates that are still up in the air, but the fact of the matter is that the primary races have to play out and delegates are going to go with the proportional winners. As for Mr. Gingrich, and Mr. Santorum for that matter, there is no reason to get out of the race when you have the structure of financial backing that these two candidates have, which is to say that both of their campaigns rely on a single mega-donor, Sheldon Adelson and Foster Freiss respectively. In this new climate, candidates will ride all the way to the convention and then try to leverage their delegates for their own goals.
What we find ridiculous, and for Rick Santorum in particular, is the Senator's take on the President's energy policy, calling him the leader of a radical environmental movement in the United States, so much for God's Green Earth we guess. The rhetoric is on the Republicans' side, but the numbers and the reality is on the Democrats side. If you know nothing else, know that all the oil produced gets put onto the world market, a world market where the United States doesn't set the price Also, when you consider the fact that the United States produces 2% of the world's oil and uses over 20% of the world's supply then oil prices are going to be high. Also, high gas prices are completely relative. Gasoline in the United States is cheap comparatively to many industrialized countries around the world.
Americans were upset when the BP oil spill severely damaged the Gulf Coast, so why is it unacceptable when we take time to pause and evaluate the environmental effect on more drilling or an oil pipeline installation? Money drives judgment but every decision can not be made with respect to money. This may come as a shocker, but money doesn't fix everything, especially when it comes to the environment, just ask the Japanese. Opening up all the spigots right here, right now is not going to lower gas prices.
Mr. Santorum also mentioned regulations that are damaging business and getting in the way of it, and what he's talking about is the Dodd-Frank bill, which was created presumably so that we do not repeat the mess that we got into in 2008, which was driven by credit default swap where no one was held accountable at margin call. What Mr. Santorum is talking about is a regulation boogie-monster.
Lastly, and ever-present in an interview with Rick Santorum is the discussion of 'Obamacare,' which he sites as the overriding factor to his calling to run for President. Mr. Santorum says that 'Obamacare' would neglect his special needs child, and marginalize that child as unproductive and not worth the time. He continues that intrusive government is making that judgment,'government running people's lives' he said, and its unacceptable. However, at odds with this is Mr. Santorum's stance on women's reproductive rights.
Governor McDonnell, tactfully circumvented the question about the invasive procedure that his state legislature mandated within Virginia's new law that required an ultrasound for women seeking an abortion. Mr. Santorum is for this procedure, but as Mr. Gregory pointed out, this is a government mandate on a health issue. This leads to the biggest problem the Republican party has right now, and that is what conservative columnist Peggy Noonan deemed as a lack of respect toward women. She didn't specifically point the finger at anyone, but this misogyny against women, as she also termed it, is going to be the ruination of the Republican Party. The optics, the rhetoric and the policy initiatives are all at odds with the natural evolution of society in the United States. We could go into all the rhetorical angles illustrating why this is bad for the country, but frankly, and simply, men, only men, should not be making laws and about women's reproductive health, and the debate on contraception takes most Americans back to a time they can't remember. And you know why they can't remember that time? Because it doesn't make sense since they weren't even born yet.
MSNBC’s Al Sharpton, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Washington Post’s EJ Dionne, and the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan
Postscript: During today's program, there was a report on a U.S. soldier in Kandahar, Afghanistan who left his post and shot 16 Afghan civilians, which included women and children. The bottom line is that the sooner we get out of this country (and end our warring) the better. Because of our military having to overextend itself, we've lowered recruiting standards, we've asked soldiers to do multiple tours - meaning years and years of war for each individual, and increased the stress level for our people and cemented resentment in their people.
The story of the Koran burning, on its face, was bad enough but there are stories that the Korans in question had been used to pass messages to plot against American soldiers. The books were defaced by their own proponents. However, this murder rapage, no matter how you would attempt to spin it, is the moment where we need to turn it all around and turn it back. It is not in our national interest to be there in these numbers anymore.
