6.29.13: Immigration Reform - A House Republican Takedown

As promised, here's our bit about Immigration Reform.

The Senate passed the most comprehensive Immigration bill in nearly 30 years, which in and of itself would be amazing but given the hyper-polarized political times we're living through it makes it even more remarkable. They should be commended - all of them. Democrats have gone along with the  Hoeven-Corker Amendment, which will need to be, well... amended since it contains triggers (needing to achieve a certain measure as to activate another process) which can or can not be achieved according to how one interprets the numbers, which means it can be politically manipulated.  

Also part of the Amendment is the call for more fencing and 20,000 more agents along our southern border -  the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy (see below). Senate Democrats  compromised on these superfluous measures to achieve broad bipartisan support for the bill even though the effective immigration rate at our Southern border is a net zero. Also note that President Obama's Administration has already deported more people than any other previous president.

With all that, the Democrats compromised to get to 60 votes and ended up with 68 sending a strong message to the House of Representatives that broad support for the bill was bi-partisan.  This is where all the ink praising landmark legislation goes all for not because the Senate bill is going to die in the House.  Speaker Boehner has already come out and said that the House will craft its own bill, and then hopefully between the two they can come up with solid law.

This for lack of a better description is a load of crap.  There are too many extreme right House members that believe the Senate bill is equivalent to giving amnesty to the 11 million undocumented residents in this country.  And that must be true because Sarah Palin confirms it to be so.  [The reason we single out Ms. Palin is because to our recollection, she has never been correct in any of her assessments on anything, and these assessments never contain alternative solutions, just castigation.]  But on this false premise, the House will construct its own bill that will probably requirement 11 million people to leave and come back if they really want to be citizens.  But that reasoning, if you can call it that, simply doesn't contain any logic, as no one is going to do that.

Moderate Republican Senators' motivation for passing comprehensive immigration reform is driven by the knowledge that Latinos are the fastest growing segment of our population, which by and large doesn't support the Republican party.  And why should they?

Once again in America, this week there has been much discussion about race.  In a country such as ours, it's an on-going conversation that we continually need to have so we shouldn't shy away.  With Paula Deen's troubles and the start of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin murder trial underway, there's something ticking at us that we feel we should mention and its in regard to immigration. 

Republicans want the Latino vote, and that's it.  They are not so much interested in understanding the community or supporting it, as evidenced by their policies.  Their amendments and ideas on what to do with the 11 million undocumented do not stem from a place of compassion, but from fear  - all insidiously geared to keeping people out, nothing inclusive. It's not quite all out racism, but what they're doing is systematic and xenophobic.  Also, the 'amnesty' that they're talking about is actually a path to citizenship that will take an individual 12 years to complete, in which they have to pay back taxes and fines.  It practically doesn't seem achievable.

These types of ideas are what is going to play out in the House, and Republicans will ram through an uncompromising bill without any Democratic support because it will contain nothing in the Democratically lead bill from the Senate.  A House Republican takedown.  However, before the whole thing collapses, to save some sort of face, a heavily watered down bill will come about so as to say at least something got done.  

We really hope we're wrong.

Some actual language from the bill...

COMPREHENSIVE SOUTHERN BORDER SECURITY STRATEGY

The term ‘‘Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy’’ means the strategy established by the Secretary pursuant to section 5(a) to achieve and maintain an effectiveness rate of 90 percent or higher in all border sectors.

EFFECTIVE CONTROL

The term ‘‘effective control’’ means the ability to achieve and maintain, in a Border Patrol sector— persistent surveillance; and an effectiveness rate of 90 percent orhigher.

EFFECTIVENESS RATE

The ‘‘effectivenessrate’’, in the case of a border sector, is the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.

SOUTHERN BORDER

The term ‘‘Southern border’’ means the international border between the United States and Mexico.

SOUTHERN BORDER FENCING STRATEGY

The term ‘‘Southern Border Fencing Strategy’’ means the strategy established by the Secretary pursuant to section 5(b) that identifies where fencing (including double-layer fencing), infrastructure, and technology, including at ports of entry, should be deployed along the Southern border The Department’s border security goal is to achieve and maintain effective control in all border sectors along the Southern border.

6.23.13: G-Men - Greenwald, Gregory and Government

We were prepared this morning for a long discussion about Immigration Reform but that went right out the window when news broke that Edward Snowden has left Hong Kong, caught a flight to Moscow and is possibly on his way to Venezuela or where ever.  Within this breaking story, who knew Meet The Press was going to be making its own news?

Mr. Gregory interviewed Glenn Greenwald, reporter for the Guardian (UK) and post inteview, Mr. Greenwald tweeted this:

 
In real time, Mr. Gregory responded directly to the tweet explaining that he was posing the question that others have raised and wasn't subscribing to the theory that Mr. Greenwald in fact aided and abetted Mr. Snowden.

Mr. Greenwald explained to Mr. Gregory that Edward Snowden went to the Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post with the information he obtained and specifically outlined what should and should not be made public.  Mr. Greenwald also explained that Mr. Snowden did this not to enrich himself, but to make public what he thought the American people had the right to know.  Mr. Greenwald also stated that Mr. Snowden was most likely going to seek political asylum because the Obama Administration has been unprecedentedly aggressive in persecuting and arresting whistle blowers, and in the process have gone after reporters as well. He makes a valid assertion as evidenced by the Administration's surveillance of AP reporters.

While we don't disagree with Mr. Greenwald, the mistake that he made as a reporter is that he made himself part of the story.  His columnist inclination allowed that to happen and now defenders of the surveillance program view his reporting to have an agenda.  As we sit and write this column, we can not tell you the name of the Washington Post reporter who disclosed the PRISM program for instance. (Bart Gellman, by the way.)

