2.17.13: Getting Somewhere

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said that a good rule of thumb for his job is to focus on the staff and not the chief, however, in his answers it is all about the president and staying in line with his positions.  That's not to say it's a bad thing, but just to say if you understand what the president's positions are, then Mr. McDonough offered little insight on today's program. 

It was good to hear him state that the president is not done on Benghazi.  Unfortunately for the president, neither are the Republicans, especially Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and his BFF Senator John McCain who appeared on the program today and said that Benghazi was a massive cover up on the part of the Administration.  Earlier this week Mr. McCain called out Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) for going too far in the Hagel nomination process, Chris Matthews noted, where the Texas senator was indicting Mr. Hagel via innuendo and not fact.  However, on today's program, Senator McCain did just that with the president because when he said there is a 'massive cover up,' that implies criminality on the part of the president, which is simply unfounded and will not prove out to be true. 

We agree with Mr. McCain that there are still questions to be answered, but not a 'massive cover up.' He, of all people, should know that the world is dangerous and we can not protect every American everywhere.  It's unfortunate but true.  The one question that was out for Mr. McCain that proved to be true is that he is a politician that holds grudges.  Mr. McCain stated the Mr. Hagel had been merciless in his attacks toward President Bush and his decision to go to war in Iraq.  He also noted that Mr. Hagel's comments on the surge.  However, remember when we used to call Mr. McCain a maverick?  Why was that?  It was because he had a propensity to stand up and disagree with Mr. Bush.  The reason why  he liked to defy the President at the time was because of the dirty politics the Bush campaign played in the primary in South Carolina in 2000 that crushed the McCain momentum in the race.  Mr. McCain never forgave or forgot.  So when Mr. McCain says that he's not going to vote for Chuck Hagel to be the Defense Secretary because he thinks he's not qualified, it's really personal and not a professional assessment whether you agree or not with the notion that the former Republican Senator from Nebraska is left of Mr. Obama on foreign policy.  Even on immigration, Mr. McCain said he wouldn't vote for a proposal from the Administration simply because it came from Mr. Obama.  Mr. McCain hasn't forgotten that he also lost an election to the current president who he says is just continually trying to score political points, points that Mr. McCain won't give up easily. And Mr. Hagel didn't endorse the Arizona Senator/former friend for President.

Mr. Gregory suggested to Mr. McDonough that Chuck Hagel would be a weak secretary because of this nomination drama, which the White House Chief of Staff refuted of course saying that he'll be a great secretary.  You know where we stand on Mr. Hagel (competent but not really independent), but there is the saying that wasn't doesn't kill you makes you stronger so maybe once Mr. Hagel gets through this process, he be quite forceful... but we doubt it. We agree with Mr. Castellanos on the point that Chuck Hagel hasn't inspired much confidence in his ability to run the Defesnse Department doing horribly in his Senate hearing.  In the end, even Mr. McCain said that Chuck Hagel will have the votes to be confirmed.

However, this entire Hagel mess (presenting ourselves to the rest of the world) is simply a byproduct of the sequestration and the bitter politics that has gone with it (presenting ourselves to each other internally).  With all we just said about Mr. McCain, it was good to hear him confirm that we should close subsidy loopholes that have no business existing which would garner additional revenue. But the notion of our leaders 'letting' the sequestration happen remains seriously distasteful to this column.  Letting it happen just shows that they've given up.  That no one wants it to happen should be the point from which to rally against it happening.

As we've stated in prior columns on spending, a balanced approach is really the most sensible approach to cutting the debt and deficit because in as big a ship as the United States, you have to turn it slowly or it will tip over.  Republicans can keep insisting on spending cuts, but they have to be willing to accept the other side of the debate - vice versa for Democrats and increasing tax revenue.  The reality of this debate is that Republicans have gotten more of what they've wanted than Democrats.

On area of spending and the sequestration in which Republicans shouldn't get more of what they want is on Medicare, in spite of the scary graphic that Mr. Gregory showed which outlined that a couple of two put in $122,000 into the system, but take out $387,000.  We understand that the economics of that is unsustainable but we also know that the beneficiaries of tomorrow should have the same benefits as those receiving them today.  The president went as far to say that he would agree with Medicare cuts as outlined in the Simpson Bowles commission, which include means testing and a reworking of the government's purchases of prescription drugs as outlined by Mr. McDonough. 

It's said that having a public option would have brought down costs, but obviously it's politically impossible because Republicans won't go for it.  So how about a public option with an eligibility age?  You pay into a public option at 60 years of age - a pre-Medicare, if you will, that would contribute to bringing down the overall cost of healthcare.  Maybe even call it that to make it politically more palatable. Maybe this idea is great, maybe ridiculous but the point is that there are so many solutions, chances at give and take that our leaders aren't taking advantage of.  When you have some one like Carly Fiorina blaming the president for the sequestration then saying in her very next statement that Democrats just blame Republicans, that's counter-productive to say the least. 

On a round table note, you could tell that Chris Matthews thinks Ms. Fiorina a political hack and doesn't respect her opinion.  In one of her statements you could clearly see Mr. Matthews biting his lip trying to not interrupt her, which he eventually did.  He even had to defend himself to the rest of the panel for doing so.  We note this because we always wonder why she is invited on Meet The Press.  She shouldn't be.  They always introduce her as the former CEO of Hewlitt-Packard, but the fact is that she almost bankrupted that company (who hasn't or doesn't have an HP printer) and then received a golden parachute to get out of the way.  Now she has deep political insight?  Hardly.

The good news is that despite the hysterics from the fringes (Ted Cruz and Tea Partiers), which includes Ms. Fiorina, there does seem to be give and take on immigration and on gun control.  Mr. McCain noted  Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Republican Tom Coburn (R-OK) working together on gun control measures. Alex Castellanos noted that talk radio seems to be coming to terms with moderate Republican reforms on immigration - namely an earned path to citizenship.  Even before Mr. Newsom noted it, we were thinking the same thing as soon as Mr. Castellanos mentioned talk radio - how sad it is that politicians need approval from talk radio hosts to get things done.  But the fact is that talk radio is mattering less and less because more and more people realize that to get anything done on anything, you have to come more to the middle.  Narrow views on talk radio get ratings, not solutions.

We're glad that Mr. Gregory referred to Mark Kelly as Captain Kelly because it is important to note that not only is he the husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but is also an officer in our military and an astronaut for NASA, which means we should listen to him. Universal background checks should be the law in this country and Capt. Kelly is correct to ask what sense does it make that NRA wouldn't support that. Mr. Gregory asked if Ms. Giffords was up to the task of being the face of gun control and his response put the entire question into focus.  How can we accept the status quo faced with the death of 20 first graders?  This time is different and the debate won't go away this time as Capt. Kelly in fact said that the Super PAC that he and his wife formed will spend money in political races supporting candidates that favor reasonable reforms as opposed to none.

