Republicans in Congress are not yet ready to utter the word 'compromise,' but most have finally realized that unless they act in the spirit of that notion, their long-term prospects for winning national elections will continue to look more like a long shot.
The Washington Post's Katleen Parker said that there isn't much
public interest in the budget, and nor should there be. It should be
something that Congress simply gets down without much fanfare. The reality is that it had gotten to a point where they couldn't even compromise enough to do budgetary housekeeping.
However, with the support of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Budget Committee Chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) anchored the creation of a bi-partisan budget deal with Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). The compromise budget served as a small, but very significant, step in body's attempt to reestablish trust with the American people and elevate a nine percent approval rating.
In more practical terms, what is does do is eliminate the possibility of a government shutdown for two years, a legislative stick in the eye of the tea party caucus who no longer have leverage to irrationally tank the world economy if they do not get everything that they want. We get at least two years of peace as far as shutdowns go; call it a well-needed extended break. Merry Christmas to us.
At the end of this clip, a reporter asks Mr. Boehner if he's telling these Tea Party Outside Interest Group to stand down, and he replies, "I don't care what they do," meaning that whatever they do, he'll challenge the credibility of it.
But let's not get too excited that this is going to start some new era of cooperation... please. We have a long way to go before this civil war in the Republican Party plays itself out. The next major battle will be the Republican Congressional primary races in 2014.
Tea Party groups, as it has been reported, have heavily criticized the budget deal and Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that 'as an American he could not vote for it,' something that Mr. Gregory had to correct himself on, because the compromise with Democrats was that there would be some sequester relief.
But in the end, the deal is a Republican win because even though it's modest. There is a net deficit reduction as Mr. Ryan pointed out. This helps Establishment Republicans because now they can say we worked with the other side and we got more of what we wanted than Democrats did. And Democrats should be more than willing to do these kinds of deals right now to help Establishment Republicans regain rationality within their party. Something that will move this process along that was mentioned by Governor Richardson during the round table discussion was that Jon Podesta, President Clinton's former Chief of Staff, has been working in the White House and communicating with Congress to facilitate these kinds of compromises, and to straighten out a disfunctional operation that is the Obama Administration.
As Senator Murray pointed out, Congress had created some much uncertainty in the business community with a governing-by-crisis approach that it rendered the prospects for real growth very dim. With all interested parties knowing all too well of this reality, Mr. Ryan, under cover fire from the House Speaker, worked out a compromise.
However, speaking about what Congress knows and doesn't, it doesn't seem like it knows much when it comes to surveillance, spying, and the NSA's data gathering.
Former head of the NSA and CIA, General Michael Hayden said that he agreed with the proposal to overhaul the parameters in which the NSA can gather information on U.S. citizens, but how do you put that genie back in the bottle? He said that he hasn't seen any abuse in the NSA's gathering of information, but could see the potential for abuse. The General is speaking in terms of what the courts have authorized, but what about the abusive nature of the intelligence gathering itself that has been brought to light by Edward Snowden? A debate as to whether the NSA should have this authority couldn't have happened due to the power of the Patriot act so really there is no dismantling of the surveillance state at this point. And to regulate it, legislators have to know the full extent of the program which they do not... Plausible deniability is political bliss.
General Hayden talked about the need for a discussion on the cultural understanding of privacy, but what he was really saying is that we need to redefine what, in fact, privacy is.
Round Table: Former New Mexico Gov. and ambassador Bill Richardson, TIME magazine
Managing Editor Nancy Gibbs, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker
and Nation Public Radio’s Steve Inskeep
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Sunday, December 08, 2013
12.8.13: Nelson Mandela: Freedom and Equal Opportunity
South African President Jacob Zuma said, "Our nation has lost its greatest son. Our people have lost a father." Though he was solely referring to South Africans when he used the phrase 'our people,' we'd like to think that he was talking about all of humanity.
If inspiration were measured like gold, we'd all live in big houses from the courage and patience Nelson Mandela showed us. No one who is a true symbol of something, never aspires to be such, but Mr. Mandela will forever serve as a symbol of freedom and equal opportunity for the world.
We can offer little, if any, insight with regard to the life of Nelson Mandela and what he meant to the world; we wouldn't to presume to insult your intelligence and diminish his memory.
But Mr. Mandela's death makes us think of the very essence of what it means to have freedom and equal opportunity. We see the latter of the two systematically being replaced, or abridged, to only 'opportunity.' The lack of simple opportunity is chronically plaguing country's all over the world, and it's getting worse exponentially. When people around the world should be demanding an equal opportunity, we've been reduced to asking for any one, equal or not because the notion of opportunity is becoming more scarce. And if we keep going on in this direction, we'll bottom out in a place where we'll only have to hope for another individual to act and lead on the inspiration given to him or her by Mr. Mandela
Nelson Mandela
1918-2013
Postscript (a lighter note - sort of): We can say that the song "Sun City," written and produced by Steven Van Zandt for United Artists Against Apartheid, 1985, is the best mass-all-star collaboration recorded in pop music, much better than its contemporary rival "We Are the World," which has all the genre-varied artist conforming to one structure whereas "Sun City" incorporates several divergent music styles to complete one generous whole of a song.
If inspiration were measured like gold, we'd all live in big houses from the courage and patience Nelson Mandela showed us. No one who is a true symbol of something, never aspires to be such, but Mr. Mandela will forever serve as a symbol of freedom and equal opportunity for the world.
We can offer little, if any, insight with regard to the life of Nelson Mandela and what he meant to the world; we wouldn't to presume to insult your intelligence and diminish his memory.
But Mr. Mandela's death makes us think of the very essence of what it means to have freedom and equal opportunity. We see the latter of the two systematically being replaced, or abridged, to only 'opportunity.' The lack of simple opportunity is chronically plaguing country's all over the world, and it's getting worse exponentially. When people around the world should be demanding an equal opportunity, we've been reduced to asking for any one, equal or not because the notion of opportunity is becoming more scarce. And if we keep going on in this direction, we'll bottom out in a place where we'll only have to hope for another individual to act and lead on the inspiration given to him or her by Mr. Mandela
Nelson Mandela
1918-2013
Postscript (a lighter note - sort of): We can say that the song "Sun City," written and produced by Steven Van Zandt for United Artists Against Apartheid, 1985, is the best mass-all-star collaboration recorded in pop music, much better than its contemporary rival "We Are the World," which has all the genre-varied artist conforming to one structure whereas "Sun City" incorporates several divergent music styles to complete one generous whole of a song.
Sunday, December 01, 2013
12.1.13: Process of Difficulty
We start today's column with something that New York Times columnist David Brooks said, which was (and we're paraphrasing here) that government can not run something as complex as healthcare, and that there are certain things it's meant to do, just not healthcare. However, is it that governments simply can not do it, or is it just that the United States government can not do it? It seems as though the latter is the answer because in most other industrialized nations, there is universal healthcare. In the United States, implementation is difficult because insurance companies have to stay in the healthcare business.
