President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken and Congressman Peter King (R-NY) both explained on today's program that the United States should impose 'iron-clad' sanctions on Russia and freeze the assets of the oligarchs that run the country. But you know who's not on board with this strategy? Andrea Mitchell pointed out that Germany and U.S. corporations are hesitant about this strategy. For Germany, we understand because Russia is a major trading partner for them and a lot of natural gas from Russia is exported to Germany. However, for U.S. corporations, all we can say is, "Suck it up."
Is the United States run by its corporations? The answer is [should be] no, but what does it say that of ourselves as Americans that our corporations have so much influence on U.S. foreign policy? If you consider that our Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are essentially people and these 'people' with all the money have influence over the foreign policy of the U.S. government, we would call those people - you guessed it - oligarchs.
It was good to hear Mr. Blinken say that the president has been working the phones with foreign leaders over the weekend because this is really where it counts. The United States is not going to get into an actually war with Russia, but the aggression Putin's government has exercised in Crimea can not stand. All this means is that President Obama needs to get everyone on board with the idea of isolating Russia economically. Energy supplies are the most significant point of leverage, as we know, and the United States should bully its way to a larger share of the European energy market, pushing Russia aside. This along with sanctions would have a real impact on Russia's bullying behavior.
However, one very troubling development in this crisis is the upcoming referendum Crimea is having as to whether or not to break from the Ukraine and join Russia. Mr. Blinken rightly said that the United States would not recognize the outcome if the people of the Crimean region decided to join the Russian Federation, which they technically can not do because they are part of the Ukraine, point of fact. But where does that leave things. Is the Ukraine going to throw itself into civil war where Ukrainian troops are basically fighting a war with Russia? Given what Mr. Blinken said, the United States would side with Ukraine, which put the U.S. directly into the conflict. The United States
Senior Political Columnist and
Editorial Director at the National Journal Ron Fournier asked the best question - where is the United States intelligence community (C.I.A./ N.S.A.) in all this? With all the uproar about the N.S.A.'s capability to listen to everyone's conversations, you mean to tell us that no general in Russia made a phone call to tell the troops where to go? The United States has the capability to act proactively, but it seems that they can only be reactive and as long as they are in that position, they'll not be able to stem Russia's aggressive moves.
New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called Pope Francis a good teacher because he gets us asking questions that we don't necessarily know the answers to. By that rationale, Mr. Putin has been a good teacher to the United States because he definitely has the administration asking questions. As Mr. Fournier mentioned, the United States government needs to see Mr. Putin as he is (judging him by his actions) instead of how they expect him to be. It's now painfully evident that Mr. Putin's government doesn't shared any of the same attitudes as the Obama Administration on anything foreign policy related. As Mr. Gregory reported, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin are talking past one another.
Even though Mr. Reed had unequivocal criticism of President Obama in the way he's handling the situation in the Ukraine, he said there are no real answers. Then he went on to say that the president's option are indeed limited but what ever option he goes with, he must project strength. As unhelpful and empty as Mr. Reed's criticism was, the strength will come from the United States rallying its allies and friends - it's the only way.
While we're commenting on Mr. Reed's statements, we understand him to be a man of faith. After all, he is the Chairman of the Faith
and Freedom Coalition, but given that, we just can not put him in the same pious category as Pope Francis, or Cardinal Timothy Dolan for that matter. Mr. Reed expressed that the poor is the center of the gospel and the Republicans' message needs to include them. Fair enough but if you consider that the Republicans voted to cut food stamps for the poor while maintaining agribusiness subsidies, one would conclude evidence to the contrary. Also Mr. Reed, with his statements and body language, comes off completely disingenuous to us, as evidenced when he untruthfully said that most millennials are pro-life, when 6 in 10 are in fact pro-choice.
And to not just call Mr. Reed's credibility into question, we have to call attention to something Cardinal Dolan said about his interpretation of what Pope Francis is trying to do while leading the Catholic Church. He said that the Pope was trying to restore the luster of the Church, to bring back the romanticism and the mystery. What?
That's what he wants, but it's a complete misreading of what we've seen of this pope's actions and statements where he has expressed openness, compassion and contrition. 'Mystery,' Cardinal Dolan, translates into 'lack of transparency' which means 'stop asking questions.' Mystery is what got the Church into trouble in the first place, and yes, they should be singled out for their actions contrary to what the Cardinal said. After all, they profess to be teachers, teachers of the word of God.
Jeez...
Round Table: California Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass; Chairman of the Faith
and Freedom Coalition Ralph Reed; Senior Political Columnist and
Editorial Director at the National Journal, Ron Fournier; and NBC News
Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, March 09, 2014
Sunday, March 02, 2014
3.2.14: What Do Secretary Kerry's Tough Words for Russia Really Mean
Secretary of State John Kerry did not mince words on today's Meet The Press when discussing Russia's actions in the Ukraine saying at the start that Russia's sending of troops into the Crimean region of the Ukraine was 19th century behavior in the 21st century. He then posed the possibility of the Putin government creating a phony pretext to annex the region, later calling it an invasion. In between other statements, he called Russia a kleptocracy and Mr. Putin himself a tyrant.
So let's just clarify that yes, indeed, Mr. Putin wants to annex control of the Crimean region, clearly, and while central governmental control in Kiev is haplessly weak, Mr. Putin is free to move in. As was the general consensus amongst the round table guests, Mr. Putin is not a leader that cares in the slightest what other around the world think. He is going to do everything he can within his power to restore Russian greatness, as he sees it. Plus the Crimean region is mostly ethnically Russian so people can see annexation as something very different - protection. And in Mr. Putin's mind, it's time for Russia to have complete territorial access to their Black Sea Fleet.
Despite the tough words from Secretary Kerry, Mr. Putin knows that President Obama's response will be limited. In fact, when the moderator, Mr. Gregory, asked the Secretary what the 'or else' would be when Mr. Obama warned Russia on Friday that they shouldn't act military against the Ukraine 'or else,' he didn't really have an answer. Realizing this, he outlined the economic actions the United States could take to pressure Russia in pulling back. He mentioned the G8 Summit that is supposed to happen in Sochi and its possible cancellation with the potential of expelling Russia from the G8. However, we agree with Chuck Todd who said that the summit should already be cancelled, no more warnings that it might be. In fact, in hindsight, the U.S. should have taken these steps with Russia because of their actions in Syria and their support of Assad.
And does anyone see it as a good idea, in Russia or the United States, to have a hot war between the two countries? Everyone's trying to avoid the reinstatement of a new cold war, however, if you take Secretary Kerry at his word, that's exactly what we're headed for. The round table seemed in agreement that the U.S. should already be hitting Russia hard with economic sanctions, along with their NATO allies, they should isolate Russia economically.
Here's the rub, as was pointed out, Mr. Putin doesn't care what others think and given that he'll do business with whomever he wants whether or not the United States likes it or not; countries lie Iran, Syria, Nigeria, and North Korea come to mind. His actions indicate that he has no problem moving completely away from the European Union and the West all together.
With all the talk of the geo-political consequences for Russia's actions, it still is about the Ukraine and its people and the country is just that, a country that has sovereignty, it's not a province of Russia so Mr. Kerry was justified in calling the Russian troops moving into the Ukraine, an invasion. With such talk from the Secretary of State, which followed Mr. Obama's Friday statements, some definitive action must be taken, no more moving around the periphery. Mr. Obama faces unprecedented hatred domestically and has tried to be well liked instead by all of the international community. It's time to ruffle feathers and establish that the notion that Russia needs to be part of the international community more than the international community needs Russia to be included. The means also forcing China to make a decision but that's a topic for another day.
Given that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of Foreign Relations Committee, also appeared on the program to comment on the situation in the Ukraine, it must be noted that what hampers the president's credibility to act is the fact that Republicans do not have his back. Senator Rubio said that he was encouraged by Mr. Kerry's statements, but went on to criticize the president's relations his approach to Russia. What Republicans in Congress need to recognize that Mr. Kerry is speaking on behalf of the president and that they all need to get together - leaders of both parties to craft a responsible course of action.
Remember that Mr. Kerry advocated sending missiles into Syria and when the President brought it to Congress because they constantly complained that the president wasn't consulting them, they rejected a military option, internationally making the president look weak, which was a stupid thing to do.
Having said that, Mr. Rubio's words for Russia were just as harsh as Mr. Kerry's, calling Russia a government of liars and going so far to say that Russia is an enemy of the United States. Mr. Rubio isn't ready for prime time [read: He's not presidential material], but he is a Senator and a member of the Foreign Relations committee and as such he and other Republican leaders need to work with the president on a policy that is best for the United States as it relates to Russia, or these provocative moves by Mr. Putin will continue.
