Sunday, July 28, 2013
7.28.13: Over the Limit
(Anthony Weiner Comment below)
Whether of not you agree with the president's economic agenda or not as outlined by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, there is one thing he said that is certainly true, which is that Americans are tired of self-made crises in Washington DC. However, sure enough (every one of today's guests conceded the point) we're going to have a fiscal fight in September when the Congress is set to vote of the debt limit.
As discussed, the president has hardened his position that he is not going to allow deep cuts in domestic programs for a debt ceiling deal while conversely, Speaker John Boehner is on record saying that the debt ceiling will not be raised without real spending cuts. With these two dug-in positions, you have to ask who has the leverage, the higher ground? Given Mr. Boehner's abysmal record so far as the Speaker, it's difficult to take what he says seriously because on any given issue, he is unable to rally his caucus, a caucus that has been unwilling to compromise with the Democratic party and more specifically the president. For his trouble, the president hasn't offered anything new with regard to his economic agenda, something for which the Washington press corps has knocked him, but the reason for that is because he hasn't gotten much of his agenda through. Despite that, the economy has come back, be it modestly overall - 2 percent. Even Maria Bartiromo, a fiscal conservative, nodded her head in agreement when David Axelrod asserted that the antics in Washington [Republican brinksmanship] is what is holding us back economically.
Compromise isn't an option at this point, something that everyone knows, so what's going to happen?
We find it hard to believe that the Republican-led House would willfully default on our debt thus tanking the economy by not raising the debt ceiling. The reasoning for this statement is obvious because you think to yourself that no one would in their right mind would do that. However, given the unpredictability of the House Republicans, we can not be 100 percent sure and therein lays the problem It's the same trepidation that big business feels - they're not a 100 percent sure the Republicans won't tank the economy - and that's the reason they're not investing back in the United States the great amount of capital they've accumulated.
Secretary Lew wouldn't answer Mr. Gregory's question as to whether or not the president would go to the brink on the economy in a debt ceiling fight, and frankly, he didn't have to. From the administration's point of view, they'd prefer an up or down vote on the debt ceiling extension. It's John Boehner who is playing the brinksmanship game because he's the one who has put conditions on even having the vote. One of those conditions is to completely defund the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), which is not going to happen.
Mike Murphy stupidly said that the president has to make a painful ideological move [to the right] if we're ever to move forward, but why would he ever do that knowing full well that Republicans wouldn't make any such shift themselves.
Bottom line is that the Republicans will be blamed if there is a government shutdown. And we don't know about you but that means that we've defaulted on our debt and now we're all just deadbeats.
The backlash will come from all sides including from establishment conservatives in of the business and intellectual communities who may line up hard against the extreme ideologues, who simply don't understand that governing isn't a proposition of 'all or nothing' but one of 'more or less.' However, if they are not there to govern as many of them either confess or suggest, then they also don't understand that Republicans have the leverage to obtain 'more' in the equation. They could get the Keystone Pipeline and long-term cuts as Harold Ford suggested or the tax reform and lowering of the corporate tax as Ms. Bartiromo outlined.
Even given all the acrimony, you would think that lawmakers would come together on infrastructure and energy, but it's not to be. Mr. Lew threw out a significant statement that was left out there in the wind by Mr. Gregory (and the media at large), which is defense funding and the cutting of domestic programs to accomplish it. It's a larger conversation that we're not having as a country, but it is money that should be shifted to those two aforementioned sectors - energy and infrastructure. Enough of the build up abroad, how about it at home. It would go a long way in solving the growing crisis of income inequality (more on this to come in a separate column) in this country.
***
Never mind that Anthony Weiner's private sexual proclivities are flat out creepy and completely inappropriate for someone seeking high office, it's his public record that is almost as offensive. Democratic mayoral candidate City Council Speaker Christine Quinn pointed out that in 12 years in Congress, Anthony Weiner passed one bill. In 2000, members of Congress were paid $141,000 and have given themselves a raise just about every year since. As taxpayers' we invested about $2 million in Anthony Weiner over 12 years and we have one bill to show for it - the facts amongst the farce.
The point is that there is no redeeming quality to his candidacy in the slightest. What more can you say when just on today's program you hear words and phrases such as: absurd, reckless behavior, beyond the pale, delusional, shameful, disrespectful to voters, and insulting to describe Mr. Weiner's behavior.
Here's our message to Mr. Weiner - if you really care about New York City and its residents then stop embarrassing them and leave the race.
And as far as that clown in San Diego, Bob Fillner, is concerned, sexual harassment in the work place is an offense subject to immediate termination so why does he get to decide whether he stays or goes? He admitted his behavior has been going on for years - disgraceful.
