Of the three main topics for today's program, we'll comment on the president's trip to the Middle East first and then get to the domestic stuff. As New York Times columnist David Brooks said, both the left and right liked the results of his trip. With good reason, the president pulled a JFK speaking in Hebrew, telling a young crowd "You are not alone." Very powerful support. What we found interesting about Mr. Obama's trip to Israel is Prime Minister Netanyahu's change in temperament toward the president from their last meeting. When the Israeli Prime Minister visited the United States, he made news for first insulting the president and then having a rather cold meeting with him as it was reported. Little things like elections do matter and now that Mr. Obama has been reelected Mr. Netanyahu was definitely going to be more receptive. One reason is because of his struggle with his personal approval ratings at home that we're further damaged by his rebuke of the president. Secondly, the more obvious and speaking to what the president said was that in the face of hostility, America has Israel's back, which will always be the case despite squabbles amongst leaders.
However, also at the speech, the president said unequivocally that the Palestinians need a state of their own, to which he received applause. As Mayor Bloomberg had mentioned, he got both sides thinking about this possibility. There's no question that Barack Obama is a better representative than George Bush for the prospect of both sides talking simply because from the Palestinian perspective he is a more honest broker. With that said, make no mistake that Israel's security always comes first. The Administration left Secretary Kerry behind to handle the dirty work. As Richard Engel pointed out (great analysis all around in this segment), the Israeli apology to Turkey was big. All governments throughout history have always had trouble apologizing for anything so the significance of this gesture will not be lost, especially on the Turks. Mr. Engel pointed out that Istanbul would be the place for a Mid-East summit.
A summit that is desperately needed. Syria has completely melted down at this point and eventually outside forces who have been dabbling with the outcome are going to become overwhelming in what happens there. Iran, along with their nuclear ambitions, wants control of the region - they want to be that power (They have the influence in Iraq), and keeping Assad in power helps that cause. The United States Special Forces is training Syrian rebels in Lebanon but we haven't gone all in. The reason being is that someone at the Pentagon must be paying attention to history. We armed the Mujahadeen then eventually got the Taliban who didn't like us. We ousted Saddam and now have an Iraqi government more friendly with Iran than us. What do we get with Syria if Assad is gone? That's the question that no one can answer. Also, Americans are tired of our military getting involved in another Middle East country, we just don't have the patience for it at this point. There are louder calls coming from the Senate for a no-fly zone which would probably not upset the electorate too much. The jury is still out on whether that's a good idea or not.
Speaking of juries, that of course brings us back home and one of the other big topics of today's program - marriage equality and the upcoming Supreme Court hearings. The questions at hand are in regard to California Proposition 8 banning gay marriage and if the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. We've said before in this column that we support marriage equality on libertarian grounds. It's that 'live and let live' attitude that most Americans have as the reason for marriage equalities wide support. Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed's argument frankly was weak because he cited a study from one institution that said it was better if parents were a heterosexual couple. However, before he even finished Hilary Rosen and David Gregory were stipulating that there were other studies that had different results. Leave those aside for a moment and here is why we think his argument is insufficient. We understand his objection to marriage equality because Mr. Reed as the Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition believes that marriage is a sacred religious institution and according to his religion, marriage is only between a man and a woman. That's fine, but here's the rub. Marriage, as all things, has evolved and today in addition to being a confirmation of love and commitment, it's also a legal contract that determines power of attorney, visitation rights, and tax rates, which do not recognize religion. And as we all know, in the First Amendment it states that no law shall be made with respect to religion. - nowhere in there does religious play a role.
In an abbreviated interview segment, which worked for the purposes of today's program, David Boies (Vice President Gore's lawyer in Bush v. Gore) outlined the three core issues:
1. Is Marriage a fundamental right?
2. Do same sex couples harm the children that they are raising?
3. Is there sufficient evidence that says raising a child amongst same sex parents is detrimental?
The Supreme Court has ruled 14 times, as Mr. Boies noted, that marriage is a fundamental right. If you extrapolate that, one of Americans' fundamental rights is equal protection under the law and marriage has lawful implications, hence everyone should be treated the same. And these are just the conservative arguments. Mr. Boies offhandedly said at the end that it was a basic civil rights issue, but that's exactly what it is at its core.
[As an aside, think about the brilliance of the Constitution for a moment. Two hundred and thirty-seven years later and we're still talking about the First and Second Amendments.]
In regard to gun regulation, we were prepared to write about what nutty things Wayne LaPierre said on the program, but he didn't really get there and was calmer than you would usually see him. We believe that is because he knows one thing - ultimately he won. The gun safety legislation coming out of the Senate will not contain any kind of assault weapons ban and other tougher provisions, like magazine size, will be watered down by the time the bill gets amended in the House's version. Universal background checks will be the big 'win' for the other side, but as Mr. LaPierre stated today, they don't work anyway, a 'speed bump for the law-abiding' he called them.
Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg, spending $12 Million of his own money (we'll get to that in a moment), is running ads advocating for the universal background check, and it was noted that there was no mention of an assault weapons ban in those ads. The bar for the new legislation has been lowered to the point that the NRA and Mr. LaPierre have prevailed over Mr. Bloomberg.
With regard to his big spending of money and how that might be offensive to you. We think about it this way, Mr. Bloomberg is his own SuperPAC. The difference between him and say Karl Rove's American Crossroads, is that you have a name and a face for where all the money comes from. Whether you agree with Mr. Bloomberg's agenda or not, that's actually more transparent than Mr. Rove's operation that does not disclose from whom it gets its funds.
Mr. LaPierre may be right that background checks don't work, that an assault weapons ban is ineffective, that limiting magazine size doesn't matter. However, our core argument with Mr. LaPierre is that he refuses to acknowledge the primary cause of some many gun deaths in America - guns. He presents his argument as if the ease of availability to all sorts of outlandish weapons doesn't play a role in all the violence.
He reiterated today that there should be armed security in schools and that teachers should have the right to carry a gun while teaching, yet he condemns the role that video games play in promoting gun violence. What that says is that he thinks it is not all right for a kid to be exposed to video guns at home, but O.K. for that same kid to walk into school and be exposed to real people with real guns.