With all the cancellations of policies, it hasn't been enough for the insurance companies to keep getting paid, but now it's also a matter of how much, and that's why it's difficult for the government to engineer a healthcare plan. Government is not going to confiscate your healthcare as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) emphatically stated. Insurance companies now have to commit 85% of their collected premiums to care, which means less profits due to the Affordable Care Act. The cancellation of policies is retribution for that financial hit.
The reason that other countries' governments have made healthcare work is because they've taken the profit motive out of care. The Affordable Care Act will eventually work and the eventual consequence is that the United States will either move toward a single payer system or to the eventual end of employer-based healthcare. If you're calculating the American government as a whole getting more conservative (because of big monied interests) like we do then you have to figure on employer based insurance going away sometime in the future. Not in the next year but possibly 10 to 12 years down line is well within the realm of possibility. Those are all the 'pink slips' that Congressman Rogers was referring to.
[And is it just us that finds Congressman Rogers' entire complaint about the sites security readiness a completely joke, or what? Mr. Rogers, a former F.B.I. agent, endorses the NSA's data collection and surveillance activities - essentially spying on Americans, so we find it disingenuous that he would bring this up as a point of concern.]
It's a 'process of difficulty' as the Washington Post's Erza Klein described it. Case in point is the interview with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He said that initially the bishops and the Catholic Church were in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but now are opposing the Obama Administration on it. One of the reasons the Cardinal cited was that the Affordable Care Act did not cover undocumented citizens. When President Obama took to the House floor to explain that the undocumented would not be covered, he was famously called a liar by Congressman Joe Wilson. It's a silly rhetorical argument that Father Dolan was making, but when in reality, it's all about birth control and limiting access to it for women. Father Dolan eloquently reiterated how Pope Francis wants to move beyond those debates but it's clear that the Church does not.
Today's real topic was 'Obamacare,' and whether it will work or not, but if government can be an agent of change. Unfortunately, the only one who thought government could have a positive effect was Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and sadly she sounded naive saying so. However, when someone sounds naive, it's because the person is emoting sympathy, and in this case sympathy for those who do not have healthcare. In today's America, sympathy isn't taken seriously. Fortunately for all of us whether we know it or not, Father Dolan's boss disagrees.
Roundtable: New York Times Columnist David Brooks; Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; and Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent for NBC, Chuck Todd.
With all the cancellations of policies, it hasn't been enough for the insurance companies to keep getting paid, but now it's also a matter of how much, and that's why it's difficult for the government to engineer a healthcare plan. Government is not going to confiscate your healthcare as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) emphatically stated. Insurance companies now have to commit 85% of their collected premiums to care, which means less profits due to the Affordable Care Act. The cancellation of policies is retribution for that financial hit.
The reason that other countries' governments have made healthcare work is because they've taken the profit motive out of care. The Affordable Care Act will eventually work and the eventual consequence is that the United States will either move toward a single payer system or to the eventual end of employer-based healthcare. If you're calculating the American government as a whole getting more conservative (because of big monied interests) like we do then you have to figure on employer based insurance going away sometime in the future. Not in the next year but possibly 10 to 12 years down line is well within the realm of possibility. Those are all the 'pink slips' that Congressman Rogers was referring to.
[And is it just us that finds Congressman Rogers' entire complaint about the sites security readiness a completely joke, or what? Mr. Rogers, a former F.B.I. agent, endorses the NSA's data collection and surveillance activities - essentially spying on Americans, so we find it disingenuous that he would bring this up as a point of concern.]
It's a 'process of difficulty' as the Washington Post's Erza Klein described it. Case in point is the interview with Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. He said that initially the bishops and the Catholic Church were in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but now are opposing the Obama Administration on it. One of the reasons the Cardinal cited was that the Affordable Care Act did not cover undocumented citizens. When President Obama took to the House floor to explain that the undocumented would not be covered, he was famously called a liar by Congressman Joe Wilson. It's a silly rhetorical argument that Father Dolan was making, but when in reality, it's all about birth control and limiting access to it for women. Father Dolan eloquently reiterated how Pope Francis wants to move beyond those debates but it's clear that the Church does not.
Today's real topic was 'Obamacare,' and whether it will work or not, but if government can be an agent of change. Unfortunately, the only one who thought government could have a positive effect was Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and sadly she sounded naive saying so. However, when someone sounds naive, it's because the person is emoting sympathy, and in this case sympathy for those who do not have healthcare. In today's America, sympathy isn't taken seriously. Fortunately for all of us whether we know it or not, Father Dolan's boss disagrees.
Roundtable: New York Times Columnist David Brooks; Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell; and Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent for NBC, Chuck Todd.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
11.24.13: The Iranian Nuclear 'Agreement'
Never mind that "Meet The Press" is dark this week - good call there - instead of going dark next week after the holiday, take off this week and miss the biggest diplomatic story of the year.
Iran has agreed with a coalition of countries - the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia and China - to freeze parts of its nuclear program for the next six months while a permanent deal can be reached.
The other Sunday talk shows are blowing with debate as to whether this pause is one that is beneficial for furthering safety and security in the region. The first thing one has to say is that any diplomatic agreement between Iran and the West is a positive sign, but beyond that we don't find ourselves getting too excited.
In exchange for lifting about $6 billion in sanctioned assets, Iran will agree to stop building centrifuges, equipping a 'heavy water' nuclear plant, and dilute some of its highly enriched uranium. However, during this time the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium at lower levels for non-military use. All of this only serves as a temporary positive for both sides because for Iran, it's a small part of their nuclear program, and for the West the money is a small fraction of frozen Iranian assets. Make no mistake, do not call this accord 'historic.'
There is still much reason to be skeptical, not to trust, and to insist on verification. Beside, if the sanctions were severely crippling then Iran would not have been able to keep building centrifuges and enriching uranium - obviously not crippling enough to have an effect.
Anything short of Iranian dismantling their military nuclear program doesn't warrant a more permanent agreement, and maybe the Iranians do not realize it yet but its in their interest to not have a nuclear weapons program. We can't help but think of the bigger picture for Iranians. The citizenry, mostly young and educated, have a natural inclination and acceptance toward many aspects of Western culture and have the intellect to create a balance between that and their own. Being more integrated, these people will want a better life for themselves and the tide of this will eventually overcome all resistance. And the West and China, frankly, each want the business.
Given what we've just said about the Iranian people, we do not think they would actually launch or set off a nuclear weapon, however, Hezbollah would, and there's the rub. If the long-term goal is to have better relations and have Iran rejoin the international community then their ceasing of state-sponsored terrorism has to be part of the overall negotiations. Economic sanctions haven't stopped the Iranians from funding Hezbollah extremists who wouldn't have the moral intellect to understand why employing such a weapon is destructive beyond their comprehension.
And the 'resistance' we mentioned, inside Iran, is not going to go quietly meaning that hardline leaders do not want to capitulate to the West in any way on either support for Hezbollah (and Assad in Syria) and the nuclear question. Knowing this, its understandable that Prime Minister Netanyahu is condemning the agreement, but there has to be a first step of engagement that has to be diplomacy instead of a military first-engagement option.