Roundtable: former top strategist for President Obama, now NBC Senior Political Analyst David Axelrod; Host of CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” Maria Bartiromo; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; and former Democratic Congressman from Tennessee, Harold Ford.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
7.21.13: President Obama and Leadership on Race
There is no way that we could, or even would, consider making some grandiose statement on race relations in America in this column. Even if we strictly stuck to solely what was said on today's Meet The Press, it would still come off as trite, let's face it. However, much of the discussion today focused on whether or not President Obama has done enough to lead on the discussion of race relations, especially in the wake of the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin verdict in Florida (We've reprinted our comment on it from last week's column.) followed by the Justice for Trayvon rallies yesterday in 100 cities across the country.
Some conservatives have criticized the president's remarks on Friday to the White House press corps (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin) for politicizing the issue. More center-right, Michael Steele, who admitted that race was an underlining theme, said that he felt that the president dropped the ball on the discussion just as he did on the conversation about guns. Then on the president's left flank, Tavis Smiley said today that the president was pressured into making a statement, and it was too-little, too-late in his estimation. He said that on this issue the president could not afford to lead from behind. Mr. Smiley repeated that Barack Obama was the right man in the right place at the right time to have this discussion, and there should be no more waiting as the first black president.
Harvard Law professor Charles Ogeltree, who taught Mr. Obama, disagreed saying first 'to clarify' that Mr. Obama is a president who happens to be black, but that also he has now elevated Trayvon Martin as a symbol of racial profiling and injustice. Adding to this, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks declared the speech a symphony - touching on many points thoughtfully and personally.
The praise, as you can see, comes mostly for the speech so the question remains as to whether he's done enough overall. We would suggest that you look at it this way - Pragmatics is the study of implied meaning - what's really being said behind the words - and in that context Barack Obama is having a discussion on race every single day. Professor Ogletree's presidential sentiment above is nice because it does presume to put the content of Mr. Obama's character before the color of his skin, but in all honestly, and we all know it to be the truth, there are many out there thwarting his agenda simply based on the color of his skin. That fact that he has to continually wade through instances of prejudice and bigotry continually such as the Birther Movement. The only president in history to be pressured into showing his birth certificate. (How are conservatives going to react to a Senator Ted Cruz presidential candidacy since he was born in Canada?) Then there is disrespect shown to him by an idiot South Carolina Congressman who essentially called him a liar during a State of the Union address. Why is it that no other president in our lifetime has been shown such disrespect and loathing, from public officials no less, as Mr. Obama? If you don't think race plays a part in that, you're just denying an ugly truth about America.
And in addition those instances, and that's not even getting into the healthcare debate (if you can call it that), the constant complaint is that President Obama has no agenda and doesn't get anything done, which is really like stacking the deck even more. Yet, here we are, during his Administration it had been about 50 years since the last piece of major healthcare legislation came along, 30 years since the prospect of any major immigration reform, and it should have been 20 years since there was a major adjustment to our gun laws.
What we're saying is that on a certain level, Mr. Obama has to do everything he can to get some people to forget about race so that other important things can get done. In the face of that, the president ultimately made a profound, personal, and ultimately optimistic statement on the matter because he empathizes with the pain out there. He understands the anger being felt by a large part of our community and we should be glad he spoke to it. As Governor Granholm commented, he was explaining it to white people. As Dr. Ogletree said, the president did in fact elevate Trayvon Martin as a symbol of racial profiling and injustice, but it's because Mr. Obama is a rare position with a unique perspective. And because Trayvon Martin is not guilty for his own death as the verdict makes it out to be.
We would contend that since the then-Senator Barack Obama started the conversation on race in a speech in Philadelphia in March of 2008 up until Friday's remark in the White House Briefing Room, the conversation has never stopped.
Roundtable (first segment): Marc Morial, President of the National Urban League and former Mayor of New Orleans; Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; Tavis Smiley, Host of the "Tavis Smiley Show" on PBS; Charles Ogletree, Professor at Harvard Law School; and Michael Steele, MSNBC Political Analyst and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Roundtable (second segment): Marc Morial, along with former Democratic Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm, NBC’s Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, and columnist for the New York Times David Brooks.
Some conservatives have criticized the president's remarks on Friday to the White House press corps (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/19/remarks-president-trayvon-martin) for politicizing the issue. More center-right, Michael Steele, who admitted that race was an underlining theme, said that he felt that the president dropped the ball on the discussion just as he did on the conversation about guns. Then on the president's left flank, Tavis Smiley said today that the president was pressured into making a statement, and it was too-little, too-late in his estimation. He said that on this issue the president could not afford to lead from behind. Mr. Smiley repeated that Barack Obama was the right man in the right place at the right time to have this discussion, and there should be no more waiting as the first black president.
Harvard Law professor Charles Ogeltree, who taught Mr. Obama, disagreed saying first 'to clarify' that Mr. Obama is a president who happens to be black, but that also he has now elevated Trayvon Martin as a symbol of racial profiling and injustice. Adding to this, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks declared the speech a symphony - touching on many points thoughtfully and personally.