How a new gun safety law will probably shake out is that there will be universal background checks and much stronger penalties for straw buyers and trafficking. With regard to magazines, if there is a ban on anything, it will be the purchase of 100-round drums, but don't expect a 10-round limit on magazines. Our lawmakers are all conservative on the issue of guns, and lobbyists remind them of that everyday despite what the American populace thinks.
So much more we could say but we'll leave it there for now...
Round Table: Chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed; Democratic
strategist Hilary Rosen; Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne; and the
New York Times’ David Brooks
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
3.17.13 The Reality of Now
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George didn't answer David Gregory's question in how the church resolves the tensions between church doctrine and an individual's own life experience, but the round table discussion answered it quite well. That's not to diminish Cardinal George at all because it's more of a matter of articulating the answer versus knowing the answer, which he does. Ana Navarro put it best that you don't have to agree with the Pope (or the Church) on everything but you want to know that he is coming from the right place. And that's how it feels with the election of Pope Francis, a man who is coming from the right place.
The air of humility and warmth that Pope Francis has shown in these first few days has been a welcome sight to the Catholics who occupy all points of the spectrum. There is also a sense that everyone recognizes that the Pope has an opportunity to focus on something that transcends division and that is the plight of the poor. The Catholic Church understands, and this Pope who has spent his life amongst people suffering, that they should be that voice. Kathleen Kennedy outlined that the Church has been focused on sex (contraception and abortion) for too long and should focus on the core of the gospels which is the plight of the poor and sickness. She's correct because at this point, many rightly have the question that kind of goes, "Who are you to lecture me about issues of sex?" That's a natural reaction. The Catholic Church has to reconcile that within itself. Pope Francis' first step to go out amongst parishioners and give a sermon that talked about how God always has the capacity to forgive is what the Cardinal called style being substance.
Where Cardinal George spoke much more eloquently yet succinctly was with regard to the sexual abuse scandal saying that as long as there are victims, there will be the scandal, a deep admission and understanding. In answering this completely, it was important to hear a Cardinal simply say that they have gotten rid of all of the offenders they know of and that they are taking steps to make sure it never happens again. It was necessary to hear those words.
Does all this mean that there are going to be great changes in the Church, probably not. Should women play a more integral role in the hierarchy in Rome, certainly, but it isn't going to happen in the 5 to 10 years that Chris Matthews thinks it will, but no one expects that either. Just as no one expects the Church to all of a sudden come out in favor of gay marriage. They won't because it's one of the doctrines in the Catholic belief system that marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman. Whether you agree with that or not, you understand the Church's stance. For Catholics, it runs in opposition to their beliefs, but it shouldn't run counter to Republican beliefs.
The round table discussed Senator Portman's (R-OH) change on his stance toward gay marriage. Mr. Portman explained that his son is gay and that he would like to see his son enjoy the same rights as everyone else, a change of heart based on personal experience.
Now, Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) may have won his recall election, which makes him a successful politician, but he is by no means a successful leader. The reason for those harsh words is because during the discussion, he touted the Republican philosophy that an individual should be able to come to this country and freely live his or her dreams without the interference of government - a very libertarian type of idea. However, the Republican stance, Mr. Walker's, on gay marriage runs directly counter to that freedom. The libertarian view is that an individual should be able to marry whomever he or she wants. You see the contradiction there. And Mr. Walker's dismissive answer that states should sanction it in the first place was a cop-out, rightly called out by Chris Matthews who explained that Social Security and hospital visitation rights, for example, all play into the legal status of being married. It's a subject that Mr. Matthews assessed correctly in its importance, it's about the right for an individual to pursue love freely without recrimination. This notion will be heard by the Supreme Court with the Defense of Marriage Act. Every time Scott Walker has an opportunity to take a leadership stand on something, he declines.
And on the subject of leadership, do not look to the House Republican Whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), ho appeared on the program today with Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) who sits on the House Budget Committee. Granted he is the Republican Whip, which means that he takes what the leadership gives him and he rallies the troops behind it. Obviously, he and Speaker Boehner have not been on the same page. However, we single him out over Mr. Van Hollen because in this budget debate the position he represents disregards the poor and those who can not care for themselves (in the spirit of the new Pope).
The Republican budget repeals Obamacare, the implication of which is that millions of people will not have access to affordable healthcare - no Medicaid expansion within the states (the poor) and it will also change Medicare into a voucher system which effects millions of seniors (those who may need assistance). Aren't these the same people that we're happy to see the Pope focus on? Why not our political leaders?
With that said, understand that Democrats see the Republican plan as a slippery slope to ending Medicare all together. Conversely, Republicans see Obamacare as the first step to socialized medicine or Medicare for all, even though most seniors we know (O.K., all) like Medicare because it's easy and not as expensive as private insurance.
Mr. McCarthy outlined the urgency of the here and now on the debt and deficit, but Paul Ryan's budget ignores the reality of now. Right now, it is not politically impossible to repeal Obamacare whether you're for it or not so for a budget to be taken seriously right now, it has to work within the existence of said law. The realistic tact for Republicans to take is to say that if Obamacare has to stay then this, this, and this have to go and to be specific on those points.
Not that Mr. Van Hollen was any more convincing when challenged on Senate Democrats' budget and it's goal of coming into balance by 2040. The inherent problem with that timeline is that between now and then - 27 years - think about all the variables (conflict, war, natural and man-made disaster) that will occur in that time to throw the plan out the proverbial window. It boils down to either wanting a drastic approach where the overall economy and an individual's personal one are radically changed to get things in line quickly or a gradual approach that may not come into line at all. Where the Democrats win the debate is on the ratio of tax increases (closing of corporate tax loopholes) to spending cuts. Republicans have taken any revenue increases for the federal government off the table completely and as long as that's the case, the budget will not be balanced.
Where both Representatives fell down were on the topics of the Keystone Pipeline and Gun Control respectively. First, Mr. Van Hollen's tepid response that he was looking at all the information on the Keystone pipeline and reassessing was basically saying that he'll vote for it without saying he'll vote for it. Our feeling is that the pipeline should go forward - a source of oil that comes from an ally close by instead of from an enemy far away is a good thing. Mr. Van Hollen did mention that there was a re-routing of the line that answered an environmental concern. The United States should be able to build a state-of-the art-pipeline that fully takes the environment into consideration, right?!