A great agreement? Certainly not, but we would call it a good act of non-denominational faith.
Also part of the even larger picture for Iran, is why would they, being located on one of the most major active fault lines in the world, want a nuclear anything. Think about Fukushima [in Japan] and then think about an Iranian earthquake and a nuclear plant. Just saying.
Iran has agreed with a coalition of countries - the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia and China - to freeze parts of its nuclear program for the next six months while a permanent deal can be reached.
The other Sunday talk shows are blowing with debate as to whether this pause is one that is beneficial for furthering safety and security in the region. The first thing one has to say is that any diplomatic agreement between Iran and the West is a positive sign, but beyond that we don't find ourselves getting too excited.
In exchange for lifting about $6 billion in sanctioned assets, Iran will agree to stop building centrifuges, equipping a 'heavy water' nuclear plant, and dilute some of its highly enriched uranium. However, during this time the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium at lower levels for non-military use. All of this only serves as a temporary positive for both sides because for Iran, it's a small part of their nuclear program, and for the West the money is a small fraction of frozen Iranian assets. Make no mistake, do not call this accord 'historic.'
There is still much reason to be skeptical, not to trust, and to insist on verification. Beside, if the sanctions were severely crippling then Iran would not have been able to keep building centrifuges and enriching uranium - obviously not crippling enough to have an effect.
Anything short of Iranian dismantling their military nuclear program doesn't warrant a more permanent agreement, and maybe the Iranians do not realize it yet but its in their interest to not have a nuclear weapons program. We can't help but think of the bigger picture for Iranians. The citizenry, mostly young and educated, have a natural inclination and acceptance toward many aspects of Western culture and have the intellect to create a balance between that and their own. Being more integrated, these people will want a better life for themselves and the tide of this will eventually overcome all resistance. And the West and China, frankly, each want the business.
Given what we've just said about the Iranian people, we do not think they would actually launch or set off a nuclear weapon, however, Hezbollah would, and there's the rub. If the long-term goal is to have better relations and have Iran rejoin the international community then their ceasing of state-sponsored terrorism has to be part of the overall negotiations. Economic sanctions haven't stopped the Iranians from funding Hezbollah extremists who wouldn't have the moral intellect to understand why employing such a weapon is destructive beyond their comprehension.
And the 'resistance' we mentioned, inside Iran, is not going to go quietly meaning that hardline leaders do not want to capitulate to the West in any way on either support for Hezbollah (and Assad in Syria) and the nuclear question. Knowing this, its understandable that Prime Minister Netanyahu is condemning the agreement, but there has to be a first step of engagement that has to be diplomacy instead of a military first-engagement option.
A great agreement? Certainly not, but we would call it a good act of non-denominational faith.
Also part of the even larger picture for Iran, is why would they, being located on one of the most major active fault lines in the world, want a nuclear anything. Think about Fukushima [in Japan] and then think about an Iranian earthquake and a nuclear plant. Just saying.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
11.17.13: The Affordable Care Act Needs a Fixer
There is no doubt that the start for the Affordable Care Act has been a mess, mechanically and politically. Going into the interview with Nancy Pelosi, we were thinking that she would say the things to clarify what is going on that the President doesn't seem to be able to articulate. However, that was not the case at all on today "Meet The Press."
When you don't have a straight answer, the best way to go is to get technical, which is what we saw from Ms. Pelosi. She spoke about how people who had plans before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, back in 2010, wouldn't have their policies cancelled, grandfathered in, if you will. Most people aren't thinking back to 2010 when the law was passed and then signed by the president. They're thinking of a month ago when the exchanges were supposed to be up and going as the real start of the law. That's incorrect but that is the perception.
It brings to mind another point, that the worst premise of the Affordable Care Act is that it relies on the insurance companies to do the right thing, but in reality what they'll really do is examine the law to find loopholes and exploit those loopholes. Nancy Pelosi said that the insurance company needs to issue another letter following a cancellation letter explaining that the exchange offers more coverage for a lower rate. Why would the insurance companies have any interest in doing that? They would not send a letter saying basically that they charge too much and don't give you enough cover so when you go to the exchange please pick us again. It's not going to happen. Also, if we're going back to 2010 to the initial enactment of the law, why hadn't these letter gone out sooner? It's convenient timing for the insurance companies to deflect blame about inadequate insurance and simply point to 'Obamacare' and how seemingly awful it is.
And when the former House Speaker says that there is nothing in the law that says you'll keep your policy, as noted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, that doesn't help especially now that it is all we can remember President Obama saying about the law in the midst of a flood of soundbites.
Ms. Pelosi corrected noted that the state exchanges work very well, which is good news if you live in a state with a Democratic governor, that's just where we are politically. But maybe that makes Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R-NH) suggestion about being able to buy health insurance over states lines a good one. Give the 'red' states the opportunity to mitigate the ill-serving national healthcare site for one of the states' web sites that work. Otherwise, Ms. Ayotte's one and only concrete suggestion about what Republicans would offer is a stupid idea. If you live in New York and you buy an insurance plan in Alaska because its cheaper, you can pretty much guarantee that your doctor will be 'out of network.'
Other than that, Ms. Ayotte, very indicative of Republicans at large, had no alternative solutions to insure more Americans and curb costs. Doing a 'time out' on the Healthcare Law is not an alternative idea; that's a vote for nothing. The Republicans would be wise to offer a series of amendments, 'fixes,' to the law and this way, they can get some things they want out of it while politically looking like the compromising problem solvers. However, Republican political ranks are so fixated on ideological purity and opposition that they will not take that tact.
The bottom line is if the Affordable Care Act is going to work, the web site has to work. As Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor, Daniel Henninger, and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein agreed, with younger adults relying on and relating to connectivity, if the web site doesn't work, you will not have their support, they will not sign up, and then it's a complete disaster.
And we appreciate that Mr. Obama is willing to take responsibility for this disastrous role out, but it is very indicative of Chris Matthews' point that the Administration doesn't have a chain of command; not his cabinet but his White House Staff. Who in the Administration can the president assign to come on the Sunday programs and make the case? This only contributes to Mr. Obama's less than stellar performance and character poll numbers, which he could restore a bit if he were able to get a real 'fixer' in the administration. No one is filling that role.
And speaking of a fixer, the key is fixing the web site, because once the people who have had their plans cancelled see the better plans that are offered, then the outrage will subside. There will still be problems but they won't be for lack of communication.
We would also guess this an inappropriate time to ask about the possibility of an app.
*****
On this 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the perspective offered by Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is important to note because it was a particular generations' before and after moment, just as 9.11 is for us now. One can not fully negotiate today's complexities without having the historical reference to put it in perspective, or so we'd like to think so.