The praise, as you can see, comes mostly for the speech so the question remains as to whether he's done enough overall. We would suggest that you look at it this way - Pragmatics is the study of implied meaning - what's really being said behind the words - and in that context Barack Obama is having a discussion on race every single day. Professor Ogletree's presidential sentiment above is nice because it does presume to put the content of Mr. Obama's character before the color of his skin, but in all honestly, and we all know it to be the truth, there are many out there thwarting his agenda simply based on the color of his skin. That fact that he has to continually wade through instances of prejudice and bigotry continually such as the Birther Movement. The only president in history to be pressured into showing his birth certificate. (How are conservatives going to react to a Senator Ted Cruz presidential candidacy since he was born in Canada?) Then there is disrespect shown to him by an idiot South Carolina Congressman who essentially called him a liar during a State of the Union address. Why is it that no other president in our lifetime has been shown such disrespect and loathing, from public officials no less, as Mr. Obama? If you don't think race plays a part in that, you're just denying an ugly truth about America.
And in addition those instances, and that's not even getting into the healthcare debate (if you can call it that), the constant complaint is that President Obama has no agenda and doesn't get anything done, which is really like stacking the deck even more. Yet, here we are, during his Administration it had been about 50 years since the last piece of major healthcare legislation came along, 30 years since the prospect of any major immigration reform, and it should have been 20 years since there was a major adjustment to our gun laws.
What we're saying is that on a certain level, Mr. Obama has to do everything he can to get some people to forget about race so that other important things can get done. In the face of that, the president ultimately made a profound, personal, and ultimately optimistic statement on the matter because he empathizes with the pain out there. He understands the anger being felt by a large part of our community and we should be glad he spoke to it. As Governor Granholm commented, he was explaining it to white people. As Dr. Ogletree said, the president did in fact elevate Trayvon Martin as a symbol of racial profiling and injustice, but it's because Mr. Obama is a rare position with a unique perspective. And because Trayvon Martin is not guilty for his own death as the verdict makes it out to be.
We would contend that since the then-Senator Barack Obama started the conversation on race in a speech in Philadelphia in March of 2008 up until Friday's remark in the White House Briefing Room, the conversation has never stopped.
Roundtable (first segment): Marc Morial, President of the National Urban League and former Mayor of New Orleans; Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus; Tavis Smiley, Host of the "Tavis Smiley Show" on PBS; Charles Ogletree, Professor at Harvard Law School; and Michael Steele, MSNBC Political Analyst and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Roundtable (second segment): Marc Morial, along with former Democratic Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm, NBC’s Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, and columnist for the New York Times David Brooks.
7.21.13: Zimmerman-Martin Verdict Comment
(Reprinted from last week's column)
Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Verdict
Ultimately, this is another victory for the gun. We, as an American society, have reached the point where the man with the gun, who fatally shoots someone, is given the benefit of the doubt in court. George Zimmerman had his say, and you would have to sadly conclude that the 'Stand Your Ground' law worked. This is the reason some are saying Mr. Zimmerman should have never been prosecuted in the first place.
A gun provided George Zimmerman with false sense of strength and the ego to believe that he was in control of circumstances when the truth is his actions came from a place of fear and he wasn't in control. And it is this kind of fear that is perpetuated and promoted by the NRA and the gun lobby that lead to these tragedies.
We can neither escape the key role race played in the entire case, and there is no amount of detail that we can go into here that would sufficiently cover all the aspects as it is even concerned strictly to this case. However, it's worthy to get on record the question: Why is it that most people in the country, the general consensus, believe that if the roles were reversed and it was Trayvon Martin in Mr. Zimmerman's position he would have surely been found guilty?
A jury of six determined that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense, which implies that Mr. Martin, the guy with the Skittles, was the perpetrator? The absolution of any responsibility for Mr. Zimmerman is what's unjust in this case. But in America today, it's not about responsibility, it's all about blaming the other guy.
Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Verdict
Ultimately, this is another victory for the gun. We, as an American society, have reached the point where the man with the gun, who fatally shoots someone, is given the benefit of the doubt in court. George Zimmerman had his say, and you would have to sadly conclude that the 'Stand Your Ground' law worked. This is the reason some are saying Mr. Zimmerman should have never been prosecuted in the first place.
A gun provided George Zimmerman with false sense of strength and the ego to believe that he was in control of circumstances when the truth is his actions came from a place of fear and he wasn't in control. And it is this kind of fear that is perpetuated and promoted by the NRA and the gun lobby that lead to these tragedies.
We can neither escape the key role race played in the entire case, and there is no amount of detail that we can go into here that would sufficiently cover all the aspects as it is even concerned strictly to this case. However, it's worthy to get on record the question: Why is it that most people in the country, the general consensus, believe that if the roles were reversed and it was Trayvon Martin in Mr. Zimmerman's position he would have surely been found guilty?
A jury of six determined that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense, which implies that Mr. Martin, the guy with the Skittles, was the perpetrator? The absolution of any responsibility for Mr. Zimmerman is what's unjust in this case. But in America today, it's not about responsibility, it's all about blaming the other guy.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
7.14.13: Blaming the Other Guy
For
the purpose of actually having something real to say, it is a consolation that
the verdict of the George Zimmerman trial came last night (Our comment below).