On gun control, Mr. McCarthy displayed equally insufficient spine not saying whether he agreed with universal background checks or not, something that 90% of Americans endorse, which just shows that Mr. McCarthy has been sufficiently compromised by the gun lobby. He phrased it this way - It's a measure the House will take a look at - speaking as if he's not part of that discussion, which is he. No backbone.
We understand that the time within the context of a talk show, even the best one like Meet The Press, doesn't lend itself to more nuanced answers from our political leaders, but there could be a little bit of evidence that they're listening to one another at least. Alas, there isn't.
Round Table: Host of MSNBC's "Hardball" Chris Matthews; former two-term Republican Governor who, in 2002, was appointed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to investigate the sex abuse scandals in the Church, Frank Keating (R-OK); author and former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Kathleen Kennedy Townsend; and Republican Ana Navarro.
The air of humility and warmth that Pope Francis has shown in these first few days has been a welcome sight to the Catholics who occupy all points of the spectrum. There is also a sense that everyone recognizes that the Pope has an opportunity to focus on something that transcends division and that is the plight of the poor. The Catholic Church understands, and this Pope who has spent his life amongst people suffering, that they should be that voice. Kathleen Kennedy outlined that the Church has been focused on sex (contraception and abortion) for too long and should focus on the core of the gospels which is the plight of the poor and sickness. She's correct because at this point, many rightly have the question that kind of goes, "Who are you to lecture me about issues of sex?" That's a natural reaction. The Catholic Church has to reconcile that within itself. Pope Francis' first step to go out amongst parishioners and give a sermon that talked about how God always has the capacity to forgive is what the Cardinal called style being substance.
Where Cardinal George spoke much more eloquently yet succinctly was with regard to the sexual abuse scandal saying that as long as there are victims, there will be the scandal, a deep admission and understanding. In answering this completely, it was important to hear a Cardinal simply say that they have gotten rid of all of the offenders they know of and that they are taking steps to make sure it never happens again. It was necessary to hear those words.
Does all this mean that there are going to be great changes in the Church, probably not. Should women play a more integral role in the hierarchy in Rome, certainly, but it isn't going to happen in the 5 to 10 years that Chris Matthews thinks it will, but no one expects that either. Just as no one expects the Church to all of a sudden come out in favor of gay marriage. They won't because it's one of the doctrines in the Catholic belief system that marriage is a holy institution between a man and a woman. Whether you agree with that or not, you understand the Church's stance. For Catholics, it runs in opposition to their beliefs, but it shouldn't run counter to Republican beliefs.
The round table discussed Senator Portman's (R-OH) change on his stance toward gay marriage. Mr. Portman explained that his son is gay and that he would like to see his son enjoy the same rights as everyone else, a change of heart based on personal experience.
Now, Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) may have won his recall election, which makes him a successful politician, but he is by no means a successful leader. The reason for those harsh words is because during the discussion, he touted the Republican philosophy that an individual should be able to come to this country and freely live his or her dreams without the interference of government - a very libertarian type of idea. However, the Republican stance, Mr. Walker's, on gay marriage runs directly counter to that freedom. The libertarian view is that an individual should be able to marry whomever he or she wants. You see the contradiction there. And Mr. Walker's dismissive answer that states should sanction it in the first place was a cop-out, rightly called out by Chris Matthews who explained that Social Security and hospital visitation rights, for example, all play into the legal status of being married. It's a subject that Mr. Matthews assessed correctly in its importance, it's about the right for an individual to pursue love freely without recrimination. This notion will be heard by the Supreme Court with the Defense of Marriage Act. Every time Scott Walker has an opportunity to take a leadership stand on something, he declines.
And on the subject of leadership, do not look to the House Republican Whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), ho appeared on the program today with Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) who sits on the House Budget Committee. Granted he is the Republican Whip, which means that he takes what the leadership gives him and he rallies the troops behind it. Obviously, he and Speaker Boehner have not been on the same page. However, we single him out over Mr. Van Hollen because in this budget debate the position he represents disregards the poor and those who can not care for themselves (in the spirit of the new Pope).
The Republican budget repeals Obamacare, the implication of which is that millions of people will not have access to affordable healthcare - no Medicaid expansion within the states (the poor) and it will also change Medicare into a voucher system which effects millions of seniors (those who may need assistance). Aren't these the same people that we're happy to see the Pope focus on? Why not our political leaders?
With that said, understand that Democrats see the Republican plan as a slippery slope to ending Medicare all together. Conversely, Republicans see Obamacare as the first step to socialized medicine or Medicare for all, even though most seniors we know (O.K., all) like Medicare because it's easy and not as expensive as private insurance.
Mr. McCarthy outlined the urgency of the here and now on the debt and deficit, but Paul Ryan's budget ignores the reality of now. Right now, it is not politically impossible to repeal Obamacare whether you're for it or not so for a budget to be taken seriously right now, it has to work within the existence of said law. The realistic tact for Republicans to take is to say that if Obamacare has to stay then this, this, and this have to go and to be specific on those points.
Not that Mr. Van Hollen was any more convincing when challenged on Senate Democrats' budget and it's goal of coming into balance by 2040. The inherent problem with that timeline is that between now and then - 27 years - think about all the variables (conflict, war, natural and man-made disaster) that will occur in that time to throw the plan out the proverbial window. It boils down to either wanting a drastic approach where the overall economy and an individual's personal one are radically changed to get things in line quickly or a gradual approach that may not come into line at all. Where the Democrats win the debate is on the ratio of tax increases (closing of corporate tax loopholes) to spending cuts. Republicans have taken any revenue increases for the federal government off the table completely and as long as that's the case, the budget will not be balanced.