What we find ridiculous, and for Rick Santorum in particular, is the Senator's take on the President's energy policy, calling him the leader of a radical environmental movement in the United States, so much for God's Green Earth we guess. The rhetoric is on the Republicans' side, but the numbers and the reality is on the Democrats side. If you know nothing else, know that all the oil produced gets put onto the world market, a world market where the United States doesn't set the price Also, when you consider the fact that the United States produces 2% of the world's oil and uses over 20% of the world's supply then oil prices are going to be high. Also, high gas prices are completely relative. Gasoline in the United States is cheap comparatively to many industrialized countries around the world.
Americans were upset when the BP oil spill severely damaged the Gulf Coast, so why is it unacceptable when we take time to pause and evaluate the environmental effect on more drilling or an oil pipeline installation? Money drives judgment but every decision can not be made with respect to money. This may come as a shocker, but money doesn't fix everything, especially when it comes to the environment, just ask the Japanese. Opening up all the spigots right here, right now is not going to lower gas prices.
Mr. Santorum also mentioned regulations that are damaging business and getting in the way of it, and what he's talking about is the Dodd-Frank bill, which was created presumably so that we do not repeat the mess that we got into in 2008, which was driven by credit default swap where no one was held accountable at margin call. What Mr. Santorum is talking about is a regulation boogie-monster.
Lastly, and ever-present in an interview with Rick Santorum is the discussion of 'Obamacare,' which he sites as the overriding factor to his calling to run for President. Mr. Santorum says that 'Obamacare' would neglect his special needs child, and marginalize that child as unproductive and not worth the time. He continues that intrusive government is making that judgment,'government running people's lives' he said, and its unacceptable. However, at odds with this is Mr. Santorum's stance on women's reproductive rights.
Governor McDonnell, tactfully circumvented the question about the invasive procedure that his state legislature mandated within Virginia's new law that required an ultrasound for women seeking an abortion. Mr. Santorum is for this procedure, but as Mr. Gregory pointed out, this is a government mandate on a health issue. This leads to the biggest problem the Republican party has right now, and that is what conservative columnist Peggy Noonan deemed as a lack of respect toward women. She didn't specifically point the finger at anyone, but this misogyny against women, as she also termed it, is going to be the ruination of the Republican Party. The optics, the rhetoric and the policy initiatives are all at odds with the natural evolution of society in the United States. We could go into all the rhetorical angles illustrating why this is bad for the country, but frankly, and simply, men, only men, should not be making laws and about women's reproductive health, and the debate on contraception takes most Americans back to a time they can't remember. And you know why they can't remember that time? Because it doesn't make sense since they weren't even born yet.
MSNBC’s Al Sharpton, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Washington Post’s EJ Dionne, and the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan
Postscript: During today's program, there was a report on a U.S. soldier in Kandahar, Afghanistan who left his post and shot 16 Afghan civilians, which included women and children. The bottom line is that the sooner we get out of this country (and end our warring) the better. Because of our military having to overextend itself, we've lowered recruiting standards, we've asked soldiers to do multiple tours - meaning years and years of war for each individual, and increased the stress level for our people and cemented resentment in their people.
The story of the Koran burning, on its face, was bad enough but there are stories that the Korans in question had been used to pass messages to plot against American soldiers. The books were defaced by their own proponents. However, this murder rapage, no matter how you would attempt to spin it, is the moment where we need to turn it all around and turn it back. It is not in our national interest to be there in these numbers anymore.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
3.14.12: Predicta-Inevitability
When Mr. Newt Gingrich begins to, what my mother would say, hem and haw toward the end of a question you know that what ever his answer is going to be it is going to start with a condemnation of the press, the 'elite media,' for being on the topic. In a way he is right in that now, the debate is about how the debate itself is being framed. The devolution occurred very quickly. However, you have to consider the source of the debate, Mr. Rush Limbaugh and his influence amongst the Republican party rank and file. It was a large voice from the Republican base that created the ugliness of this. And Mr. Gregory made sure to ask everyone on the program today what their thoughts were on Mr. Limbaugh's comments (which we're sure by now you know all too well). The sad reality of Mr. Limbaugh's show, if you listen to it, is that comments like his are bound to come out because he spends three hours a day, five days a week criticizing and ridiculing, but never once offering any solutions.