The precedent was set with the military action Mr. Putin took in Georgia during the Bush Administration. Democrats, especially Senatorial ones, needed to help strengthen the president's hand then with Mr. Putin and didn't do it. It was a diplomatic failure of inaction that is being played out again in the Ukraine. On one degree though, we have to be fair to Democrats in saying that Mr. Cheney was a major impediment for cooperation between the two parities. The United States government needs to get passed it because if they can talk all the tough words they can muster, either party, but they won't make a difference in changing rivals' behavior because the U.S. government can't ever seem to state them with one unified voice, hence they would mean nothing and emboldening Mr. Putin even more.
Round Table: Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Washington Post columnist
Kathleen Parker, NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, Founder of
Women in the World Tina Brown, and Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey
Goldberg
Sunday, February 23, 2014
2.23.14: The Vacuum of Power
Back in the fall of 2004 in the election for the third president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych won the office in an election so corrupt that it touched off the Orange Revolution where in a run-off election Viktor Yushchenko won with a majority of the vote. For his trouble later that year, Yushchenko was the victim of dioxide poisoning, widely thought to be orchestrated at the behest of Yanukovych's Russian sponsors. Adding insult to personal injury, Yushchenko could never really get his coalition government to coalesce and in 2010 Yanukovych was elected president.
Now, he's fled to eastern Ukraine with a warrant out for his arrest, but has declared that he has not, in fact, resigned. Point being, after 10 years it should be pretty clear that Vladimir Putin's Russian government never wanted to relinquish any control over the Ukraine always being vindictive and poisonous in their actions. On the program they reported the suggestion that it was Putin who was the 'architect' of the crackdown that lead to the dead of 76 people. One goal for Putin is that he wants unfettered control of the northern coast of the Black Sea and was using the strong, but straw, man in Yanukovych to achieve it, among many others but corrupt petrol dollars are addicted to having more shipping routes.
Mr. Gregory and Ms. Rice also discussed the possibility of the country splitting, but we find that scenario considerably less likely. And while it was entertaining to hear Ms. Rice say that it was in both the interests of the United States and Russia to maintain an independent Ukraine, you know that for Russia that would not be the case.
However the good news is that the Ukrainian parliament is moving very quickly today in filling and organizing the vacuum of power left in Yanukovych's absence while Putin still needs to put on a good face for the world with the closing ceremony of the Olympics still upon us. And even though, many things are uncertain, things are moving in the direction of the Ukraine maintaining its sovereignty and own identity. You could say we're reserved even in our caution of optimism, but nonetheless hopeful.
While we agree with National Security Adviser Susan Rice that it's not about the American and Russian dynamic, but about the Ukrainian people, the United States can still not concede interest in what's happening in that country as she explained, then later the notion was confirmed by New York Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper during the round table saying it was not a huge U.S. priority. The reason is that it is about Russia is because the Ukrainian people objected to the economic pact their president was making with the Russian government, but instead have a more Western European style economy.
And though Mr. Putin may not have given up on the Cold War mindset and in fact seems to still be fighting it to a degree, the United States should not return to that paradigm because we don't live in that time anymore. Chris Matthews said that the United States should do is state our values but don't make things geo-political, but the fact is that Putin is making it that way. What the Obama Administration needs to recognize is that Mr. Putin, given the United States' complete preoccupation with Muslim extremists, is utilizing Cold War tactics to make it more difficult at every turn for the U.S. to exert its influence around the globe; to keep chopping away at the U.S.'s effectiveness to strengthen his own hand.
Obvious on-going case in point is Syria where Mr. Putin openly backs Mr. Assad's regime. Ms. Rice said that the United States wants to see Assad out of power, a coalition government, no terrorist threat emanating from within and no splitting of the country which is all great, but way to rosy of a scenario given what has gone on for all this time. In one sentence, she outlined a complete breakdown of power because the coalition part is fantasy - look how well that is turning out in Iraq - the proverbial vacuum. Because of a preemptive war in Iraq and the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan, not only will the United States not put troops on the ground anywhere hot right now, which all the world knows, but they're also apprehensive about taking a definitive side. Ms. Rice said that we're actively supporting the moderate forces in Syria, but what does that mean? How people is that, three? Mr. Putin exploits these realities and knows that many in U.S. Congress do not have the president's back when he makes a foreign policy decisions so he uses all this to boost his own power.
In spite of the weakened political position the United States has put itself in, diplomacy is proving itself effective with Iran and with the Israelis and Palestinians as Ms. Rice explained, but the Syrian civil war, despite the U.S. being the biggest supplier of humanitarian aid, could bring down the whole smash in the Middle East. The Obama administration needs a new and effective strategy and quickly. Ms. Rice said the administration is "constantly reviewing," but that doesn't cut it.
Once again referring to the 'vacuum of power,' another point of discussion on today's program was the capture of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, which supplied the United States with an estimated 80 to 90 percent of its illegal drugs. Talk about an easy call as to whether there will be a deadly battle for the top spot. However, given the scale of such an operation it also stands to easy reason that given the structure of such an organization, a plan has been in place for just this circumstance. Without a large tangential operation to bring down more of Sinaloa's structure, just bringing down "El Chapo" isn't going to do much damage to their market share.
On one last note, we would be remiss to not mention Ms. Rice's comments on Benghazi since it was her initial statements on Meet The Press about a diplomatic tragedy that set off this entire political controversy. Of course Ms. Rice has no regrets with regard to the statements she made describing the circumstances of what happened and that's because at the end of the day she was just the messenger. She didn't say anything that the Obama Administration hadn't already thoroughly vetted so hers to control was that of tone and presentation. With that, it's common knowledge in our politics that if you are the messenger, you're also the fall guy, it's just the way it works. What she did say today that was significant was that it is patently false that she or anyone else in the administration was covering anything up. And as Ms. Rice pointed out, everything she said has been well validated. We'll also take her on her word that there is an investigation ongoing and that someone will be held responsible, caught, and tried - precedent set. We're of the mind that there was not a cover up as to what actually happened and how along with the reasons for the attack. Those are the easier questions. The more difficult questions come from the flawed wisdom that directed a very visible ambassador in a highly volatile country to go to a poorly protected, locally well-known, not-so-secret CIA outpost on that date in the wake of an incident in Cairo sparked by a hateful video and underestimating the potential danger that confluence of circumstances presents.
Round Table: New York Times columnist David Brooks, New York Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper, Co-Anchor and Managing Editor of the PBS NewsHour Judy Woodruff and Host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” Chris Matthews.
Rest in Peace Garrick Utley and thank you for great contributions to the television program of record, Meet The Press, and for all the great reporting over many years.
Now, he's fled to eastern Ukraine with a warrant out for his arrest, but has declared that he has not, in fact, resigned. Point being, after 10 years it should be pretty clear that Vladimir Putin's Russian government never wanted to relinquish any control over the Ukraine always being vindictive and poisonous in their actions. On the program they reported the suggestion that it was Putin who was the 'architect' of the crackdown that lead to the dead of 76 people. One goal for Putin is that he wants unfettered control of the northern coast of the Black Sea and was using the strong, but straw, man in Yanukovych to achieve it, among many others but corrupt petrol dollars are addicted to having more shipping routes.
Mr. Gregory and Ms. Rice also discussed the possibility of the country splitting, but we find that scenario considerably less likely. And while it was entertaining to hear Ms. Rice say that it was in both the interests of the United States and Russia to maintain an independent Ukraine, you know that for Russia that would not be the case.
However the good news is that the Ukrainian parliament is moving very quickly today in filling and organizing the vacuum of power left in Yanukovych's absence while Putin still needs to put on a good face for the world with the closing ceremony of the Olympics still upon us. And even though, many things are uncertain, things are moving in the direction of the Ukraine maintaining its sovereignty and own identity. You could say we're reserved even in our caution of optimism, but nonetheless hopeful.
While we agree with National Security Adviser Susan Rice that it's not about the American and Russian dynamic, but about the Ukrainian people, the United States can still not concede interest in what's happening in that country as she explained, then later the notion was confirmed by New York Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper during the round table saying it was not a huge U.S. priority. The reason is that it is about Russia is because the Ukrainian people objected to the economic pact their president was making with the Russian government, but instead have a more Western European style economy.
And though Mr. Putin may not have given up on the Cold War mindset and in fact seems to still be fighting it to a degree, the United States should not return to that paradigm because we don't live in that time anymore. Chris Matthews said that the United States should do is state our values but don't make things geo-political, but the fact is that Putin is making it that way. What the Obama Administration needs to recognize is that Mr. Putin, given the United States' complete preoccupation with Muslim extremists, is utilizing Cold War tactics to make it more difficult at every turn for the U.S. to exert its influence around the globe; to keep chopping away at the U.S.'s effectiveness to strengthen his own hand.