Where both Representatives fell down were on the topics of the Keystone Pipeline and Gun Control respectively. First, Mr. Van Hollen's tepid response that he was looking at all the information on the Keystone pipeline and reassessing was basically saying that he'll vote for it without saying he'll vote for it. Our feeling is that the pipeline should go forward - a source of oil that comes from an ally close by instead of from an enemy far away is a good thing. Mr. Van Hollen did mention that there was a re-routing of the line that answered an environmental concern. The United States should be able to build a state-of-the art-pipeline that fully takes the environment into consideration, right?!
On gun control, Mr. McCarthy displayed equally insufficient spine not saying whether he agreed with universal background checks or not, something that 90% of Americans endorse, which just shows that Mr. McCarthy has been sufficiently compromised by the gun lobby. He phrased it this way - It's a measure the House will take a look at - speaking as if he's not part of that discussion, which is he. No backbone.
We understand that the time within the context of a talk show, even the best one like Meet The Press, doesn't lend itself to more nuanced answers from our political leaders, but there could be a little bit of evidence that they're listening to one another at least. Alas, there isn't.
Round Table: Host of MSNBC's "Hardball" Chris Matthews; former two-term Republican Governor who, in 2002, was appointed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to investigate the sex abuse scandals in the Church, Frank Keating (R-OK); author and former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Kathleen Kennedy Townsend; and Republican Ana Navarro.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
3.10.13: A Political Thaw
The question you may ask yourself is 'why now? ' Why haven't the opposing sides collaborated before this and the simple reason is when you have nothing to lose and don't have to answer to a monied interest or a constituency base, a politician gains the ability to speak more freely about his/her views. Take for example retiring Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) who said he believes 'the president, my friend' has good intentions and that he wants to solve the problems of the country. He's also correct that it shouldn't be news but the reason it is news is because of all the hyper-partisanship we've all been subjected to. And finally, when Senator Coburn assesses that Washington is dysfunctional in its dysfunction, you know something has to give. If dysfunction is a conventional negative then maybe two of them will make a positive. The thaw that we're experiencing is the result of the political realization of the election outcome and fewer of the key players are worried about reelection at this point. That of course includes the president. The more cynical view is that if the Congress doesn't act on budget issues by April, they stop getting paid, a real motivator for certain.
But also at work, and in no small measure, is Washington coming to understand that the electorate is tired of all the counterproductive rhetoric and want a plan. And when you consider that two of the guests today are freshman in Congress, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) respectively, it's important for them to be initiated to a more civil tone, right? They were both a little too much into the talking points - Mr. Gardner more so than Ms. Gabbard, a very strong edition to the House of Reprensatives, evidenced by the amount of time given them to speak by the moderator. Despite that, both talked about working out a deal, which is a good sign. Just one thing - Mr. Gardner said that tax revenue was at a record high, which is a fact without context. In raw dollars yes, but as a percentage of GDP, no. Just thought we'd clarify that.
Also, the president doing an end-around on the leadership in both chambers and talking to others is a good strategy because frankly John Boehner and Harry Reid fail at leading their respective chambers. They are both so concerned about protecting the political ground underneath their feet that they don't see it crumbling all around them.
Mr. Obama does have to schmooze, as Joe Scarborough indicated and we've said it before in this column that the president needs to be a great salesman - take out the clients. And it would do Congressman Gardner well not to parrot too much off of the Speaker, starting off with 'the president got his tax increases [so revenue is off the table]. This implicitly answers Mr. Gregory's core question of what is the ratio of cuts to revenues that Republicans will accept, which is there is no ratio. Senator Tim Kaine pointed out the rhetorical out for Republicans with the phrase 'spending through the tax code,' but it's not enough. Too much money goes into protecting the corporate loopholes that politicians on both side talk about closing.
At a certain point, just as you get tired of fighting wars abroad, you become exhausted by wars of words at home. Where we have faith in that is with the discussion we're having about drones courtesy of Senator Rand Paul, whom will discuss more in a moment. All sides agree that there should be more Congressional oversight on the use of this technology. The president wants the oversight as well, make no mistake, because he doesn't want his legacy being tied to an accountability for that 'kill list' they have.
With regard to Senator Rand Paul, despite the disagreements we have with his policy views and his extreme rhetoric, we commend him for his filibuster. First, he actually did it - he took to the podium for 13 hours to make his point sparking this very important discussion because someday we'll have to discuss drone use from a defensive posture as other countries obtain the technology. Having said that, we mostly agree with conservative Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus who said that Senator Paul filibustered the wrong question. Mr. Paul's notion that the government is going to turn the drone program on its own citizens is that kind of borderline conspiracy nonsense that has no place in the United States Senate. Stick to the question of oversight and parameters of use. Most people paying attention understand the difference between Mr. Paul's flawed but commendable effort and the real question at hand. And what you find is that most people agree with what needs to be done so perhaps a good building block for cooperation.
And whatever your take on Sheryl Sandberg's core argument that women do not lean in, but instead lean back, there shouldn't be any disagreement with women being treated equally in the workplace. Steve Schmidt's comments that women need to have equal representation in leading were meant directly for Republican leadership, but also meant for the broader context.
In Ms. Sandberg's comments, she mentioned that women lean back and instead of going after success or seeking a leadership position, they sit back and weigh the options of family vs. career. Dee Dee Meyers said that women don't promote themselves as they should given that a woman's likeability suffers due to success. The obstacles for women are there, no doubt, and to a degree, what Ruth Marcus said could also be true that women do it to themselves. However, the leaning back Ms. Sandberg described really speaks to the core strength of women over men. They take a step back to assess and analyze instead of just jumping impulsively. It speaks to the greater responsibility that women carry in society and how they are more responsible than men.
Guests: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), freshman Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, fmr. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL).
Roundtable: Author of “Why Women Should Rule the World” and former White House Press Secretary under President Clinton, Dee Dee Myers; Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; former John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt; and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
Postscript: We stayed away from the Jeb Bush interview because we just didn't feel like discussing presidential election politics at this point. We felt that Governor Bush's analogy of the Washington press's obsession with the subject being a kin to a crack addiction refreshingly accurate.
