9.16.12: Mr. Netanyahu - Partisanship Takes a Holiday

During today's panel, Bob Woodward commented that creating policy in an effort to control angry people just isn't realistic.  We can not do that in this country so how would it be expected that we can do it in other countries especially ones like Egypt and Libya.  The tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens wasn't even 12 hours old before it became political. As we all know, Mitt Romney issued a statement that was critical of the President before Mr. Romney had all the facts, and it was widely interpreted as the Republican candidate trying to score cheap political points in a time of genuine crisis.  We could editorialize more about Mr. Romney's wisdom, or lack thereof, in choosing to make this a political issue, but the bottom line is that Mr. Romney made a poor choice.  As a matter of fact, during the panel Congressman Peter King (R-NY) and NBC's Andrea Mitchell sparred over it, in which the congressman came up short in his argument.

Today's first guest, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, stated it correctly in saying that when there is a time of crisis, the United Stated should communicate with a united voice.  What Mr. Romney should have done was waited to get all the information, in the meantime stand behind the U.S. government and the President and let him do his job.  Then, after the crisis, Mr. Romney would then do well to critique the President's performance.  There's no other way to say it, but it's truly a shame that we're so divided here at home spurred by forces desperate for power that we can not speak with one strong voice to the rest of the world. 

As evidenced through the news coverage, Ambassador Rice explained that there was a protest in Benghazi sparked by a controversial video produced here in the United States and that in the context of the protest a coordinated attack by an extreme element (note: Ms. Rice prudently did not specifically mention Al Qaeda) occurred.  The protests have at this point spread across the entire Muslim world with a particularly dangerous flash point being Egypt, where as Jeffrey Goldberg explained, they are angry with everything (see map below).


 

Given that, the first priority is to protect our people and our interests as Ambassador Rice described.  To be sure, the United States hasn't done anything in the past decade that would endear itself to the people of this region so these priorities are in a continual statement of uncertainty.  Congressman Ellison (D-MN) said that pulling international aid away from these countries, particularly Egypt's $1.56 billion, would further inflame tensions.  A reassessment of funds is warranted but not at this time.  And in our interest as Ms. Rice pointed out is that the peace between Egypt and our only true ally in the region (Israel) be maintained.  Not to mention as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, is that Prime Minister Morsi in Egypt knows he needs the aid so it's in his interest to come to a solution as well.

This, of course, brings us to the interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who much more tempered in his responses, not charging that the United States is complicit when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons ambition.  He explained that his comments earlier in the week were aimed at the general international community but it was clearly implicit that he was talking to the Obama Administration.  Congressman King, when pressed, said that 'yes' the Administration has thrown Israel under the bus so to speak, apparently not having its back in its aggressive posture with Iran.  He also said that Israel doesn't trust the United States at this point, implying that it is due to the actions of the Obama Administration, citing the fact that the President won't meet with Mr. Netanyahu when he is in New York for a gathering of the U.N. General Assembly.  In contrast, Bob Woodward stated that the President hasn't been weak when it comes to Middle East policy and on top of that, Jeffrey Goldberg said that it was in fact the Israeli Prime Minister that has mismanaged the relationship.  The fact of the matter is, as Mr. Netanyahu said, is that the President has said Israel has the right to defend itself.  In light of this, why should the United States coddle the Israelis?  The answer is they shouldn't.

The fact, and Mr. Netanyahu admitted as much, is that both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama are equally committed to protecting Israel.  And what you can glean from all this is that Mr. King's assessment comes through a partisan lens making it seem more reactionary than reasoned.  In addition, Ms. Rice explained that the sanctions we've imposed on Iran have decimated their economy.  She explained that the Iranians' currency has dropped 40 percent and that their oil production is at an all-time low.  The latter is due in part that they don't have buyers for their oil and they don't have the refineries in country to process it into gasoline.  Imagine if the U.S. Dollar's value dropped 40 percent in this country; there would be shear panic.  All of this has lead to documented in-fighting within the Iranian government.  And going back to our statement about not being able to speak effectively to the international community because you are fractured at home is what is happening in Iran.

But we must weigh those conclusions against the Prime Minister's statement that in 6 months, the Iranians will be 90 percent of the way there [to having a nuclear weapon] so there have to be red lines (lines in the sand if you will) that the Iranians simply can not cross. In those terms, we understand the gravity of the situation, but then when Mr. Netanyahu then says that the Iranians zealotry overshadows its desire for self-preservation, it's the sort of fear mongering that makes the 90 percent claim suspect. 