After responding to the tweet, it was evident that Mr. Greenwald's accusation of criminalizing journalism had affected Mr. Gregory, as the hour went on, you could see his reflection of the exchange in his face.  His question was a fair one, but you could see that the notion of being so closely in bed with the government, as Mr. Greenwald asserted, disturbed Mr. Gregory, who could only speculate how this was going to be perceived over the internet.  Chuck Todd, on the other hand, seemed much more at ease when he mused about how much Mr. Greenwald was possibly involved in assisting Mr. Snowden and if his role went beyond anything of receiver of information.  There are reporters and political geeks in the media, and Mr. Todd is definitely more of the latter, and as such doesn't want to rock the boat.  Judge as you will, it just about knowing roles, and Mr. Todd did access it correctly that Mr. Greenwald attacked the premise of the question and did not answer it.  It's debatable whether a reporter can be 'too close' to the story, but it you entertain that, Mr. Greenwald just might be because that tweet after the interview was too defensive, even in his role as news maker now.

There is no doubt that this is a debate that the American people needed to have and frankly our government officials were denying it to happen.  Chuck Todd said that the American people have come to expect a certain level of transparency and the government needs to catch up.  Mr. Greenwald accurately pointed out that James Clapper blatantly lied to Congress about bulk collection of data (that unbelievable even goes beyond the Patriot Act) on Americans.  This column would love to know why that's not a big deal and if Congress was in fact fully briefed, why would it be necessary for Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) to ask the question in the first place?



Yet, all of our political leaders seem to be on the same page - they all want to see Edward Snowden extradited from 'where ever' and face trial for treason.  Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) said that she didn't vote for the Patriot Act or any of these data collection programs, but yet was concerned for Americans' safety, and that yes... he broke the law.  It's a go-along type of statement. Congressman Rogers (R-MI), on the other hand, sees Mr. Snowden as an enemy of the state and seems to think that Mr. Greenwald should also bear some responsibility.  Mr. Rogers said that Mr. Snowden's actions and words defied logic. (If he's loyal to America why is he flying from Hong Kong to Moscow to possibly Cuba?) Where government officials also haven't caught up with the public is the thinking that the extent of wrongfulness is not so cut and dry.  But on down the line - Robert Gibbs, Dick Durbin, Tom Coburn, etc. - feel the program is constitutional and that Mr. Snowden needs to be brought to justice.

There was one thing that Senator Coburn said that caught our attention and gave us cause for alarm.  The only reason it won't get the attention that it deserves is because of the nonsense above.  Mr. Coburn said that Congress' approval rating was the lowest of all government agencies and that the military's approval rating was the highest, and given that, he said it was a good thing that the military was running the surveillance program.  What?  Did he just say that the military collects massive amounts of data on American citizens?  The major concern is that if the military is running this program then civilian oversight is certainly going to be limited. It speaks to the larger picture of agencies like the NSA and CIA becoming more entwined with the military - just look at the military personnel being appointed to head these agencies.

Simply, it's just weird to be honestly discussing so much 'big brother' stuff, but this is where we are we guess.  As we said before, with people putting so much of their personal information online, it's almost as if you're giving tacit permission to for people to look.  Fine, but the government, in this case James Clapper, when we ask about data collection and it's extent, the American people deserve and can handle the truth, as long it is comes from our leaders.  That way the debate can go forward without so much distrust and suspicious.  But no, instead we have to find out from an individual who while giving us information that we deserved to know also fully understands his new fame, and hence self-importance.  That last part is not a dig, it is to illustrate that his motives are unknown whereas at least a Congressman could say, and does say, that we're doing this to protect you.

Here's the consolation, despite all these politicians hard stance on the whistle blower, they've all said that there needs to be a conversation.  On the program, they showed a the transcript of Howard Dean saying as much.  Both Mr. Durbin and Ms. Fiorina said that this is a conversation that we must and and as Robert Gibbs said, it is incumbent upon the Administration to have this conversation.  Well, if this is the case, and you're not going to bring it up, someone had to.


Panel of lawmakers: Assistant Democratic Leader Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL); Ranking member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and immigration “Gang of 8” member, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK); Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI); and  Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).
 
Roundtable: NBC News Political Contributor Robert Gibbs; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; Democratic Mayor of Atlanta Kasim Reed; Fmr. Chair and CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina; and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd. 


Post Script: Congressman Rogers said he wouldn't be surprised if Vladimir Putin had advanced knowledge of Mr. Snowden's flight itinerary.  We find this funny because of course he did.  We're not surprised of the dispute with regard to Mr. Snowden's extradition papers from Hong Kong either.  As vindictive competitors, why wouldn't Russia and China want to stick it to the U.S. when they could  It's not like the U.S. wouldn't do the same - like three little kids fighting for all the marbles.

Also, we're going to come back with another column on Immigration.  It just didn't make sense to include that commentary here.

6.16.13: Lack of Trust, Little Credibility

The chaos in Syria really is a perfect storm for a larger regional war, the proverbial 'powder keg,' as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called it.  The war in Syria consists of multiple conflicts going on all at once: a religiously rooted civil war wrapped in a larger geopolitical conflict.  Within Syria, the Alawite sect of Shia Islam, the Assad Regime and the minority, rules over the majority Sunni population so this brings in steadfast allies Hezbollah and Iran on the side of Assad, all of whom are adversaries of the West and Israel. There is also the larger quest for influence in the region between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia), animosity based along religious lines so the Saudis are giving tacit support to the rebels.  Russia's interests in Syria are many, but significant is that Assad provides them access to and economic leverage on the Mediterranean in the form of a keenly influential port. 

All of these variant motivations don't make any of President Obama's choices easy when weighing the long term implications so it's discouraging to hear Mr. Graham complain about the Obama Administration's foreign policy as simply consisting of 'not being Bush.'  First, it trivializes the grave situation and the ensuing consequences in Syria, and secondly the person most responsible for the Administration having to take that tact is, in fact, George W. Bush.