But also at work, and in no small measure, is Washington coming to understand that the electorate is tired of all the counterproductive rhetoric and want a plan. And when you consider that two of the guests today are freshman in Congress, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) respectively, it's important for them to be initiated to a more civil tone, right? They were both a little too much into the talking points - Mr. Gardner more so than Ms. Gabbard, a very strong edition to the House of Reprensatives, evidenced by the amount of time given them to speak by the moderator. Despite that, both talked about working out a deal, which is a good sign. Just one thing - Mr. Gardner said that tax revenue was at a record high, which is a fact without context. In raw dollars yes, but as a percentage of GDP, no. Just thought we'd clarify that.
Also, the president doing an end-around on the leadership in both chambers and talking to others is a good strategy because frankly John Boehner and Harry Reid fail at leading their respective chambers. They are both so concerned about protecting the political ground underneath their feet that they don't see it crumbling all around them.
Mr. Obama does have to schmooze, as Joe Scarborough indicated and we've said it before in this column that the president needs to be a great salesman - take out the clients. And it would do Congressman Gardner well not to parrot too much off of the Speaker, starting off with 'the president got his tax increases [so revenue is off the table]. This implicitly answers Mr. Gregory's core question of what is the ratio of cuts to revenues that Republicans will accept, which is there is no ratio. Senator Tim Kaine pointed out the rhetorical out for Republicans with the phrase 'spending through the tax code,' but it's not enough. Too much money goes into protecting the corporate loopholes that politicians on both side talk about closing.
At a certain point, just as you get tired of fighting wars abroad, you become exhausted by wars of words at home. Where we have faith in that is with the discussion we're having about drones courtesy of Senator Rand Paul, whom will discuss more in a moment. All sides agree that there should be more Congressional oversight on the use of this technology. The president wants the oversight as well, make no mistake, because he doesn't want his legacy being tied to an accountability for that 'kill list' they have.
With regard to Senator Rand Paul, despite the disagreements we have with his policy views and his extreme rhetoric, we commend him for his filibuster. First, he actually did it - he took to the podium for 13 hours to make his point sparking this very important discussion because someday we'll have to discuss drone use from a defensive posture as other countries obtain the technology. Having said that, we mostly agree with conservative Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus who said that Senator Paul filibustered the wrong question. Mr. Paul's notion that the government is going to turn the drone program on its own citizens is that kind of borderline conspiracy nonsense that has no place in the United States Senate. Stick to the question of oversight and parameters of use. Most people paying attention understand the difference between Mr. Paul's flawed but commendable effort and the real question at hand. And what you find is that most people agree with what needs to be done so perhaps a good building block for cooperation.
And whatever your take on Sheryl Sandberg's core argument that women do not lean in, but instead lean back, there shouldn't be any disagreement with women being treated equally in the workplace. Steve Schmidt's comments that women need to have equal representation in leading were meant directly for Republican leadership, but also meant for the broader context.
In Ms. Sandberg's comments, she mentioned that women lean back and instead of going after success or seeking a leadership position, they sit back and weigh the options of family vs. career. Dee Dee Meyers said that women don't promote themselves as they should given that a woman's likeability suffers due to success. The obstacles for women are there, no doubt, and to a degree, what Ruth Marcus said could also be true that women do it to themselves. However, the leaning back Ms. Sandberg described really speaks to the core strength of women over men. They take a step back to assess and analyze instead of just jumping impulsively. It speaks to the greater responsibility that women carry in society and how they are more responsible than men.
Guests: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), freshman Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, fmr. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL).
Roundtable: Author of “Why Women Should Rule the World” and former White House Press Secretary under President Clinton, Dee Dee Myers; Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; former John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt; and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
Postscript: We stayed away from the Jeb Bush interview because we just didn't feel like discussing presidential election politics at this point. We felt that Governor Bush's analogy of the Washington press's obsession with the subject being a kin to a crack addiction refreshingly accurate.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
3.3.13: Mountains of Evidence
We can't help but think watching this interview with John Boehner how there is such a dearth of leadership in Washington DC. However, for
as much as Republicans and some Democrats criticize the president's lack
of leadership (some justified), the Speaker of the House doesn't bear the same burden that he should. He explained that the House has acted twice in passing a bill to stop the sequester, but what he refuses to acknowledge is that what they are proposing will not pass a Democratically controlled Senate, which Mr. Gregory rightly called him out on. Because the fact is that both sides are equally to blame for the sequester. Obama proposed it as an extreme and the extreme right happily voted for it so now we all have to live it.
The Speaker said that for two years he couldn't come to an agreement with the president, but actually they had one in the form of the grand bargain. He just couldn't sell it to the base of his party, and still doesn't have the mustard so to take them on in any capacity. Mr. Boehner's first goal is to maintain his position as Speaker, and as Mr. Todd pointed out during the round table, neither he nor Mitch McConnell (R-KY) nor John Cornyn (R-TX) are going to sacrifice themselves politically to get something done. So when Mr. Greogry asks the Speaker if his Republican caucus leads him or does he lead it, the answer is clearly with the former. With that in mind, you're not going to see a deal get done. At this point, the president isn't worried about his job so he is able to compromise on measures that his base disagrees with, but this is not the case for the other side obviously.
And that entire sideshow with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling (the Administration) is just that - a side show. Just looking at that e-mail response on the screen from Mr. Sperling, it is clear that he is not threatening Mr. Woodward but telling him that he'll regret the statement because he'll find he'll be wrong. It was not a threat to do harm against him. Mr. Woodward needs to grow a backbone (that's putting it in politically correct terms) and he knows better that a reporter shouldn't become the news.
However, Mr. Sperling, though he didn't threaten Mr. Woodward, was completely incorrect in saying that the President didn't exaggerate the consequences. There were lots of signals from the Administration that we'll feel the consequences on Monday, which is not the case. Will there be people hurting down the road from the sequester? Absolutely, but as Mr. Sperling and Gregory discussed, what the sequester does is push for a big budget fight in the fall. Great, so what that really says is that this back and forth is going to continue for another seven months and beyond.
Mr. Sperling also said that the administration originally proposal $1.5 trillion in revenue, but only got $650 billion and wants $400 billion more. The Republicans now want roughly one trillion in more cuts - this is all over ten years. This nets out to $600 billion in cuts over ten years. Politicians (mostly Republicans) like to say that Americans balance their budgets so the government should as well. What they don't say is that most Americans also carry debt while trying to achieve a balance. What do they do with their debt? They chip away at it, which is what the government needs to do, not take to it with an ax because if you do then you can't afford the basics.