Bills on gun control and immigration will happen and both parties will be responsible.  If they can end this sequestration nonsense, which no one wants, then we'll really be getting somewhere.


Round Table: Lt. Governor of California Gavin Newsom; Founder and Chair of Good 360, Carly Fiorina; Republican strategist Alex Castellanos; and host of MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews.

2.12.2013: The State of the Union, The Response... and the Response

Of course we're talking out of step here, but we just wanted to share a few thoughts we had about President Obama's State of the Union speech, Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) response, and then Senator Rand Paul's (R-KY) response to the response.  With that said, we'll now respond.

The President covered a lot of ground in his 60-minute speech that began at 9:16, and it only took 2 minutes for the president to declare that 'the state of our nation is strong'... despite the stupid behavior by the occupants of this chamber.  We added the last part but the president may have well said it that way. He did tell everyone the greatest country on earth can not move forward if we're drifting from one self-inflicting crisis to another, referring of course to the looming sequester.  The worst idea Washington has run with in a really long time, but he's right on that point.  But in a State of the Union, as presidents will do in such situations, and Mr. Obama wasn't any different (Why should he be? He's got the podium), he called for compromise 'the nation's interests before party,' and then laid out the argument for his agenda.

What the president has going for him is that most Americans agree with his policies - that's what elections tell you.  However, Mr. Obama reached out to Americans who didn't vote for him, name checking Mitt Romney twice in the speech - once with regard to reforming the voting process and once when talking about raising the minimum wage.

Speaking of which, no one saw that one coming, the call for raising the federal minimum wage to $9. However, it's a good point that if you're working (more like busting your butt) 40 hours a week, and you're usually working more than that, you shouldn't be in poverty.  The president called for making it proportional to the cost of living as Governor Romney had suggested. Republicans didn't clap.

Another area where the president's Republican colleagues didn't seem too enthusiastic was when Mr. Obama was talking about clean energy, the economy tied to it, and climate change.  The president went after this forcefully, using the words 'overwhelming judgement of science' that climate change exists - soundly shooting down deniers. We happen to agree the clean energy is the future, because producing energy is what it is all about really, oil is finite and everyone wants more.  Also, these severe weather events give us a look into the future of what our climate could turn into (become the norm) and we should pay attention.  We just can not recall when the subject of climate change was given such a grand platform.

With regard to foreign policy, the president touched all the right buttons - steadfast partner of Israel, a non-nuclear Iran, zero-tolerance on threats from North Korea (given their nuclear test yesterday), Syria, Al Qaeda in North Africa and the Middle East, and of course Afghanistan.  With regard to the latter, the president outlined a timetable to end the war - by the end of next year.  It just strikes us as odd that we would have a timetable to end the war. "By this time next year..." Don't we want war to end as quickly as possible?  And what if the other side has something to say about it? The other notable part of his foreign policy points was the oblique reference to the drone program, almost trying to absolve himself of any culpability of nondisclosure.  It didn't come off well.

What also doesn't sound good is when the President threatens executive action if Congress doesn't act.  If it's within the law, then by all means, take executive action.  It's not the act, it's the way the president talks about using it.  That said, on cyber security - another conundrum for the near future -  the Congress can not be slow to act, and the president should move ahead if they're not swift because one day it could cost people their lives, frankly.

And on the subject on gun control, that's where President Barack Obama made his most impassioned case... for Congress to simply vote on the measures, one being universal background checks on all gun purchases.  The people of Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO, Oak Creek, WI and Gabby Gifford do deserve to know whether their elected officials feel something should be done or not.

We're not going to touch on everything the president spoke about but before we get to Mr. Rubio, we wanted to react to one more thing the president said, "What makes you a man isn't the ability to conceive one [a child], but the courage to raise one." That was a Sista Souljah moment for the president as he was talking directly to black inner-city males.  It was meant for all men in this country but mostly we think for young black males.  Tough love well stated.

Now to Mr. Rubio... Wait one sec., we need a drink of water.  That was pretty funny actually in a good way, and the look on his face when he went for the bottle was priceless - eyes popping.  Too bad that is going to overshadow the content, but then again Mr. Rubio will be glad it did.  You could see it coming almost as he was sweating like crazy, touching his face three times - each brow and his upper lip.  (Attention to detail.)

The reason he'll want us to forget the content was because of these two takeaways.  Mr. Rubio explained that both his parents benefited from Medicare.  It's been great for them he explained, but then he went on to say that he doesn't want future Medicare recipients to have the same kind of care.  He did the same thing with student loans. They worked for him but they're not for you.

The other notable takeaway was how petty Mr. Rubio was in attacking the president.  He actually attacked the president for essentially being a bully and calling out Republicans.  To that we say, if you can't run with the big dogs, then don't get off the porch.  Whining never works.

Mr. Rubio kept up with a proven Republican tact, still arguing against what he perceives as too big a government. However know this, when he uses a phrase like 'economic liberty,' that means you're on your own and if you can't make it into retirement that's the way it goes.

Lastly, there was the creepy Tea Party response from Senator Rand Paul who in addition to calling for term limits if politicians can't pass a budget, talked about protecting the second amendment from a tyrannical government then transitioning right into how Mr. Obama acts like a king instead of a president.  It sounded like a veiled call to arms against the government.  Not a Senatorial-like statement at all.  As we said, creepy.

Have a great political evening.

2.10.13: Death From Above Diplomacy?

Republicans sounding like Democrats and Democrats sounding like Republicans?  Well, not quite, but if you dissect today's program you'll see that it's as close as we've come in good bit of time.  Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) had to say what Mr. Cantor couldn't about the Virginia Congressman's position on immigration, which is that he is for the Dream Act.  He couldn't, for political purposes, say it directly but essentially that's what he said.  "Children shouldn't be punished for the mistakes of their parents," Mr. Cantor said.  That's saying that these children should have the opportunity to earn their citizenship.  Despite saying that he didn't know what the specific provisions of the Dream Act were, Mr. Cantor is for the notion.  Mr. Durbin did make the correct point in that immigration reform shouldn't be exclusive to children only, asking what about everyone else?  Unlike the budget, immigration is not an issue where you can achieve a goal in bits and pieces.  It has to be done big and comprehensively taking everyone into account.  Mr. Cantor didn't address the 'everyone else' part of the equation, but we have to give him some credit for at least taking a more nuanced and sympathetic position than his fellow Republicans.  We would not go as far as Mike Murphy did, calling Republicans who are for a more compassionate approach to immigration 'heroes.' Give us a break.

On the other hand, Mr. Durbin gave a huge pass to the president on his unilateral use of drones, very reminiscent of Republican hawkishness during the Bush years.  In fact, Democrats collectively have been quite conciliatory toward the Administration's use of unmanned aircraft in going after who we have deemed terrorist, among those are American citizens, with the vocal exception of Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).  Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed did not offer any vocal objection to the president's policy.  Additionally, Mr. Gregory did, in fact, nail down Mr. Durbin on the matter of federal spending, in which the Senator did admit, what many Republicans have been saying, that the United States does have a spending problem.