Then the program went off the rails again with speculative discussion of presidential politics. This was the time to further examine the President's handling of other issues, but this is a current failing of "Meet The Press" right now as they go for the political gossip instead of furthering examining what is important at the moment. Viewers tune out because of this. Tom Brokaw mentioned Mr. Obama's handling of Syria, and how the Russians basically bailed him out. Why not explore that topic further. What about discussing jobs? But no, instead we have to hearing nothing new about Hilary Clinton's prospects if she decides to run for president. Mr. Brokaw also said that with three years to go before the election, we'll offer no answer here today. To which Kathleen Parker quipped, "well, we have to fill up the hour," which pretty much summed it up.
Roundtable: NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews.
When you don't have a straight answer, the best way to go is to get technical, which is what we saw from Ms. Pelosi. She spoke about how people who had plans before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, back in 2010, wouldn't have their policies cancelled, grandfathered in, if you will. Most people aren't thinking back to 2010 when the law was passed and then signed by the president. They're thinking of a month ago when the exchanges were supposed to be up and going as the real start of the law. That's incorrect but that is the perception.
It brings to mind another point, that the worst premise of the Affordable Care Act is that it relies on the insurance companies to do the right thing, but in reality what they'll really do is examine the law to find loopholes and exploit those loopholes. Nancy Pelosi said that the insurance company needs to issue another letter following a cancellation letter explaining that the exchange offers more coverage for a lower rate. Why would the insurance companies have any interest in doing that? They would not send a letter saying basically that they charge too much and don't give you enough cover so when you go to the exchange please pick us again. It's not going to happen. Also, if we're going back to 2010 to the initial enactment of the law, why hadn't these letter gone out sooner? It's convenient timing for the insurance companies to deflect blame about inadequate insurance and simply point to 'Obamacare' and how seemingly awful it is.
And when the former House Speaker says that there is nothing in the law that says you'll keep your policy, as noted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, that doesn't help especially now that it is all we can remember President Obama saying about the law in the midst of a flood of soundbites.
Ms. Pelosi corrected noted that the state exchanges work very well, which is good news if you live in a state with a Democratic governor, that's just where we are politically. But maybe that makes Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R-NH) suggestion about being able to buy health insurance over states lines a good one. Give the 'red' states the opportunity to mitigate the ill-serving national healthcare site for one of the states' web sites that work. Otherwise, Ms. Ayotte's one and only concrete suggestion about what Republicans would offer is a stupid idea. If you live in New York and you buy an insurance plan in Alaska because its cheaper, you can pretty much guarantee that your doctor will be 'out of network.'
Other than that, Ms. Ayotte, very indicative of Republicans at large, had no alternative solutions to insure more Americans and curb costs. Doing a 'time out' on the Healthcare Law is not an alternative idea; that's a vote for nothing. The Republicans would be wise to offer a series of amendments, 'fixes,' to the law and this way, they can get some things they want out of it while politically looking like the compromising problem solvers. However, Republican political ranks are so fixated on ideological purity and opposition that they will not take that tact.
The bottom line is if the Affordable Care Act is going to work, the web site has to work. As Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor, Daniel Henninger, and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein agreed, with younger adults relying on and relating to connectivity, if the web site doesn't work, you will not have their support, they will not sign up, and then it's a complete disaster.
And we appreciate that Mr. Obama is willing to take responsibility for this disastrous role out, but it is very indicative of Chris Matthews' point that the Administration doesn't have a chain of command; not his cabinet but his White House Staff. Who in the Administration can the president assign to come on the Sunday programs and make the case? This only contributes to Mr. Obama's less than stellar performance and character poll numbers, which he could restore a bit if he were able to get a real 'fixer' in the administration. No one is filling that role.
And speaking of a fixer, the key is fixing the web site, because once the people who have had their plans cancelled see the better plans that are offered, then the outrage will subside. There will still be problems but they won't be for lack of communication.
We would also guess this an inappropriate time to ask about the possibility of an app.
*****
On this 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the perspective offered by Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is important to note because it was a particular generations' before and after moment, just as 9.11 is for us now. One can not fully negotiate today's complexities without having the historical reference to put it in perspective, or so we'd like to think so.
Then the program went off the rails again with speculative discussion of presidential politics. This was the time to further examine the President's handling of other issues, but this is a current failing of "Meet The Press" right now as they go for the political gossip instead of furthering examining what is important at the moment. Viewers tune out because of this. Tom Brokaw mentioned Mr. Obama's handling of Syria, and how the Russians basically bailed him out. Why not explore that topic further. What about discussing jobs? But no, instead we have to hearing nothing new about Hilary Clinton's prospects if she decides to run for president. Mr. Brokaw also said that with three years to go before the election, we'll offer no answer here today. To which Kathleen Parker quipped, "well, we have to fill up the hour," which pretty much summed it up.
Roundtable: NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
11.10.13: Stay Firm At The Table with Iran/ Chris Christie
The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in a prerecorded interview that he did not get the sense that the Iranians were playing games at the negotiating table. However, it apparently seems as though they were, with Mr. Gregory reporting before the interview that the Iran President Hassan Rouhani stated that, in fact, Iran would not stop enriching uranium. Should we be worried about Mr. Kerry's ability to read the room during negotiations?
It's a bit of a jab we will admit, not to be confused with a criticism, as Mr. Kerry has overall acted on and defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy effectively, doing what he can where he can, a solid fill-in for Mrs. Clinton, but we do have questions about some of the policy. He didn't have the knowledge of the Iranian statement, but that didn't render the interview an entire loss.
A criticism would be that the program is meeting the standard of its heritage right now and doesn't have the clout to get a live interview with the Secretary. We understand that there may have been scheduling problems; however, they should have had a more in-depth interview on multiple topics.
Basically, the deal is that there is no deal between Iran and the West. If Iran is not going to stop enriching, a decision by the way that Rouhani certainly does not make, then the sanctions will remain in place. As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) noted, meetings about reviewing sanctions have been cancelled. There's the question of whether the sanctions should be ramped up even more, in light of the Iranians' decision, but if you have them at the table, punitive at this moment is not the way to go. We agree, in sentiment but not in tone, with the Tennessee Senator that the Administration should not deal away its leverage. Right now, you stay at the table, but stay Gibraltar firm. Mr. Corker referred to North Korea diplomacy where the Bush Administration got burned in an attempt to increase normalization of relations. It looked bad politically but you have to at least make an attempt, however with that said, the Obama Administration should heed that lesson amongst their attempts to increase overall communication.
We've been hard on President Obama lately with regard to his foreign policy because we see it as a blown opportunity entirely if he achieves no dramatic effect. On domestic policy, there is no confidence in Congress and the Administration to collaborate on anything, obviously, so where the Administration can more effectively chart its own course. Success is fleeting more quickly for Mr. Obama on this front because of daily N.S.A. revelations causing the slow death of credibility by a thousand cuts.
Secretary Kerry did say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' which echoes previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... purposefully and prudently. He contested Mr. Gregory's question about broader criticism on the Administration not exercising power in the region. But that's not what we're referring to. Exercising power for the sake of it is short term thinking. We're talking about influence and the long term.