The one question that Mr. Boehner begged was where is the Senate's plan. Well, they did take a test vote which didn't pass (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-02-28/economy/37346422_1_test-vote-senate-vote-automatic-cuts) and how would it? The Democrats don't have 60 votes and as we all know, if the Democrats go for the simply majority to pass it (cloture), the Republicans will threaten to filibuster, all of which means it's dead in the water.
What we're wondering is when Mr. Boehner said that the president has gotten his tax increases, now we need spending cuts, does the sequester now qualify as those cuts? Did we just open up a can of worms? Maybe we should see what happens. When Mr. Gregory asked John Boehner about closing loopholes, he responded by saying that the President got his increases - meaning that revenue is now off the table. But thirty seconds later, Mr. Boehner said that closing tax loopholes is part of the solution. His catch is that overall tax rates need to be lowered for everyone but unsaid is the broadening the base part, which means people in poverty will have to start paying taxes on any income they get, no matter how small. It's all this unsaid minutiae that you have to sift through to understand why things aren't getting done. And not to discourage you further but it's disheartening to hear the Speaker say that he doesn't think anyone understands how to resolve this impasse of noncooperation in Washington.
Before we get to the discussion of the Voting Rights Act, there is one last thing we need to say as it relates to Mr. Boehner's views on taxes, spending, the sequester, everything. On today's program when Mr. Gregory challenged the Speaker on the philosophy that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, he said there were mountains of evidence to prove it. The example he cited was when Ronald Reagan did it in 1981. Whether you believe in that philosophy or not, what deeply concerns us is the willingness to consciously ignore the other side of the equation that President Reagan, as Mr. Gregory pointed out, raised taxes, eleven times in fact. To acknowledge this hurts the Republican brand as Kathleen Parker pointed out on tax increases, but it ignores a historically recorded truth. That whole exchange with Mr. Boehner just seemed like an example of willingness to mislead to serve a narrower agenda.
By extension, Mr. Boehner also said that he thought the Voting Rights Act has served as effective legislation, but that there is one small part that the court is considering. It is NOT small nor inconsequential. Section 5 is what is being challenged. From Justice.org:
Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.
The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.
Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.
Basically, it singles out some states who have had a history of suppressing the vote because of race, color, language minority, and stipulates that they need federal approval before changing any voting laws. Justice Scalia's much publicize comment that this was the perpetuation of a racial entitlement was completely ignorant, one worthy of censure, especially in light of certain states mentioned in Section 5 who tried to employ new voting restrictions in this last election. Our question is this: Elections have national consequences, federal implications, so why single out those states when maybe it should just say all states? There should be federal enforcement to ensure voting rights of minorities and everyone in every state, no?
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); columnist for the Washington Post Kathleen Parker; Managing Editor of TheGrio.com Joy Reid; NBC Chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd and NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw.
The Speaker said that for two years he couldn't come to an agreement with the president, but actually they had one in the form of the grand bargain. He just couldn't sell it to the base of his party, and still doesn't have the mustard so to take them on in any capacity. Mr. Boehner's first goal is to maintain his position as Speaker, and as Mr. Todd pointed out during the round table, neither he nor Mitch McConnell (R-KY) nor John Cornyn (R-TX) are going to sacrifice themselves politically to get something done. So when Mr. Greogry asks the Speaker if his Republican caucus leads him or does he lead it, the answer is clearly with the former. With that in mind, you're not going to see a deal get done. At this point, the president isn't worried about his job so he is able to compromise on measures that his base disagrees with, but this is not the case for the other side obviously.
And that entire sideshow with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling (the Administration) is just that - a side show. Just looking at that e-mail response on the screen from Mr. Sperling, it is clear that he is not threatening Mr. Woodward but telling him that he'll regret the statement because he'll find he'll be wrong. It was not a threat to do harm against him. Mr. Woodward needs to grow a backbone (that's putting it in politically correct terms) and he knows better that a reporter shouldn't become the news.
However, Mr. Sperling, though he didn't threaten Mr. Woodward, was completely incorrect in saying that the President didn't exaggerate the consequences. There were lots of signals from the Administration that we'll feel the consequences on Monday, which is not the case. Will there be people hurting down the road from the sequester? Absolutely, but as Mr. Sperling and Gregory discussed, what the sequester does is push for a big budget fight in the fall. Great, so what that really says is that this back and forth is going to continue for another seven months and beyond.
Mr. Sperling also said that the administration originally proposal $1.5 trillion in revenue, but only got $650 billion and wants $400 billion more. The Republicans now want roughly one trillion in more cuts - this is all over ten years. This nets out to $600 billion in cuts over ten years. Politicians (mostly Republicans) like to say that Americans balance their budgets so the government should as well. What they don't say is that most Americans also carry debt while trying to achieve a balance. What do they do with their debt? They chip away at it, which is what the government needs to do, not take to it with an ax because if you do then you can't afford the basics.
The one question that Mr. Boehner begged was where is the Senate's plan. Well, they did take a test vote which didn't pass (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-02-28/economy/37346422_1_test-vote-senate-vote-automatic-cuts) and how would it? The Democrats don't have 60 votes and as we all know, if the Democrats go for the simply majority to pass it (cloture), the Republicans will threaten to filibuster, all of which means it's dead in the water.
What we're wondering is when Mr. Boehner said that the president has gotten his tax increases, now we need spending cuts, does the sequester now qualify as those cuts? Did we just open up a can of worms? Maybe we should see what happens. When Mr. Gregory asked John Boehner about closing loopholes, he responded by saying that the President got his increases - meaning that revenue is now off the table. But thirty seconds later, Mr. Boehner said that closing tax loopholes is part of the solution. His catch is that overall tax rates need to be lowered for everyone but unsaid is the broadening the base part, which means people in poverty will have to start paying taxes on any income they get, no matter how small. It's all this unsaid minutiae that you have to sift through to understand why things aren't getting done. And not to discourage you further but it's disheartening to hear the Speaker say that he doesn't think anyone understands how to resolve this impasse of noncooperation in Washington.