Let's face it, the American Government's got no cred internationally anymore when it comes to moral authority and truthfulness and that's directly because of the actions taken by the Bush Administration.  The U.S. Government has determined that Mr. Obama's 'red line' has been crossed and that the Assad Regime has in fact used chemical weapons, and the international community scoffs at our declaration.  The United States once again officially declares that the Bashir Assad must step down and then Russia, Iran (with 4,000 troops on their way to Syria), and Hezbollah all double down on their support. We're not going to put boots on the ground - Senator Graham explained that everyone's [read: both Republicans and Democrats] position is not to go there and ask an already war weary American public to indulge more human cost.

That leaves the United States with two options of either arming the rebels or creating a no-fly zone.  Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Graham, along with the Washington Post's David Ignatius all agreed that the government has adequately identified the moderate rebels to supply.  David Gregory accurately pointed out that we can not track guns in this country so how are we going to be able to do that in Syria?  On the other hand at one point, he also provided the counter that enforcing a no-fly zone could very well be that slippery slope of the United States becoming directly involved as voiced by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO).  Neither choice sounds appealing and are accompanied by peril. History tells us that if we supply arms to the rebels that one day those very weapons could be used against us.  If the U.S. coordinates at no-fly zone using our allies that that is like 'leading from behind' as we did in Libya, definitely something Republicans won't go for.

When you consider all those circumstances, it is understandable why the Obama Administration would be cautious; they just can not be indecisive.  What they need to start with is stating a clear strategic goal for the United States in this conflict, and if that is to stop the killing then arming rebels (adding more guns to situation) is going to long delay that desired result.

The solution should be the United States and Russia collectively putting diplomatic pressure on both sides for a ceasefire, and then send in United Nation peace keeping troops to stabilize things on the ground.  After which, a  multinational group of inspectors should go in an verify whether chemical weapons have been used, hence determining whether or not Bashir Assad has a future.  We understand that that 93,000 have perished and the United States is already late to the party, but we're in a no-win situation.  The credibility of the United States is so tainted that we're blamed for not becoming involved soon enough, and then if we do the involvement is deemed inadequate.  And vanquishing a dictator's power is licking extracting a ticked that's burrowed deep under the skin - not easy as illustrated.  The Obama Administration realizes that because of past folly and a dearth of credibility we haven't any leverage to sway things toward a positive outcome.  Unfortunately, one of the consequences is that we could lose another key ally in the region, King Abdullah and Jordan, which was of evident concern to all the Senators today. Mr. Udall stated that he feared for the entire region if Jordan were to become unstable.

The credibility deficit is compounded here at home by the NSA spying program, and how all that is playing out.  As we said last week, positions are all over the map as illustrated by the opinions of today's guests.  Senator Udall stated that he felt comfortable with the NSA's PRISM program that monitors the internet behavior of people outside the United States. However, he then explained his concerns with the collection of metadata and how it had the potential to infringe on an individual's fourth amendment rights.

Of course General Michael Hayden is going to defend these programs as he was part of the architectural team that put it all together.  He can say that there haven't been abuses such as turning the PRISM program in the direction of U.S. citizens but how can we be sure.  Andrea Mitchell played the healthy skeptic all program saying that after so many scandals, how can we have trust in such statements.  As Senator Udall put it, it's a secret request to a secret court for a secret program.

We're able to have this rightful debate because of the information disclosed by Edward Snowden.  However, what he did was wrong because it was all about self-gratification and elevation in trying to achieve international rebel hero worship status on the scale of Julian Assange, not about doing the right thing.  Unfortunately we take example from our elected officials who are more concerned with self-promotion and pander that they forget governing is about arguing, compromising, and leading.

But also wrong is when David Ignatius said that we've had this debate about surveillance when warrantless wiretapping first came up.  As The New York Times' James Risen pointed out, this surveillance state apparatus was being built without debate, nor public knowledge.  That's key because there's no reversing it now, it's already done so now we're left to live with it. Congressman Scott (D-VA) gave several easy examples of how the system could be illegally turned against an individual, an intimidation tool used for gathering dirt on political enemies for instance, not just for tracking terrorists.  Mr. Risen mentioned the potential for this evolving into a police state, pointing out that there has never been a true accounting of the surveillance program in totality.

Despite the very real possibility of abuse and an Orwellian 'utopia' down the road, fifty-six percent of Americans find the build up of the surveillance state acceptable, which is an unbelievable number.  Our Republican political leaders have been stoking big government overreach outrage for years, but on the ultimate big brother issue, they advocate for it and ask us to trust them, as if there is some credible reason why we should.


Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), former Director of the NSA and CIA – now a principal of The Chertoff Group -- Gen. Michael Hayden, Washington Post Columnist David Ignatius, New York Times national security reporter James Risen, and NBC’s foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

6.9.13: Of Course They're Monitoring

Once again we find ourselves void of an episode of Meet The Press unable to take politicians' and reporters' statements to task, but with pleasure we'll opine on the week's biggest topic, which is the revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting data on all American citizens... or all of those with either a phone or internet identification. 

First, The Guardian in the UK reported that the NSA was collecting phone data on American citizens; specifically the two interlocutors' phone numbers, their locations, and the duration of the call.  Then later in the week, the Washington Post reported that the NSA had a program entitled 'Prism' that collected data through Google, Yahoo, Facebook, et. al. on individuals overseas but that there was also mining of data from people living in the United States - in other words, us.