But here is where Mr. Gingrich is very wrong in his rhetoric. Of the statements that he could quote, he quoted the Catholic Bishops in saying, "The President is waging war against the Catholic Church," and he ran with it going further that this is the most radical move against the Catholic Church, which is hyperbole of the tallest order. Additionally, what's wrong with his rhetoric is his labeling of birth control as 'abortion pills.' It's a minor point, but still inappropriate. Where he really goes over the lie, is when he implies that the President is some secret Islamic sympathizer because he's 'waging war against Catholicism' at home, and apologizing to Muslims overseas (for the Koran burning incident with the U.S. Military). Congressman Cantor (R-VA), for his part during his interview, at least came out strong against the commentator's comments.
If the debate is framed in one of religious freedom instead of the moral compass and hence authority to speak out by the Catholic Church then we can talk, but if it's the latter then there needs to be another source of the outrage. [Yes, you can forgive, but forgetting is always something entirely different. The Catholic Church, frankly, has yet to fully atone for all its sins.]
Getting beyond all this... Rush Limbaugh, the Catholic Church, the outrage... If a Catholic Hospital doesn't want to fund birth control pills, for example, in their health insurance offering to employees, then according to what Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) said today, the insurance company that they use assumes the burden of payment, instead of the religious institute. That's the compromise from the President, but it's still unacceptable.
If the insurance company is also a Catholic Institution, then we can see the objection, but if it's a private for-profit insurance company then fully comprehensive plans that include contraceptive health services should be offered. We could go on for columns and columns just listing the book titles about how there needs to be more compromise in our political system, but we need to do two things here: One, respect women's health rights first and foremost; and secondly, we need to get beyond this. Things like the Blount Amendment voted on this week in the Senate, which Ms. Wasserman-Schultz was rightly outraged by, go too far and it is no where near where the American people are on health care and religious/moral freedom. Being more concise - that amendment was just stupid.
In addition to Mr. Gingrich railing on the press, what also struck predictable was Congressman Eric Cantor's endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. Mr. Cantor, like Mitt Romney, is not a cultural warrior of the Rick Santorum stripe per se, but very fiscally conservative. Interpret that as you will. The understated Savannah Guthrie made the good point that Romney blew an opportunity to come out against Mr. Limbaugh's comments and by doing so appeal to independent voters which he has to start doing but hasn't because of a very messy primary. Mr. Romney clearly has no stomach for dealing with social issues despite what Mike Murphy says. Mr. Cantor also boldly predicted that Mr. Romney would win his state of Virginia where there are only two people on the ballot - Mr. Romney and Dr. Paul (Santorum and Gingrich both didn't make it). In Mr. Cantor's description of Mitt Romney's economic plan, he characterized it as pro-growth, pro-jobs, and went on to say it is because Mr. Romney knows how to do it. To that point, one could argue that in his time at Bain Capital, he created a net of 100,000 jobs. But the question has to be what are the quality of those jobs? Simply creating retail jobs means that middle class income will be unlikely to progress upward. This says nothing of his proposed tax policy, which would create even less revenue for the government and hence a larger deficit.
Mr. Cantor made the Romney-like argument with regard to the United States' energy policy. He said that the President will argue that oil production is at an all time high, but despite that the President is holding back permits for more drilling. The argument is thin because additional permits aren't going to lower oil, hence gas, prices. The United States is now exporting oil and prices have not come down so this nuance of restricting permits wouldn't really solve anything. The operative example for this debate is the Keystone Pipeline, for which Republicans advocating.
Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz pointed out that it would take 45 years for the oil production from the pipeline to equal the same amount we would save under President Obama's policies. When one is speaking in projections, it's difficult to say how it will turn out so that reasoning is something to be considered but not taken as gospel. What was telling is that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz said the Republican Governor of Nebraska is one record as saying that more time and assessment is needed before proceeding with the pipeline. This is a fact so as it stands, somewhere in the Republican argument there is a disconnect between the ideological/political assessment for the pipeline and the practicality of it. Mr. Cantor said the President is hostile to fossil fuels, but instead we would contend that the President is seeing it simply as a finite source of energy.
Despite Mr. Cantor's assertions that Mitt Romney is the best man for the Presidency, the candidate is mired in a tough primary battle with Super Tuesday, primaries in 11 states, two days away. The reason it's been tough is the very reason why Mr. Cantor believes Mr. Romney should be the nominee, his economic policies. Rick Santorum is arguing that Mr. Romney's policies wouldn't be good for working-class Americans. This perception is reinforced by Mr. Romney himself with his numerous verbal gaffes - another Bain Capital Moment - 'a couple of Cadillacs.'
The remaining question is whether or not Mitt Romney will wrap up the Republican nomination this Tuesday. Ms. Guthrie also astutely pointed out that candidacies do not die a nature death these days, running out of money when you run out of support, because of Super PACs. This couple with Mark Halperin's assessment that if Mr. Romney loses Ohio, which is a very tight race right now, the primaries will go on.
Mike Murphy said that Mr. Romney is doing well with the delegates collected but his perception of winning primaries isn't great. We would contend that the opposite is true. Mr. Romney isn't doing as well as he should be with delegates. His perception of winning is good because he's been declared the winner in primaries and then it has ended up that he in fact lost the primary (Iowa) or his win is being contested by the other candidates (Michigan and Maine). Is the inevitability factor blinding the actual results? We predict that these discrepancies will continue to play a factor on Super Tuesday (or after it as the case may be) and that the Republican primary race will continue to slog on.
Round Table: Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, GOP strategist Mike Murphy, Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin, and NBC’s Savannah Guthrie.
But here is where Mr. Gingrich is very wrong in his rhetoric. Of the statements that he could quote, he quoted the Catholic Bishops in saying, "The President is waging war against the Catholic Church," and he ran with it going further that this is the most radical move against the Catholic Church, which is hyperbole of the tallest order. Additionally, what's wrong with his rhetoric is his labeling of birth control as 'abortion pills.' It's a minor point, but still inappropriate. Where he really goes over the lie, is when he implies that the President is some secret Islamic sympathizer because he's 'waging war against Catholicism' at home, and apologizing to Muslims overseas (for the Koran burning incident with the U.S. Military). Congressman Cantor (R-VA), for his part during his interview, at least came out strong against the commentator's comments.
If the debate is framed in one of religious freedom instead of the moral compass and hence authority to speak out by the Catholic Church then we can talk, but if it's the latter then there needs to be another source of the outrage. [Yes, you can forgive, but forgetting is always something entirely different. The Catholic Church, frankly, has yet to fully atone for all its sins.]
Getting beyond all this... Rush Limbaugh, the Catholic Church, the outrage... If a Catholic Hospital doesn't want to fund birth control pills, for example, in their health insurance offering to employees, then according to what Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) said today, the insurance company that they use assumes the burden of payment, instead of the religious institute. That's the compromise from the President, but it's still unacceptable.
If the insurance company is also a Catholic Institution, then we can see the objection, but if it's a private for-profit insurance company then fully comprehensive plans that include contraceptive health services should be offered. We could go on for columns and columns just listing the book titles about how there needs to be more compromise in our political system, but we need to do two things here: One, respect women's health rights first and foremost; and secondly, we need to get beyond this. Things like the Blount Amendment voted on this week in the Senate, which Ms. Wasserman-Schultz was rightly outraged by, go too far and it is no where near where the American people are on health care and religious/moral freedom. Being more concise - that amendment was just stupid.