Before we get to the discussion of the Voting Rights Act, there is one last thing we need to say as it relates to Mr. Boehner's views on taxes, spending, the sequester, everything. On today's program when Mr. Gregory challenged the Speaker on the philosophy that cutting taxes leads to economic growth, he said there were mountains of evidence to prove it. The example he cited was when Ronald Reagan did it in 1981. Whether you believe in that philosophy or not, what deeply concerns us is the willingness to consciously ignore the other side of the equation that President Reagan, as Mr. Gregory pointed out, raised taxes, eleven times in fact. To acknowledge this hurts the Republican brand as Kathleen Parker pointed out on tax increases, but it ignores a historically recorded truth. That whole exchange with Mr. Boehner just seemed like an example of willingness to mislead to serve a narrower agenda.
By extension, Mr. Boehner also said that he thought the Voting Rights Act has served as effective legislation, but that there is one small part that the court is considering. It is NOT small nor inconsequential. Section 5 is what is being challenged. From Justice.org:
Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.
The requirement was enacted in 1965 as temporary legislation, to expire in five years, and applicable only to certain states. The specially covered jurisdictions were identified in Section 4 by a formula. The first element in the formula was that the state or political subdivision of the state maintained on November 1, 1964, a "test or device," restricting the opportunity to register and vote. The second element of the formula would be satisfied if the Director of the Census determined that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age were registered to vote on November 1, 1964, or that less than 50 percent of persons of voting age voted in the presidential election of November 1964. Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, "covered jurisdictions": Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.
Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction -- or any political subunit within it -- cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.
Basically, it singles out some states who have had a history of suppressing the vote because of race, color, language minority, and stipulates that they need federal approval before changing any voting laws. Justice Scalia's much publicize comment that this was the perpetuation of a racial entitlement was completely ignorant, one worthy of censure, especially in light of certain states mentioned in Section 5 who tried to employ new voting restrictions in this last election. Our question is this: Elections have national consequences, federal implications, so why single out those states when maybe it should just say all states? There should be federal enforcement to ensure voting rights of minorities and everyone in every state, no?
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); columnist for the Washington Post Kathleen Parker; Managing Editor of TheGrio.com Joy Reid; NBC Chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd and NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
2.24.13: Adding Up the Crises
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said that the president has in fact put a proposal on the table and has also reached out to Republicans. This was in response to David Gregory's question that the president is just waging a public relations war. Actually, what the president is doing is both, which keeps the pressure on the Republicans to react. Without a doubt, there has been rhetoric coming from both sides that has made it difficult for every one to sit down. However, Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) can not say that the president should stop campaigning as he did during his joint interview with Governor Davel Patrick (D-MA) because the fact of the matter is that Congressional Republicans have not accepted the result of the election and hence the direction on the economic debate. Conservatives rightly argue that the president has to show leadership, but then turn around and say that the election was a status quo election meaning that Republican-led House has an equal seat at the table. Fine, take the seat at the table but then don't complain that the seat is uncomfortable. That's leadership and it has to be coming from all sides.
Also in Secretary LaHood's interview, he made it sound as though the FAA could stand the sequester cuts if he had the ability to move the money around - scalpel vs. hatchet. Governor Jindal stated he liked that idea and that the cuts should stay. The Transportation Secretary also emphatically said that passenger safety would not be compromised with regard to air traffic control despite newspaper headlines stating the contrary. TSA, he noted, is under the Department of Homeland Security, in reference to potentially longer lines at the airport. What's the difference there, could those lines get any longer? Also, as Mr. Inskeep questioned later in the program, "Is pulling back an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf really the first thing we'll have to do militarily?" What this tells you is that the Administration is politicking too much. So is it government by freakout, as Peggy Noonan said in her Wall Street Journal column? Not exactly because in terms of the defense cuts, many Americans are going to be furloughed. It's a fact so you have to weigh the implications of both - ballooning defense budgets vs. furloughs.
However, later during the roundtable, both Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer said that the sequestration won't effect long-term economic growth. Ms. Bartiromo thought that the sequester is more of a national security issue than an economic one or the market wouldn't be continuing to trade at record highs. Great, but as NPR's Steve Inskeep commented, we can not keep approaching crisis after crisis, adding them up to get a larger deal because that deal is not going to happen and it's pretty clear that the American people want to move on from this. Secretary LaHood said he was optimistic that Congress would stop the sequester, but it's not likely at least by the March 1st deadline. And with regard to taxes, the president shouldn't give up his position as Mr. Gregory assessed at one point during the roundtable. The reason is what Mr. Inskeep said about his conversations with Republicans about tax loopholes; that many of them are for closing them but can not go to their constituents and say there is going to be a tax hike. That's not leadership, that's bailing... lame. All most Americans when asked want a straight answer. You have to step up and explain it to people because if you can't admit to what you think is right, you're part of the problem. That's on the federal level.
With regard to the states, obviously you see two very different approaches at work exemplified by governors on today. Mr. Jindal was referring to medicaid when he said one size doesn't fit all. Well, he's wrong on Medicaid expansion for his state, but correct that one size doesn't have to apply to taxes. As Governor Patrick noted, Massachusetts doesn't have the natural gas and oil reserves that Louisiana has. Massachusetts doesn't have the tourism that Florida does, where they have no income tax. So maybe for the state of Louisiana, they don't need an income tax as Mr. Jindal wants. What works in one state may not work in another and we have to come to accept that. Notice that we didn't mention corporate taxes as Mr. Jindal also wants to eliminate. We found it interesting that Jim Cramer advocated for a raising of the capital gains tax, something you don't normally hear from the money crowd, but it is true that raising it would garner significant revenue. The income tax rates compared to the capital gains rate has been an out-of-balance equation since President Clinton made his tax deal with Republicans in the '90s. Either way, you have to be clear about the results, when Mr. Gregory went through a comparison of the two states, Mr. Jindal could only answer with a "Look how far Louisiana has come," kind of answer. Yes, but that is not where Massachusetts is. You can not ignore the fact that Mr. Patrick brought to the table, in which 98 percent of the people in Massachusetts have access to healthcare. If any state needs the Medicare expansion, it's Louisiana. In part, Massachusetts' economy is growing 4x faster than Louisiana's is because they have taken healthcare off the table and they haven't decimated their revenue stream.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal demurred when asked by Mr. Gregory if he was setting himself up for a 2016 presidential run, but as the moderator quipped later, it was obvious that Mr. Jindal is headed in that direction. And the Louisiana governor has come a long way in his oratorical skill since his awful State of the Union response performance a few years back. With statements like "private economy instead of government economy (meaning: unregulated free market), I'm for the traditional definition of marriage (meaning: I'm a social conservative)," and "I'm for closing loopholes (meaning: I'm for the middle class)," definitely says he's brushing up. Harold Ford included Governor Jindal in the group of serious names from the Republican side that a mention of a Hillary Clinton run bring out, but we're not so sure.