The reason is because to listen to Senators Reid and McConnell this morning and
pretend that either actually had something important to offer would have been
too much.
Listening
to both of them, clearly illustrates why Congress's approval rating is lower
than North Korea's as Senator Reid said. Think about that... North Korea,
a dictatorship sworn to our destruction is actually more popular than American
leaders. Really?
Yes,
really... The main gist of the discussion today concerned potentially changing
the use of the filibuster in the Senate. Harry Reid (D-NV) has been threatening
to change the rule for Presidential nominees only, but then cited numbers for
the amount of filibusters Republicans have threatened on all legislation -
420. On the other hand, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected to the notion
that Mr. Reid was going to 'break the rules of the Senate to change the rules
of the Senate,' then noted that all the Senators were getting together tomorrow
to discuss these traditions. Blah blah blah...
Recently,
filibusters by Senator Rand Paul (on drones) and State Senator Wendy Davis (on
abortion law in Texas) made news because they were actual filibusters where the
individual took to the floor to extend the debate valiantly. Mr.
McConnell loves these kinds of discussions about filibusters because they
essentially hold up the entire legislative process so that nothing can get
done. From there it's easy to blame the President for any
non-progress. But have we ever seen him filibuster on the floor of the
Senate? Filibuster reform might not be necessary only if Senator Reid had
backbone enough to call Republicans' bluff. Don't fold at the threat of a
filibuster, force them to put up or shut up. Republicans wouldn't
filibuster as much if they actually had to stand there and keep the debate open
for 12 hours. Let the American people see this in action and then it will
be determined very quickly if our Senators are acting stupidly and if change is
really needed. All they did was blame each other for their chamber's
inability to accomplish anything.
Even
on the respective tough questions, both Senators gave non-answers. Senator
Reid said that he would look at a 20-week ban on abortion and wouldn't answer
either way to whether he thought it was reasonable. In other words, he
wasn't going to give an answer right then and there because he doesn't know how
it would play with his base.
Conversely,
Senator McConnell knows very well how his base feels about immigration so
that's the reason for his non-answer as to whether the House should vote on it
or not. They want the bill to be killed but Mr. McConnell can't say that
because it was created in his chamber with bipartisan cooperation and he's not going to throw his colleagues under the bus as it were.
Everyone on today's roundtable saw Immigration Reform as in trouble, meaning most likely dead in the House. Buttressing his joint column with William Kristol earlier in the week, Rich Lowry opined that the Immigration Bill from the Senate should be killed in the House because it doesn't completely eliminate illegal immigration, that in ten years we'll still have 7 million illegal immigrations. Well, if the process for citizenship takes 13 years to complete, it would stand to reason that ten years from now, we'd still have individuals listed as illegal. On the other hand, Republican strategist Steve Schmidt sees the Senate bill as essential not only for the country as a whole but for the future viability and success of the Republican party. For Republicans, there are your two directions - the Lowry or the Schmidt.
Round Table: Rich Lowry; Former Democratic Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson; President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden; and Republican Strategist as well as former senior strategist to the McCain-Palin campaign Steve Schmidt, and MSNBC's Al Sharpton
Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Verdict
Ultimately, this is another victory for the gun. We, as an American society, have reached the point where the man with the gun, who fatally shoots someone, is given the benefit of the doubt in court. George Zimmerman had his say, and you would have to sadly conclude that the 'Stand Your Ground' law worked. This is the reason some are saying Mr. Zimmerman should have never been prosecuted in the first place.
A gun provided George Zimmerman with false sense of strength and the ego to believe that he was in control of circumstances when the truth is his actions came from a place of fear and he wasn't in control. And it is this kind of fear that is perpetuated and promoted by the NRA and the gun lobby that lead to these tragedies.
We can neither escape the key role race played in the entire case, and there is no amount of detail that we can go into here that would sufficiently cover all the aspects as it is even concerned strictly to this case. However, it's worthy to get on record the question: Why is it that most people in the country, the general consensus, believes that if the roles were reversed and it was Trayvon Martin in Mr. Zimmerman's position he would have surely been found guilty?
A jury of six determined that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense, which implies that Mr. Martin, the guy with the Skittles, was the perpetrator? The absolution of any responsibility for Mr. Zimmerman is what's unjust in this case. But in America today, it's not about responsibility, it's all about blaming the other guy.
Postscript: The moderator David Gregory explained a misstatement he made on last week's program, and it was a whopping mistake. Last week, he said to Eugene Robinson that everyone is successfully being taxed for Obamacare, he said 'that part works,' while the other parts are troubled in their implementation. He clarified this week that not everyone is being taxed for Medicare expansion, only individuals and families making over $250,000 per year. It was a misstatement that essentially drove proponents of the law to the defensive unnecessarily and clouded the discussion.
