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.