In addition to Mr. Gingrich railing on the press, what also struck predictable was Congressman Eric Cantor's endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. Mr. Cantor, like Mitt Romney, is not a cultural warrior of the Rick Santorum stripe per se, but very fiscally conservative. Interpret that as you will. The understated Savannah Guthrie made the good point that Romney blew an opportunity to come out against Mr. Limbaugh's comments and by doing so appeal to independent voters which he has to start doing but hasn't because of a very messy primary. Mr. Romney clearly has no stomach for dealing with social issues despite what Mike Murphy says. Mr. Cantor also boldly predicted that Mr. Romney would win his state of Virginia where there are only two people on the ballot - Mr. Romney and Dr. Paul (Santorum and Gingrich both didn't make it). In Mr. Cantor's description of Mitt Romney's economic plan, he characterized it as pro-growth, pro-jobs, and went on to say it is because Mr. Romney knows how to do it. To that point, one could argue that in his time at Bain Capital, he created a net of 100,000 jobs. But the question has to be what are the quality of those jobs? Simply creating retail jobs means that middle class income will be unlikely to progress upward. This says nothing of his proposed tax policy, which would create even less revenue for the government and hence a larger deficit.
Mr. Cantor made the Romney-like argument with regard to the United States' energy policy. He said that the President will argue that oil production is at an all time high, but despite that the President is holding back permits for more drilling. The argument is thin because additional permits aren't going to lower oil, hence gas, prices. The United States is now exporting oil and prices have not come down so this nuance of restricting permits wouldn't really solve anything. The operative example for this debate is the Keystone Pipeline, for which Republicans advocating.
Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz pointed out that it would take 45 years for the oil production from the pipeline to equal the same amount we would save under President Obama's policies. When one is speaking in projections, it's difficult to say how it will turn out so that reasoning is something to be considered but not taken as gospel. What was telling is that Ms. Wasserman-Schultz said the Republican Governor of Nebraska is one record as saying that more time and assessment is needed before proceeding with the pipeline. This is a fact so as it stands, somewhere in the Republican argument there is a disconnect between the ideological/political assessment for the pipeline and the practicality of it. Mr. Cantor said the President is hostile to fossil fuels, but instead we would contend that the President is seeing it simply as a finite source of energy.
Despite Mr. Cantor's assertions that Mitt Romney is the best man for the Presidency, the candidate is mired in a tough primary battle with Super Tuesday, primaries in 11 states, two days away. The reason it's been tough is the very reason why Mr. Cantor believes Mr. Romney should be the nominee, his economic policies. Rick Santorum is arguing that Mr. Romney's policies wouldn't be good for working-class Americans. This perception is reinforced by Mr. Romney himself with his numerous verbal gaffes - another Bain Capital Moment - 'a couple of Cadillacs.'
The remaining question is whether or not Mitt Romney will wrap up the Republican nomination this Tuesday. Ms. Guthrie also astutely pointed out that candidacies do not die a nature death these days, running out of money when you run out of support, because of Super PACs. This couple with Mark Halperin's assessment that if Mr. Romney loses Ohio, which is a very tight race right now, the primaries will go on.
Mike Murphy said that Mr. Romney is doing well with the delegates collected but his perception of winning primaries isn't great. We would contend that the opposite is true. Mr. Romney isn't doing as well as he should be with delegates. His perception of winning is good because he's been declared the winner in primaries and then it has ended up that he in fact lost the primary (Iowa) or his win is being contested by the other candidates (Michigan and Maine). Is the inevitability factor blinding the actual results? We predict that these discrepancies will continue to play a factor on Super Tuesday (or after it as the case may be) and that the Republican primary race will continue to slog on.
Round Table: Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, GOP strategist Mike Murphy, Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin, and NBC’s Savannah Guthrie.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
2.26.12: Everything You Wanted to Know About Connecting with People (but Were Afraid to Ask)
We lead with this... Former Congressman Harold Ford made a good point in that the most interesting answer Former Senator Rick Santorum gave during his interview was on Afghanistan and not on the separation of Church and State.