Earlier in the week, it was clear that Mr. Netanyahu was being critical of the Obama Administration.  Today, he said that he and Israel cherish the bipartisan support they have from the United States.  He claimed the threat that his country faces from Iran is not a partisan issue, but a political one. At least it was true for today's interview.



Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN ); Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep Peter King (R-NY); author of the new book "The Price of Politics," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg; and NBC's Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell.  
 

9.9.12: The Mitt Romney Interview

"We're making great progress," Mr. Romney said when David Gregory asked him at the top of the interview if he felt his campaign was winning race.  Despite what Mr. Romney says, Chuck Todd is correct in saying that the Romney Campaign feels that they are behind.  It's this reality that certainly factored into some of Mr. Romney's answers.

Convention winners and losers aside, Mr. Romney has been saying all along that one of the 5 points in his economic plan is to completely repeal Obamacare.  Good enough, but in today's interview he softened those statements by saying that he wouldn't repeal every measure in the law.  For example, he would keep the provision that parents could keep their kids on their policies until age 26 or that people with preexisting conditions will not be rejected by insurance companies for coverage.  Convention bumps are insignificant and it's the undecided, independent voters that one must appeal so this is why you see a 'revising' or should we say a 'refining' of his position.  (We're used to that with Mr. Romney.)  The problem is that repealing the structure of the bill but keeping those provisions, doesn't work fiscally for consumers.  If you don't have price controls that the Affordable Health installs, then an individual with a preexisting condition is going to have to pay a premium that will essentially price them out of the market.

We had been looking forward to watching this interview since it was announced, hoping for some new insights and specifics from the candidate, but unfortunately there weren't any.  Sticking with healthcare, Mr. Gregory asked Mitt Romney that if the Republican proposed voucher system for Medicare doesn't cover costs at the rate of inflation, would he pass the cost to seniors or blow up the deficit?  He never answered the question.  We can only project that given the Republican collective political philosophy, those costs will be passed to seniors.

Another critical area where he offered no specifics were on taxes. (We have to rhetorically ask how Mr. Romney expects to win when he offers no detailed answers on the tougher questions.)  He said that he would lower overall rates, but that the wealthiest of Americans would still pay the same because he would close tax loopholes, yet cannot explain one that he would close.  Instead he explained that he would make sure that the middle class paid less on dividends and capital gains.  Here's a disconnect that it seems the media hasn't picked up on, which is that the middle class do not have dividends and capital gains, at least of not any significance.  And if you asked most middle class working Americans how their capital gains are doing, they wouldn't even know what capital gains were.

Also, Mr. Romney said he would increase defense spending, while cutting taxes, and went on to say that he would balance the budget in his second term.  As Bill Clinton has now famously said, it's 'arithmetic,' and we're unable to add up Mr. Romney's plan because on its face, increasing military spending and lowering taxes without more revenue doesn't make sense given there are no specific loophole closures.  Mr. Romney did say with regard to military spending that the President was wrong to propose it and that Republicans were wrong to go along with it.  Today's round table pointed out that the sequestration of spending was meant to be an inter-party conversation starter, but given the fact that both sides are just willing to let things happen because of their collective lack of negotiating, where are the solutions?  Despite what Mr. Bill Bennett would tell you that cutting taxes is pro-growth, it just isn't that simple.

Mr. Romney is correct, however, when he explained that for every job that has been created, three people have dropped out of the workforce and that the recovery is essentially jobless.  But that's how our economy is set up - ours is a supply-side economy that enables the wealthiest and most economically powerful to recover first and then the rest will follow.  However, on the promise of balancing the budget in his second term, why would one vote for Mr. Romney?  He specifically said in the interview today that the President is asking for an 'incomplete [grade]' for his first term and that was unacceptable.  However, at the end of Mr. Romney's proposed first term, we'll have to give him the same grade.

E.J. Dionne reminded us that in Mr. Romney's Washington Post opt-ed, he said that he would allow market forces to work and if that meant General Motors ceasing to exist then so be it.  Mr. Romney's answer today did not instill any confidence in the manufacturing sector.  He said that he recommended bankruptcy for GM and that in fact it did go into bankruptcy, a nuanced answer to say the least. His was a bankruptcy that without government assistance, would have completely shut down General Motors.  With a government loan, as was issued, GM would be able to enter bankruptcy and then exit. This example is the key example of how the two men think.  If you think saving GM and all the parts and repairs suppliers that feed into GM was a good idea then you agree with the President.  If not, Romney is your guy.