It all begins to sound a like coming together of the parties, but keeping the budget in mind, let's not get too excited about some sort of compromise.  Even though both guests, Mr. Cantor and Mr. Durbin respectively said that sequestration ($1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts as Mr. Gregory accurately distilled it) and the indiscriminate cuts that it will bring is not something they want to happen, they both seemed resigned to the fact that they will happen.  No one wants this to happen yet it is going to.  It doesn't make any sense, however, this is the course of business that we've come to accept in Washington.  And why will it happen, because "you can't be raising taxes every three months in this town," as Mr. Cantor explained.

Aye.

The tax increase, modest within the total scope of things, that the President got was the first in over fifteen years.  What they have asked for additionally is a closing of tax loopholes in the code as to generate more revenue as part of what is described as a balanced approach to balancing the budget.  The closing of loopholes to generate revenue is what prompted Mr. Cantor's comment.  However, you have to know that it was the Republicans in the first place that suggested closing loopholes.  The rub has always been that they have never identified which ones.  That goes back to even before sequestration, but on that, it was President Obama who came up with the idea that both sides would feel equal pain politically even these indiscriminate cuts go through.  Mr. Durbin said today that the president meant the sequestration to be a budget threat not a budget strategy.  That's a little less than a shrewd move, don't you think?

The President should have known the climate well enough by then to know that the Republicans, or many of them, would see this as an overall good thing, and then let it happen.  In all the talk about an inside Washington game versus an outside Washington game, this is clearly an example of the President not having an inside game in at least knowing his opponent better.  Granted the Republican party has become completely unpredictable as far as what moderation, if any, they'll show on any given issue, but the President should have also taken that into account.  Then again, even Mr. Durbin is on record as saying that he could live with the sequestration.

Mr. Cantor given all his previous positions, is principally for sequestration, but as Mr. Gregory pointed out, Virginia would be hit harder by it than any other state with the exception of California.  You could see the discomfort in Mr. Cantor's facial expressions as the moderator concisely took him through the grim economic statistics.  The BBC's Katty Kay, using her native Britain as a keen reference, noted that austerity was not the way.  And we found it very telling that the House Majority Leader would use the term, 'manage down the debt and deficit' because that definitely doesn't say deep or drastic cuts, but says compromise.

And here's that compromise - despite the hardheadedness of both sides and how they saw the outcome of the election.  First, you have to start with the acknowledgement that Republicans and their ideas were soundly defeated, hence all the talk and questions, including in today's program, about Republican re-branding.  However, Republicans still control the House and they're the key for the President.  The Senate for it's part, beside the occasional temper tantrum from Lindsay Graham; angry outburst from John McCain; or illustration of complete idiocy of Rand Paul, seems to be moving beyond extreme partisanship and are coming together of issues.  Mike Murphy said that President Obama has to do a 'Nixon to China' move with Republicans while Mayor Reed countered  that president should keeping digging at Republicans. Actually, neither have to happen.  Republicans should clearly identify what loopholes in the tax code should be closed putting the burden on them to raise revenue, while the Democrats need to propose cuts - here's the compromise in acknowledgement of election results - a 1 to 1.5 ratio revenue to cuts - this would be on top of the tax increase that the President already got.  This way, Republicans still save face that they extracted more cuts than revenue in this deal while also saying that they raised revenue without increasing the individual tax rate again.  It will all come out about even in the wash, which will subtlely suit Democrats. Overtly (to the public) the Republicans will see some benefits for their overall image, because no matter what, they're going to be seen as the ones to blame.  

This is something Mr. Cantor is beginning to realize.  He'd like to go with his colleagues, ones of the Tea Party persuasion, on the budget and sequester but it's not his reality - because of the information he has, it dictates he also must take responsibility.  That last bit was a paraphrasing of what Katty Kay said about Americas use of drones, but it can certainly also be applied here.

Which brings us to that very subject...

And Mr. Gregory's question - what is the [drone] debate?  Michael Isikoff, who broke the story, on today's program described it as one of legal, moral, and strategic difficulty.  It's all those things but it just seems odd that many politicians and pundits have given answers to drone use and the killing of enemy combatants who happen to be Americans that are conciliatory or noncommittal.  Today's program was no exception - Dick Durbin said the "policy is unfolding."

Mr. Isikoff pointed out that the language in the memo that discusses use of drones is very elastic in definition and open to many interpretations.  For example, what constitutes an imminent threat?  But when Mr. Gregory posed the hypothetical about the potential use of drones in a manhunt as is happening right now in Los Angeles, no one on the roundtable showed any kind of commitment.  Dick Durbin framed it as that the president was coming up with a framework, a legal architecture as he put it, for the use of drones with the need to achieve a 'constitutional balance,' what ever that means.  He's admitting that there is no clear policy, but yet the president has used drones strikes in abundance.  Mr. Cantor was complicit saying that the policy now is the same as it was before, referring to the Bush Administration years where he didn't have a problem with it then. 

Michael Gerson of the Washington Post, who frankly offered little to the conversation and came across as a David Brooks in need of Ritilan, said that President Obama's drone usage was a policy of disengagement because he didn't want to get involved with a 'messy' counter insurgency operation with boots on the ground suggesting that sending in a number of ground troops into an area is a better idea.  That's just stupid, not insightful in the least.  What president wouldn't opt for drone usage over the politically disastrous deploying of ground troops, especially now?

If anything, with the use of drones, the U.S. State Department needs to re-double it's efforts of engagement - something the new Secretary should consider.  As the panel agreed that there is a set back for our security with collateral damage so how do we explain ourselves in this context to other countries while trying to persuade them to do what we want?  One thing is for sure, we definitely need some oversight if not for anything else but for accountability because 'Death from Above' should not be the United States calling card on foreign policy.


Round Table: Democratic Mayor of Atlanta Kasim Reed, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush now columnist for the Washington Post, Michael Gerson; GOP strategist Mike Murphy and the BBC's Katty Kay. And NBC’s Michael Isikoff

2.3.13: The World of Responsible Politics

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that if we lived in a world of responsible politics, it [sequestration] shouldn't happen.  To which Chuck Todd (sitting in for David Gregory this week) replied that we don't live in that world. Unfortunately, as we know, this explanation goes much beyond just sequestration.

Exhibit number one of this irresponsible body politic was the Senate hearing for Chuck Hagel's nomination to secede Mr. Panetta.  In that hearing, let's face it, there were bad performances all around.  Chuck Hagel preparation, if you could call it that, was seriously deficient.  Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham attacked Mr. Hagel like they were both district prosecutors with a chance at an arch criminal, which was certainly not the correct tact as well - to understate it.  David Brooks and Robert Gibbs were correct in their respective assessments. Mr. Brooks said that Mr. Hagel hadn't done his homework, and Mr. Gibbs was correct in that the focus of the Senators' questions was not focused properly.  In Mr. McCain's re-litigating of the troop surge in Iraq with Mr. Hagel, there is no 'was it correct or incorrect.'  When Mr. McCain asked if he refused to answer the question, Mr. Hagel should have said 'yes,' and then explained his position, which we understand to be that the surge wasn't correct because it presumes that the entire Iraq war was the right thing to do. 