These stories have sent politicians, pundits, reporters, and commentators of all sorts spinning in a number of directions - everyone is all over the map.  First and foremost, President Obama spoke out in favor of the NSA program in the name of national security.  Make no mistake - the President has to answer to this for the American people, but it is not an Obama Administration scandal but this one is on Congress.  Most Senators and House Members are in favor of the program, as they should be, because they authorized such activities through the Patriot Act - remember the warrantless wiretapping.  However, this issue has seen Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and political opposite Rand Paul (R-KY) sharing the same opinion on this unprecedented privacy intrusion. 

Our question is: what did you expect?

It was only a matter of time before it went from convenient to annoying to offensive.  Follow us here.  When you lose your phone, you can go to your local Verizon store (for example) and replace the phone where they offer the 'great' service of being able to restore your contacts for you.  What a relief, right?  Well, they have all that information so those contacts were never really private.  Or you're at your computer and you visit Zappos looking for a new pair of shoes, then you visit other sites and advertisements for shoes are following you all over the place courtesy of Google's metadata tracking so you only see advertisements for the products you're interested in; quite annoying actually.  So if Google and Verizon (among others) have your information and your communication habits then are subpoenaed by the Federal Government, they will comply. There is no doubt.

Those in favor of the program say that it is in the name of national security that the NSA collects this data, but is it at the expense of individual insecurity?  Not necessarily, but there is a rapidly redefining of what privacy is that's making everyone uncomfortable, as it should.  With that said, just know, and most people do, that when you sign up to any social media-type platform, that's fair game for anyone to look at... like a blog.

However, with the collection of the phone data as outlined above, you would think to yourself that they might well just have listened to the call.  E-mails?  Same thing.  And is it is now, there are only two ways to go - you either shut the whole thing down or you live with this new reality.  Something tells us that we've already implicitly endorsed the latter.  And the reason we have is because we understand that our safety is now threatened by people using these tools to communicate, organize and plan terrorist attacks from abroad, and from here inside the United States, though all that monitoring apparatus failed in detecting the perpetrators of the bombing in Boston. Go figure.

Any comfort of privacy will now have to taken in anonymity, an overlooked amongst the millions type of thinking.   It's like walking down a really busy city street - midtown Sixth Avenue in New York City at lunch hour for example.  Even if you've never been there, just imagine walking down a street where there are so many people that you're looking at everyone but remembering no one, and the reason is because everyone's just walking down the street.   Well that's all of us when the NSA are combing through data - ninety-nine percent of us are doing the same thing so nothing stands out and we're not bothered.

But there's our existential dread... everyone doing the same thing to maintain anonymity isn't privacy, that's conformity.

Or in more practical terms, the same lawmakers who authorized all this NSA big-brother eyeballing have also created an economic state where ninety-eight percent of us are so concerned with making ends meet that we couldn't be bothered with all this Constitutionally questionable behavior and spy stuff.  Ignorance is bliss.

6.2.13: Sacrificing Eric Holder

The big question to start with this week is if Attorney General Eric Holder should be fired, should step down, should be charged with perjury... all of those things.  Tom Brokaw said it would be tough for him to stay on, however; Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that Mr. Holder has done nothing to prevent him from continuing his job.  So which is it?  The politics of all these 'scandals' has been quite predictable, typical, and hypocritical on both sides, particularly with the A.P. and I.R.S. happenings.  Republicans are hardly mentioning Benghazi at this point and they should hold that course because they've beaten it to death and looked disingenuous in the process. They seem less interested in the real problem of funding security at our outposts and their lack of interest in questioning the CIA, particularly David Petraeus.  For the others, opponents of the administration have a clear, easy target - the Attorney General.

We all know that the laws in terms of what an Attorney General can and can not do are so nuanced that negotiating them is a complicated kabooki dance in and of itself.  Technically, Mr. Holder didn't perjure himself but there are contradictions in his statements - when he knew things.  He recused himself from the investigation of Associated Press journalists about leaks, but as the Attorney General you have to know what's going on, not just that it is going on.  We agree with Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) that the dragnet approach was overreach (seriously, not to be understated), and as we suggested in a prior column, you have to narrow the search to get the real facts.

With regard to the I.R.S. targeting scandal, Mr. Holder can not be trusted to investigate because of its partisan nature (right there should be a sign).  Never mind the bigger problem of 'social welfare' organizations participating in politics and getting secret donations, which David Axelrod unsuccessfully tried to make the case for.  The problem with listening to that argument is that no one has been held publicly responsible for this targeting so it rings hollow.

We view the A.P. scandal sort of the same way in which we view immigration.  The onus is on the government.  If someone wants to come to the United States for a better life, who are we to begrudge them that? For example, if conditions in this country were so bad that many people were thinking of immigrating to Germany to earn money, would you blame them?  If the government decides that they don't want that to happen then it is their responsibility to protect the borders and make the process more humane.  Same with leaks and the press, again the onus is on the government to keep these things secret and if they can not do that, you can not blame the press for reporting it. As we've said before, investigate those leaks from the inside.  In both these examples, that doesn't excuse people from responsibility.  Most  undocumented immigrants aren't breaking all the other laws we have - let's think of the humanity of the situation.  With regard to the press, they have to bear some responsibility that the information they publish could put lives in danger and it's a civic obligation that they inform authorities that they've come across this information.  It's a critical balance that has to be managed well... by the Attorney General. For the most part, people have lost faith in Mr. Holder's ability to manage things properly.

[A note on Immigration: Senator Schumer said that he expected 70 votes in favor of the Gang of 8's bi-partisan immigration reform bill, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has stated that even though there will be wide consensus in the Senate, don't expect the same in the House as Republicans will block any reform.  Just another example of why John Boehner is the worst House Speaker in the modern political era... Unbelievable.]