Mr. Santorum said that the President should not have apologized for the U.S. Military inadvertently burning Korans in Afghanistan; Mr. Ford disagreed. However, in addition to making the point that if the situation were reversed and an Islamic Army burned Bibles here, would Mr. Santorum want an apology because it is a matter of faith, Mr. Ford pointed to this as a barometer of how Mr. Santorum would negotiate with other nations in times of conflict. Mr. Ford rarely delivers during his guest spot, but today he certainly did because what he was getting at is the major flaw of Rick Santorum as a Presidential candidate. He only see the world through his very narrow prism and is unable to figuratively step outside the situation and see it from all perspectives, and that means everything from contraception to foreign policy.
Yes, the President did apologize and should have as he understands the delicate nature of other people's faith, especially in Afghanistan. Senator Santorum did when it came to the Administration's decision on contraception, which angered the Catholic Bishops, but not this? Is a blatant disregard, a sense of arrogance toward other nations and faiths under the cover of the idea of American Exceptionalism? On another point, which we'll get to later, Mr. Santorum called the President a snob so either in the above point, he's either arrogant or stupid. The question, as Mr. Ford rightly brought up, is not whether to apologize or not, but how will Mr. Santorum negotiate with other nations in instances like these?
And we'd be remiss not to mention Senator Santorum's answers with regard to faith playing a role in governing. In referencing the Kennedy video (see below), Mr. Santorum said that Kennedy's stance on the separation of Church and State was too rigid and disagreed with Kennedy that it should be absolute. He quickly said that it wasn't the founders vision, but that's not true at all. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
So how could President Kennedy's stance be too rigid if he followed the above tenant? Mr. Santorum cited the slave movement and the civil rights movement as ones that were rooted in faith. In fact, he said that it's a "Dangerous idea to take faith out of the decisio in making process." Given that more people die in the name and because of religion, we'll refer back to the First Amendment for our stance. But beside leaving that to interpretation, what raised eyebrows is how he referred to slavery, as a movement. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant anti-slavery. Movements usually are called so because they advocate for something, and Mr. Santorum isn't advocating for slavery. Given that, the anti-slavery movement? More Americans died in the civil war, a war fought over slavery, than in all other American wars combined, not to mention the merciless oppression with all its ripples and echoes. It wasn't simply a movement as Mr. Santorum labeled it... Just saying.
This entire discussion points to the fact that Mr. Santorum, as Washington Post Columnist Kathleen Parker said, overshoots. He always takes his argument too far to the right, and as Ms. Parker also pointed out, it's troublesome to people who know Mr. Santorum well. He's just never going to get enough people behind his views and agenda.
However, as the argument has been, at least he has views, convictions, and an agenda as opposed to Mitt Romney who apparently does not. Mr. Santorum said that Mr. Romney's speech earlier this week at Ford's Field was timid, insider, and nothing new. Mr. Santorum just needs to be careful with that rhetoric because as he admitted as much in the Arizona debate earlier in the week, his vote on No Child Left Behind. That vote was along party lines, he was the Whip (the person responsible for getting the votes) at the time, and the law advocated for standardized testing (some thing he opposes).
But Mr. Romney can be insufferable. That he said his wife drives a 'couple of Cadillacs' during said speech just creates another layer of separation between him and the people whose votes he's trying to court, like a bad onion. Cut to Kathleen Parker again - who said that given that he is a dork, Mr. Romney's persona should be shaped as the doctor with no bed side manner, with the bottom line being that he has the cure. This is good, it could work for Mr. Romney given all of his verbal catastrophes [Corporations are people, I'm not concerned about poor people, the trees are the right size (one we'll never understand)].
Here's the rub, Mr. Romney doesn't have the cure, and Mr. Santorum pointed out it out. Mr. Romney was for bailing out the banks, but not for bailing out the auto industry. It's the very reason why the Michigan primary polls are so close. But larger than that, it is well established in people's minds that the jobs that were saved by the auto bailout were in the millions, think of the supply chain to those car makers. If this people's perception, but Mr. Romney doesn't understand that, how is he going to implement economic policies that positively effect those people?