Chuck Todd said that the one drag on Romney is the Republican old orthodoxies and that it's his biggest hurdle. This is no more true than when it comes to foreign policy.  Mr. Romney dismissed Mr. Gregory's reference to the President saying that he was stuck in a cold-war mind warp. In the interview, Mr. Romney did not mention Russia, not 'doubling down' as they say.  Instead he went on about Iran's nuclear capability.  We don't mean to diminish the significance of that prospect, but it is the only aspect of foreign policy he can address, it suggests a stubbornness that is reminiscent of the Bush Administration's unilateral position.

President Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln during his convention speech, "I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go." The quote is meant to be an admission that he as the President is still human and not infallible.  When asked if Mr. Romney thought it was a mistake that he did not mention Afghanistan or the troops in his convention speech, he answered that the day before he was at an American Legion hall talking to veterans.  He will not admit that it was a mistake.  For a man who wants to be the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth not to mention soldiers that are fighting at this moment in the biggest speech of his life is not only a mistake but, in our humble opinion, practically a disqualifier.   Mr. Romney, you screwed up, now admit it.

But he won't, and the point is that he would never admit to any failings.  In the interview today, Mr. Romney again said that he wants to help the American people, not stem the rise of the oceans.  Mr. Obama in his convention speech referenced the Romney comment and said that climate change was no joke.  But Mr. Obama was mistaken on his interpretation of what Mr. Romney meant, and what he was much more cynical.  What Mr. Romney is really cutting into Mr. Obama about is that the President has some kind of God complex, and that's how the Christian right-wing interpret that, code that, again, the media hasn't picked up on.

In totality, with all these non-answers and lack of specificity on many important points and issues, we're compelled to give Mr. Romney's interview effort an incomplete.


Round table:  Rising star in the Democratic party who gave the keynote address on Tuesday night at the DNC, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro; the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan; the Washington Post’s EJ Dionne; Fmr. Secretary of Education Bill Bennett; and NBC’s Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd.


Panelist Side Note:  Once in a rare while we'll enjoy the comments of the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan.  We grant her respect as an author of several books and a presidential speech writer, however, given that he comments today came off as like she has some stature of the great mother of 'conservative' wisdom saying that Mitt Romney needs to be strong and capable, that Mr. Obama being re-elected is like throwing a cold blanket on the economy.  These are banal, pointless generalities that are unproductive said with an air of condescension. Sometimes you just have to call B.S. when you see it.

9.2.12: No Buffalo'ing

David Gregory opened today's program with the question of 'what is the choice?' This goes back to the basic question between the parties - what should the role of the federal government be? In Mr. Gregory's interview with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the mayor said that Mr. Romney' policies would turn back the clock and go back to economic policies that we had under the Bush Administration.  The argument against President Obama is that after 3 1/2 years, his policies haven't worked and are hence wrong for the country.

On the one hand, you could understand the electorate's frustration with the economy and the individual you point to is the President.  On the other, the electorate also understands that what the Republicans are proposing in terms of economic policies may not be the best way to get us out of the malaise.  The real difference in this election and the last presidential campaign is that in 2008, people were actually voting for someone.  It was a welcomed change from most presidential campaigns where individuals are actually voting one way to vote against someone.  This is what we're back to in this election cycle.  Voting against the other.

Mr. Emanuel in making the case during his interview, got bogged down in details and history, hence not making the President's argument clear enough.  It's a problem that's plagued Mr. Obama's campaign, and Mr. Emanuel did not help the case today.  He didn't hurt it, but he certainly didn't help it.  You can not ignore the statistic that 69 percent of the American people feel that we are at the same point or worse off than we were 4 years ago.  The best most concise argument that Mr. Emanuel made was that General Motors is alive and well and Osama bin Laden is not.  It's effective but it can only go so far.  Even though the mayor didn't quite succeed in helping the President make his case, he was correct in some areas.

The Republicans, during the convention, railed against the President's policies, saying that he hadn't done enough on the housing foreclosure crisis, that unemployment is still above 8 percent, and that despite saving the auto industry, plants still closed.  This is all true, but Mr. Emanuel accurately pointed out that Mr. Romney is on record saying that we should let the housing crisis bottom out and let the market work it out, let the auto industry fail if it's failing, that if we lift the regulations on business, jobs will come back. The reality of this last point is that history has shown that lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans, supply-side economics, hasn't worked to lift the middle class.