[Note: The format for the program has been all over the place lately so we're reserving the right to not include a comment about every aspect of the program. To this point, it seems as though the producers have lost a little confidence in their moderator using special reports (Harry Smith), book promotions (Joe Scarborough), and various news segments with Chuck Todd to fill up time. Case in point is Mr. Gregory focusing on Mr. Kerry's Kennedy comment more than focusing on his answers about Iran. And why not ask about Syria? We were almost going to fire missiles into this country, as the Secretary noted. It feels like "Meet The Press" loses its concentration from week to week.]
On Governor Chris Christie...
There is no doubt that the citizens of New Jersey like the way Mr. Christie (R-NJ) runs the state. It would seem that Mr. Christie is a moderate conservative because fiscally he is very much a Republican and on social issues, he's liberal. However, that is not entirely accurate. Mr. Christie is conservative on social issues, but a Democratic state congress is responsible for that perception because they push a more tolerant, open social policy that overrides a veto. This dynamic creates a political center with which most Americans are comfortable. Mr. Christie doesn't share the attitude of an extreme ideologues in his party that the opposition party is not to be collaborated with or that it's the 'enemy.' Mr. Christie's success is the result of his pragmatism, unlike Mark Halperin's asinine gushing saying that Mr. Christie is 'magical.' The fiscal conservative/ social liberal (what most Americans want) is the result of a dynamic that consists of a Democratic congress and a Republican as the executive. As Ms. Kearns-Goodwin noted, American politics today consists of simply rooting for the other side to fail. But if the other side fails, it's common knowledge that we all fail... or is it?
Presidential Historian and author of the new book “The Bully Pulpit,” Doris Kearns Goodwin; Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD); co-author of the new book “Double Down,” Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin; and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of the new book “The Right Path,” Joe Scarborough.
It's a bit of a jab we will admit, not to be confused with a criticism, as Mr. Kerry has overall acted on and defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy effectively, doing what he can where he can, a solid fill-in for Mrs. Clinton, but we do have questions about some of the policy. He didn't have the knowledge of the Iranian statement, but that didn't render the interview an entire loss.
A criticism would be that the program is meeting the standard of its heritage right now and doesn't have the clout to get a live interview with the Secretary. We understand that there may have been scheduling problems; however, they should have had a more in-depth interview on multiple topics.
Basically, the deal is that there is no deal between Iran and the West. If Iran is not going to stop enriching, a decision by the way that Rouhani certainly does not make, then the sanctions will remain in place. As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) noted, meetings about reviewing sanctions have been cancelled. There's the question of whether the sanctions should be ramped up even more, in light of the Iranians' decision, but if you have them at the table, punitive at this moment is not the way to go. We agree, in sentiment but not in tone, with the Tennessee Senator that the Administration should not deal away its leverage. Right now, you stay at the table, but stay Gibraltar firm. Mr. Corker referred to North Korea diplomacy where the Bush Administration got burned in an attempt to increase normalization of relations. It looked bad politically but you have to at least make an attempt, however with that said, the Obama Administration should heed that lesson amongst their attempts to increase overall communication.
We've been hard on President Obama lately with regard to his foreign policy because we see it as a blown opportunity entirely if he achieves no dramatic effect. On domestic policy, there is no confidence in Congress and the Administration to collaborate on anything, obviously, so where the Administration can more effectively chart its own course. Success is fleeting more quickly for Mr. Obama on this front because of daily N.S.A. revelations causing the slow death of credibility by a thousand cuts.
Secretary Kerry did say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' which echoes previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... purposefully and prudently. He contested Mr. Gregory's question about broader criticism on the Administration not exercising power in the region. But that's not what we're referring to. Exercising power for the sake of it is short term thinking. We're talking about influence and the long term.
[Note: The format for the program has been all over the place lately so we're reserving the right to not include a comment about every aspect of the program. To this point, it seems as though the producers have lost a little confidence in their moderator using special reports (Harry Smith), book promotions (Joe Scarborough), and various news segments with Chuck Todd to fill up time. Case in point is Mr. Gregory focusing on Mr. Kerry's Kennedy comment more than focusing on his answers about Iran. And why not ask about Syria? We were almost going to fire missiles into this country, as the Secretary noted. It feels like "Meet The Press" loses its concentration from week to week.]
On Governor Chris Christie...
There is no doubt that the citizens of New Jersey like the way Mr. Christie (R-NJ) runs the state. It would seem that Mr. Christie is a moderate conservative because fiscally he is very much a Republican and on social issues, he's liberal. However, that is not entirely accurate. Mr. Christie is conservative on social issues, but a Democratic state congress is responsible for that perception because they push a more tolerant, open social policy that overrides a veto. This dynamic creates a political center with which most Americans are comfortable. Mr. Christie doesn't share the attitude of an extreme ideologues in his party that the opposition party is not to be collaborated with or that it's the 'enemy.' Mr. Christie's success is the result of his pragmatism, unlike Mark Halperin's asinine gushing saying that Mr. Christie is 'magical.' The fiscal conservative/ social liberal (what most Americans want) is the result of a dynamic that consists of a Democratic congress and a Republican as the executive. As Ms. Kearns-Goodwin noted, American politics today consists of simply rooting for the other side to fail. But if the other side fails, it's common knowledge that we all fail... or is it?
Presidential Historian and author of the new book “The Bully Pulpit,” Doris Kearns Goodwin; Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD); co-author of the new book “Double Down,” Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin; and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of the new book “The Right Path,” Joe Scarborough.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
11.3.13: The Mitt Romney Interview
The former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, had some harsh words for President Obama today, with a sort of 'I told you so' temperment to his answers, which in some cases was justified. It was a quality that Mr. Romney was taking comfort in during his talk with Mr. Gregory on today's "Meet The Press." He repeated that the president had been dishonest all along in his promises about the Affordable Healthcare Act in that people who already have insurance will not have their policy affected by the new law in anyway. That is turning out to not be the case because what the law demands is that there is a baseline of what must be covered, and in many cases, the policies that people already have do not cover those minimum requirements. The consequence is that people's policies are being cancelled and they have to buy a new policy that meets those requirements.
However, another quality that came through during the interview is that Mr. Romney, while correctly pointing out a negative effect of the Obamacare law, is that Mr. Romney would have not been the right choice to be the President of the United States. Nevermind that Mr. Romney can not rise above the pettiness in his attempt to discredit Mr. Obama's entire second term as illegitimate because of this 'dishonesty' (a sure sign he is still bitter about the lose), but more telling is that he has never once touted the accomplishment of what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, getting 97% of the state's population insured.
Instead, he only stated that the president had failed to learn the [harmful] lessons of the Massachusetts healthcare law, yet never explained what those were. One of those lessons could be that the law actually worked, and as he had previously said that it could be a model for the country as the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (D-MA) said later in the program.