Monday, July 08, 2013
7.7.13: Inner Turmoil
With all the respective panelists (see full list below) being more than on point, today's Meet The Press even exceeded our expectations for insightful commentary. However, the most disappointing [possibly read 'stupid' here] answers came unfortunately, or predictably, from the two United States politicians appearing on the program - Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) with regard to Egypt and Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) on Immigration Reform and Healthcare.
The most succinct and accurate assessment of what is going on in Egypt came from Jeffrey Goldberg who said:
The events of last week are a victory for progressivism in a kind of way and a defeat for democracy... Obviously the Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian party fundamentalist party, anti-christian, misogynistic party. Let's not kid ourselves about what they are. Their removal from power is good in that country for christians and other minorities, but it also reflects a defeat for democracy in the following sense. We know that this is not going to be the last time the military intervenes in this process. And if there had just been some level of patience on the part of liberals, the muslim brotherhood might have imploded on its own accord. Now they're put in a position to be martyrs and move more radically and possibly get involved in terrorism like we see in Egypt.
He's correct but for one point: the liberals being more patient. If he was referring to liberals within Egypt, their patience was not required. The military's patience is what should have been required. And where Senator Menendez is so naive in his thinking is that he kept stressing an 'Egypt for All" moving forward in their political system. And possibly if President Morsi had called for early elections, a military coup (completely inexplicable that the Obama Administration would not call it that) would have not been necessary. The problem with that is, given Mr. Goldberg's correct characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood, new elections were not a possibility. But an 'Egypt for All' is not likely either. How are the Muslim Brotherhood going to be included? In their eyes, they should be controlling the government, for good or ill, so now the military says to them you can participate but you can not have power. Hmmm.... Sounds like the potential for another Hezbollah in Lebanon type situation, right? The Muslim Brotherhood will not go quietly into that desert night.
Senator Menendez supports the Obama Administration's efforts to assist Egypt in the formation of this new government. Way late to the party here. The Obama Administration's mistake was that when Hosni Mubarak was deposed, the United States stepped back, as Chuck Todd described. What they should have used the $1.4 billion in aid we give them as leverage to force the Morsi government to be more inclusive of the other political parties. No, we didn't do that, but now we're going to help set up a new government after a military coup. Shrewd moves the Obama Administration is definitely not making.
Robin Wright's statement that what happens in Egpyt will have major repercussions across the region so given that, those are the scenarios that the United States needs to contemplate and mitigate that as best as we can. However, going in their now as the country is falling apart (Dr. El Baradei's words), is not a mess we need and until they work it out internally we maybe shouldn't be diving into the deep end of the pool.
Tom Friedman, it should be noted, did make a good point in that Egypt is a pluralistic society that does not government to that pluralism, 'governing horizontally' as he called it, but it sounded too much like the pitch for his next book.
On Domestic Issues:
With the Obama Administration putting a hold on the employer mandate, Congressman Labrador had what he thought was more ammunition to denounce Obamacare, but he was incorrect in his assessment. He said that along with this mandate, nothing else in the law has worked, but that is simply denying fact. The Medicaid expansion for the states that accept is being implemented smoothly, a 25 year-old on his/her parents' health plan has saved considerably money, and individuals with preexisting conditions having the opportunity to buy insurance has added consumers into the pool. Granted that yes, Obamacare, isn't the best piece of legislation but unless you totally scrap employer insurance or private insurance for that matter, this is the direction we have to move. Conversely, and this can not be said enough, Republicans have not offered any sort of cohesive alternative proposal, and we can not continue on our current trajectory.
Then there was this exchange on Immigration between David Brooks and Congressman Labrador:
Not only did the conservative Congressman take a shot at Ronald Reagan (sacrilege in the party), but as Eugene Robinson correctly assessed, he's arguing for something that is just not possible. As we said in previous columns, even given some of the Senate Republicans' superfluous amendments, this bill is a worthy bipartisan effort, or as close as we're going to get. The long arduous process to citizenship that undocumented immigrants will have to endure is almost prohibitive in achieving, set by Marco Rubio. Or are we going to round up 11 million people and send them back over the border? Please. David Brooks provided you with the most succinct and accurate (ibid.) assessment as to why Republicans could support the bill. Sure, he got in a little dig there at the top, a bit of a passive aggressive one preemptively aimed at the Congressman, but he was correct.
Republicans fighting Republicans - you saw it right there in the clip. Speaker John Boehner won't bring the Senate bill to the House floor because he knows he doesn't have votes. You know he doesn't have Congressman Labrador's vote. Even on healthcare, Republicans are at odds as some conservative governors (see: Jan Brewer) are going to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Compromise within the party is now a toxic concept, let alone with Democrats, and until they work this out, we're all just treading water.