Obvious on-going case in point is Syria where Mr. Putin openly backs Mr. Assad's regime. Ms. Rice said that the United States wants to see Assad out of power, a coalition government, no terrorist threat emanating from within and no splitting of the country which is all great, but way to rosy of a scenario given what has gone on for all this time. In one sentence, she outlined a complete breakdown of power because the coalition part is fantasy - look how well that is turning out in Iraq - the proverbial vacuum. Because of a preemptive war in Iraq and the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan, not only will the United States not put troops on the ground anywhere hot right now, which all the world knows, but they're also apprehensive about taking a definitive side. Ms. Rice said that we're actively supporting the moderate forces in Syria, but what does that mean? How people is that, three? Mr. Putin exploits these realities and knows that many in U.S. Congress do not have the president's back when he makes a foreign policy decisions so he uses all this to boost his own power.
In spite of the weakened political position the United States has put itself in, diplomacy is proving itself effective with Iran and with the Israelis and Palestinians as Ms. Rice explained, but the Syrian civil war, despite the U.S. being the biggest supplier of humanitarian aid, could bring down the whole smash in the Middle East. The Obama administration needs a new and effective strategy and quickly. Ms. Rice said the administration is "constantly reviewing," but that doesn't cut it.
Once again referring to the 'vacuum of power,' another point of discussion on today's program was the capture of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, head of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, which supplied the United States with an estimated 80 to 90 percent of its illegal drugs. Talk about an easy call as to whether there will be a deadly battle for the top spot. However, given the scale of such an operation it also stands to easy reason that given the structure of such an organization, a plan has been in place for just this circumstance. Without a large tangential operation to bring down more of Sinaloa's structure, just bringing down "El Chapo" isn't going to do much damage to their market share.
On one last note, we would be remiss to not mention Ms. Rice's comments on Benghazi since it was her initial statements on Meet The Press about a diplomatic tragedy that set off this entire political controversy. Of course Ms. Rice has no regrets with regard to the statements she made describing the circumstances of what happened and that's because at the end of the day she was just the messenger. She didn't say anything that the Obama Administration hadn't already thoroughly vetted so hers to control was that of tone and presentation. With that, it's common knowledge in our politics that if you are the messenger, you're also the fall guy, it's just the way it works. What she did say today that was significant was that it is patently false that she or anyone else in the administration was covering anything up. And as Ms. Rice pointed out, everything she said has been well validated. We'll also take her on her word that there is an investigation ongoing and that someone will be held responsible, caught, and tried - precedent set. We're of the mind that there was not a cover up as to what actually happened and how along with the reasons for the attack. Those are the easier questions. The more difficult questions come from the flawed wisdom that directed a very visible ambassador in a highly volatile country to go to a poorly protected, locally well-known, not-so-secret CIA outpost on that date in the wake of an incident in Cairo sparked by a hateful video and underestimating the potential danger that confluence of circumstances presents.
Round Table: New York Times columnist David Brooks, New York Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper, Co-Anchor and Managing Editor of the PBS NewsHour Judy Woodruff and Host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” Chris Matthews.
Rest in Peace Garrick Utley and thank you for great contributions to the television program of record, Meet The Press, and for all the great reporting over many years.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
2.16.14: Slapshots and Concussions
At the top of an entertaining Meet The Press, the discussion to this column's delight, began with the subject of ice hockey, and since we're big fans of the sport, we must comment. (If you're not a fan, skip down to the fourth full paragraph.) First of all, yes, as Americans writing this column, we're happy that the U.S. won the game, but not for the reasons the round table guests stupidly stated. Nicole Wallace talked about the players having a sense of the politics of the moment, a 'sixth sense' of the competitors. Chuck Todd talked about the political tension and with Putin in the audience, the players wanting to stick it to him.
Yeah, maybe very little of that is present, but for the most part, they were all proverbially talking out of their butts. Of course there is national pride because it's about where you are from - that small town where very few make it out or that large city where you're plucked from one in a million - and somehow you make it to the top level with the opportunity to represent your country. The U.S. players were happy to win the game not because Putin was in the audience or for some political reason like the round table was saying that harkens back to 1980 Lake Placid. They were happy to win because the Russian team is a great team with great players, and they beat them. One of those Russian players, arguably one of the the top two in the world - Alexander Ovechkin, is the captain of the team that plays in our nation's capital, and is a guy that you want to route for.
The motivation is national pride but not at the expense of the other, competitive bragging rights, not political. And if you're a true hockey fan, you have to admit that you'll take the win if you're a U.S. fan, but Russia got robbed of a goal late that could have won the game for them. Shoot outs can go either way, and remember that was an NHL skater, T.J. Oshi of the St. Louis Blues shooting on an NHL goaltender, Sergei Bobrovsky of Columbus.
The round table needed a slap shot, figuratively, comes its way to the head, so there it is.
However, it was a few of the guests who in their answers sounded a little concussed.
First off, Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 and head of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Mitt Romney said that the $50 billion price tag to prepare Sochi for the games was excessive and that instead of spending all that money for TV appearances, it should be used to help the poor and fight disease. He sounded more like Governor Romney of Massachusetts in that moment than Mr. Romney, presidential cabinet. It was unexpected, which made us wonder if he was O.K.
Also, when asked about Senator Rand Paul's attacks on Hillary Clinton by using Bill Clinton's indiscretions as the basis, Mr. Romney backed away from all of that - he's not a personal character assassination type of politician - and said that there was plenty of her own record on which she can be judged. Isn't much more interesting to hear answers from political individuals who aren't beholden to some one else with an agenda?
Who we know is not O.K. is Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She's got her climate change denying talking points down pat, but at this point in the global discussion that is climate change and the consensus that it is real, they sound quite naive and, in fact, sad. It sounds like last ditch denial - perhaps too addicted to the contributions of big energy money to admit to the problem.
Chuck Todd explained that politicians need to get past whether or not it's more man made versus naturally happening and focus on the fact that it exists. We agree but to give an answer on that debate, the cause it both. We naturally procreate which results in more and more humans beings on the planet that hence naturally produce more carbon dioxide, and because of our living habits, how we use energy, we exacerbate and speed up that effect. That's the rudimentary [read: dumb], but reasonable answer.
However, there are many Republican political leaders, and some Democrats, who think like Mrs. Blackburn and look for any statement to refute what we all know. Bill Nye, the science guy, isn't much of a debater, that's for sure, and seemingly isn't very good with using visuals, but the fact that he displayed on the iPad is that there is significantly less ice in the Arctic than there was 30 years ago. Less ice translates into more water and that's why you saw those pictures of towns in Great Britain flooded. The water level is rising, it's simple cause and effect. It's the new normal that for a good part of the year, San Marco Square in Venice is flooded out. Mr. Nye also said what needed to be said which was that to doubt an aspect of the scientific findings and then equate it to the overall validity of scientific consensus on climate change is completely wrong.
Mrs. Blackburn explained that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million was very slight and that sound laws can not be made on hypotheses. Fair enough on the second part, if you believe in the first part of her explanation. However, we agree with Mr. Nye, making a good debate recovery here, that a 30 percent increase over the last few decades is not slight.
Republican strategist Nicole Wallace, who you could tell is a skeptic but not one wanting to sound as silly as Mrs. Blackburn, said that many Republican politicians feel that even if the U.S. did everything that it could to limit its carbon emissions and it still wouldn't make a difference so what's the point of trying. Democratic strategist David Axelrod kind of backed up the point saying that we have an economy that is unable to handle short term sacrifice for long term stability in terms of paying more for cleaner energy now so that we have a cleaner planet later.
Both of those explanations sound defeatist, don't they? They both seem to acknowledge a hopeless situation and that we can not do anything about it. Surprising that neither strategist picked up the ball that Mr. Nye left for them and said that this was the ideal time for the U.S. to act and be the innovator for the future, 'build the better battery.'
As we said, shoot outs can go either way, a 50-50... But climate change is no shoot out, it's happening.
(Sixty-five degrees at the Winter Olympics)
Round Table: NBC News' Chuck Todd, Republican Strategist and former White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, Associated Press Chief White House Correspondent Julie Pace, and Democratic Strategist and former Senior Adviser to President Obama David Axelrod.
Yeah, maybe very little of that is present, but for the most part, they were all proverbially talking out of their butts. Of course there is national pride because it's about where you are from - that small town where very few make it out or that large city where you're plucked from one in a million - and somehow you make it to the top level with the opportunity to represent your country. The U.S. players were happy to win the game not because Putin was in the audience or for some political reason like the round table was saying that harkens back to 1980 Lake Placid. They were happy to win because the Russian team is a great team with great players, and they beat them. One of those Russian players, arguably one of the the top two in the world - Alexander Ovechkin, is the captain of the team that plays in our nation's capital, and is a guy that you want to route for.
The motivation is national pride but not at the expense of the other, competitive bragging rights, not political. And if you're a true hockey fan, you have to admit that you'll take the win if you're a U.S. fan, but Russia got robbed of a goal late that could have won the game for them. Shoot outs can go either way, and remember that was an NHL skater, T.J. Oshi of the St. Louis Blues shooting on an NHL goaltender, Sergei Bobrovsky of Columbus.
The round table needed a slap shot, figuratively, comes its way to the head, so there it is.
However, it was a few of the guests who in their answers sounded a little concussed.