What we're trying to reconcile from the interview is something in particular that Mr. Romney said. He explained that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach that can work in the U.S., and that each state has to come up with a system that best works for them. However, he went on to explain that if he had been elected president, he would have left it to the states but with the requirement that they had to find a way to insure all their citizens and not reject someone based on a preexisting condition. By saying that, he's put a bottom line federal mandate in place for the states to follow. What seemed lie a reasonable state is essentially rendered baseless because it runs directly counter to what his party, the Republican party, believes in. As we said many times before, simply letting the states individually figure what to do with healthcare is not a plan, and is not the answer. In the "Meet The Press" clip from 2007, Mr. Romney says in it that he thought the Massachusetts model - the individual mandate model (same as the ACA) - was the best one for the country.
[As an aside, we detest the whole political rhetorical game of repeatedly calling someone dishonest while at the same time refusing to say the person lied. It's a semantic game that no politician wants to get trapped in, but it's also a clear illustration of not having any political backbone and no genuine leadership quality. If you state that the president 'destroyed the foundation of truth' or that there is a 'fundamental dishonesty' with the American people, then just say he lied. Those are very strong disparaging remarks, 'charges' if you will, which also speak to a person's character. Mr. Obama hammered on Mr. Bush's political record, but neither man has ever said anything negative about each other personal character. It's worth considering.]
With all that said, we're not absolving the Obama Administration of fault. There are too many 'should-have-knowns' about the healthcare law. For example, touching on something Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard said about any big piece of legislation, which was 'follow the money,' the Administration should have had a better idea of how the insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law to charge people more money. In this case, covering mental illness treatment is a minimum requirement so instead of adding to people's policies and doing the due diligence to review individual cases as to weather there is a history that would dictate an increase in monthly costs or not, the insurance companies in a blanketed way cancel policies and require people to buy a new one. It's not the 'right' thing to do, that we all know. We also all know that the insurance companies probably won't do the 'right' thing. The Obama Administration should have known this.
Another quick example that would run counter to what Governor Patrick said, which was that the Healthcare web site was a 'convenience.' We disagree completely, the web site is essential. It's the face of the entire program and the biggest driver of its success. If you want the young and healthy to sign up, then you have to make the main method of this generation's communication, work well. Period. The Obama Administration should have known.
Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said that the president's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare - is failing and that it will fail while also looking forward to the day that he returns to "Meet The Press" to say 'I told you so.' Despite the most probably truth of David Axelrod's rebuttal that Mr. Kristol speaks like a man who has already had good health insurance, that's not why we disagree with his statement. We disagree with him because he roots for failure. Remember when in Abu Ghraib United States soldiers humiliated, abused, and tortured prisoners? People blamed the Bush Administration, but that was a failure on all America. When the president's administration fails, that means that the law failed which translates to Congress failing as well. And that means we all have. Why ever be on the side of that.
Roundtable: former Senior Adviser to the president when health care reform became law, David Axelrod; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard; editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol; and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Postscript: Why the United States has 5% percent of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population is because this country has instilled a profit motivation to the prison system. When private companies own the prisons and are driven by increasing profits for shareholders, the number of individuals incarcerated will only increase. More prisoners means more profit - follow the money.
However, another quality that came through during the interview is that Mr. Romney, while correctly pointing out a negative effect of the Obamacare law, is that Mr. Romney would have not been the right choice to be the President of the United States. Nevermind that Mr. Romney can not rise above the pettiness in his attempt to discredit Mr. Obama's entire second term as illegitimate because of this 'dishonesty' (a sure sign he is still bitter about the lose), but more telling is that he has never once touted the accomplishment of what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, getting 97% of the state's population insured.
Instead, he only stated that the president had failed to learn the [harmful] lessons of the Massachusetts healthcare law, yet never explained what those were. One of those lessons could be that the law actually worked, and as he had previously said that it could be a model for the country as the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (D-MA) said later in the program.
What we're trying to reconcile from the interview is something in particular that Mr. Romney said. He explained that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach that can work in the U.S., and that each state has to come up with a system that best works for them. However, he went on to explain that if he had been elected president, he would have left it to the states but with the requirement that they had to find a way to insure all their citizens and not reject someone based on a preexisting condition. By saying that, he's put a bottom line federal mandate in place for the states to follow. What seemed lie a reasonable state is essentially rendered baseless because it runs directly counter to what his party, the Republican party, believes in. As we said many times before, simply letting the states individually figure what to do with healthcare is not a plan, and is not the answer. In the "Meet The Press" clip from 2007, Mr. Romney says in it that he thought the Massachusetts model - the individual mandate model (same as the ACA) - was the best one for the country.
[As an aside, we detest the whole political rhetorical game of repeatedly calling someone dishonest while at the same time refusing to say the person lied. It's a semantic game that no politician wants to get trapped in, but it's also a clear illustration of not having any political backbone and no genuine leadership quality. If you state that the president 'destroyed the foundation of truth' or that there is a 'fundamental dishonesty' with the American people, then just say he lied. Those are very strong disparaging remarks, 'charges' if you will, which also speak to a person's character. Mr. Obama hammered on Mr. Bush's political record, but neither man has ever said anything negative about each other personal character. It's worth considering.]
With all that said, we're not absolving the Obama Administration of fault. There are too many 'should-have-knowns' about the healthcare law. For example, touching on something Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard said about any big piece of legislation, which was 'follow the money,' the Administration should have had a better idea of how the insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law to charge people more money. In this case, covering mental illness treatment is a minimum requirement so instead of adding to people's policies and doing the due diligence to review individual cases as to weather there is a history that would dictate an increase in monthly costs or not, the insurance companies in a blanketed way cancel policies and require people to buy a new one. It's not the 'right' thing to do, that we all know. We also all know that the insurance companies probably won't do the 'right' thing. The Obama Administration should have known this.
Another quick example that would run counter to what Governor Patrick said, which was that the Healthcare web site was a 'convenience.' We disagree completely, the web site is essential. It's the face of the entire program and the biggest driver of its success. If you want the young and healthy to sign up, then you have to make the main method of this generation's communication, work well. Period. The Obama Administration should have known.
Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said that the president's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare - is failing and that it will fail while also looking forward to the day that he returns to "Meet The Press" to say 'I told you so.' Despite the most probably truth of David Axelrod's rebuttal that Mr. Kristol speaks like a man who has already had good health insurance, that's not why we disagree with his statement. We disagree with him because he roots for failure. Remember when in Abu Ghraib United States soldiers humiliated, abused, and tortured prisoners? People blamed the Bush Administration, but that was a failure on all America. When the president's administration fails, that means that the law failed which translates to Congress failing as well. And that means we all have. Why ever be on the side of that.
Roundtable: former Senior Adviser to the president when health care reform became law, David Axelrod; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard; editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol; and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Postscript: Why the United States has 5% percent of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population is because this country has instilled a profit motivation to the prison system. When private companies own the prisons and are driven by increasing profits for shareholders, the number of individuals incarcerated will only increase. More prisoners means more profit - follow the money.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
10.27.13: NSA's Long Term Damage to U.S. Foreign Relations
Indicative of how America can only focus on itself, the first topic (Obamacare) on today's "Meet The Press," in the grand scale of things, was less important than the second (NSA wiretapping and U.S. foreign policy). In an age where information is the true power, the United States' ambition of remaining the sole superpower in the world is fully intact. The newest round of revelations provided by Edward Snowden show that the NSA is monitoring and collecting information on French and German citizens along with 35 world leaders including the apparent tapping of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone for over the past decade.