We like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey's answer that he wouldn't seek to criticize his potential future boss.  Well, not really, but for someone in his position it was the prudent answer.  However, when asked if Chuck Hagel was the right choice, Leon Panetta used the word 'absolutely.' His performance hasn't inspired confidence in Democrats but has inspired Republicans (noted: Marco Rubio, Roy Blount, John Corker, Ted Cruz and the aforementioned Senators McCain and Graham) to be more forceful in their dissent. As Ana Navarro accurately pointed out, Mr. Hagel could not articulate the Administration's official position of Iran and it's nuclear aspirations.  Mr. Todd noted that the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol compared the Hagel nomination to the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Meyers - ouch.  We wouldn't necessarily agree with Mr. Panetta, or Mr. Kristol in as much as we think that Mr. Hagel could be a competent secretary but as a straight-talking possibly dissenting voice in the room, we have our doubts. 

The important point that General Dempsey was that the Defense Department can not be consistent and properly ready living under potential sequestration and, the less talked about, continuing resolution, and that's not to say that we're not for defense cuts.  We agree with this point in so much as that they need to have a set number with which to work, and this way they can move forward without the money question consistently hanging our their heads. The spending cuts need to be more carefully done so that you don't find the entire U.S. economy all of sudden shrinking. 

Through this topic of sequestration, Chuck Todd elicited the most forceful answers from Leon Panetta, not on the topic of Benghazi.  Even though he brought up the fact that Senator Graham would hold up Mr. Hagel's nomination until he testified on what happened at that U.S. mission in Libya, to which Mr. Panetta comically replied that he was 'looking forward to presenting,' just like looking forward to the drill without novocain.  The topic of Benghazi is why Chuck Todd is not the full time moderator of the program - he didn't ask hard questions.  Frankly, if you wanted good questions on Benghazi that provided frank answers from the Defense Secretary, you should have watched Candy Crowley's interview with the same pair on CNN's State of the Union that aired before Meet The Press. Another spot where we thought Mr. Todd could have been better was when he referred to the United States' travel advisory for Afghanistan as a gauge for success there because it stated that in Afghanistan its own citizens were not safe.  Mr. Panetta swatted away the question by explaining that 'it's a war area [of course it's not safe].'

But still on the potential sequestration, we find it troubling when the Secretary of Defense that it will weaken our military's preparedness and readiness, especially since that along with the furloughing of 800,000 civilian employees is the result of self-infliction.  As it was pointed out, we have few friends when it comes to stopping Al Qaeda around the globe, especially in North Africa so we need to be prepared as General Dempsey did make the valid point that the distance between Benghazi and the most prepared unit, in Djibouti, is the same as from New Jersey to California. Mr. Panetta outlined a number of countries where we have engaged Al Qaeda - Yemen, Mali, Afghanistan - he left out Pakistan, but the point is that the world seems to allow us to go around the globe hunting the terrorists in their countries, violating their sovereignty, as long as there are no ground troops.  So we should adjust our military accordingly?  How about asking Chuck Hagel what he thinks about that?

The place where responsible politics is trying to break through is with immigration reform; it's at least attempting to get a foothold.  You wouldn't know it solely listening to Ralph Reed who, on the program today, outlined his position on immigration as it is written about in scripture.  So essentially, we still don't know what his position is, but given that we do not make any law with respect to religion (First Amendment), we find it difficult to get on the same page as it were.  He also mentioned, ironically, that the devil is in the details.  We would contest that details is not where the devil is, it's where the facts are.

Ms. Navarro stated that there are political risks for both sides of the aisle, but as we've said previously, Republicans have a lot more political goodwill to gain from passing legislation.  The reason that you know responsibility and rational compassionate thinking are in play with immigration is for the fact the Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is taking a lot of heat for his ideas in spearheading legislation.  The main contention is that Senator Rubio, in his proposal, addresses the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and gives them a path to citizenship, A difficult path - both in following the rules and in enforcing them, but a path nonetheless.  The National Review has deemed the Florida Senator's approach as completely wrong.

Alas, however, we go back to our comfortable political position of irresponsibility [read: do nothing] when it comes to gun safety legislation.  To say that there shouldn't be any legislation in regulating individuals' access to guns through purchase is disingenuous.  The President isn't anti-gun as the The White House tried to weakly illustrate with the release a picture of the president shooting skeet.  Despite this, we agree with the administration that there is a need for tighter regulations when it comes to individuals enjoying their second amendment right.

 

Mr. Reed said that  individual sales with background checks would kill gun shows, and to this we would ask, why do we care?  If people want gun shows, then they should find a way to make it so that everyone (both sides of the purchase) is on the up and up.  Buying a gun at a gun show shouldn't be  the same experience as buying a book at a book fair.  With guns, you just have to ask a few more questions.

Round Table: former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs; Chairman of the Faith and Freedom coalition Ralph Reed; former National Hispanic Co-Chair for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, Ana Navarro; and the New York Times’ David Brooks. 


For the Record: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did admit that enhanced interrogation techniques (waterboarding as it was described at the time, but now deemed torture) were used in extracting information from prisoners in the hunt and eventual capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden.

1.27.13: Look Beyond the Cheap Seats

We'll get to the budget talk in a minute because there are two things that we have to point out off the top.  First we, as Mr. Gregory did, made a note of Congressman Ryan's statement that he believes that the president is more interested in political conquest than in political compromise.  We also want to point out that in addition, Mr. Ryan stated that this election was a status quo election.

In his first interview since the election, Congressman Paul Ryan seems to still being looking at things through the prism of bitter defeat.  Whether you thought that President Obama's inauguration speech was a liberal vision or not is not news.  As a Democratic president, he idyllic vision is going to look to the left.  What should we have expected?  "Why be coy?" Ted Koppel asked.  And despite what Mr. DeMint would tell you, Americans chose this direction for the country.  Democrats won the executive branch, gained in the Senate, and tallied a million more votes nationally in House races.

That aside, Mr. Ryan questioned President Obama's motives when he spoke about political conquest, suggesting that he doesn't have the interest of the country first.  This is hardly a comment for a leader of the Republican party as Bob Woodward projected him to be.  Mr. Ryan's budget contains no outlined revenue generating mechanisms and only spending cuts - austerity.  England, right now, is in a triple-dip recession with the austerity measures in place.  If you completely take revenues off the table, that's not compromise so to fault the president for not doing so is a shallow argument.  So when Mr. Ryan said that Republicans weren't preaching for austerity but to preempt it with growth and opportunity citing Simpson-Bowles' recommendations to reinforce his argument, something he voted against, it just melts into shallow rhetoric.  That's not to say that the President is guiltless; he needs to get more serious as well.  As Mr. Woodward pointed out, the president once said that the Ryan proposal on medicare was a serious piece, but now dismisses it. That was during that Republican retreat at the beginning of Mr. Obama's first term where he went and stared them all down in a room by the way.  But frankly, if you are a very liberal Democrat, President Obama's policies and suggested compromises don't necessarily make you happy.  Andrea Mitchell pointed out that the administration had floated raising the eligibility age for social security and medicare to 67 from 65 and to understate it is didn't go over very well.