Unfortunately, whether or not to bail out auto industry comes down to a political choice for Republicans of the lose-lose variety.  Use tax payer money to save the industry, which goes directly against the ethos and practical thinking of the GOP or just let the market work it out, and have millions more lose their jobs.  That's not a politically strong position, but by some Republican calculations, letting the auto industry fail would have been good politically as it would wipe out a large union contingent - something Republicans would love to see.

Mr. Gingrich, during the panel discussion, made the point that if the policies of the past are touting free enterprise, then lets go there, meaning that maintaining business without restrictions will be the force by which the economy recovers.  Two points, during the round table, will foundation of the Republicans' argument - the jobs report that comes out Friday after the convention, courtesy of Mr. Gingrich, and the fact that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke feels that there needs to be another stimulus (noted by Tom Brokaw).  Both do not bode well for Democrats.

However, though Mr. Emanuel didn't make the Democrats' case well enough, Carly Fiorina (on today's panel), in making her points for Republicans, actually makes it worse for Republicans not better.  How she is still a Republican campaign adviser escapes logic in the eyes of this column.  She actually said that a platform, as in a party platform, doesn't matter.  Immediately, Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin refuted that statement saying the they do matter because words last, where as optics go away (may be not too much anymore with the internet), but we agree with Mrs. Goodwin.  Of course, the party platform matters - it's the official document of what the party stands for, and she's saying it doesn't matter?

Additionally, Mrs. Fiorina cited energy policy as a key difference between the candidates and how Mr. Romney would be better in that area.  She talked about the Keystone Pipeline mostly, but it was something she mentioned in passing that really caught our attention, which was the energy policy should be more under control of the individual states.  This would be a terrible idea to not have a national energy policy, especially since during the convention, Mr. Romney said that America would be energy independent by 2020, revised post-convention to be North American energy independent.  Either way, Mrs. Fiorina isn't on the same page.  What her idea translates down to is, for example, the coal mine owner say in West Virginia can lobby the state legislature (with enough money) to lower regulations for safety and air quality standards, air pollution that would be felt in other statements without any appropriate recourse.  A bad idea Mrs. Fiorina.

And when the ever-congenial Tom Brokaw calls you out, you know you're way off base. Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's speech bore so many misleading statements, it took the media two days to sort it all out.  Mrs. Fiorina said that Mr. Ryan in no way overreached with the content of his speech.  Like we said, if Mr. Brokaw calls you out...

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman was the truth teller that Mr. Romney's proposal to focus on fossil fuel consumption (what Mrs. Fiorina was arguing) without moving toward green energy will have devastating repercussions for the country environmentally as well as economically.  Another notion that we find goes beyond logic is the Republican dogma that climate change/global warming doesn't exist or that if it does, it's not accelerated by man's activities.  The science is simply overwhelming in the other direction.  For the sake of prudence, if you take the precaution and nothing happens then at least we're all still alive.  If we don't take precautions and the sea level rises then we're all dead.  To use a term from Tom Brokaw today, it's seems like we're being buffaloed by Republicans on climate change, they know it's actually happening but refuse to admit it because it doesn't serve their immediate interest.

We appreciate what Mr. Brokaw, who we often disagree with, said with regard to Mr. Romney's policies and that the fact remains that the Republican Presidential candidate hasn't outlined any specifics, another 'buffalo'ing' situation where we the American people just have to take it on faith that his proposals are better instead of showing us what he really has on hand.


Round Table:  former GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich; former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and Vice Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Carly Fiorina; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; NY Times columnist Tom Friedman; and NBC’s Tom Brokaw.

Two Side Notes:

1.  Clint Eastwood - The trendy thing to say would be that Mr. Eastwood, being an actor, was just playing the role of a babbling buffoon on stage.  But the real more important point is that he didn't do what he set out to do, which was help the Romney campaign.  Instead, he embarrassed them.

2.  Newt Gingrich and Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO) - Mr. Gingrich actually stated his support for Todd Akin's candidacy, and this is why he's not Presidential material, never was never will be, because he has no sense of decency and obviously doesn't have any respect for women.  This was made even more sadly amusing because two minutes earlier Mrs. Fiorina was complaining that women shouldn't be treated as a single-issue, special interest group.  Well, Mr. Gingrich just discounted womens' opinion all together.