First off, Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 and head of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City Mitt Romney said that the $50 billion price tag to prepare Sochi for the games was excessive and that instead of spending all that money for TV appearances, it should be used to help the poor and fight disease. He sounded more like Governor Romney of Massachusetts in that moment than Mr. Romney, presidential cabinet. It was unexpected, which made us wonder if he was O.K.
Also, when asked about Senator Rand Paul's attacks on Hillary Clinton by using Bill Clinton's indiscretions as the basis, Mr. Romney backed away from all of that - he's not a personal character assassination type of politician - and said that there was plenty of her own record on which she can be judged. Isn't much more interesting to hear answers from political individuals who aren't beholden to some one else with an agenda?
Who we know is not O.K. is Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Vice Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She's got her climate change denying talking points down pat, but at this point in the global discussion that is climate change and the consensus that it is real, they sound quite naive and, in fact, sad. It sounds like last ditch denial - perhaps too addicted to the contributions of big energy money to admit to the problem.
Chuck Todd explained that politicians need to get past whether or not it's more man made versus naturally happening and focus on the fact that it exists. We agree but to give an answer on that debate, the cause it both. We naturally procreate which results in more and more humans beings on the planet that hence naturally produce more carbon dioxide, and because of our living habits, how we use energy, we exacerbate and speed up that effect. That's the rudimentary [read: dumb], but reasonable answer.
However, there are many Republican political leaders, and some Democrats, who think like Mrs. Blackburn and look for any statement to refute what we all know. Bill Nye, the science guy, isn't much of a debater, that's for sure, and seemingly isn't very good with using visuals, but the fact that he displayed on the iPad is that there is significantly less ice in the Arctic than there was 30 years ago. Less ice translates into more water and that's why you saw those pictures of towns in Great Britain flooded. The water level is rising, it's simple cause and effect. It's the new normal that for a good part of the year, San Marco Square in Venice is flooded out. Mr. Nye also said what needed to be said which was that to doubt an aspect of the scientific findings and then equate it to the overall validity of scientific consensus on climate change is completely wrong.
Mrs. Blackburn explained that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere from 320 parts per million to 400 parts per million was very slight and that sound laws can not be made on hypotheses. Fair enough on the second part, if you believe in the first part of her explanation. However, we agree with Mr. Nye, making a good debate recovery here, that a 30 percent increase over the last few decades is not slight.
Republican strategist Nicole Wallace, who you could tell is a skeptic but not one wanting to sound as silly as Mrs. Blackburn, said that many Republican politicians feel that even if the U.S. did everything that it could to limit its carbon emissions and it still wouldn't make a difference so what's the point of trying. Democratic strategist David Axelrod kind of backed up the point saying that we have an economy that is unable to handle short term sacrifice for long term stability in terms of paying more for cleaner energy now so that we have a cleaner planet later.
Both of those explanations sound defeatist, don't they? They both seem to acknowledge a hopeless situation and that we can not do anything about it. Surprising that neither strategist picked up the ball that Mr. Nye left for them and said that this was the ideal time for the U.S. to act and be the innovator for the future, 'build the better battery.'
As we said, shoot outs can go either way, a 50-50... But climate change is no shoot out, it's happening.
(Sixty-five degrees at the Winter Olympics)
Round Table: NBC News' Chuck Todd, Republican Strategist and former White House Communications Director Nicolle Wallace, Associated Press Chief White House Correspondent Julie Pace, and Democratic Strategist and former Senior Adviser to President Obama David Axelrod.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
2.9.14: Some Cooperation and Some Disagreement
Just first off - we have to get this one thing out of the way - What does it say about the people 'representing' us [read: Republican Congressional leaders] when they say they don't trust the man that the American people elected the man twice to enforce the laws that they pass? It completely disrespects the office of the President of The United States, which ever individual is occupying it, and hence the entire system that created the office in the first place. And if the rebuttal is that it is not being disrespectful of the office, then it's a personal attack and in politics, personal is petty and that never gets you ahead in the long run. Not to mention the fact that's just another lame excuse not to compromise and pass legislation.
On the hand, one has to ask where does this distrust come from? It's mainly stems from the Affordable Care Act legislation (Obamacare), in which the president passed a series of executive orders to change aspects that weren't working such as people's healthcare plans being cancelled and not being able to keep the one they have.
Such executive orders were to be expected because Republicans do not have any interest in fixing Obamacare except to repeal it all together, which we know is not going to happen as long as Barack Obama is president, and nor will it happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president. By the end of another Democratic presidential term, Obamacare will have become the norm and there will be no going back from it.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, a Meet The Press obsession, if she does decide to run, she will not be a third term of Barack Obama as Mr. Gregory posed. First of all, she'll be a lot more hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. Though she was the face of the ill-fated 'reset' with Russia some years back, she would be taking a much harder line with them as president. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said there is some cooperation and some disagreement when it comes to relations between the two countries, but in reality every major issue is a disagreement from Edward Snowden to the Ukraine to Syria and Iran.
For Vladimir Putin, the Cold War never ended, it simply changed gears from military-style standoffs to competition economically and technologically. However, since Putin knows that Russia is so far behind at that game at the moment (Sochi being a first step in correcting that), he's more than willing to play spoiler using Mr. Snowden or Syria as tools to do it. Shrewdly, he's not looking for the monicker of friend or foe, but prime competitor.
Speaking of disagreement, going to back to healthcare and Mrs. Clinton, she'll differ from Barack Obama but not as much as she will on foreign relations. You'd have to say that the position that makes most sense for her is that overall, she agrees with the concept and approach of Obamacare, but that there are many aspects of the law which she would have done differently. One would also have to think that she already has the answers to these questions already fully flushed out. With this said, however, we agree with David Brooks that she still needs the 3 signature issues separate from Barack Obama on which to run, and she doesn't have them yet.
This will be a bigger factor for her than what Senator Rand Paul has been going around saying, that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and that because of this, donors should ask for there money back. The reason that this strategy ultimately won't work is because not enough Republicans will get on board with such attacks to validate them. Good for Rand Paul if he feels that there is nothing in his personal life that can be called into question and hence attacked, but many other politicians don't feel as comfortable with that notion and wouldn't want to open themselves up to being labelled with such lurid terms.
In the meantime, we were treated to a lively round table discussion on healthcare with Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham making his first appearance on Meet The Press coupled with the release of the Congressional Budget Office's report on the fiscal effects of Obamacare. Mr. Needham said that according to the CBO's assessment, the Affordable Care Act will cost Americans 2.5 million jobs. Andrea Mitchell was eager to jump in and say that what Mr. Needham was saying was not accurate, and E.J. Dionne pointed out that the ACA would create a net positive on job growth. What the report actually says is that because individuals now have the option to choose to work less hours, it will be the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs over the course of ten years. This is where Senator Schumer's statement about people having more freedom because of the ACA comes from, his specific example of being a single mother who wants to spend more time raising her young children, and not have to worry about their health. It's very easy to see the spin that can come from both directions.
Senator Portman's argument was that with the lowest number of people in the workforce in 35 years, we shouldn't have a healthcare law that discourages small businesses from hiring over 50 employees. However, this is really a false choice that he's pointing out. Small businesses that have 50 or more employees are businesses can afford to give their employees healthcare, not to mention that the president signed one of those executive orders to delay this mandate.
Even if the CBO came right out and said that the ACA would cost Americans 2.5 million jobs in ten years, that's still ten years in which a lot could happen. They don't account for growth in a new industry, one that they might not even see coming. Point being, there are so many variables that could come into play in that time, it's difficult say where we'll be in terms of employment figures at that time.
What everyone does agree on is that to help the labor force, we need immigration reform, but for Republicans, unfortunately, it is becoming another lose-lose situation because of their hard right flank. Paul Ryan and Speaker John Boehner want to move ahead with immigration reform this year but because of Republicans in reelection fights fearing a challenge to their right in the primaries, they are all backing away from doing anything, which obviously hurts their chances of growing their constituency.
Senator Portman mentioned that border security must be in place as if it weren't, but as it stands (as Senator Schumer pointed out) Barack Obama has deported more individuals than any other president and the net crossing at the border are zero. How much more could you want? For the undocumented living in this country, the Republicans have made it clear that amnesty, citizenship, and even legalization are all off the table right now because of the political cost. We think they are misreading that.
But hence, we're back to the trust issue. Mr. Schumer made a bit of news this morning (we like that) by saying that if Republicans didn't trust the president to enforce law then pass a law that won't go into effect until 2017, after he leaves office. Either the Republicans say yes to that or it proves the point that the trust issue was just another excuse not to do anything, because they'll have to come up with another as to why that's a bad idea.
The government has to function and both parties have to be involved However, as David Brooks said, the Republican establishment doesn't run the Republican party right now, Mike Needham of Heritage Action does.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne, Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham, and Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Mona Sutphen
On the hand, one has to ask where does this distrust come from? It's mainly stems from the Affordable Care Act legislation (Obamacare), in which the president passed a series of executive orders to change aspects that weren't working such as people's healthcare plans being cancelled and not being able to keep the one they have.