And speaking of Social Security, Mr. Ryan used his mother as an example that she is not a 'taker' because she paid into a system all her life and now she is getting back that benefit.  What we don't understand is why he would deem that all right but deny future generations that same opportunity - to pay into a social insurance system so that retirement can be just that... retirement.

And just to get it on record, Mr. Ryan voted against Hurricane Sandy relief for the Northeast. Judge that as you will.

Mr. Ryan was also asked about the sequestration of the defense budget and said that those automatic cuts wouldn't have even come up if Mr. Romney were president because they would have worked across the aisle to save defense.  What he doesn't explain is that it would be at the expense of things like Social Security and Medicare.  But here's the rub, and it brings us to the following topic.

The other aspect of the conversation that was vitally important was the turn to foreign policy and the warnings from NBC's Ted Koppel.  We made this a significant point of last week's column when NBC's Richard Engel was on the program discussing foreign policy.  This is most troubling because the consequences are protracted war and conflict where there will be no winners. Mr. Koppel ticked them off: An unfinished Afghanistan, chemical weapons in an unstable Syria, nuclear weapons in a fundamentalist Pakistan, Israel striking at Iran, Iran launching cyber war against the United States.  Do we need to say more? No, but then Mr. Woodward cited North Korea and the meltdown in Egypt.  Andrea Mitchell threw in North Africa.

And the consequence is continually serious fiscal troubles here at home. So when we hear two major conservative voices say, on this program, that the president is only about political conquest and the 'failed liberal agendas in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles," as Jim Demint said as a rightfully indignant Andrea Mitchell shook her head, it instills no confidence in there leadership because of such a narrow agenda. Notice he didn't mention New York where much fundraising comes from.  Additionally, he said that the overall philosophy of his administration is 'what difference does it make,' and this is not constructive at all so why should we believe it when he says that he's interested in the real reasons and causes.  Mr. DeMint's statements do not see or take into account the complete diverse canvas that is the United States.  NAACP President Ben Jealous used the phrase, 'that's playing to the cheap seats,'  and that is what those kinds of comments do.  It plays to pettiness that we must get passed given on how the rest of the world is changing radically week to week, and we're paying less and less attention.

Also, we didn't appreciate that Mr. DeMint would not answer many questions directly.  Conscious denial of real events and in this case it was what Louisiana Republican Governor Bobby Jindal said this week about his party - the 'stupid party' comment.  He wouldn't even acknowledge it or General Colin Powell's Meet The Press comments, and that's where the failed liberal agenda comments came into play. Congressman Ryan talked about the Republican party having the need to expand its appeal but ultimately there was nothing concretely stated today that starts to accomplish that.

What was amusing was when Mr. Ryan said that if we had a Clinton Presidency then we wouldn't be in the deadlocked state of affairs.  He absolved his own party from any blame for our current dilemma, which again is conscious denial/ political games, but amusing due to the obvious irony.  He may get what he wishes for, but what he doesn't realize that it really wouldn't change the dynamic. 

There is a bright spot for Republicans and that is on immigration.  From all the conversation during the round table, it seems as though there is bi-partisan cooperation for reform.  And call this a gift from the Democrats to their colleagues across the aisle because it is surely going to help the Republicans' image better than it will Democrats. A bi-partisan bill will give the perception that Republicans are more sensitive to immigrants than is perceived even though they will not like many of the Democratic proposals to reform, such as the dream act, which Republicans call earned citizenship.  Paraphrasing, immigration, as Mr. Ryan said, is what America is all about.  And our suggestion is that while we can take this first step of cooperation [We agree with Mr. Woodward when he said that immigration, the budget, et al. is all doable.] on immigration, we just keep a keen eye on all these places we came from.


Incoming President of the Heritage Foundation, former Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC); President and CEO of the NAACP Ben Jealous; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward; NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; and NBC News Special Correspondent Ted Koppel.


Program Note: We like that they brought back a 'Meet the Press Moment,' in this case John Kerry appearing on the program in 1971.  It was a pertinent clip given Senator Kerry's confirmation as Secretary of State, and you can see the full clip online - definitely important viewing.  However, we'd prefer that it didn't come in the middle of the program.  We realize that you can not have it at the very end of the program, having to plug the full version of the clip online and then another plug for the Press Pass during the week.  It's too much.  Perhaps, keeping the clip pertinent to today, play it toward the end of the round table discussion and get some quick reaction for more perspective and insight.  Thoughts?

1.20.13: It's Half-Time America

Senator's Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) debate the most prevalent of topics among Americans on today's program and to paraphrase Warren Zevon, there were lawyers debating guns and money.  However, the debate was substantive in that when you heard from both, particularly on the issue of gun safety, the effective of what President Obama is proposing based of Vice President Biden's task force is certainly questionable.  Senator Cruz offered a lukewarm endorsement of the idea of universal background checks but was quick to point out that it wouldn't have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, CT, which is true, but would an assault weapons ban prevented it.  Maybe, maybe not because what's to say that the weapons used wouldn't have been different than a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle?

Mr. Cruz was astute in his political rhetoric today in that on the gun safety issue, he stated that the 1994 assault weapons ban was the least success bills passed.  There is little evidence that it did have a significant effect - that's true and what he smartly left out is perhaps because there were many loopholes in the law (what is and is not an assault weapon) or that the Congress legislated against doing studies on gun violence (something that President Obama has changed via executive order).

Senator Schumer was not on his game here, especially when the Texas senator said that the loophole of buying weapons at gun shows without a background doesn't exist when in fact that it does.  The fact is, something that Mr. Schumer could have noted, is that 40 percent of all guns purchases occur without a background check.  The secondary market (illegal because of the lack of background checks) is approaching half the total of sales.  For universal background checks to be effective, those sales have to not only be checked but have to also have to be able to be traced back to the seller.

Rhetorically, Mr. Cruz may have won the argument but it wasn't without its significant exceptions.  First, in response to the NRA's ad that talked about President Obama's children receiving armed protection and calling him a hypocrite because it doesn't endorse it for everyone, Mr. Cruz attempted to brush it off say that people can run the ads they want, but it's deplorable that he did not denounce the ad.  He wouldn't bite on the question when Mr. Gregory pressed him for a second time to address whether or not it was over the line.  Also, his reticence to endorse anything meaningful in the wake of this latest tragedy clearly shows through and speaks to the perception of Republicans' indifference to these mass killings.  Additionally, in this vein, Mr. Cruz would not offer any insight with regard to Gen. Powell's comments last week on the program, in which he talked about the 'dark vein of intolerance' in the Republican party, only citing the vice president's comment address a predominantly an African-American audience about if the Republicans obtain the office of the presidency, they will be put back in chains.  Mr. Cruz called that the most racist statement of the 2012 campaign, which is completely disingenuous given that many Republican politicians and political figures [read: Donald Trump] indulged in systematic coded racism for an extended period of time against Mr. Obama with comments of birtherism, 'Food Stamp President, shuckin' and jivin',' etc.