Roundtable Guests: Senior Fellow with the Woodrow Wilson Center, Robin Wright, Columnist for "The New York Times" Tom Friedman, Columnist for "Bloomberg View" and also with the "Atlantic" magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg (incorrectly listed on the MTP site), and from NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell and NBC Political Director Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd. Later - "The New York Times", David Brooks, Columnist for the "Washington Post," E.J. Dionne, " Washington Post" Columnist Eugene Robinson
The most succinct and accurate assessment of what is going on in Egypt came from Jeffrey Goldberg who said:
The events of last week are a victory for progressivism in a kind of way and a defeat for democracy... Obviously the Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian party fundamentalist party, anti-christian, misogynistic party. Let's not kid ourselves about what they are. Their removal from power is good in that country for christians and other minorities, but it also reflects a defeat for democracy in the following sense. We know that this is not going to be the last time the military intervenes in this process. And if there had just been some level of patience on the part of liberals, the muslim brotherhood might have imploded on its own accord. Now they're put in a position to be martyrs and move more radically and possibly get involved in terrorism like we see in Egypt.
He's correct but for one point: the liberals being more patient. If he was referring to liberals within Egypt, their patience was not required. The military's patience is what should have been required. And where Senator Menendez is so naive in his thinking is that he kept stressing an 'Egypt for All" moving forward in their political system. And possibly if President Morsi had called for early elections, a military coup (completely inexplicable that the Obama Administration would not call it that) would have not been necessary. The problem with that is, given Mr. Goldberg's correct characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood, new elections were not a possibility. But an 'Egypt for All' is not likely either. How are the Muslim Brotherhood going to be included? In their eyes, they should be controlling the government, for good or ill, so now the military says to them you can participate but you can not have power. Hmmm.... Sounds like the potential for another Hezbollah in Lebanon type situation, right? The Muslim Brotherhood will not go quietly into that desert night.
Senator Menendez supports the Obama Administration's efforts to assist Egypt in the formation of this new government. Way late to the party here. The Obama Administration's mistake was that when Hosni Mubarak was deposed, the United States stepped back, as Chuck Todd described. What they should have used the $1.4 billion in aid we give them as leverage to force the Morsi government to be more inclusive of the other political parties. No, we didn't do that, but now we're going to help set up a new government after a military coup. Shrewd moves the Obama Administration is definitely not making.
Robin Wright's statement that what happens in Egpyt will have major repercussions across the region so given that, those are the scenarios that the United States needs to contemplate and mitigate that as best as we can. However, going in their now as the country is falling apart (Dr. El Baradei's words), is not a mess we need and until they work it out internally we maybe shouldn't be diving into the deep end of the pool.
Tom Friedman, it should be noted, did make a good point in that Egypt is a pluralistic society that does not government to that pluralism, 'governing horizontally' as he called it, but it sounded too much like the pitch for his next book.
On Domestic Issues:
With the Obama Administration putting a hold on the employer mandate, Congressman Labrador had what he thought was more ammunition to denounce Obamacare, but he was incorrect in his assessment. He said that along with this mandate, nothing else in the law has worked, but that is simply denying fact. The Medicaid expansion for the states that accept is being implemented smoothly, a 25 year-old on his/her parents' health plan has saved considerably money, and individuals with preexisting conditions having the opportunity to buy insurance has added consumers into the pool. Granted that yes, Obamacare, isn't the best piece of legislation but unless you totally scrap employer insurance or private insurance for that matter, this is the direction we have to move. Conversely, and this can not be said enough, Republicans have not offered any sort of cohesive alternative proposal, and we can not continue on our current trajectory.
Then there was this exchange on Immigration between David Brooks and Congressman Labrador:
Not only did the conservative Congressman take a shot at Ronald Reagan (sacrilege in the party), but as Eugene Robinson correctly assessed, he's arguing for something that is just not possible. As we said in previous columns, even given some of the Senate Republicans' superfluous amendments, this bill is a worthy bipartisan effort, or as close as we're going to get. The long arduous process to citizenship that undocumented immigrants will have to endure is almost prohibitive in achieving, set by Marco Rubio. Or are we going to round up 11 million people and send them back over the border? Please. David Brooks provided you with the most succinct and accurate (ibid.) assessment as to why Republicans could support the bill. Sure, he got in a little dig there at the top, a bit of a passive aggressive one preemptively aimed at the Congressman, but he was correct.
Republicans fighting Republicans - you saw it right there in the clip. Speaker John Boehner won't bring the Senate bill to the House floor because he knows he doesn't have votes. You know he doesn't have Congressman Labrador's vote. Even on healthcare, Republicans are at odds as some conservative governors (see: Jan Brewer) are going to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Compromise within the party is now a toxic concept, let alone with Democrats, and until they work this out, we're all just treading water.