Such executive orders were to be expected because Republicans do not have any interest in fixing Obamacare except to repeal it all together, which we know is not going to happen as long as Barack Obama is president, and nor will it happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president. By the end of another Democratic presidential term, Obamacare will have become the norm and there will be no going back from it.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, a Meet The Press obsession, if she does decide to run, she will not be a third term of Barack Obama as Mr. Gregory posed. First of all, she'll be a lot more hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. Though she was the face of the ill-fated 'reset' with Russia some years back, she would be taking a much harder line with them as president. U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul said there is some cooperation and some disagreement when it comes to relations between the two countries, but in reality every major issue is a disagreement from Edward Snowden to the Ukraine to Syria and Iran.
For Vladimir Putin, the Cold War never ended, it simply changed gears from military-style standoffs to competition economically and technologically. However, since Putin knows that Russia is so far behind at that game at the moment (Sochi being a first step in correcting that), he's more than willing to play spoiler using Mr. Snowden or Syria as tools to do it. Shrewdly, he's not looking for the monicker of friend or foe, but prime competitor.
Speaking of disagreement, going to back to healthcare and Mrs. Clinton, she'll differ from Barack Obama but not as much as she will on foreign relations. You'd have to say that the position that makes most sense for her is that overall, she agrees with the concept and approach of Obamacare, but that there are many aspects of the law which she would have done differently. One would also have to think that she already has the answers to these questions already fully flushed out. With this said, however, we agree with David Brooks that she still needs the 3 signature issues separate from Barack Obama on which to run, and she doesn't have them yet.
This will be a bigger factor for her than what Senator Rand Paul has been going around saying, that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and that because of this, donors should ask for there money back. The reason that this strategy ultimately won't work is because not enough Republicans will get on board with such attacks to validate them. Good for Rand Paul if he feels that there is nothing in his personal life that can be called into question and hence attacked, but many other politicians don't feel as comfortable with that notion and wouldn't want to open themselves up to being labelled with such lurid terms.
In the meantime, we were treated to a lively round table discussion on healthcare with Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham making his first appearance on Meet The Press coupled with the release of the Congressional Budget Office's report on the fiscal effects of Obamacare. Mr. Needham said that according to the CBO's assessment, the Affordable Care Act will cost Americans 2.5 million jobs. Andrea Mitchell was eager to jump in and say that what Mr. Needham was saying was not accurate, and E.J. Dionne pointed out that the ACA would create a net positive on job growth. What the report actually says is that because individuals now have the option to choose to work less hours, it will be the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs over the course of ten years. This is where Senator Schumer's statement about people having more freedom because of the ACA comes from, his specific example of being a single mother who wants to spend more time raising her young children, and not have to worry about their health. It's very easy to see the spin that can come from both directions.
Senator Portman's argument was that with the lowest number of people in the workforce in 35 years, we shouldn't have a healthcare law that discourages small businesses from hiring over 50 employees. However, this is really a false choice that he's pointing out. Small businesses that have 50 or more employees are businesses can afford to give their employees healthcare, not to mention that the president signed one of those executive orders to delay this mandate.
Even if the CBO came right out and said that the ACA would cost Americans 2.5 million jobs in ten years, that's still ten years in which a lot could happen. They don't account for growth in a new industry, one that they might not even see coming. Point being, there are so many variables that could come into play in that time, it's difficult say where we'll be in terms of employment figures at that time.
What everyone does agree on is that to help the labor force, we need immigration reform, but for Republicans, unfortunately, it is becoming another lose-lose situation because of their hard right flank. Paul Ryan and Speaker John Boehner want to move ahead with immigration reform this year but because of Republicans in reelection fights fearing a challenge to their right in the primaries, they are all backing away from doing anything, which obviously hurts their chances of growing their constituency.
Senator Portman mentioned that border security must be in place as if it weren't, but as it stands (as Senator Schumer pointed out) Barack Obama has deported more individuals than any other president and the net crossing at the border are zero. How much more could you want? For the undocumented living in this country, the Republicans have made it clear that amnesty, citizenship, and even legalization are all off the table right now because of the political cost. We think they are misreading that.
But hence, we're back to the trust issue. Mr. Schumer made a bit of news this morning (we like that) by saying that if Republicans didn't trust the president to enforce law then pass a law that won't go into effect until 2017, after he leaves office. Either the Republicans say yes to that or it proves the point that the trust issue was just another excuse not to do anything, because they'll have to come up with another as to why that's a bad idea.
The government has to function and both parties have to be involved However, as David Brooks said, the Republican establishment doesn't run the Republican party right now, Mike Needham of Heritage Action does.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times Columnist David Brooks, Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne, Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America Mike Needham, and Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Mona Sutphen
Sunday, February 02, 2014
2.2.14: The Continued Effectiveness of the President
Among the many topics covered on today's program, which included a proper and serious piece on the future of the game of football on this Super Sunday, the central question of the day was whether President Barack Obama is now a lame duck in terms of policy making with one thousand days left in his second term. Can he still be affective as president at this point?
A lot will depend how these upcoming midterms elections shake out of course, but one thing is for sure: The president is going to do anything he can to get the Republican-controlled House to vote on something else beside a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough indicated that next major vote on the 'something else' will probably be immigration, saying that the administration believes there will be a bill within the year. It's politically beneficial for both parties that this get done really for the same core reason - to score the Hispanic vote in the future, a game in which the Republicans know they're way behind.
The in-trouble National Review's (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/01/31/will-a-lawsuit-end-national-review.html) Rich Lowry described the president's State of the Union address as banal, which we kind of agree with, but for different reasons - his were purely cynical where ours is more like an expectation that he's going to mention everything. Where Mr. Lowry dismisses, we look for where the emphasis lays.
And though Mr. Lowry slammed Doris Kearns-Goodwin in his comment, we agree more with her sentiment that President firmly and squarely put the question of income inequality into the frame, effectively starting the conversation. We also agree with Mr. McDonough that the president's proposal of an increased minimum wage of $10.10 an hour is no small thing. The president isn't going to get that number. He'll get a number, but Republicans will argue that increasing the minimum wage will stifle job growth, but will compromise on something because a clear majority of the American people are in favor of the increase.
Here's the thing with minimum wage, what an increase does it set the base line higher from which everyone negotiates their salary. It's like a trickle up, instead of down. And anything up is not good for 'job creators' to create more jobs, if you believe in that argument.
The other important piece of legislation, as PBS's Gwen Ifill pointed out is the Keystone Pipeline and whether the president gives it the go ahead or not. So far, the president is being bailed out on his decision to indeed go ahead with the project because of a newly released State Department study that says there would be minimum effects to the environment if the pipeline were installed. We think the reason the president wants to say yes to Keystone, a decision that runs counter to a part of his base, is because he's more fixated on and covets more the United States being energy independent (or at least North American independent) over everything else. It's a big part of the president's legacy, potentially, that doesn't get enough attention.
Mr. McDonough also talked about how the president has an agreement with big business to bring high-speed internet to millions of students, $500 million all in. A big deal accomplishment and important, but not a legacy statement. Our feeling is that if Washington is going to be dominated by lobbyists, then the people's number one lobbyist - the president - should be hitting them up for cash in return, in the name of education it's for the right reason.
Speaking of education, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) in his first Meet The Press interview, said that he was working on legislation to give people more school choice, a more prudent way of saying 'voucher system.' We disagree with a voucher system because it takes money out of the educational system, a place where infinitely more investment is needed overall. However, the way he framed the argument got us thinking because he mentioned families of 'special needs' children having more choice. They should have more choice, but the tax credit from the voucher isn't going to cover the cost of a 'special needs' school without an additional government subsidy, which would add to the government's cost.
The bottom line is that we think the president still can be effective - we're going optimistic. It is partly on the shoulders of the Republicans as well, as Robert Gibbs pointed out, but with just three policy points discussed here, he'll be plenty busy.
***
What we said in a previous column about Chris Christie was conquered with by Chuck Todd when he said that it is no longer about Mr. Christie's presidential aspirations, but whether he keeps his governorship. We didn't go that dire, but we just knew that the 'president' talk was inevitably going to end.
And what ever you think of sports or the Super Bowl or the future of America's most popular game, there's one thing for sure. The one thing Republicans and Democrats can always have a spirited and fun conversation about is football. Have a good Super Sunday.
Roundtable: National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, PBS NewsHour’s Co-Anchor and Managing Editor Gwen Ifill, Presidential Historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin, and NBC’s Chuck Todd.
A lot will depend how these upcoming midterms elections shake out of course, but one thing is for sure: The president is going to do anything he can to get the Republican-controlled House to vote on something else beside a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough indicated that next major vote on the 'something else' will probably be immigration, saying that the administration believes there will be a bill within the year. It's politically beneficial for both parties that this get done really for the same core reason - to score the Hispanic vote in the future, a game in which the Republicans know they're way behind.