Senator Schumer, however, is correct in that there has to be reasonable common sense limits to gun ownership, and most Americans agree, because clearly there are too many guns in circulation and there are too many people dying from gun violence in this country.  We agree with Mr. Schumer that we ignore the role guns play to our general welfare at our peril.

Speaking of general welfare, Doris Kearns-Goodwin reminded us that we can not project strength abroad if we are not in a strong position at home and that's certainly the case.  If we're not careful, the petty squabbling in the face of a big debt problem will be our undoing.  It was politically imperative that Republicans took the debt ceiling threat off the table in general going to their 'fallback' position of increasing the limit for a three month period.  Mr. Cruz was correct that the Democrats continue to want the specter of default hanging out there, and why? Because it's a political winner given the fact the it's wide perceived that Congressional Republicans are willing to tank the world economy to prove a political point - something everyone sees.  Republican Joe Scarborough explained that most of the American people are not with Republicans when it comes to fiscal issues and boldly admitted that the only reason Republicans have control of the House is because of gerrymandering.  To say it another way, they have to rig the districts because they're not broadly winning elections with their approach.

And the reason Mr. Cruz didn't comment on Mr. Schumer mentioning the McConnell amendment is that it gives the president to authority to raise the debt ceiling while requiring a two-thirds majority of the Senate to deny the increase is because  hard right conservatives are strictly against giving the president that kind of authority even though it puts the responsibility squarely on the president's shoulders. This is just another example piece of evidence that the Republicans can not get together on their own ideas within the party.

We can not solve big issues when we're only tallying small political wins and losses, and our democracy is failing us if we can not come up with a long-term compromise.  If we can not move beyond this, we will not move forward.  The panel discussed the various ways in which the President, on the cusp of his second term, can improve the environment such as reaching out more to his Democratic colleagues as well as Republican.  That would be the inside game, but Ms. Goodwin also stated as she has before that the president needs to use his bully pulpit and take his case to the people - the outside game.  They make it seem like Mr. Obama is not good at either, despite getting a lot done in his first term.  The reason the bar is so high for Mr. Obama's second term is because he himself set it there.  As Joe Scarborough noted, the president's approval rating is at 52% while Speaker Boehner's is at 18% so he must be doing something right despite feeling that the President came into the White House ill-prepared.

Where most people feel the president has fared better is in foreign policy.  But again, we have some intern housekeeping as it relates to foreign policy and that is with the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.  Senator Schumer outlined the questions and concerns that he had with the nomination and after speaking with Mr. Hagel, he was satisfied with the answers.  Just on the stupidly simplistic surface of it all to a layman, it seems odd that the Democratic president would nominate a Republican and Senate Democrats would in favor while the Republicans would be, not just against, but adamantly against the nomination. Especially since that when it comes right down to it, both parties are ultimately equally hawkish.   Mr. Schumer, in fact, noted that most all the antagonism was coming from the hard right, to which Mr. Cruz interjected that he had serious concerns about Mr. Hagel, basically confirming Mr. Schumer's point.

The reinforcement for all this politically squabbling is frankly coming from significant voices in the media starting with most of today's panel in their generally dismissive attitude to their colleague Richard Engel's statements, which we found to be the most significant of the program due to their sobering nature.   When Mr. Engel said that the Chinese model looks better to the developing world, he was correct, but we feel he misspoke in making his point, which was that it's not the citizenry that thinks it's better but the people in control are resorting to that model because it's the easier route vs. U.S. style democracy.  He noted the chaos that it has brought to the Middle East - Syria, Egypt, Libya.  However, to be frankly, we're not sure if we agree Mr. Engel on his interpretation of President Obama's decision not to side with former President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak and its significance.  He postulated that it could turn out to be the president's most important, which came under a general objection from the rest of the panel. But if you extrapolate it out, the point is quite clear explaining that the anarchical state of Syria could spark conflicts in both Iraq and Lebanon inflaming the entire region, which would include Israel taking some sort of direct action on Iran and its nuclear facilities, and us becoming deeply involved.

The greater point being, is that our Congressional leaders haven't even come close to collectively looking at itself in the mirror and making an honest assessment.  Because if we did, we'd notice that fewer countries around the world are looking at and to us.  Mr. Engel is correct in a way, they're looking at China's and it's economic strategy, and they're not looking at ours because we don't have one.

Mr. Schumer defensively said that the Senate will have a budget this year... that will include revenues, but whether House Republicans go for it is a whole other headache that awaits us in the president's second term.  Right now, it's halftime America.  Happy Inauguration Weekend.



David Axelrod; MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough; Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and three of NBC’s finest: Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel and Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director Chuck Todd

1.13.13: Obama Republicans

Just as we once had Reagan Democrats, we now have Obama Republicans, of which General Colin Powell (Ret.) is one.  What that constitutes is a Republican that agrees with the President on certain, key issues - defense, guns, immigration, emergency aid and disdain for the fringe right (i.e birthers and gender politics).  Others would be New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Ohio Congressman Steve LaTourette to name a few - people who have principles but are willing to compromise for the greater good.  Really what this all says is that in reality, the Democrats have moved to a Reagan-like position - more to the center-right (as a general proposition) than ever before.  Think of this - President Obama has ordered more drone attacks than George Bush ever did; Jimmy Carter didn't drop a single bomb on anyone.  Another Obama Republican is of course Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel and on today's program, Gen. Powell laid out the major bullet points of Mr. Hagel's resume in support of the former Senator's nomination. 

Most important of Mr. Hagel's positions is his stance on Israel and the Israeli lobby, which Gen. Powell defended. He explained that in saying 'Jewish lobby,' Mr. Hagel misspoke and that the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz has even used the phrase.  The general went on to say that the former Senators support of Israel was very firm, but that it was all right to differ in opinion on some issues with the Israeli government, not exactly be in lock step all the time.  As a senator, Mr. Hagel did not vote in favor of the Solidarity with Israel Act.

Here's what that Act says:  Prohibits funding for the United Nations (U.N.) if the Security Council or General Assembly of the U.N. grants Palestine, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), or the state of Palestine a change in U.N. status from a permanent observer entity before the Secretary of State certifies to Congress that a comprehensive peace agreement has been reached with Israel.