Roundtable Guests: Senior Fellow with the Woodrow Wilson Center, Robin Wright, Columnist for "The New York Times" Tom Friedman, Columnist for "Bloomberg View" and also with the "Atlantic" magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg (incorrectly listed on the MTP site), and from NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell and NBC Political Director Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd. Later - "The New York Times", David Brooks, Columnist for the "Washington Post," E.J. Dionne, " Washington Post" Columnist Eugene Robinson
Sunday, June 30, 2013
6.30.13: Fairer and Squarer
Mr. Gregory had mentioned many topics at the top of the show, but you got the hint from the guest list that there were only going to be a few subjects which would receive focus - the Supreme Court's decisions on DOMA and the Voting Rights Act, then abortion rights, framed around what is happening in Texas right now.
The question that comes to mind for us is if Republicans can live within the two respective Libertarian and Religious skins simultaneously. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) puts these two governing influences at odds with one another. The conservatives on today's program were driven more by religion in their respective views on the SCOTUS ruling.
Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is going to lead an effort for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between, as conservatives like to say, one man and one woman. Along with former Senator Jim DeMint, he made the argument that children are better off being raised in a home that have a man and a woman as their parents. There isn't definitely research to prove or disprove that and arguments were made on both sides, but for the purposes of what we're saying we can take that out of the equation.
Mr. Hueslskamp explained that the traditional definition of marriage is essentially what civilization is based on, and his frame of reference is a religious one. David Gregory outright called it a 'faith based' view, with the implication that it infringes on the separation of church and state in our Constitution, and he wouldn't be wrong. In his pre-recorded interview with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, he listened to the minority leader make that point - equal treatment under the law, otherwise it is discrimination. (Lately, it seems that Mr. Gregory has been doing less moderating on the program, making his views evident as well as the guests. It's an important note because Meet The Press has always had a moderator, not a host. He would suggest that he square it up a bit more.)
But using the religious frame of reference to make the argument about gay marriage rights does run at odds with Libertarianism - equal rights and personal freedoms for everyone regardless of your social choices. On today's program, those views were espoused more by Democrats, and among the many citations of Justice Kennedy's opinion, it is about equal dignity.
With that said Ralph Reed felt compelled to respond to an implicit charge that if you are against gay marriage, you're intolerant. His objection to that equation is understandable and we would agree with the objection based on the respect that one would have for the beliefs of someone else and the right to have them. As you know from us in this column, we're big into the separation of church and state idea, ultimately state trumps church... every time.
But does the striking down of DOMA create the inevitability that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage? Ralph Reed doesn't seem to think so, and nor do we, at least any time in the near future, and that's because it will be thrown to the states to decide. As we know, gerrymandered districts in many states are constructed to favor Republican majorities and those majorities, despite whatever public opinion is, are not going to move away from the definition of traditional marriage.
Speaking of gerrymandered districts and Mr. Reed, he said that since the Civil Rights Act of 1965, even request for redistricting in his home state of Georgia had been rejected and that the Voting Rights Act is a very personal issue for him, and in pointing this out he seemed to be saying that these denials were themselves discriminatory. If that is the case, it's a hollow argument because those DOJ rejections have come under Democratic and Republican Administrations alike.
The panel talked about an antiquated formula for determining which states fall under the fourth provision of the Voting Rights Act - the map. The map should be the entire country, and that's how Congress should 'redraw' it putting everyone on equal footing so that if, in fact, it is antiquated now no one will feel singled out. The problem is that it is not the 'ghosts' as Michael Eric Dyson stated, but what is actually still going on, citing voter ID laws in South Carolina and redistricting in Texas. Because SCOTUS declared that provision no longer valid, in these state legislatures lead by Republicans are moving quickly to make changes, it is transparent that these changes are designed to disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities.
And as we're seeing, redistricting will play a part in what's happening in Texas' abortion rights battle, in which because of the filibuster from State Senator Wendy Davis, Governor Rick Perry is calling a special session. On the program, Ms. Davis conceded that because of this called special session, Republicans in the Texas legislature may win the fight to pass very restrictive abortion regulations, despite her efforts. We would agree with Ms. Davis that these laws not only restrict abortion but cut off essential healthcare to women. It's the continual disregard for women's opinions and health in these conservatively-driven abortion bills, most crafted by men only, that offends us the most. We don't have to look far to confirm this notion. Mr. DeMint was being completely disingenuous when he said that women would have the 'opportunity' to have an ultrasound when considering an abortion, and we're glad that Rachel Maddow pointed out that invasive ultrasounds are being mandated. Scarier yet was when Ms. Maddow asked Mr. Reed if ultrasounds should be mandated, he responded by saying it should be left up to the states to litigate. It illustrated a basic disregard for a woman's right to make decisions about her own health. To cement the Texas legislature getting their way, redistricting in the state to favor Republican victories, will result in Ms. Davis most probably losing her seat, in effect ending future opposition to like bills.
To mitigate the continuing polarization of this country, we would need to redraw the Congressional District maps for the country. It's a pipe dream that would never happen because that would be politicians potentially redistricting themselves out of office if they didn't take more moderate positions. They should be made square - or at least squarer and fairer, just like SCOTUS did with striking down DOMA.