The in-trouble National Review's (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/01/31/will-a-lawsuit-end-national-review.html) Rich Lowry described the president's State of the Union address as banal, which we kind of agree with, but for different reasons - his were purely cynical where ours is more like an expectation that he's going to mention everything. Where Mr. Lowry dismisses, we look for where the emphasis lays.
And though Mr. Lowry slammed Doris Kearns-Goodwin in his comment, we agree more with her sentiment that President firmly and squarely put the question of income inequality into the frame, effectively starting the conversation. We also agree with Mr. McDonough that the president's proposal of an increased minimum wage of $10.10 an hour is no small thing. The president isn't going to get that number. He'll get a number, but Republicans will argue that increasing the minimum wage will stifle job growth, but will compromise on something because a clear majority of the American people are in favor of the increase.
Here's the thing with minimum wage, what an increase does it set the base line higher from which everyone negotiates their salary. It's like a trickle up, instead of down. And anything up is not good for 'job creators' to create more jobs, if you believe in that argument.
The other important piece of legislation, as PBS's Gwen Ifill pointed out is the Keystone Pipeline and whether the president gives it the go ahead or not. So far, the president is being bailed out on his decision to indeed go ahead with the project because of a newly released State Department study that says there would be minimum effects to the environment if the pipeline were installed. We think the reason the president wants to say yes to Keystone, a decision that runs counter to a part of his base, is because he's more fixated on and covets more the United States being energy independent (or at least North American independent) over everything else. It's a big part of the president's legacy, potentially, that doesn't get enough attention.
Mr. McDonough also talked about how the president has an agreement with big business to bring high-speed internet to millions of students, $500 million all in. A big deal accomplishment and important, but not a legacy statement. Our feeling is that if Washington is going to be dominated by lobbyists, then the people's number one lobbyist - the president - should be hitting them up for cash in return, in the name of education it's for the right reason.
Speaking of education, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) in his first Meet The Press interview, said that he was working on legislation to give people more school choice, a more prudent way of saying 'voucher system.' We disagree with a voucher system because it takes money out of the educational system, a place where infinitely more investment is needed overall. However, the way he framed the argument got us thinking because he mentioned families of 'special needs' children having more choice. They should have more choice, but the tax credit from the voucher isn't going to cover the cost of a 'special needs' school without an additional government subsidy, which would add to the government's cost.
The bottom line is that we think the president still can be effective - we're going optimistic. It is partly on the shoulders of the Republicans as well, as Robert Gibbs pointed out, but with just three policy points discussed here, he'll be plenty busy.
***
What we said in a previous column about Chris Christie was conquered with by Chuck Todd when he said that it is no longer about Mr. Christie's presidential aspirations, but whether he keeps his governorship. We didn't go that dire, but we just knew that the 'president' talk was inevitably going to end.
And what ever you think of sports or the Super Bowl or the future of America's most popular game, there's one thing for sure. The one thing Republicans and Democrats can always have a spirited and fun conversation about is football. Have a good Super Sunday.
Roundtable: National Review Editor Rich Lowry, Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, PBS NewsHour’s Co-Anchor and Managing Editor Gwen Ifill, Presidential Historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin, and NBC’s Chuck Todd.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
1.26.14: Breaking Laws and Making Laws
We can appreciate Senator Rand Paul's (R-KY) honest answer with regard to Edward Snowden and his mixed feelings about what he did, and we agree that the death penalty should be taken off the table. And Mr. Paul brought up a good reason as to why; and that is because Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, we know for a fact perjured himself in front of Congress when he stated that there was not mass collection of data on the part of the N.S.A. What happened to him? Nothing.
However, the notion that Mr. Snowden has suffered and been punished enough, according to Jesselyn Radack, one of Snowden’s legal advisers, is a bit too far for the simple reason that this is a choice that Mr. Snowden made himself.
One question hanging out there from last week is whether Mr. Snowden acted alone or not. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff buttressed Congressman Roger's comments from last week saying that there are questions about how Mr. Snowden knew where to go and what to do making it difficult to understand how he acted alone. However, Ms. Raddack did point out that the FBI believes that Mr. Snowden acted alone, and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said he had seen no evidence that he had help. Mr. Paul also said he hadn't seen any details of that. It begs the question of whether or not our Senator's are as fully informed as they should be, but that's a whole other topic.
All this speaks to the complicated nature of what Mr. Snowden has done, and we still contend that he did the right thing in the wrong way. We're glad that Mr. Snowden has brought this illegal N.S.A. spying to our attention, but we just can't bring ourselves to say he's a hero, not quite. However, what Mr. Durbin said just seems implausible to us which was that the N.S.A. program has to be changed so that it keeps the American people safe but doesn't overreach - practically impossible. There shouldn't be amnesty or clemency for Mr. Snowden as Attorney General Eric Holder said, but there's just no way that a deal is going to be struck if the minimum penalty for what he did is 25 years in prison as Mr. Chertoff said.
And where Mr. Paul has to be careful, by the way, is in the type of libertarianism he advocating for in the United States because his libertarian philosophy is what leads people like Edward Snowden to think that it's good to break the law, complete flout the government and then think there shouldn't be any penalty. You can't have it both ways.
Speaking of having it both ways, one can not disqualify Hillary Clinton from the presidency because of Bill Clinton's actions as Mr. Paul did. He said that Mrs. Clinton should be judged on her own merit, but then said that Mr. Clinton's past actions should factor in. Well, what is it? If he's making that call, then he would have to make the same call against Senator David Vitter (R-LA) who has announced that he's running for governor of his state and had openly admitted that he broke the law by soliciting prostitutes, for which he received no punishment.
With regard to presidential politics, Chuck Todd outlined an interesting notion that will be considered, which is if voters are thinking of the 'Hillary' brand (our word) instead of the 'Clinton' brand then she'll have a better chance of winning if she runs, which is very true because of the notion of looking toward the future, which the round table also brought up. Does Mrs. Clinton represent the future, being progressive enough for today's changing Democratic party? Of course the answer, as with everything, is yes and no. Progress in this country would certainly be having a woman as president and in our humble opinion, a really good idea, but it is also true that Mrs. Clinton is not the most progressive of Democratic politicians. This seeming conundrum is one solved by the 'party' that most Americans belong to, which is Independent. Both of those seemingly at-odds notions with regard to Hillary Clinton work for independent voters, and it speaks to another truism about the American people which that they are more socially liberal, but also more fiscally conservative - otherwise known as the center.
Mr. Paul is trying to get to the center but the way in which he's going about it will take a longer time than he has to be a viable presidential candidate. Instead of shaping his views to fit into the mainstream - the center, right of the country - he's trying to get the mainstream to see it his way. With that comes a lot of scrutiny; with scrutiny comes clarity, and it's clear that on many issues Mr. Paul's views are well outside the mainstream, especially his cavalier attitudes toward race in this country.
This leads us into what to expect from Mr. Obama in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night. In the wake of another deadly mall shooting, not to mention another recent school shooting in South Carolina, unfortunately the president will not talk about gun control as he had last time around.
We agree with Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy who basically said that this is the last State of the Union address that counts for Mr. Obama in as much as setting an agenda to get things done. One of those things will be immigration because both Republicans and Democrats alike know that something has to be done; it's more politically advantageous for Republicans because of their dismal numbers with minorities and Hispanics.
Another topic will certainly be income inequality and helping the poorest Americans. There is not question that the distance between the richest and poorest is widening rapidly but also just as important is the fact that the middle class in America is being thinned out. In this vein will also be discussion of the farm, which plays across the issue of the poor and tax reform as the farm bill address the SNAP program ('food stamps') and corporate welfare in the form of subsidies that go to big agri-business.
Contrary to popular thought, there is still a lot for the president to do and things that he can get done. Does he still command the stage, as Carolyn Ryan questioned. The answer is yes, but only if he decides to take it... without compromise, and that's not to say that he shouldn't compromise to get things done. Sure, it's important to pay attention to the laws being broken, but it's equally important to get laws passed for the betterment of the most amount of people. That's what it's all about anyway.
Round Table: Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA); former FCC Chairman, now President and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Michael Powell; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan; and NBC's Chuck Todd.
However, the notion that Mr. Snowden has suffered and been punished enough, according to Jesselyn Radack, one of Snowden’s legal advisers, is a bit too far for the simple reason that this is a choice that Mr. Snowden made himself.
One question hanging out there from last week is whether Mr. Snowden acted alone or not. Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff buttressed Congressman Roger's comments from last week saying that there are questions about how Mr. Snowden knew where to go and what to do making it difficult to understand how he acted alone. However, Ms. Raddack did point out that the FBI believes that Mr. Snowden acted alone, and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said he had seen no evidence that he had help. Mr. Paul also said he hadn't seen any details of that. It begs the question of whether or not our Senator's are as fully informed as they should be, but that's a whole other topic.