The comparisons made on today's program between Mr. Holder and Bush Administration Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez are superfluous with the exception that Presidents will always defend this particular appointee.  The president will not 'sacrifice' him.  Why? (And this is the rub with Eric Holder) Asking your chief law enforcement officer to step down is like a tacit admission of guilt that something was in fact illegally done and no administration, Democrat or Republican, is going to open up itself to that.  Eric Holder is not going to step down - he's going to have to go head on into the storm and face it, despite what Congressman Rogers understandably described as a broader notion of a pattern of this kind of [misleading-type] activity.  As David Axelrod referred it, Washington's 'favorite political blood sport of human sacrifice' will have to wait.

What always raises an eyebrow for us is when Mr. Rogers says that it undermines people's faith in government and its institutions. And to paraphrase Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), she said that people in her district feel betrayed.  Really?  Possibly Congressman Rogers less so, but Ms. Blackburn and Republicans in general have built their entire platform on how government is the problem, that it can not be trusted.  So do they feel vindicated?  Betrayed by some wasteful spending and targeting by the I.R.S.? Sure fine, but we feel betrayed by an administration that falsified evidence that got us into a war where over 4,000 service men and women died.  How's that for a comparison?

Our general feeling is that politicians (people in the business of governing) who say that government is bad obviously are being disingenuous and don't have the best interest of all the American people at heart.  If they did then they'd be able to recognize all the differences there are in this country and hence the necessity of compromise to move everyone forward.

One of the major negative consequences of these scandals is that we're not speaking about the things that are truly important to 73 percent of Americans, the economy and unemployment.  Republican strategist Anna Navarro said that we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time so we should be able to talk about both, however Washington obviously hasn't shown that it can do that - to our collective detriment.  And of course, Republicans will not heed Senator Schumer's warning today that they shouldn't focus on 'scandals' too much.

Unemployment is the grave problem in America that has to be addressed.  And no - repealing Obamacare as Ms. Blackburn suggested is not the cure.  The lack of investment in infrastructure building - 'critical' Jonathan Alter rightly described it - is undoing us.  Rebuilding our past accomplishments and investing in research and development for our future (and we put education in the 'development' part of the latter) are the most important ways forward.  Also, as Mr. Alter pointed out, Congressman Paul Ryan's budget slashes infrastructure spending, R&D and Education funding without cutting the military.  Ask yourself, would you be more worried that we don't have enough planes at our airbase in Aviano, Italy or that the bridge you're driving over every day to work might collapse at any moment?

However, when President Obama discusses these important economic issues, he's just changing the subject.  That's our politically rhetorical reality.

And speaking of reality, we didn't want to leave out the discussion of how 40.4 percent of households in this country now have the woman as the primary bread winner.  When this study came out this week, there was much debate about whether or not this was a good thing.  Anna Navarro said today that it should just be something that each couple (family) figures out for itself.  Our take is that it is neither good or bad, it's just how it is (reality) and shouldn't be used as any impetus to put people down or bring others up. It is up to individual families to figure it out, at this point.

Congresswoman Blackburn said that in today's economy of ideas, women particularly excel, which is great, but the way she said it suggested that men were weaker at producing ideas, which to be fair is not the case.  What she also said was that women should be recognized by companies for their exceptional skills, and we agree.  Actually, President Obama wholeheartedly agreed as well signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which requires equal pay for women for equal work.  Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) voted against that.


Round Table: former top adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); author of the new book, “The Center Holds: Obama and his Enemies,” Jonathan Alter; Republican strategist Ana Navarro, and NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman. 

5.26.13: Our Soldiers - Recognized and Unrecognized

Since Meet The Press has gone dark this week, we thought we'd write a little note on the Memorial Day holiday to remind people that this is one of our most solemn and should be recognized as such.  In the most general of terms, we honor those soldiers that have given their lives in defense of this country.  For specific indicators we've listed the number of deaths for all of the United States' major wars since its founding.

American Revolutionary War:  25,000
War of 1812:  15,000
Mexican-American War:  13,283
U.S. Civil War:  625,000
Spanish-American War:  2,446
Philippine-American War:  4,196
World War I:  116,516
World War II:  405,399
Korean War:  36,516          
Vietnam War:  58,209
The Gulf War:  294
Afghanistan:  2,031
Iraq War:  4,487

Total: 1,308,377

While keeping those numbers in mind (and those are just the major conflicts), we'd like to focus on the last two wars, one of which as we all know is still going on, and the soldier fatalities that are not being honored, the deaths unrecognized.  We conducted a quick search and came across an article on Forbes.com that reported on a study that said 22 Iraq-Afghanistan veterans commit suicide every day in this country.  Over the course of one year, that is 8,030 soldiers, more than who have died overseas.

President Obama stated this week that the United States has to take itself off of a perpetual war footing, and we would agree as it ultimately dishonors the memories of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.  For our most recent veterans, this tragic epidemic that for them even though they are not on military footing, the war is perpetual. 

We as a country need to recognize this unspeakably horrible circumstance and put what ever resources we have to work to stop this epidemic from continuing so that we can honor more of our Iraq-Afghan vets' service, instead of their memories.

5.19.13: Dog Whistling

The president was accused of overseeing a sinister 'culture of intimidation' against his opponents on the one hand and then on the other, not having control over investigations or knowledge of events conducted by independent agencies, unaware of what going on around him in his administration.  The only reason that we're revisiting these criticisms of the Bush Administration is due to former Secretary Rumsfeld's appearance today.  Ok, sure we're guilty of the old bait-and-switch tactic, but that's just so we all keep things in perspective.

In doing so, you realize that the great disappoint in the Obama Presidency isn't these immediate controversies but that he's conducted his White House pretty much the same as those men prior.  It shouldn't come as any surprise that this is the case as it is the nature of being President because people are coming at you at all angles (see the above example).  What you always hope is that the incoming administration can do it a little bit better than the last, and frankly, that's where Mr. Obama has the advantage.  On today's Meet The Press, that perspective was lost.