We should all just suffice to say that the NSA is collecting digital data across the globe, on everyone; it would be foolish to think otherwise. However, ultimately this could leave the U.S. more isolated as it alienates long-time allies who will now be less prone to assist the United States in gathering information about real terror networks. Trying to achieve peace and safety through distrust really isn't permanent proposition.
Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that the president should stop apologizing for the NSA activities as he explained that many lives have been saved because of their activities. But what does that have to do with tapping a world leader's phone, especially Ms. Merkel's who has been one of the strongest allies of the United States over her tenure as German Chancellor? Mr. King used a WWII analogy to explain why the United States should continue its eavesdropping spy activities; something that this column stays away from doing and here's why. Mr. King explained that if the United States were able to monitor communications in Germany in the 1940's, think of all the lives that could have been saved from slaughter. Maybe that could have been the case, however what we also know about the Nazis is that they cataloged millions of people. Some would protest that the NSA is committing a twenty-first century version of that. See the slippery slope an analogy like that presents.
The point is that the Obama Administration set out to regain the trust of our allies around the world after the Bush Administration committed to a series of decisions that left the judgement of the United States in question. But the Obama Administration has not succeeded in its goal and has in actuality has presided over a period that has seen international trust erode even more.
In addition to the NSA revelations, this week the Saudis declined their temporary seat of the United Nations' Security Council, a protest over the United States' handling of the Syrian civil war and its outreach to Iran.
The Obama Administration talked tough on Syria and then they backed away. As Mr. Gregory pointed out, people will be inclined to think that if Syria is 'defanged' of its chemical weapons, then the Administration can call its strategy a success. That's a big 'if.' With regard to dealings with Iran, the Administration must take a tactic more like that of say Vladimir Putin where it is willing to listen to conciliatory statements but only with the clear understanding that trust has not been established. At this same time, the United States would be making transparent overtures to Israel and other allies in the region for deepening ties so much so that Iran gets the message.
The Obama Administration has been very good at capturing and killing Al Qaeda leaders, there is no doubt. However, on the wider scale, the administration hasn't been successful in rebuilding trust and this will most certainly come back to bite the U.S. if it can not course correct, despite what Congressman King would tell you.
Where we have some sympathy for the president is in the fact that he's getting no help from the Republican party members, because of petty politics. In a wired world, everyone can see the infighting of the United States Congress so people understand that the U.S. is having trouble speaking with one voice, and hence it renders the United States distrusted and unreliable.
In addition to not getting help on foreign policy, the administration and its disastrous opening of Obamacare isn't gaining any friends at home. We cut the administration some slack when it comes to the roll-out of the Affordable Healthcare Act because the aim of the law is to provide healthcare to as many people as possible while at the same time lowering costs overall, and that makes the law worth trying. The other reason is that we just can not get on board with Republican criticisms because conservatives have offered no alternative, none at all.
And even though today's panel was basically a frivolous waste of time as each member simply tried to talk over one another filling the air with empty ideological rhetoric, we do agree with Republican strategist Alex Castellanos when he said that if the Republican party continues to be lead by the 'oppose everything' philosophy of Ted Cruz - being the party of 'no' - then they will go nowhere. Mr. Cruz has yet to present an alternative idea to the country's healthcare troubles, and going to back to how it was with costs continually rising is not the answer.
However, Mr. Castellanos was definitely not the point of reason on the panel, but the object example of why we should take what all of them had to say with a grain of salt. Mr. Castellanos explained the Obamacare is the result of old-Washington philosophy that the government can create a top-down program and it will work. He went on to say that programs work with they come from the bottom up. It sounds real nice, but it's completely disingenuous when you realize that this is an individual who has been instrumental and a continuing advocate for trickle down economics, an economic philosophy that is based a top-down direction.
Fixable web site glitches aside, here's what you have to keep your eye on with regard to Obamacare: In the states where they have decided to embrace the law and accept the federal money, is the program working? The answer is that yes it is working right now like in Governor Beshear's state of Kentucky. The other question that Mr. Gregory kept bringing up that no one could answer is what happens if not enough young and healthy individuals enroll - a key to the program's success? That's an unknown that needs to be considered.
We should take Governor Beshear's advice and just chill out over Obamacare. America is all about trying, tinkering, and fixing new things, an attitude that shouldn't be sacrificed because of the fear of a few politically motivated individuals.
The computer program problems that Americans should be most worried about are not the ones caused by Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health & Human Services but the ones emanating from the National Security Agency.
Roundtable: 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; former Michigan Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm; President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden; and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.
We should all just suffice to say that the NSA is collecting digital data across the globe, on everyone; it would be foolish to think otherwise. However, ultimately this could leave the U.S. more isolated as it alienates long-time allies who will now be less prone to assist the United States in gathering information about real terror networks. Trying to achieve peace and safety through distrust really isn't permanent proposition.
Congressman Peter King (R-NY) said that the president should stop apologizing for the NSA activities as he explained that many lives have been saved because of their activities. But what does that have to do with tapping a world leader's phone, especially Ms. Merkel's who has been one of the strongest allies of the United States over her tenure as German Chancellor? Mr. King used a WWII analogy to explain why the United States should continue its eavesdropping spy activities; something that this column stays away from doing and here's why. Mr. King explained that if the United States were able to monitor communications in Germany in the 1940's, think of all the lives that could have been saved from slaughter. Maybe that could have been the case, however what we also know about the Nazis is that they cataloged millions of people. Some would protest that the NSA is committing a twenty-first century version of that. See the slippery slope an analogy like that presents.
The point is that the Obama Administration set out to regain the trust of our allies around the world after the Bush Administration committed to a series of decisions that left the judgement of the United States in question. But the Obama Administration has not succeeded in its goal and has in actuality has presided over a period that has seen international trust erode even more.
In addition to the NSA revelations, this week the Saudis declined their temporary seat of the United Nations' Security Council, a protest over the United States' handling of the Syrian civil war and its outreach to Iran.
The Obama Administration talked tough on Syria and then they backed away. As Mr. Gregory pointed out, people will be inclined to think that if Syria is 'defanged' of its chemical weapons, then the Administration can call its strategy a success. That's a big 'if.' With regard to dealings with Iran, the Administration must take a tactic more like that of say Vladimir Putin where it is willing to listen to conciliatory statements but only with the clear understanding that trust has not been established. At this same time, the United States would be making transparent overtures to Israel and other allies in the region for deepening ties so much so that Iran gets the message.
The Obama Administration has been very good at capturing and killing Al Qaeda leaders, there is no doubt. However, on the wider scale, the administration hasn't been successful in rebuilding trust and this will most certainly come back to bite the U.S. if it can not course correct, despite what Congressman King would tell you.