All this speaks to the complicated nature of what Mr. Snowden has done, and we still contend that he did the right thing in the wrong way. We're glad that Mr. Snowden has brought this illegal N.S.A. spying to our attention, but we just can't bring ourselves to say he's a hero, not quite. However, what Mr. Durbin said just seems implausible to us which was that the N.S.A. program has to be changed so that it keeps the American people safe but doesn't overreach - practically impossible. There shouldn't be amnesty or clemency for Mr. Snowden as Attorney General Eric Holder said, but there's just no way that a deal is going to be struck if the minimum penalty for what he did is 25 years in prison as Mr. Chertoff said.
And where Mr. Paul has to be careful, by the way, is in the type of libertarianism he advocating for in the United States because his libertarian philosophy is what leads people like Edward Snowden to think that it's good to break the law, complete flout the government and then think there shouldn't be any penalty. You can't have it both ways.
Speaking of having it both ways, one can not disqualify Hillary Clinton from the presidency because of Bill Clinton's actions as Mr. Paul did. He said that Mrs. Clinton should be judged on her own merit, but then said that Mr. Clinton's past actions should factor in. Well, what is it? If he's making that call, then he would have to make the same call against Senator David Vitter (R-LA) who has announced that he's running for governor of his state and had openly admitted that he broke the law by soliciting prostitutes, for which he received no punishment.
With regard to presidential politics, Chuck Todd outlined an interesting notion that will be considered, which is if voters are thinking of the 'Hillary' brand (our word) instead of the 'Clinton' brand then she'll have a better chance of winning if she runs, which is very true because of the notion of looking toward the future, which the round table also brought up. Does Mrs. Clinton represent the future, being progressive enough for today's changing Democratic party? Of course the answer, as with everything, is yes and no. Progress in this country would certainly be having a woman as president and in our humble opinion, a really good idea, but it is also true that Mrs. Clinton is not the most progressive of Democratic politicians. This seeming conundrum is one solved by the 'party' that most Americans belong to, which is Independent. Both of those seemingly at-odds notions with regard to Hillary Clinton work for independent voters, and it speaks to another truism about the American people which that they are more socially liberal, but also more fiscally conservative - otherwise known as the center.
Mr. Paul is trying to get to the center but the way in which he's going about it will take a longer time than he has to be a viable presidential candidate. Instead of shaping his views to fit into the mainstream - the center, right of the country - he's trying to get the mainstream to see it his way. With that comes a lot of scrutiny; with scrutiny comes clarity, and it's clear that on many issues Mr. Paul's views are well outside the mainstream, especially his cavalier attitudes toward race in this country.
This leads us into what to expect from Mr. Obama in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night. In the wake of another deadly mall shooting, not to mention another recent school shooting in South Carolina, unfortunately the president will not talk about gun control as he had last time around.
We agree with Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy who basically said that this is the last State of the Union address that counts for Mr. Obama in as much as setting an agenda to get things done. One of those things will be immigration because both Republicans and Democrats alike know that something has to be done; it's more politically advantageous for Republicans because of their dismal numbers with minorities and Hispanics.
Another topic will certainly be income inequality and helping the poorest Americans. There is not question that the distance between the richest and poorest is widening rapidly but also just as important is the fact that the middle class in America is being thinned out. In this vein will also be discussion of the farm, which plays across the issue of the poor and tax reform as the farm bill address the SNAP program ('food stamps') and corporate welfare in the form of subsidies that go to big agri-business.
Contrary to popular thought, there is still a lot for the president to do and things that he can get done. Does he still command the stage, as Carolyn Ryan questioned. The answer is yes, but only if he decides to take it... without compromise, and that's not to say that he shouldn't compromise to get things done. Sure, it's important to pay attention to the laws being broken, but it's equally important to get laws passed for the betterment of the most amount of people. That's what it's all about anyway.
Round Table: Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA); former FCC Chairman, now President and CEO of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Michael Powell; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan; and NBC's Chuck Todd.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
1.19.14: Did Edward Snowden Have Help?
We'll admit that over the week, we've softened on our hardline attitude toward former Security Gates, but not on Governor Chris Christie, nor on Edward Snowden, really.
For Governor Christie, it's actually become worse for him as the week has progressed with city mayors in the state coming out and accusing the Christie administration of quid pro quo deals with private developers, leveraging Hurricane Sandy relief funds as bargaining chips. And as for today's program, Rudy Giuliani didn't make any impact in defense of Mr. Christie. In fact, he made the same mistake as many other Republicans are making and that is trying to deflect attention away from Mr. Christie's situation by referencing President Obama in terms of Benghazi and the I.R.S. What that does is elevate the bridge lane closings to the same level of Benghazi and the I.R.S. Politically, Republicans should be trying to diminish the situation by focusing Mr. Christie's policy accomplishments, and Mr. Christie should keep the politically mega-fundraising to a minimum from now. As Newt Gingrich said, it's not going away any time soon and you know where we stand.
As for the former Security, we greatly appreciate that he cares for the troops so deeply but he admitted that it sometimes clouded his judgement and we're uncomfortable with that because that also means that he was perceiving others decisions through a clouded lens as well. Our one question for Mr. Gates, would be simply this: At the end of the day, can you honestly say that you did everything in your power as Secretary, given your deep concern for the troops, to get them home as quickly and as safely as possible while bringing about an effective [a vague term, admittedly] military conclusion?
Americans can handle and accept war if necessary, but what they've learned is that they have a real distaste for preemptive war.
Lastly, Mr. Gates said the president has the right temperature in terms of what he feels should be done about the NSA's bulk collection of data that it will continue but with strict oversight domestically and that the government should not store the data. Sure, the president has the right temperature, but on which planet?
If the government isn't going to store the data but the government insists that it in fact needs to be collected - bulk data collection is not stopping - then who does store it? Just as someone can ask of Edward Snowden, who are you to decide what state secrets everyone knows or not; someone could ask of the government, if you're not storing the information, who gets to decide who stores it if not you? All of this doesn't even include the overriding question of why they are collecting your information in the first place.
Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian said it's a false choice between security and privacy; we agree with that, but he made the distinction between the government collecting data vs. Google or Amazon because you opt-in for those. That's a false choice as well. You know how many times you have to do a Google search or buy something on Amazon for those companies to get your information? Answer: once. As we've said before - you're privacy these days comes by being one of a million faces walking down Broadway in New York City - you can see them all but nothing specific about any. That's the new reality in terms of your online identification.
And as for the call for stricter oversight, we heard Congressional Intelligence Committee Chairs Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) both said that there have been no abuses and everything the NSA has done has been legal. Yet, we still need stricter over? That doesn't sound right.
One could answer, as Secretary Gates did, that we're talking about things that might happen, as opposed to things that have happened. In this case, if one can imagine that something 'might' happen, it certainly will happen. And the reason we know this is because they were happening without our knowledge and we didn't know it until Mr. Snowden informed the world about it.
We always contended that Mr. Snowden did the right thing, but in the wrong way. If Mr. Snowden went to work at the NSA strictly for the purpose to disclose secrets or unknown governmental agency operations, as Senator Feinstein explained, then he's technically not a whistleblower as Mr. Ohanian explained how Mr. Snowden will eventually be viewed.
Are we glad, we know what we know because of Mr. Snowden, no doubt. Did Mr. Snowden leak this information then go to China then Russian, also no doubt.
The reason we bring this up is because Mr. Rogers eluded to something even more serious and that was the question of if Mr. Snowden acted alone. Mr. Rogers obviously thinks that the answer is that Mr. Snowden did have help (see the clip below):
Though it would certainly affect the labeling of Mr. Snowden, whether he had help or not doesn't change the fact that someone at the NSA, a relatively low level contractor, could have access to so much sensitive information, so much so that the United States government has stated that it will never know the extent of how much. How does this not show us that abuse is not only probably, but easy as well.
Round Table: Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, NBC political analyst and former Obama adviser David Axelrod (actually it was Harold Ford), The Washington Post’s Nia-Malika Henderson and NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Date of Note (thanks to Andrea Mitchell): June 15th. This is the date by which Congress has to reauthorize this mess.
For Governor Christie, it's actually become worse for him as the week has progressed with city mayors in the state coming out and accusing the Christie administration of quid pro quo deals with private developers, leveraging Hurricane Sandy relief funds as bargaining chips. And as for today's program, Rudy Giuliani didn't make any impact in defense of Mr. Christie. In fact, he made the same mistake as many other Republicans are making and that is trying to deflect attention away from Mr. Christie's situation by referencing President Obama in terms of Benghazi and the I.R.S. What that does is elevate the bridge lane closings to the same level of Benghazi and the I.R.S. Politically, Republicans should be trying to diminish the situation by focusing Mr. Christie's policy accomplishments, and Mr. Christie should keep the politically mega-fundraising to a minimum from now. As Newt Gingrich said, it's not going away any time soon and you know where we stand.