8.26.12: From the Republican Convention

What we find interesting in the wake of Congressman Todd Akin's (R-MO) comments, explained today in a way be Senator John McCain (R-AZ) when he said that he would urge Mr. Akin to abandon his quest and that "he would not be welcomed by Republicans in the Senate," is that what Republican Senators are actually saying is that they would rather would with the incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO).  Mr. McCain made sure to emphasize the mainstream of the Republican party.  Even Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ), during today's panel, fell in line.  But then of course she went a little too far saying  the Republican Party is the party of women.

And frankly, she's the better bet for both parties.  She has to stay mostly in a centrist stance due to the nature of Missouri politics so the Republicans have a shot of picking her off on some issues, but they can't say that of course.   However, the obvious downside for the GOP of Mrs. McCaskill retaining her seat is that it also bolsters the President's chances of winning there as well, and that trumps all so they'll have the Super PACs dump a ton of money into the state.  That seems like a basic campaign/Super PAC tactic that if you can't win the big seat, slash and burn everything else in sight with negative ads and tear down the target as much as possible while attempting to take all the smaller state seats.

Mr. Gregory asked Mr. McCain about the birther comment that Mitt Romney made on the trail this week, and he dismissed it as an attempt at humor, and then briefly reminisced about a time when you could do that in American politics.  However, his assessment is off-base and understating it, so was Mr. Romney's comment, especially playing up and using it as an applause line. This is neither funny nor appropriate for an American candidate for President.  Mr. Romney dealt the President a cheap shot and as much as you would like to say you don't want them as part of the game, they are and you have to deal with it.  If Mr. Romney blows the dog whistle, make sure everyone hears it, and call it out.

The Romney campaign should know the perils of continuing in this vane.  It's certainly not the way connection with people 'outside the convention' as Mike Murphy explained during the panel.  He's referring to independents, who already have the perception that the Republican party doesn't show any advocacy for women's health issues, despite what Mrs. Brewer says.

Jeb Bush, during today's interview segment, said that the convention was a chance for Mr. Romney to reconnect with people.  Mr. Gregory also made it a point during the panel because Mrs. Brewer also described it that way.  What this admits on behalf of Republicans is that the Obama Campaign's attempt to define Mr. Romney has been successful up to this point.   If the Romney campaign can not turn this trend around, it's going to be very difficult not only for him but the Republicans at large to expand the party as Mr. Bush said was a necessity given the large deficit in support from women, the Hispanic Community and African-Americans.  He explained accurately that the demographics of the country are changing and that the Republicans need to change their message without changing their core beliefs.

It was refreshing to hear Mr. Bush say that education was a national priority, instead of the usual Republican rhetoric that when education is mentioned the word 'cut' isn't far behind. However, as a mainstream Republican, goes directly back to party orthodoxy on tax policy saying that it would be 'foolhardy' to raise them.  What's ironic is that in the same breath he said there was too much orthodoxy in the political debate.

But that's what the Republican convention is going to be all about.  If Chuck Todd is correct and he is a lot of the time, the ticket will get no bounce from the convention so why not just cater to the base.  With Mr. Ryan on the ticket, they've put that front and center.  Mr. Ryan was the co-author, along with Congressman Todd Akin, of the bill that qualified rape with the language 'forcible.'  They can not keep running from deeds, it's not a winning strategy.  As Mr. Todd also said, you won't see any bi-partisanship on behalf of Republicans because they've tied themselves to the lowly rated Republican congress with the Ryan pick.   With that in mind, we think the Mike Murphy is incorrect when he says that both conventions will be about Mitt Romney.  On the contrary, both will be about Barack Obama.  Mr. Romney hasn't been specific on much thus far in his campaign so what will Republicans have to advocate?  More drilling again?  All they have is the tactic of railing against the current administration so that's where they'll go.  Mr. Murphy admitted that Romney's biography is open to negative attacks.  Why is that?  Because it's true, that's why.


DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz; The Republican Governor from Arizona, Jan Brewer;  Republican Strategist Mike Murphy and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd.              

Thank you Neil Armstrong (1930 to 2012) for making us all believe that we can accomplish things that are bigger than our individual selves.

8.19.12: The Big Questions

As we mentioned in last week's column, the Republicans seem to feel that this is a last ditch chance to have control of the White House potentially for a long time.  Looking at the possible re-election of Barack Obama and then if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016 and then also wins re-election, that would be 16 years of Democratic control of the White House.  And because of the GOP's lack of courting minorities to it's party along with the changing demographics (the statistical facts) of the country, the future does not bode well for Republicans in terms of overall voter support.

With that in mind, the election comes down to the two big questions that were outlined in today's program.  One, what should should Medicare be structured and, even larger, what should the roll of government be?  With the vice-presidential selection of Paul Ryan, these two questions come into acute focus.

Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) described Mr. Ryan as a guy with real solutions, but those solutions need to be examined.   The governor said that the Medicare Trust Fund is going broke and hence something needs to be done.  Mr. Ryan's budget plan reduces spending on Medicare by eventually turning into a voucher system where seniors are given an allotment of money and are encouraged to then use that money to find their own private insurance.  The question of whether it would effect seniors right now, the answer is technically no, at least not anyone over 55 years of age.

However, also in Mr. Ryan's budget is the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, known to all as Obamacare.  This would effect seniors right now. Under the Affordable Care Act, the doughnut hole for prescription drugs for Medicare recipients will be closed so seniors will not have to pay extra out of pocket for medication that should be covered in the first place.  On it's face, the prescription drug benefit that the Bush Administration put in place never made sense.  The federal government, under Bush, provides a huge windfall of cash for the pharmaceutical companies, creating a deficit that it didn't put on the books and the result was that seniors had to pay more. 

Given what Mr. Ryan's budget would do to fundamentally alter the federal government's relationship with its citizens, we find that calling his selection to the Republican ticket 'admirable,' as Peggy Noonan did, very odd to say the least.  Mr. Ryan's budget plan disproportionately shifts the burden of the deficit to the middle class while asking no sacrifice from the wealthiest in the system.  It's not a secret who would benefit the most from Mr. Ryan's policy proposals.

It comes down to whether you believe that a country's government should have some responsibility to help its people in economic ways.  The Democrats believe that a government should provide assistance and the Republicans not so much.


Round table:Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D-GA), Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Wall Street Journal Columnist Peggy Noonan, NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd, and Congressman Ted Cruz (R-TX)

8.12.12: The Pick - Paul Ryan

Cutting to the chase - Mitt Romney finally doesn't have to discuss his tax returns.  Kidding aside, he made a good pick for his vice-presidential running mate in Paul Ryan, the 42 year-old congressman from Wisconsin.  We agree with the general consensus of all the guests on today's program that in choosing Mr. Ryan, it creates a stark difference in which the direction the country will go.  What we do take issue with today's guests are the respective rationale's for what it means in terms of policy.  In terms of today's program, we have a serious problem with some of the discourse coming from some.

"Gaming changing" in terms of picks is now firmly in the American political lexicon.  It may have always been there but now, it is a requisite measure.  RNC Chairman Reince Priebus asked if it's a game-changer - yes.  Governor Scott Walker (R-WI)? - yes, game change; and even David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's s Senior Campaign Advisor, couldn't disagree that it was.

But it's not, because a game-changer changes the outcome and that's not quite clear right yet. Right now, we say it doesn't because President Obama still has the upper hand.  What the pick gives Mr. Romney is a vision to attach himself to, one that he lacked in the campaign up to this point, specifically an economic one.  As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan has created an economic plan, as we know, that is quite polarizing.  Namely, as heavily discussed on today's program are the changes to Medicare and turning it into a voucher system.

In defense of this plan, Mr. Priebus said (twice) that the President stole $700 million out of medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act, and clarified that it was not a transfer or re-direction of funds, but that he stole it, and has blood on his hands because of it.  Reince Priebus is an embarrassment to our political system and discourse.  This column does provide harsh criticism to both sides, but Mr. Priebus is an exceptional case and his comments today reinforce that.  If you were to ask him if the President literally stole this money, he would say, unequivocally "yes." So why wouldn't you push for criminal charges and impeachment proceedings?  The inability to answer that question simply illustrates how ridiculous the charge, but this is accusing the President of the United States of being a criminal.  He's just part of the problem of our political discourse so when he does , in fact,  bring up a valid point such as the President said that he would cut the deficit in half in his term and hasn't done it, we can not take him seriously.

When Mr. Priebus and Wisconsin's second representative guest, Governor Scott Walker, were asked if Mr. Ryan's plan changed Medicare fundamentally, they both countered with that it wouldn't effect any person of age 54 or older - your benefits would stay exactly the same.  The implications of this point have been understated in the media, but are profound for this election.

This election is like a last-ditch chance for the larger Republican agenda, which is to change the government's relationship with its people in terms of assistance.  [Conversely, one could argue that they want to increase funds in terms of our relationship with everyone else in the world unless they intend to start using the military internally. A discussion for another time.]  On the other hand, the Democrats feel they are in a full-prevent defense of social problems and ultimately taking the profit motive out of healthcare.  This is what makes the '54 and older' clause so important politically.