Roundtable: Former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; Host of NPR’s Morning Edition, Steve Inskeep; and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer.
Postscript: Since they mentioned the Oscars, we thought why not jump in with a couple of predictions, just for fun.
Best Picture: Lincoln (The moment is big and the film is big)
Best Director: Steven Spielberg (No one else could make such a film)
Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis (He is now our modern portrait of Lincoln)
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence (Most talked about performance)
Best Supporting Actor: Robert DeNiro (Over 30 years since his last win)
Best Supporting Actress: Sally Field (The old guard isn't going away just yet)
But what the heck do we know?
Also in Secretary LaHood's interview, he made it sound as though the FAA could stand the sequester cuts if he had the ability to move the money around - scalpel vs. hatchet. Governor Jindal stated he liked that idea and that the cuts should stay. The Transportation Secretary also emphatically said that passenger safety would not be compromised with regard to air traffic control despite newspaper headlines stating the contrary. TSA, he noted, is under the Department of Homeland Security, in reference to potentially longer lines at the airport. What's the difference there, could those lines get any longer? Also, as Mr. Inskeep questioned later in the program, "Is pulling back an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf really the first thing we'll have to do militarily?" What this tells you is that the Administration is politicking too much. So is it government by freakout, as Peggy Noonan said in her Wall Street Journal column? Not exactly because in terms of the defense cuts, many Americans are going to be furloughed. It's a fact so you have to weigh the implications of both - ballooning defense budgets vs. furloughs.
However, later during the roundtable, both Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer said that the sequestration won't effect long-term economic growth. Ms. Bartiromo thought that the sequester is more of a national security issue than an economic one or the market wouldn't be continuing to trade at record highs. Great, but as NPR's Steve Inskeep commented, we can not keep approaching crisis after crisis, adding them up to get a larger deal because that deal is not going to happen and it's pretty clear that the American people want to move on from this. Secretary LaHood said he was optimistic that Congress would stop the sequester, but it's not likely at least by the March 1st deadline. And with regard to taxes, the president shouldn't give up his position as Mr. Gregory assessed at one point during the roundtable. The reason is what Mr. Inskeep said about his conversations with Republicans about tax loopholes; that many of them are for closing them but can not go to their constituents and say there is going to be a tax hike. That's not leadership, that's bailing... lame. All most Americans when asked want a straight answer. You have to step up and explain it to people because if you can't admit to what you think is right, you're part of the problem. That's on the federal level.
With regard to the states, obviously you see two very different approaches at work exemplified by governors on today. Mr. Jindal was referring to medicaid when he said one size doesn't fit all. Well, he's wrong on Medicaid expansion for his state, but correct that one size doesn't have to apply to taxes. As Governor Patrick noted, Massachusetts doesn't have the natural gas and oil reserves that Louisiana has. Massachusetts doesn't have the tourism that Florida does, where they have no income tax. So maybe for the state of Louisiana, they don't need an income tax as Mr. Jindal wants. What works in one state may not work in another and we have to come to accept that. Notice that we didn't mention corporate taxes as Mr. Jindal also wants to eliminate. We found it interesting that Jim Cramer advocated for a raising of the capital gains tax, something you don't normally hear from the money crowd, but it is true that raising it would garner significant revenue. The income tax rates compared to the capital gains rate has been an out-of-balance equation since President Clinton made his tax deal with Republicans in the '90s. Either way, you have to be clear about the results, when Mr. Gregory went through a comparison of the two states, Mr. Jindal could only answer with a "Look how far Louisiana has come," kind of answer. Yes, but that is not where Massachusetts is. You can not ignore the fact that Mr. Patrick brought to the table, in which 98 percent of the people in Massachusetts have access to healthcare. If any state needs the Medicare expansion, it's Louisiana. In part, Massachusetts' economy is growing 4x faster than Louisiana's is because they have taken healthcare off the table and they haven't decimated their revenue stream.
Lastly, Mr. Jindal demurred when asked by Mr. Gregory if he was setting himself up for a 2016 presidential run, but as the moderator quipped later, it was obvious that Mr. Jindal is headed in that direction. And the Louisiana governor has come a long way in his oratorical skill since his awful State of the Union response performance a few years back. With statements like "private economy instead of government economy (meaning: unregulated free market), I'm for the traditional definition of marriage (meaning: I'm a social conservative)," and "I'm for closing loopholes (meaning: I'm for the middle class)," definitely says he's brushing up. Harold Ford included Governor Jindal in the group of serious names from the Republican side that a mention of a Hillary Clinton run bring out, but we're not so sure.
Roundtable: Former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; Host of NPR’s Morning Edition, Steve Inskeep; and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo and Jim Cramer.
Postscript: Since they mentioned the Oscars, we thought why not jump in with a couple of predictions, just for fun.
Best Picture: Lincoln (The moment is big and the film is big)
Best Director: Steven Spielberg (No one else could make such a film)
Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis (He is now our modern portrait of Lincoln)
Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence (Most talked about performance)
Best Supporting Actor: Robert DeNiro (Over 30 years since his last win)
Best Supporting Actress: Sally Field (The old guard isn't going away just yet)
But what the heck do we know?
Sunday, February 17, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
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
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
Sunday, February 03, 2013
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].'
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)