As for the former Security, we greatly appreciate that he cares for the troops so deeply but he admitted that it sometimes clouded his judgement and we're uncomfortable with that because that also means that he was perceiving others decisions through a clouded lens as well. Our one question for Mr. Gates, would be simply this: At the end of the day, can you honestly say that you did everything in your power as Secretary, given your deep concern for the troops, to get them home as quickly and as safely as possible while bringing about an effective [a vague term, admittedly] military conclusion?
Americans can handle and accept war if necessary, but what they've learned is that they have a real distaste for preemptive war.
Lastly, Mr. Gates said the president has the right temperature in terms of what he feels should be done about the NSA's bulk collection of data that it will continue but with strict oversight domestically and that the government should not store the data. Sure, the president has the right temperature, but on which planet?
If the government isn't going to store the data but the government insists that it in fact needs to be collected - bulk data collection is not stopping - then who does store it? Just as someone can ask of Edward Snowden, who are you to decide what state secrets everyone knows or not; someone could ask of the government, if you're not storing the information, who gets to decide who stores it if not you? All of this doesn't even include the overriding question of why they are collecting your information in the first place.
Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian said it's a false choice between security and privacy; we agree with that, but he made the distinction between the government collecting data vs. Google or Amazon because you opt-in for those. That's a false choice as well. You know how many times you have to do a Google search or buy something on Amazon for those companies to get your information? Answer: once. As we've said before - you're privacy these days comes by being one of a million faces walking down Broadway in New York City - you can see them all but nothing specific about any. That's the new reality in terms of your online identification.
And as for the call for stricter oversight, we heard Congressional Intelligence Committee Chairs Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) both said that there have been no abuses and everything the NSA has done has been legal. Yet, we still need stricter over? That doesn't sound right.
One could answer, as Secretary Gates did, that we're talking about things that might happen, as opposed to things that have happened. In this case, if one can imagine that something 'might' happen, it certainly will happen. And the reason we know this is because they were happening without our knowledge and we didn't know it until Mr. Snowden informed the world about it.
We always contended that Mr. Snowden did the right thing, but in the wrong way. If Mr. Snowden went to work at the NSA strictly for the purpose to disclose secrets or unknown governmental agency operations, as Senator Feinstein explained, then he's technically not a whistleblower as Mr. Ohanian explained how Mr. Snowden will eventually be viewed.
Are we glad, we know what we know because of Mr. Snowden, no doubt. Did Mr. Snowden leak this information then go to China then Russian, also no doubt.
The reason we bring this up is because Mr. Rogers eluded to something even more serious and that was the question of if Mr. Snowden acted alone. Mr. Rogers obviously thinks that the answer is that Mr. Snowden did have help (see the clip below):
Though it would certainly affect the labeling of Mr. Snowden, whether he had help or not doesn't change the fact that someone at the NSA, a relatively low level contractor, could have access to so much sensitive information, so much so that the United States government has stated that it will never know the extent of how much. How does this not show us that abuse is not only probably, but easy as well.
Round Table: Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, NBC political analyst and former Obama adviser David Axelrod (actually it was Harold Ford), The Washington Post’s Nia-Malika Henderson and NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Date of Note (thanks to Andrea Mitchell): June 15th. This is the date by which Congress has to reauthorize this mess.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
1.12.14: What's Really Important - Meet The Press Drops the Ball
Just this once, we wish that someone on the Meet The Press staff would read this column because someone there needs to know that today's program totally dropped the ball. Instead of discussing the important issues of the day, it was 40 minutes of political gossip about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
Is it an issue that should be one of the topics? Sure, but not for 40 minutes - simply ridiculous. And when the topic switched to Robert Gates' book, it was all about how 2016 presidential candidates will be effected.
Never mind that Iraq is disintegrating into a sectarian civil war that threatens to destabilize the entire region or that the jobs report for December was the weakest it's been in three years and Congress has decided not to extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 million U.S. citizens. How about the passing of Ariel Sharon and the legacy that his leadership of Israel, the United States' only true ally in the region, has left?
Yet, we have to hear the Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, defend Governor Christie, not holding him accountable for his administration's actions while he hypocritically continued to bash President Obama - insufferable programming.
They didn't even really touch on the real reason the story matters. It wasn't a lane closing on a bridge. No, instead it was a lane closing on the busiest bridge in the world that leads to the biggest city in the United States that has already had to face terrorist attacks. That's what makes what the Christie administration did so despicable. On so many levels, they put general public safety at extreme risk for political purposes. Left out of today's conversation.
As 'Wall Street Journal' Columnist Kim Strassel, and many others have said, he [Christie] better be telling the truth when he said that he didn't know anything about it. Regardless of whether Mr. Christie knew before Wednesday or not, he might as well take off the lap band because despite what Mr. Prebus would tell you, Mr. Christie's chances for becoming president of the United States are now close to zero.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Christie did create a culture in his administration that would enable something like this to occur. We agree with Rick Santorum when he said that personnel is policy, and this completely puts into question Mr. Christie's judgement on who would run the country in a Christie Administration.
And getting back to the Robert Gates passive aggressive (Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg's words) book for a moment, we haven't read it but that he's willing to dish with scorn on a sitting administration clearly illustrates in retrospect that he was not the right person for the job. The the discussed controversy about whether you interpret Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Obama's stance on the troop surge in Iraq as political or not, it doesn't really matter because the surge should have never had to be decided upon in the first place if the Bush Administration didn't create the military folly that the Iraq War turned out to be.
And again, that Anbar province in Iraq is a de facto war zone, the memories of over 1,300 U.S. soldiers have been dishonored because with conditions as they are now, one is compelled to ask, 'What was the point in the first place?'
We would have really have liked to get all the guests take on that question, but it's not gossipy enough.
Round Table 1: Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; Wall Street Journal Columnist Kim Strassel; former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs; NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd; and TIME Magazine's Mark Halperin.
Round Table 2: former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), now president of the Wilson Center; Former GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg; and host of MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews.
End Note: The topic that have taken more center stage should have been Maria Shriver's story of how 1 in 3 women in the United States is in economic peril and one big bill away from financial ruin. We'd talk more about this but at this point today, we're so cynical about the topics covered today that we have concluded that the only reason it was discussed at all was to plug programming, The Shriver Report.
Is it an issue that should be one of the topics? Sure, but not for 40 minutes - simply ridiculous. And when the topic switched to Robert Gates' book, it was all about how 2016 presidential candidates will be effected.
Never mind that Iraq is disintegrating into a sectarian civil war that threatens to destabilize the entire region or that the jobs report for December was the weakest it's been in three years and Congress has decided not to extend unemployment benefits for 1.3 million U.S. citizens. How about the passing of Ariel Sharon and the legacy that his leadership of Israel, the United States' only true ally in the region, has left?
Yet, we have to hear the Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, defend Governor Christie, not holding him accountable for his administration's actions while he hypocritically continued to bash President Obama - insufferable programming.
They didn't even really touch on the real reason the story matters. It wasn't a lane closing on a bridge. No, instead it was a lane closing on the busiest bridge in the world that leads to the biggest city in the United States that has already had to face terrorist attacks. That's what makes what the Christie administration did so despicable. On so many levels, they put general public safety at extreme risk for political purposes. Left out of today's conversation.
As 'Wall Street Journal' Columnist Kim Strassel, and many others have said, he [Christie] better be telling the truth when he said that he didn't know anything about it. Regardless of whether Mr. Christie knew before Wednesday or not, he might as well take off the lap band because despite what Mr. Prebus would tell you, Mr. Christie's chances for becoming president of the United States are now close to zero.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Christie did create a culture in his administration that would enable something like this to occur. We agree with Rick Santorum when he said that personnel is policy, and this completely puts into question Mr. Christie's judgement on who would run the country in a Christie Administration.
And getting back to the Robert Gates passive aggressive (Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg's words) book for a moment, we haven't read it but that he's willing to dish with scorn on a sitting administration clearly illustrates in retrospect that he was not the right person for the job. The the discussed controversy about whether you interpret Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Obama's stance on the troop surge in Iraq as political or not, it doesn't really matter because the surge should have never had to be decided upon in the first place if the Bush Administration didn't create the military folly that the Iraq War turned out to be.
And again, that Anbar province in Iraq is a de facto war zone, the memories of over 1,300 U.S. soldiers have been dishonored because with conditions as they are now, one is compelled to ask, 'What was the point in the first place?'
We would have really have liked to get all the guests take on that question, but it's not gossipy enough.
Round Table 1: Democratic Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake; Wall Street Journal Columnist Kim Strassel; former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs; NBC News Chief White House Correspondent and Political Director, Chuck Todd; and TIME Magazine's Mark Halperin.
Round Table 2: former Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), now president of the Wilson Center; Former GOP Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg; and host of MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews.
End Note: The topic that have taken more center stage should have been Maria Shriver's story of how 1 in 3 women in the United States is in economic peril and one big bill away from financial ruin. We'd talk more about this but at this point today, we're so cynical about the topics covered today that we have concluded that the only reason it was discussed at all was to plug programming, The Shriver Report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)