Seniors vote and promising  them now that their Medicare will not be touched could sway their support because the reality is that most will vote for themselves, not for future generations, on this point.  This is if the Republicans can sell it.  If they can, then it would just prove that there is no 'me generation,' it's the me-time that we've created.

So David Axelrod and Democratic strategist should be careful what they wish for, Wisconsin is duly in play with the Ryan pick.  Republicans have been chipping away in that state for a while, actually the chips are more like chunks, and they want to make it red.  Mr. Axelrod said that it 'clarifies the choice' of whether you're for Medicare of not and how we manage tax policy.  But the 'Medicare or not' argument could be clouded if, again, the Republicans can sell it to seniors... admittedly a big 'if.'  We appreciate that Mr. Axelrod also gave us another piece of foreshadowing as to where they'll go with their attacks against Mr. Ryan - that he, to use Mr. Axelrod's term, 'rubber stamped' of all of Bushes policies.  When Mr. Greogory asked Mr. Preibus earlier in the program about this point with Paul Ryan himself admitting that he was embarrassed by some of those decisions, he had an inadequate defense, none actually.

But Paul Ryan could still very well sell his plan to the American people, and Chuck Todd who broke the announcement, described it as Romney re-launching his campaign. Bill Bennett stated that Paul Ryan had a way of presenting a winning argument.  However, the Romney campaign has precious little time to argue Mr. Ryan's economic philosophy along with  all the others that they have to tackle as well.

On Medicare in particular, Rich Lowry from the National Review insisted that the campaign should go on the offensive, also mentioning the $700 million sum.  When he challenged Rachel Maddow on this, she couldn't come up with a response, instead pointing out Mr. Ryan's supply-side economic philosophy.  He point may be true, but it didn't counter Mr. Lowry's point.  Unfortunately, she was more bombast today than effective counter balance.  She could have mentioned that the $500 million of bi-partisan agreed upon waste out of Medicare that the Obama Administration cut.

Rightly, before making the panel discussion all about Ms. Maddow, Mr. Gregory thankfully cut off the tit-for-tat between them.  But offense on Medicare will be tough as Dan Balz pointed out because many Republicans aren't on board with Mr. Ryan due to political risk.  Chuck Todd outlined Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Florida as states with the most seniors and Republican congress people have to go back to those states and break the bad news about Medicare while trying to get re-elected at the same time.

It's certainly a 'new phase of the campaign,' where Mr. Romney has gotten a temporary reprieve from talking about Bain Capital and tax returns, but it will only last for a short time.  The verocity of the upcoming Democratic attacks against Mr. Ryan's economic plan that Dan Balz wondered about will be furious, and starting when?  Like right now.


Round Table:  MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow; NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director Chuck Todd; Editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry; the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, and author and radio talk show host Bill Bennett, for whom Ryan was a speechwriter while Bennett was Secretary of Education.

6.24.12: Supreme Court Decisions

David Gregory played the May 1st tape to Senator Rubio in reference to his last visit and his answer with regard to being a potential vice-presidential choice of Governor Romney.  In that May 1st interview, Mr. Rubio said that he had no desire to be the vice president, but his answer differed today.  It wasn't a reversal, but you can tell he's in the running and is interested.  He said that he wouldn't discuss anymore at this point, and while that would strike someone as a reversal of thinking, we this answer along with all his other answers of the issues as non-committal, even vague in some places, as if he's triangulating his answers so that they don't fall outside of Governor Romney's positions.  Politico's Jonathan Martin used the term 'cautious.' The problem with this is that Mr. Romney himself is yet to fully explain his positions on key issues, such as immigration.

This week the Supreme Court will rule on two major cases, one being the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law and the other on the Affordable Health Care act.  On the former, Senator Rubio said that the Arizona law is constitutional, meaning that law enforcement has the right to demand proof of citizenship if the person is stopped and suspected of wrong-doing.  While he thinks this is good for Arizona, he also said that he didn't think it was right for Florida.  One of his reasons that he thought it was necessary in Arizona because it's a security matter and then laid the blame at the feet of the federal government for not enforcing the laws.

The Senator's answers are confusing at best.  By saying it's right for Arizona, but not Florida, seems to indicate that he's for state solutions, but then he blames the federal government for failure on immigration.  But what is the Obama Administration's failure?  Mr. Rubio stated that the legal system of immigration is broken so how can we improve the situation for illegal immigrants?  The problem with the Arizona law is that it opens up a situation in which law enforcement can demand citizenship proof from anyone - citizen or not - on the spot, and if you can not prove it, you could be detained.  We think that most Americans would have a serious problem with someone asking to see 'your papers.' This plays into the general premise that Republican lawmakers are creating legislation that isn't big government, but resembles big brother.