Case in point, Peggy Noonan said that this I.R.S. misconduct was the worse political scandal since Watergate, and she adamantly defended that opinion.  Never mind that David Gregory challenged her directly on that overreach with Iran-Contra, which she was in fact a part of where the Reagan Administration knowingly lied to Congress, something that President Reagan himself knew. But how about the Bush Administration and WMDs in Iraq?  They lied to Congress, the American people, and the UN Assembly (where Colin Powell's reputation was forever tarnished) about their existence... Did we forget anyone?  Ms. Noonan, Ma'am, you're disqualified from mention for the rest of today's column.  This brings us to another example, the most comical statement of the day, courtesy of Mr. Rumsfeld who said that is was worrisome that the Administration supported 'a narrative that didn't exist'... That's all Mr. Rumsfeld did in his time as Secretary of Defense during the Bush years - lie about what was really going on in Iraq.  He couldn't characterize it as such, but when Mr. Gregory suggested to Mr. Rumsfeld have sympathy for what's happening with the current administration, he really couldn't give too much for political appearances, but he should have.  Mr. Rumsfeld also said that the 'truth leaves on horseback and returns on foot.'  We have absolutely no idea what he was talking about there, but it's so meaninglessly funny we just had to mention it.

That implicit understanding, sympathy for the administration, also came from Senator Mitch McConnell with regard to the AP story where the Justice Department accessed reporters' phone records, believe it or not.  It's this story that has received the least amount of criticism from conservatives because of the entire national security issue - potentially endangering our agents overseas.  The criticism that does exist, and Mr. McConnell channeled it a bit today, is that Republicans as a whole simply loathe the President and Mr. Holder's general modus operandi so they use this for the pile-on effect.  

However, for more serious commentary on this issue, we would first ask why the Justice Department didn't come at this from a completely different direction.  Instead of gathering AP Reporters' phone numbers without their knowledge, the Justice Department should have turned their focus internally first investigating the outgoing calls from departments involved.  This way, if the press then finds out that Justice is doing an internal investigation about leaks - key word internal - and reports on it then the heat gets turned up for Justice's benefit.

Senator McConnell is the Republican Leader in the Senate but when he starts talking of this particular administration's 'culture of intimidation' he begins to exhibit qualities that run completely counter to that moniker of 'leader.' His commentary about the 25 year-old clip of himself saying that 501(c)(4) 'social welfar' tax exempt groups were a problem was very telling.  He said that 25 years ago he was wrong and for the past 20 he has been right, and now the twenty-year evolution of a leader into  political operative is complete.  He was correct 25 years ago, as Congressman Xavier Becerra (D-CA) noted during the panel discussion, that we were asking the I.R.S. to make political calls - on both sides of the aisle and that's problematic, obviously.  Mr. McConnell mentioned the danger of disclosing contributors' lists for these 'social welfare' organizations for fear of political retribution, but not seeing the larger picture, he's advocating for big amounts of secretive money to remain in politics, which is the main cause of legislative dysfunction.

Adding to that, when asked by Mr. Gregory about his Republican colleagues calling Benghazi a massive cover-up, Senator McConnell said that he never said those things. Citing Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel's column that the President implicitly encouraged these practices and creating this climate due to his repeated public statements critical of such tax exempt groups - dog whistling to call up action against his enemies.  The same can be said for Senator McConnell on Benghazi, a master dog whistler who can conduct an entire interview without really putting anything on record.  With regard to Benghazi, all he would commit to was that the security was inadequate. We have to not pay attention to the reasons according to Mr. McConnell, in which it could be argued that Congressional budget cutting played a a part.

The entire 'dog-whistling' argument by Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel and others is really the product of the other end of the dog. 

As we're going through the writing of this column thinking about these controversies and the 'righteous' indignation displayed by conservatives on today's program, we can't help but think of their collective complacency during a particular incident - the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.  (Mr. Gregory cited Abu Ghraib, which was good too.)  The Bush Administration's disclosure of her identity was all three of those 'Obama' controversies rolled into one. It was a 'cult of intimidation' against politic opponents, sinister manipulation of the press, and it endangered the lives of Americans overseas... to say the least.

In saying all this, these are serious issues that need serious solutions and we've had some critical questions of the President and his cabinet, especially Mrs. Clinton, but this barking at the rain is the exact thing that will turn the public sour on the Republicans' cause for accountability. 

President Obama’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer appeared on the program today (and all the others) to mitigate damage of course with reporters' hope that he'd slip and make news, but he didn't.  As a foil,
Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) answered questions just before the panel discussion.  His introductory clip contained a soundbite from the Congressional hearing about the I.R.S. in which he talks about a culture of cover-up.  As we said last week, the I.R.S. specifically targeting anyway is unacceptable so we're on the same page as Mr. Camp as far as that is concerned, but not the 'culture of cover-up' hyperbole.  He reasonably talked about the tax code and how the reformation of it would help this country's economy, which is true and we appreciated that fact that he recognizing the burden that the tax code presents for average Americans - 13 hours for one family to do its taxes is ridiculous (6 billion hours in total).  But let's extrapolate that a bit and realize that the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision opened the floodgates for so many of these organizations, probably conservative leaning organization outnumbered progressive ones (nothing wrong there) so the I.R.S. is inundated with the tax exempt status requests.  Wrongly, they group them together and then someone becomes skeptical of them all and starts targeting.  Dog whistling? We don't hear it.


Round Table:  Rep. Camp joins the discussion along with the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA); Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan; and the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward.


[An interesting dynamic is that Mr. Camp answered Mr. Gregory's questions while the panel participants were present, which tempered his comments quite considerably.  Meet The Press seems like it has taken a page out of the Bill Maher format where the second featured guest becomes part of the panel.   It makes for a smoother transition in the show, but what it also does is force that guest to answer questions more sensibly, truthfully, and realistically.]