We can see why there would be objections on both sides.  On the one hand, an American politician could see it as a slap in the face to Israel if Palestine gets membership into the United Nations.  On the other, one could see it that we're not observing the world democracy body's decision on something so it's like we're only in favor of democracy at home, but not abroad.  Or maybe Mr. Hagel disagreed with the equating the PLO with the prospective state of Palestine, something this column believes is not an equal equation.  Either way, we're sure they'll ask during the hearings.  But just to note, we agree with Colin Powell in that if someone says 'Jewish lobby' instead of 'Israeli lobby,' that person should not be called anti-semitic.

For Mr. Hagel's fate, Colin Powell believes that he is a very good choice for Defense Secretary and that he will indeed be confirmed.   However, in his strong endorsement of Mr. Hagel, Gen. Powell did eventually indicate a point of disagreement.  In discussing the resistance to military action with Iran (not necessary), Mr. Hagel is on record as not supporting sanctions on Iran due to their pursuit of a nuclear weapon.  Gen. Powell said he believes sanctions are vital.

All that, along Mr. Hagel's changed views of gays in the military, to which Gen. Powell rebutted that the elimination of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is law and that as Defense Secretary, Mr. Hagel would fully implement it, make Chuck Hagel a man without a party.  He's is being challenged from both the right and the left.  As Andrea Mitchell pointed out, Senator Schumer (D-NY) was ambivalent about the choice which says a lot.  Then on the right side, you have Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) saying it was an 'in your face' pick.  Honestly though, who doesn't want to make an 'in your face' pick?  On anything...

Here's the rub, Chuck Hagel may be a man without a party, but not without a country.  The service that he has given this country, as the general outlined, puts him on a very distinguished short list, and maybe it is this bit of disdain from both sides that makes him a good choice.  We disagree with former Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) when he said that this cabinet is shaping up to be a staff for the president. That is to diminish the service of Mr. Hagel and Senator Kerry, which isn't justified, confirmation or not.  As for the Jack Lew nomination for Treasury Secretary, Republicans don't like dealing with him because Mr. Lew knows the numbers better than they do in negotiations - of course they don't like him.  Republican strategist Mike Murphy explained it as president digging in for a fight in lieu of cooperation.  Whether Mr. Murphy knows it or not, he's half an Obama Republican in his rejection of the fringe right and having a willingness to compromise.  Given that, you can trust that when Andrea Mitchell says women are not happy, it's spot on and the president does need to diversify his cabinet.  He should have nominated Ms. Rice for Secretary of State and going forward follow Gen. Powell's advice that if you want to nominate someone, don't float it out there first, just do it and let the process begin.

Mr. Gregory even challenged the General's Republican credentials because of his votes for Barack Obama and agreeing with him on issues of defense among others.  Republicans should worry however, because when the general says that during the Bush administration 'We fought the wars we felt were necessary,' you can safely say he's a Republican even though he did admit that the Iraq War wasn't executed well. That's just an awful admission, one of incompetence.  And though he disagreed with Mr. Hagel's assessment of the Iraq was being a huge military blunder, that admission tacitly endorses that view.  Also, there's the issue of enhanced interrogation techniques.  Gen. Powell said that we are not a lawless nation and that we have to be able to defend our actions.  He said that we haven't used water boarding since 2003 because he was determined that it was a form of torture.  Our question would be why couldn't they have determined that before they started using it.  It basically leaves it tact that we did, in the past, torture people - he confirmed it.

Lastly, with everything that the general said on guns, his bottom line stance seems to be this, which is shared by many in the service:  Military people don't like military weapons in the hands of people who are not military.  Soldiers train and sleep with those types of weapons in contrast to an individual walking into a Wal-mart, buying a semi-automatic and then we all have to take it on faith that that individual knows what he or she is doing with it. 

As Andrea Mitchell reported during the round table, the President is going to go big with the legislation with things like reintroducing the assault weapons ban, universal background checks which includes the gun show loophole and magazine capacity limits.  The President will not get all of that, probably 1 for 3 - the background checks.  During the panel, there was discussion of tracking the mental ill better - the crazies as Mr. Murphy called them.  It's interesting to this column that no one sees that as a slippery slope to say the least.  First, the whole premise presumes that when it comes to mental health, you do not have the same right to doctor-patient priviledge as one would with say cancer treatment.  We heard many stories of how war veterans feel stigmatized if they admit they have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or CTE, and this in a way reinforces that notion.   Also, there's the question who deems who crazy, right?  Have you ever done anyone 'crazy' in your life? Some would say that political compromise is crazy and Obama Republicans don't exist.  Others would say that the whole notion of the president not being born here is crazy as well. Who makes that call?

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said he was returning to his walnut farm, 'a different set of nuts,' he joked.  Makes you wonder.


Round Table:  Newark’s Democratic Mayor Cory Booker; Fmr. Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS); GOP strategist Mike Murphy; and NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

1.6.13: The Little Successes

 An usual day is upon us when it can be said that Newt Gingrich is making a lot of sense, at least when it comes to the debt ceiling.  Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would not take the threat of not raising the debt ceiling off the table.  As Senator-elect Angus King (I-ME) mentioned later in the program, if he had then the markets would go up two hundred points tomorrow.  How, Mr.  McConnell is much too seasoned to do something like that despite what Mr. Gingrich thinks.  Mr. McConnell is still in Congress and Mr. Gingrich is not.  First, the debt ceiling vote will happen in the House and even though Mr. McConnell had to come in and save the day for Mr. Boehner on the fiscal cliff, he won't needlessly take away any leverage that Mr. Boehner could use when dealing with the President.  It he has said something like that, would people have felt better?  Sure, but it's not smart politically which means that Mr. McConnell would never go there.  Mr. Gregory pressed him on it to no avail.

The message that Mr. McConnell wanted to send this morning is that the United States spends too much, almost 25% of GDP he mentioned.  According to Real Clear Markets it's at 25.3%.  Whether explicitly stated or not, and most did, everyone on the today's program agreed that the United States does spend too much.  If anything came out of the Simpson-Bowles interview, it was that they agreed with Mr. McConnell that this is the case most emphatically.  Mr. Bowles agreed with the Senator that means testing and eligibility age should be part of curtailing Medicare costs.  This column agrees with the former, but not the latter.  For means testing, why give someone benefits that they do not use that we understand.  However, raising the eligibility age keeps people on private insurance for two more years, which would increase the costs to insurance companies, hence increasing rates - disproportionately to the costs saved on the other side.  But at least, some concrete thoughts were put on the table unlike on the subject of tax loopholes, to which Republicans will not specify what to close.  And speaking of the table, everyone seems to use that phrase but until defense spending is seriously on the table then the statement is a false on.  When Ms. Fiorina, during the roundtable, mentions the simple facts, she doesn't even have the inclination in mind to mention defense spending.