A positive effect is not what college campuses are having on our youth according to Mr. Santorum. As we mentioned, he called the President a snob for saying that every one go to college even though he has encouraged all his children to attend. But we understand Mr. Santorum's point that every kid isn't meant for college, but that the opportunity should be there for them. That's fine but to go on to say that college campuses are indoctrinating students with secular thought is a wrong-minded generalization that seems to imply that university professors should not engage their students in critical thought.
Rick Santorum's positions are appealing to a small sliver of the American populace so hence Mr. Romney (who has yet to come to Meet The Press for an interview) still remains the safe bet for the nomination. And speaking of safe bets, Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ), on the program today, officially endorsed Mr. Romney for President, who is way ahead in Arizona primary polls. As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted, Mr. Romney also has momentum because Mr. Santorum has to continually answer questions about social issue positions, like the content of this column.
In the joint interview with Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA), Ms. Brewer was vocally frustrated when discussing immigration. She said that Texas goes a good job, California does a good job, but Arizona doesn't because it doesn't have the support of the Federal Government. In fact, the state is being sued for its immigration policy that says it can check an individual's citizenship, 'show me your papers,' if they are stopped by police, for example, for something else. The decision will come from the Supreme Court in April. The Federal Government helps all three states with border control so if Texas and California both do a good job as Ms. Brewer said, but Arizona does not, isn't that a reflection more on the governor's performance than anyone else's? Governor Brewer, in fact, framed it in such a way that the responsibility for poor border security should rest on her. Governor Brown, whether you agree with his agenda or not, he does have a clear one, which is the Dream Act in California giving students a path to citizenship. He said that it would also include scholarship opportunities. His reasoning being that you simply can't just round up 12 million people and deport them. Whether or not you agree with him, he didn't whine about it, he brought what he thought was the best solution. Not no solution.
Round table: McCain '08 senior strategist Steve Schmidt, Fmr. Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., Washington Post's Kathleen Parker, and NBC's Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
Mr. Santorum said that the President should not have apologized for the U.S. Military inadvertently burning Korans in Afghanistan; Mr. Ford disagreed. However, in addition to making the point that if the situation were reversed and an Islamic Army burned Bibles here, would Mr. Santorum want an apology because it is a matter of faith, Mr. Ford pointed to this as a barometer of how Mr. Santorum would negotiate with other nations in times of conflict. Mr. Ford rarely delivers during his guest spot, but today he certainly did because what he was getting at is the major flaw of Rick Santorum as a Presidential candidate. He only see the world through his very narrow prism and is unable to figuratively step outside the situation and see it from all perspectives, and that means everything from contraception to foreign policy.
Yes, the President did apologize and should have as he understands the delicate nature of other people's faith, especially in Afghanistan. Senator Santorum did when it came to the Administration's decision on contraception, which angered the Catholic Bishops, but not this? Is a blatant disregard, a sense of arrogance toward other nations and faiths under the cover of the idea of American Exceptionalism? On another point, which we'll get to later, Mr. Santorum called the President a snob so either in the above point, he's either arrogant or stupid. The question, as Mr. Ford rightly brought up, is not whether to apologize or not, but how will Mr. Santorum negotiate with other nations in instances like these?
And we'd be remiss not to mention Senator Santorum's answers with regard to faith playing a role in governing. In referencing the Kennedy video (see below), Mr. Santorum said that Kennedy's stance on the separation of Church and State was too rigid and disagreed with Kennedy that it should be absolute. He quickly said that it wasn't the founders vision, but that's not true at all. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
So how could President Kennedy's stance be too rigid if he followed the above tenant? Mr. Santorum cited the slave movement and the civil rights movement as ones that were rooted in faith. In fact, he said that it's a "Dangerous idea to take faith out of the decisio in making process." Given that more people die in the name and because of religion, we'll refer back to the First Amendment for our stance. But beside leaving that to interpretation, what raised eyebrows is how he referred to slavery, as a movement. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant anti-slavery. Movements usually are called so because they advocate for something, and Mr. Santorum isn't advocating for slavery. Given that, the anti-slavery movement? More Americans died in the civil war, a war fought over slavery, than in all other American wars combined, not to mention the merciless oppression with all its ripples and echoes. It wasn't simply a movement as Mr. Santorum labeled it... Just saying.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This entire discussion points to the fact that Mr. Santorum, as Washington Post Columnist Kathleen Parker said, overshoots. He always takes his argument too far to the right, and as Ms. Parker also pointed out, it's troublesome to people who know Mr. Santorum well. He's just never going to get enough people behind his views and agenda.