5.12.13: Tragedy Vs. Scandal

Libya's long-time dictator had just been usurped and the country was in a volatile state.  The knowledge of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in country was common.  BBC's Katy Kay stated on the program that there were several attacks on the Benghazi facility for the six months prior to Ambassador Stevens being killed.  David Brooks said that this consulate revised to mission revision to facility was none of the above.  It was a C.I.A. outpost, which explains was there would be so many attacks on it.  This diplomatic facility, and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) rightly asked why it was there in the first place, had no Marine guard, protected only by a Libyan militia that (surprise surprise) melted away at the first signs of the attacks.  You can see the potential problems and additional questions given those facts. 

Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa (R-CA) said that there were three questions which needed to be answered: why requests for additional security were denied; did we do all that we could to alleviate the situation during the 7 hours of attacks; and why all the changes in the talking points? The third would seem to be the most difficult to answer, but actually the explanation makes sense - different agencies couldn't agree on what to include and not to include, which would dictate how blame would be assigned.  The question of the repeated requests for additional security being denied, we have a feeling that the answer can be attributed to budget cuts, which falls on Congress, some that David Gregory touched on in his questioning.  As for doing all that we could at the time of the attack - If you look back into it, the closest Air Force base was in Aviano, Italy where fighters could have been scrambled in time, but would have required refueling planes which were unavailable nullifying that possibility.

We don't mean to be disrespectful, but what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place?  Given all that know, possibly, in his familiarity and comfort with the country, he underestimated the threat and made a poor decision.  If the embassy staff in Tripoli had been sending requests for more security before this happened then where is the common sense to know that the farther you get from the embassy the more risky the situation.  That it was a 'diplomatic facility,' what ever that means, it was obvious that he didn't have enough security to be that trip.

That's a hypothetical, but one that could apply to someone walking down the street in any major U.S. city, which is also to say that these things are unpredictable and impossible to anticipate in every corner of the world.

But more on the text changes, it has come to light that Victoria Nuland, a twenty-plus year veteran of the State Department oversaw edits that removed mention that the attack involved an Al Qaeda affiliated group called Ansar Al-Sharia.  The reasoning for the omission, it's said, was to not alert the group that the CIA and U.S. officials were on to them.  This reason was outlined by then CIA Director General David Petraeus in a hearing last fall so it was something that Congress was already aware of.  In such a rare occurrence - the killing of a U.S. Ambassador - where the details are murky and talking points are being tailored, why wouldn't top officials in the CIA, State, and the Administration have a firmer hand on all of this?  That would be our question.

The different agencies were at odds with one another over the talking points because each didn't want to take the heat and look bad under Congressional scrutiny, and ironically... ultimately that's who you have to blame - Congress.  The reason is because in this hyper-partisan climate that's been created all our legislators are interested in is who is to blame, and not focusing on fixes, prevention, or solutions. For example, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that this is 'the most egregious coverup in American history.' That's so far being true it makes you wonder what good hearings would do at all if there is obviously no will to listen. We would agree with Senator Feinstein that ulterior motives (something sinister) don't exist, as it seems that Senator Inhofe desires.  When Mr. Gregory asked Congressman Issa if he was reading into something that isn't there, his answer was no, but he and his Republican colleagues want it to be 'yes' (the nature of the opposition of course).  He said that President Obama and former Secretary Clinton were not targets, but they clearly are.

Do we think the Administration orchestrated a cover-up? No.  But, we do distinctly note Senator Feinstein's assessment of the Administration.  The word she used was 'cautious,' which she explained that she appreciated for the most part, but in regard to Benghazi this approach didn't serve them well.  Cautiousness is understandable on behalf of this Administration, given that the American people became very dissatisfied with the last administration because we felt it was too rash and not analytical enough. 

After all this, you know who shouldn't be blamed?  UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who was just following the talking points she was given in an 'audition' to potentially replace Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State.  Unfortunately for her, she was given talking points that were inaccurate to the actual events.  But also, it turns out that General David Petraeus, for all the greatness thrust upon him, was incompetent as a CIA chief, who was caught up in his own scandal/cover-up.

And speaking of scandal, the panel discussed two that we feel are more significant than Benghazi, one being the 26,000 sexual assaults in the military last year and the other of course being these new revelations that the Internal Revenue Service deliberately targeted groups with 'Tea Party' and 'Patriot' in their names for scrutiny into their tax exempt status.

Wes Moore stated that the military is in most instances ahead of the curve when it comes to social mores, integration, et. al, but obviously not on this aspect of being transparent and direct in addressing this criminality.  Twenty-six thousand sexual assaults are 26,000 felonies, and if the military can not police itself, as we've all heard one awful story or another, then we'll have to have an independent body oversee such complaints as Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) has proposed.  However, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has already come out against that so we'll see where this all gets us.

And then there is our 'beloved' I.R.S.  We'll truthfully put it this way.  We believe that Super PACs in general will end up being devastatingly detrimental to our democracy and should not have tax-exempt status at all.  Politicians always want full disclosure and transparency when it comes to say talking points with regard to an international tragedy, but not when advocacy groups spend millions of secret (undisclosed donors) money on their behalf to get reelected.  You have to call B.S. on that.  We will also truthfully say that, in particular, the Tea Party movement, has been one of the worst influences on our democracy, poisoning the well of compromise and crippling this country's ability to move forward.  (We're not talking at all about Republicans in general.) With that said, we completely reject and are appalled by these actions of the I.R.S. specifically targeting these groups.  If they operate under the law or apply for a status that they are entitled to apply for, regardless of whether you like them or not, they should be given equal opportunity and protections to do so.  To have any other position is not American because next time it could be you... as the saying goes.  The Obama Administration needs to make a forceful statement condemning these actions. Period. Hard Stop.