The other tactic that Mr. McConnell didn't rule out, when mentioned, was a partial government shutdown.  What would that look like?  We would presume that House Republicans would suspend business while the Democratically-controlled Senate and the Executive would still function.  However, nothing would get done as nothing would be able to be brought to a vote.  This is essentially the 'it's-my-ball-and-I-don't-like-the-game-so-I'm-going-home' strategy.  And in this case, Mr. Gingrich was incorrect.  His government shutdown, during his speakership, didn't work... for Republicans that is.  It worked for President Clinton as it will for President Obama if the Republicans were to be so foolish.  Republicans seem to be a bit tone deaf when it comes to what the American public says about the job they're doing in the House, but a partial shutdown would make them look even more foolishly ineffective than they have been. 

The 113th Congress vs. the 112th?  "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" is how the line goes and a partial shutdown would not change that.  But Mr. McConnell seems to believe that it's a shame that this is the only leverage they have.  However, it isn't because as he said, he feels that revenue is now completely off the table.

The President will seek to further increase revenue (see: loopholes) when they start debating tax reform.  Given what the two sides are continually going for, revenue increases and spending cuts respectively, it will not be a revenue neutral deal as Mr. McConnell said.  The one fumble that Mr. McConnell made today was in his response on this latest fiscal cliff deal, in which he said there was no tax increase.  There was for the top one percent.  It's not that he's just ignoring the fact of the matter, but his sophomoric response saying that because the President of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, said it wasn't a tax increase, then it wasn't.  Give us a break.

What also drew distinct frustration today was the fact that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles both said that the government couldn't get the difficult stuff done, and it was only minor relief when E.J. Dionne later countered it by saying that the tax rate increase was in fact difficult.  It was the first one the Republicans have voted for in over 20 years... that's how easy it was to get done.  However, the frustration resides in  constant, pointless back and back forth to the brink that keeps stalling the economy.  Having this fight every three months is exhausting and exasperating to say the least, which speaks to Senator-elect King's point is that the overall structural problem is that the American people have lost confidence in the government to get anything done.

Even though the President isn't blameless, he has made concessions and the contention from Ms. Fiorina that he hasn't lead, and that this is the biggest problem is ridiculous.  The President to his credit, has proposed some major concessions in the grand bargain and Republicans rejected it.  Does the President campaign too much when he doesn't have to, absolutely.  But he has to do this because all he has is to take his case to the American people with whom he has built trust.  Where he hasn't built the trust is with his colleagues.  And to be frank, it's too late for him to start building those relationships.   And then there's the other notion that why should he have had built those relationships given the animosity and the intransience from Republicans.

On each, here are two examples signaled by Senator McConnell.  The animosity for the President runs so deep that when he nominates Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator, current conservative politicians don't like the pick.  Why?  Because President Barack Obama was the one who did the nominating.  And even worse is the intransience, which will be the order on how to proceed for Republicans when it comes to new gun regulations.  Mr. McConnell said that he didn't want to comment until he saw the vice-president's committee's recommendations.  This is to say that the Republican party will not be proactive in the debate and only say what they are not willing to do in the face of the Administration's ideas.

The concept of 'little successes building up to a big good,' which has happened in Congress recently believe it or not is the optimistic notion that you can take away from today's program.  What would be helpful is that instead of congressional Republicans only saying that the president needs to lead, they should try and propose something that give a little consideration of the other side.  That little something would be huge.

Round Table:  Freshman Senator from Maine Angus King (I-ME), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), former head of HP and Vice Chair of the NRSC Carly Fiorina, and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.

12.30.12: President Barack Obama Interview

In the President's interview, of course the most immediate question is whether we're going off the so-called fiscal cliff and even though Mr. Obama can not say the words 'I don't know,' but his answer sure indicated as much. Chuck Todd observed, suggesting that we go over, that the President showed no sense of urgency, not making the next, at this point, 24 hours 'do or die.'  In his interview, Mr. Obama outlined quite simply what measures would be taken if we do go post the deadline.  Ultimately, the Senate Democrats would have to introduce a bill that would cut taxes for 98% of Americans and then in essence dare the Republicans to block it.

In a previous column, we said that we were optimistic, but at this late hour, we not so sure.  At the top of the program, Mr. Gregory did report that Congress was going to reconvene today for a special Sunday session.  But let's face it, Republicans are acting stupidly, David Brooks called it 'shambolic,' but they're not being shrewd in any sense.  Granted, the consensus of the roundtable is that the President has no inside game when it comes to cajoling congressmen, and using the leverage [read: opulence] of the White House itself to get votes.  However, later in the program, Doris Kearns-Goodwin said that the President had to get out in front of the people more to educate them about gun laws.  They way they make it sound sometimes  - he's got no inside game; he doesn't get out enough - give it a rest a bit - he was elected President... twice.

But the infighting amongst Republicans is rendering themselves unable to negotiate.  The leadership can't make a deal that the rank and file will accept and the pragmatists are continually under threat of a primary challenge if they compromise in any way with the Democrats.  Jon Meachum, in reference to the gun lobby, described two sides as the well organized lobby versus the common sense, but unorganized general public.  But these are the sides on practically every issue, and the republicans, though unorganized themselves blindly are following the small, but organized powerful lobby.

But what about the President?  Mr. Gregory noted that it has been widely reported that Republicans can not particularly say 'yes' to this President. Just look back to the healthcare fight and the ugliness that was illustrated by the Tea Party then - the fascist, socialist, otherness rhetoric.  There is enough of the Tea Party left, the 'faction' that the President referred to them blaming them for the impasses that we face, in Congress that enable such absolutism of you're either with us or against us mentality.  Remember, John Boehner's 'Plan B' was essentially to raise the individual tax rates for people earning over $1 million, and the Tea Party didn't give him the votes.

In outlining his priorities in a second term, at the top of the President's list was immigration, followed by economic stabilization, then infrastructure and energy.  And then he took time to reiterate that his first, most immediate priority was to make sure that taxes didn't go up for the middle class. However, Mr. Gregory stepped right over those to go to gun control, referenced earlier.

Mr. Obama said he was 'skeptical' about more guns in schools, and it is in our informed opinion that teachers - civilians - should not carry guns in school.  Surely, the students will learn which teachers are carrying guns, which can only contribute to a deterioration of trust between teacher and pupil. And then there's the whole scenario of a bigger, stronger student taking the gun away from a teacher and then using it.  How does a policeman get to that situation in time to stop it?  That is not to say that having a police officer in the school is a bad thing.  It does make students and adults alike in the school think twice about doing anything illegal - drugs, guns, inappropriate behavior even. 

But to say that banning assault weapons or at the very least high capacity clips wouldn't help, we would say that it wouldn't hurt.  Decreasing the number of assault type weapons in our society to decrease gun violence, just seems like a common sense idea.  There is a compromise there for sure - we'll let you have the assault weapon, but not the high-capacity clip - but how do you as the President go back to the families of the Sandy Hook and say we've reached a compromise?  How does an official from the NRA or the Republican Party go there and say the ban is not necessary.  And the answer is you don't.


Round Table: NBC’s Tom Brokaw; historians Jon Meacham and Doris Kearns Goodwin; the New York Times’ David Brooks; and NBC’s Chuck Todd.