Roundtable: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow; chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Ralph Reed; author and professor at Georgetown University, Michael Eric Dyson; President of the Heritage Foundation, Fmr. Sen. Jim DeMint; and NBC’s Pete Williams.
The question that comes to mind for us is if Republicans can live within the two respective Libertarian and Religious skins simultaneously. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) puts these two governing influences at odds with one another. The conservatives on today's program were driven more by religion in their respective views on the SCOTUS ruling.
Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is going to lead an effort for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as between, as conservatives like to say, one man and one woman. Along with former Senator Jim DeMint, he made the argument that children are better off being raised in a home that have a man and a woman as their parents. There isn't definitely research to prove or disprove that and arguments were made on both sides, but for the purposes of what we're saying we can take that out of the equation.
Mr. Hueslskamp explained that the traditional definition of marriage is essentially what civilization is based on, and his frame of reference is a religious one. David Gregory outright called it a 'faith based' view, with the implication that it infringes on the separation of church and state in our Constitution, and he wouldn't be wrong. In his pre-recorded interview with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, he listened to the minority leader make that point - equal treatment under the law, otherwise it is discrimination. (Lately, it seems that Mr. Gregory has been doing less moderating on the program, making his views evident as well as the guests. It's an important note because Meet The Press has always had a moderator, not a host. He would suggest that he square it up a bit more.)
But using the religious frame of reference to make the argument about gay marriage rights does run at odds with Libertarianism - equal rights and personal freedoms for everyone regardless of your social choices. On today's program, those views were espoused more by Democrats, and among the many citations of Justice Kennedy's opinion, it is about equal dignity.
With that said Ralph Reed felt compelled to respond to an implicit charge that if you are against gay marriage, you're intolerant. His objection to that equation is understandable and we would agree with the objection based on the respect that one would have for the beliefs of someone else and the right to have them. As you know from us in this column, we're big into the separation of church and state idea, ultimately state trumps church... every time.
But does the striking down of DOMA create the inevitability that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage? Ralph Reed doesn't seem to think so, and nor do we, at least any time in the near future, and that's because it will be thrown to the states to decide. As we know, gerrymandered districts in many states are constructed to favor Republican majorities and those majorities, despite whatever public opinion is, are not going to move away from the definition of traditional marriage.
Speaking of gerrymandered districts and Mr. Reed, he said that since the Civil Rights Act of 1965, even request for redistricting in his home state of Georgia had been rejected and that the Voting Rights Act is a very personal issue for him, and in pointing this out he seemed to be saying that these denials were themselves discriminatory. If that is the case, it's a hollow argument because those DOJ rejections have come under Democratic and Republican Administrations alike.
The panel talked about an antiquated formula for determining which states fall under the fourth provision of the Voting Rights Act - the map. The map should be the entire country, and that's how Congress should 'redraw' it putting everyone on equal footing so that if, in fact, it is antiquated now no one will feel singled out. The problem is that it is not the 'ghosts' as Michael Eric Dyson stated, but what is actually still going on, citing voter ID laws in South Carolina and redistricting in Texas. Because SCOTUS declared that provision no longer valid, in these state legislatures lead by Republicans are moving quickly to make changes, it is transparent that these changes are designed to disenfranchise voters, particularly minorities.
And as we're seeing, redistricting will play a part in what's happening in Texas' abortion rights battle, in which because of the filibuster from State Senator Wendy Davis, Governor Rick Perry is calling a special session. On the program, Ms. Davis conceded that because of this called special session, Republicans in the Texas legislature may win the fight to pass very restrictive abortion regulations, despite her efforts. We would agree with Ms. Davis that these laws not only restrict abortion but cut off essential healthcare to women. It's the continual disregard for women's opinions and health in these conservatively-driven abortion bills, most crafted by men only, that offends us the most. We don't have to look far to confirm this notion. Mr. DeMint was being completely disingenuous when he said that women would have the 'opportunity' to have an ultrasound when considering an abortion, and we're glad that Rachel Maddow pointed out that invasive ultrasounds are being mandated. Scarier yet was when Ms. Maddow asked Mr. Reed if ultrasounds should be mandated, he responded by saying it should be left up to the states to litigate. It illustrated a basic disregard for a woman's right to make decisions about her own health. To cement the Texas legislature getting their way, redistricting in the state to favor Republican victories, will result in Ms. Davis most probably losing her seat, in effect ending future opposition to like bills.
To mitigate the continuing polarization of this country, we would need to redraw the Congressional District maps for the country. It's a pipe dream that would never happen because that would be politicians potentially redistricting themselves out of office if they didn't take more moderate positions. They should be made square - or at least squarer and fairer, just like SCOTUS did with striking down DOMA.
Roundtable: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow; chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Ralph Reed; author and professor at Georgetown University, Michael Eric Dyson; President of the Heritage Foundation, Fmr. Sen. Jim DeMint; and NBC’s Pete Williams.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
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.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)