Round Table: Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) who is a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan; New York Times columnist David Brooks; the BBC’s Katty Kay; and Afghanistan veteran and author Wes Moore; Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) stayed on from interview appearance.


Postscript: Isn't it telling to know that President Bush didn't write an e-mail in 8 years because of what he called potential 'Congressional Intrusions' into what would be his private papers? 

5.5.13: Our Actions Make Us Who We Are

As for Syria, we're in... With the news of the Israelis hitting the Assad Regime with airstrikes, coupled with the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, the United States is already in the mix.  You can easily see all the signs that it's moving in that direction.  As Andrea Mitchell reported, there are various Arab countries arming different groups within the anti-Assad rebel forces.  Of course, we are going to have to get in on that action and try to swing the balance toward a more moderate entity to take control, however, the reality there is that it's going to get even uglier because once Assad is gone, and he will be, then comes a civil war between the victors. 

Representative Tom Cotton (R-AR) represented the consensus opinion in the House when he said that we should have been arming rebels months ago.  We've created that sort of expectation from countries, especially in the Middle East, that we'll always be involved, at the very least with arm shipments. And it was all but confirmed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) today.  At this point, the United States is obligated to get into the fray, but Syria will linger perhaps significantly worse than even Iraq for the United States.  Syria's two main allies are Russia and Iran, both of whom are actively involved with the Syrian civil war, on the side of the Assad Regime, unlike in Iraq.  Arms shipments will facilitate murky results in the end because we'll still have to deal with Russia and Iran on the myriad of known issues for years and years after Syria is settled.

It's obvious that our Cold War relationship with Russia was much better than what we have with them now because during that time both countries motivations were much more predictable.  The United States naively thought that since the Cold War ended that the two countries could now cooperate, but the Putin government never took to that attitude.  The dynamic may have changed but not the sentiment, as far as international relations are concerned; no more evident than in Syria.

With that in mind, the much less turbid tact is the establishment of an internationally coordinated  no-fly zone (also all but confirmed by Senator Leahy), something that the American people can begrudgingly live with as opposed to having 'boots on the ground,' something Jane Harman said there was zero chance of happening. This international effort, most probably spearheaded by the United States, would be better served if simultaneously they would concentrate on the flow of refugees threatening instability in other countries, namely Jordan.

What makes our head hurt when it comes to Syria is the eagerness exhibited by many in the U.S. Congress to become directly involved.  Our only explanation for this is that it plays into the larger sentiment of combating terrorism and making sure Al Qaeda elements do not have a place of sanctuary.  The President, in a clip, confirmed that the Israelis have the right to thwart any attempts by the Assad Regime to ship arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon (surprise: the Russian air defense systems aren't very good).  Congressman Cotton stated that we've gotten off of a war footing when it comes to fighting terrorism and are more in a law enforcement stance, although his example was to say that we haven't put any one into Guantanamo Bay Prison in four years, implying that we should be putting more people in there instead of closing it. The usually intellectually buffoonish Newt Gingrich said that he sees the fight against terrorism as a fifty to seventy year battle.  It's unfortunate (to say the least) that Mr. Cotton can not see that the longer we keep Guantanamo open, the closer we get to Mr. Gingrich's assessment being true.  What upsets us here at this column is the fear that our political leaders show by being so reluctant to bring those prisoners to the United States.  If they're guilty, hold them in this country and don't be afraid - deal with the decisions that you've made or change your thinking.  As Senator Leahy asked, "What are we afraid of?" Later in the program, Mr. Cotton said that Islamic extremists don't attack us for what we do, but who we are.  That's actually the kind of absurd responsibility denial that perpetuates the motivations for terrorist attacks against the United States, here and abroad.

It's our actions that have created self-radicalized terrorists.  We don't appreciate Mr. Giuliani's Monday morning quarterbacking with regard to the Boston bombing as it pertains to the investigation and what we knew beforehand, but he did make a very good point. If the three additional suspects knew that the Tsarnaev brothers were responsible for the bombing before a M.I.T. police officer was shot and killed then they are conspirators.  The stupid teenager excuse doesn't fly.  But, our actions created terrorism and sympathy.  In the case of Fort Hood, we're always skeptical about Mr. Giuliani's hyperbolic facts, but that was certainly a terrorist act inspired by Islamic extremism.

To that end, no one on the program had a good answer as to whether we're safer or not.  "Yes and no," Jane Harmon said, agreeing with Mr. Giuliani that the threats have evolved.  But that answer would be 'no' if you agree with what Wayne LaPierre said in posing the question as to whether Bostonians upon being asked to stay in their homes in the search for the bombing suspects would be safer if they all owned guns.  In that statement Mr. LaPierre was simply pedaling fear, one which the people of Boston wouldn't buy. What he suggested wouldn't make us safer, just more suspicious and dangerous to one another. 

It's this same sort of fear mongering that translates to other aspects of our society and law making, the xenophobic kind that could (will) stifle immigration reform.  Senator Leahy when asked if it would pass, said that he hoped so.  Further pressed by Mr. Gregory about it, he said, "I think so," which is not encouraging.  And we would contend that it is our actions, in fact, that make us who we are so what does it say that a nation of immigrants will have shut the door on inclusiveness? That's not what we do or who we are as Americans.

Americans see a brave move, a lesson in courage and not in fear, and we embrace it.  Just ask Jason Collins.


Round Table 1: Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT); former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani; President and CEO of the Wilson Center, former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); and Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR).

Round Table 2: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford; Editor of the National Review, Rich Lowry; and MSNBC contributor as well as political columnist for the Miami Herald, Joy-Ann Reid.