And what of the Dream Act?  Mr. Rubio is against it because he says it's 'too broad,' but like Romney, then has no answer as to what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already in this country.  Neither politician has offered a solid alternative to the Dream Act to address the ultimate status of these people.  Self-deportation, as Mr. Romney has suggested, is not an adequate solution.  The core problem, right now, for Republicans is that immigration policy requires temperance and that's something that the core of the party won't bend on.  It's a hardline stance that makes it so difficult for Senator Rubio, or Governor Romney who is trying to tact back to the middle on this, to answer honestly.  Because of the build up of hardline rhetoric on the side of the Republicans, coming down off of that position for any conservative politician is not viable, hence there can be no compromise.

Mr. Rubio is, in fact, working on a comprehensive immigration bill, but it isn't ready yet.  Keeping this in mind and considering his statement today when he said that if he doesn't have every answer to every question on the bill, it's loses credibility, and we respect that kind of thinking.  However, in advance of said bill, there are two flags that we'd like to raise.  One, the bill needs to be detailed.  Unlike Congressman Paul Ryan's budget bill, it must contain specifics.  It's why we don't agree with Mr. Ryan's plan - there aren't any specifics.  For example, he said that his plan would close loopholes in the tax code, but he doesn't specify which ones.  Secondly, and this speaks to the Republicans' tendency to fall into lock-step, the bill should have more than one name attached to it, hence opening it to wider debate.  Paul Ryan constructed a budget bill and all Republicans are for it, all of it.  Then there will be the Rubio Immigration Bill, and all Republicans will be for all of that.  No bill is perfect through and through but by denying openmindedness to amendends, Republicans would have you think differently.

The second decision coming this week, possibly tomorrow, from the Supreme Court is on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, specifically the individual mandate.  First, just set aside what we know, and that is that Republicans are against the act and Democrats are for it.  The debate was highly contentious to say the least, but the bill was passed... by Democrats, and they feel it should be the law.  If the roles were reversed, Republicans understandably, justifiably would feel the same way.  The problem here is that the Supreme Court is about to make law.  Some would say 'no' that's not the case, but the perception is clearly there and in today's media world perception often supplants fact. 

During today's panel, the possibility was raised that the Court could strike down the individual mandate, but uphold other parts of the law.  They could do that, but that's called legislating.   If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they are striking down the law, the entire law and that's how it should be.  Then everyone will have to adjust to the consequences of the Supreme Court determining law.  What we also find little odd is that everyone seems to feel that the law will indeed be struck down, which just reeks of cynicism, sending the message that everyone understands that the court is partisan and will employ that partisan advantage to a result. The writers of the Constitution did not design the Court to operate in that capacity, but here we are. Governor Richardson got it exactly right, the Supreme Court shouldn't strike down any of the law and shouldn't be making political decisions.  And that should stand for both sides. 

It's moments like these that remind us of a key phrase Judge Roberts used during his confirmation hearings and that was that he was going to 'call balls and strikes,' implying that there would be no political agenda at work when making decisions.  As chief justice, the court's decisions reflect on him and so far, his court has a very high profile, a controversial one that the Supreme Court should absolutely not have.  If it were acting in a manner that consistent with calling balls and strikes, then they should keep the same profile as an umpire.  We see them on the field, we respect their decisions, but we don't know their names.


Round Table:  Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Former Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM); POLITICO’s Senior Political Reporter Jonathan Martin; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Postscript: We really haven't commented on Mr. Romney's potential vice-presidential running mate too much, though we do have our opinions on it. However, does it matter so much to speculate in this column and devote time to it?  Not really.  We do feel compelled to comment because after all, this column is based around what is said on Meet The Press and they do discuss the topic.  With that in mind, Governor Richardson said that Romney needs a person who would make a splash.  That person would be someone such as Condoleezza Rice, who Jonathan Martin said was all the buzz recently in Utah.  But we don't see Mr. Romney going that way. The most reasonable, safest pick would be Governor Tim Pawlenty.  He governed the moderate state of Minnesota and has a good solid conservative record.  He was also an early, vocal Romney supporter, who many thought got out of the race too soon.  Aside from the few brief comments, we're content not to speculate and hold for the examination when the choice is finally made.