Where we have some sympathy for the president is in the fact that he's getting no help from the Republican party members, because of petty politics. In a wired world, everyone can see the infighting of the United States Congress so people understand that the U.S. is having trouble speaking with one voice, and hence it renders the United States distrusted and unreliable.
In addition to not getting help on foreign policy, the administration and its disastrous opening of Obamacare isn't gaining any friends at home. We cut the administration some slack when it comes to the roll-out of the Affordable Healthcare Act because the aim of the law is to provide healthcare to as many people as possible while at the same time lowering costs overall, and that makes the law worth trying. The other reason is that we just can not get on board with Republican criticisms because conservatives have offered no alternative, none at all.
And even though today's panel was basically a frivolous waste of time as each member simply tried to talk over one another filling the air with empty ideological rhetoric, we do agree with Republican strategist Alex Castellanos when he said that if the Republican party continues to be lead by the 'oppose everything' philosophy of Ted Cruz - being the party of 'no' - then they will go nowhere. Mr. Cruz has yet to present an alternative idea to the country's healthcare troubles, and going to back to how it was with costs continually rising is not the answer.
However, Mr. Castellanos was definitely not the point of reason on the panel, but the object example of why we should take what all of them had to say with a grain of salt. Mr. Castellanos explained the Obamacare is the result of old-Washington philosophy that the government can create a top-down program and it will work. He went on to say that programs work with they come from the bottom up. It sounds real nice, but it's completely disingenuous when you realize that this is an individual who has been instrumental and a continuing advocate for trickle down economics, an economic philosophy that is based a top-down direction.
Fixable web site glitches aside, here's what you have to keep your eye on with regard to Obamacare: In the states where they have decided to embrace the law and accept the federal money, is the program working? The answer is that yes it is working right now like in Governor Beshear's state of Kentucky. The other question that Mr. Gregory kept bringing up that no one could answer is what happens if not enough young and healthy individuals enroll - a key to the program's success? That's an unknown that needs to be considered.
We should take Governor Beshear's advice and just chill out over Obamacare. America is all about trying, tinkering, and fixing new things, an attitude that shouldn't be sacrificed because of the fear of a few politically motivated individuals.
The computer program problems that Americans should be most worried about are not the ones caused by Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health & Human Services but the ones emanating from the National Security Agency.
Roundtable: 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; former Michigan Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm; President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden; and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
10.20.13: Republicans and Iranians
Today's "Meet The Press" didn't really tell you anything you already didn't know if you've been paying attention. That's not to say it was bad per se, on the contrary as it served as a sufficient 'status update' on where we are on this road of political fiscal foolishness we're driving down.
We know that the economy will take a hit and when Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo agree (two individuals with distinctly different philosophies on the economy) that the fiscal uncertainty created by Washington is causing corporations to continue to sit on cash and not hire, you need little more evidence.
We also know that the Republican party took a huge hit as well in its approval ratings for the shutdown because in the end their run-for-the-exits strategy didn't save any face, as it were. Divided they fell. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) didn't mince words when he explained that Republicans didn't do anything but make a big mess, and then pointed the finger of blame at outside interest groups [read: Heritage Action] and individuals who took advantage of it as well [read: Ted Cruz].
Though this column finds some of Mr. Coburn's positions too far to the right, if the Republican party had more people that stuck to their conservative principles but constantly looked for common ground, don't you think Americans would have higher esteem for government as a whole. But Tea Party Republicans have little interest for common ground. Because of the shutdown, Republicans are in the midst of an internal fight for the future of their party - all on open display.
Everyone at the roundtable had the same hope that this government shutdown would result in an reemergence of moderate Republicans and bipartisan solutions. They all agreed that this episode has been a reckoning not only for Republicans, but the Tea Party in particular. So much so, that Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne seems to think that the Tea Party movement was effectively over. That is just being unrealistic. As long as Ted Cruz and the rest can fund raise off of false hope, the Tea Party will have a presence.
And as for the moderate Republicans stepping up, we have to first see them walk the walk. Until a majority of Republicans in Congress can show that they can work in a bi-partisan manner on a regular basis, then license will continue to be given to Democrats to lump all Republicans in with the Tea Party types. Now, it's all about their actions going forward.
Speaking of hard right conservatives and action, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has it correct in what he said today about Iran. There shouldn't be easing of sanctions until the Iranians walk the walk and take genuine action in dismantling their nuclear weapons program, there shouldn't be easing of the sanctions. We disagree with Mr. Netanyahu and his view that military action is necessary, and his general Cheney-like hawkishness toward the rest of the region. However, on this point, he is correct. The appropriate reciprocity for doing nothing is giving nothing in return. At the very least, the moderates in Iran are beginning to speak up.
The obvious point here is that taking the extreme position gets you nowhere in the end, which isn't something you didn't already know.
NY Times Columnist David Brooks; Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne; host of CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” Maria Bartiromo; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
We know that the economy will take a hit and when Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo agree (two individuals with distinctly different philosophies on the economy) that the fiscal uncertainty created by Washington is causing corporations to continue to sit on cash and not hire, you need little more evidence.
We also know that the Republican party took a huge hit as well in its approval ratings for the shutdown because in the end their run-for-the-exits strategy didn't save any face, as it were. Divided they fell. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) didn't mince words when he explained that Republicans didn't do anything but make a big mess, and then pointed the finger of blame at outside interest groups [read: Heritage Action] and individuals who took advantage of it as well [read: Ted Cruz].
Though this column finds some of Mr. Coburn's positions too far to the right, if the Republican party had more people that stuck to their conservative principles but constantly looked for common ground, don't you think Americans would have higher esteem for government as a whole. But Tea Party Republicans have little interest for common ground. Because of the shutdown, Republicans are in the midst of an internal fight for the future of their party - all on open display.
Everyone at the roundtable had the same hope that this government shutdown would result in an reemergence of moderate Republicans and bipartisan solutions. They all agreed that this episode has been a reckoning not only for Republicans, but the Tea Party in particular. So much so, that Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne seems to think that the Tea Party movement was effectively over. That is just being unrealistic. As long as Ted Cruz and the rest can fund raise off of false hope, the Tea Party will have a presence.
And as for the moderate Republicans stepping up, we have to first see them walk the walk. Until a majority of Republicans in Congress can show that they can work in a bi-partisan manner on a regular basis, then license will continue to be given to Democrats to lump all Republicans in with the Tea Party types. Now, it's all about their actions going forward.
Speaking of hard right conservatives and action, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has it correct in what he said today about Iran. There shouldn't be easing of sanctions until the Iranians walk the walk and take genuine action in dismantling their nuclear weapons program, there shouldn't be easing of the sanctions. We disagree with Mr. Netanyahu and his view that military action is necessary, and his general Cheney-like hawkishness toward the rest of the region. However, on this point, he is correct. The appropriate reciprocity for doing nothing is giving nothing in return. At the very least, the moderates in Iran are beginning to speak up.
The obvious point here is that taking the extreme position gets you nowhere in the end, which isn't something you didn't already know.
NY Times Columnist David Brooks; Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne; host of CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” Maria Bartiromo; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)