However, as the argument has been, at least he has views, convictions, and an agenda as opposed to Mitt Romney who apparently does not. Mr. Santorum said that Mr. Romney's speech earlier this week at Ford's Field was timid, insider, and nothing new. Mr. Santorum just needs to be careful with that rhetoric because as he admitted as much in the Arizona debate earlier in the week, his vote on No Child Left Behind. That vote was along party lines, he was the Whip (the person responsible for getting the votes) at the time, and the law advocated for standardized testing (some thing he opposes).
But Mr. Romney can be insufferable. That he said his wife drives a 'couple of Cadillacs' during said speech just creates another layer of separation between him and the people whose votes he's trying to court, like a bad onion. Cut to Kathleen Parker again - who said that given that he is a dork, Mr. Romney's persona should be shaped as the doctor with no bed side manner, with the bottom line being that he has the cure. This is good, it could work for Mr. Romney given all of his verbal catastrophes [Corporations are people, I'm not concerned about poor people, the trees are the right size (one we'll never understand)].
Here's the rub, Mr. Romney doesn't have the cure, and Mr. Santorum pointed out it out. Mr. Romney was for bailing out the banks, but not for bailing out the auto industry. It's the very reason why the Michigan primary polls are so close. But larger than that, it is well established in people's minds that the jobs that were saved by the auto bailout were in the millions, think of the supply chain to those car makers. If this people's perception, but Mr. Romney doesn't understand that, how is he going to implement economic policies that positively effect those people?
A positive effect is not what college campuses are having on our youth according to Mr. Santorum. As we mentioned, he called the President a snob for saying that every one go to college even though he has encouraged all his children to attend. But we understand Mr. Santorum's point that every kid isn't meant for college, but that the opportunity should be there for them. That's fine but to go on to say that college campuses are indoctrinating students with secular thought is a wrong-minded generalization that seems to imply that university professors should not engage their students in critical thought.
Rick Santorum's positions are appealing to a small sliver of the American populace so hence Mr. Romney (who has yet to come to Meet The Press for an interview) still remains the safe bet for the nomination. And speaking of safe bets, Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ), on the program today, officially endorsed Mr. Romney for President, who is way ahead in Arizona primary polls. As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted, Mr. Romney also has momentum because Mr. Santorum has to continually answer questions about social issue positions, like the content of this column.
In the joint interview with Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA), Ms. Brewer was vocally frustrated when discussing immigration. She said that Texas goes a good job, California does a good job, but Arizona doesn't because it doesn't have the support of the Federal Government. In fact, the state is being sued for its immigration policy that says it can check an individual's citizenship, 'show me your papers,' if they are stopped by police, for example, for something else. The decision will come from the Supreme Court in April. The Federal Government helps all three states with border control so if Texas and California both do a good job as Ms. Brewer said, but Arizona does not, isn't that a reflection more on the governor's performance than anyone else's? Governor Brewer, in fact, framed it in such a way that the responsibility for poor border security should rest on her. Governor Brown, whether you agree with his agenda or not, he does have a clear one, which is the Dream Act in California giving students a path to citizenship. He said that it would also include scholarship opportunities. His reasoning being that you simply can't just round up 12 million people and deport them. Whether or not you agree with him, he didn't whine about it, he brought what he thought was the best solution. Not no solution.
Round table: McCain '08 senior strategist Steve Schmidt, Fmr. Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., Washington Post's Kathleen Parker, and NBC's Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
2.12.12: The Bishops Are Disqualified
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)