Today's Meet The Press, guest moderated well by Chuck Todd, ran through a series of differing yet important topics, which we'll discuss individually, however, the phrase that comes to mind as an overriding theme is that 'politics is all about perception.' What makes that phrase relevant to the discussion about Mr. Putin and Russia, Governor Chris Christie, and President Obama and the Healthcare law is that all three characters are big on the offensive right now, portraying confidence. In observing their respective statements and posture, all of them are in a much weaker position than they let on.
First look at Mr. Putin, who called the U.S. president to discuss a diplomatic resolution to the crisis with Ukraine; the result of which is Secretary Kerry turning his plane around to meet with his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Paris. The call between the two leaders shows that amid all the militarily aggressive moves from Mr. Putin he knows that he's in a very vulnerable position. If the second round of sanctions that President Obama is pushing for with the U.S.'s European Allies are agreed upon, Russia's fragile economy is going to get much worse very quickly and in places like Crimea, such as in South Ossentia, they'll be thinking caveat emptor.. for sure.
With that said, the negotiations that Mr. Putin wants are a stall tactic to put off the sanctions. The Obama Administration should recognize this and impose the sanctions anyway.
And before going on, it's worth noting that Rick Santorum's assessment during the round table that this would not have happened and that the relationship is in 'tatters' due to the Obama Administration 'resetting from a position of weakness,' just shows his simplistic lack of depth of the subject.
Mr. Putin played his hand in Crimea, and is using the military build-up along the Ukrainian border as an attempt the broaden his leverage. Mr. Obama should now impose sanctions immediately to provide counter-pressure, and then negotiations should begin. As former ambassador to Moscow Mike McFaul said, Mr. Putin can not be given the leverage to start negotiating other countries' sovereignty. He phrased it, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." That's the perception, but it isn't the reality unless the west makes it so. When Mr. Lavrov says that Russia has no intention of moving into Ukraine, but what he means is that they will not move unless given an excuse to do so.
Another politician, on the more local front, that's also making aggressive moves despite being in a very fragile position of legitimacy is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who has been on a media offensive this week, showing off his old Christie-style bravado again to the press. He's on the offensive because he indeed knows the fragile reality, and that is his political career hangs in the balance.
When a lawyer, hired by Mr. Christie, issues a report this week that the governor commissioned which did not contain any interviews of any of the five key witnesses in the case, you know it's a purely political document that could in effect only raise suspicions of what really happened and who knew what when even more. And this is what Mr. Christie is hanging his hat on, but the big donors in Las Vegas, like us, aren't totally convinced. Mr. Christie's lawyer called it a vindication, but that's hardly the case at all. Even former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani admitted the report wasn't complete or conclusive, and he's been Mr. Christie's biggest defender. (After Mr. Giuliani admitted that fact, he spent the next few minutes ineffectively nuancing that answer.)
So to use our own forum to answer the Facebook question - Can Chris Christie's presidential prospects recover from the Bridge Scandal? - We'll say that he will to a degree, but this scandal (even if it doesn't blow up any further, which it will) along with other attacks will prevent him from ever getting the nomination.
Lastly, that brings us to the fragile potential success of Mr. Obama's signature healthcare law, the ACA, as we come to the registration deadline. Mr. Todd was spot on when he commented that Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic and Avik Roy of Forbes magazine had a very thoughtful policy debate and that he wished more were like that. Those are the types of debates that should be the standard of Meet The Press, and it's a shame you don't see them as much anymore.
Mr. Cohn, advocating for the law, noted that 6 million sign-ups is a promising sign and that it's too early to tell what the total is since young people tend to wait as long as possible. If the number were to stay at 6 million to start, you would still have to concede (if you oppose the law) that it was successful. However, to Mr. Roy's valid point, if not enough young people sign up, many people could see their premiums go up without receiving any benefit from the ACA. It could in fact end costing much more than Democrats let on, which will be politically disastrous.
Mr. Roy also didn't think the law was beyond repeal, and if you take any stock in the analysis Mr. Todd did on the races for Senate, it's a definite possibility. If Republicans gain control of the Senate to go along with control of the House, you know that a full repeal vote is the first thing on the agenda. But wouldn't that present its own fragile reality? You repeal the law, to the euphoria of the Republican base, but have no real alternative to replace it with in effect taking away insurance from millions of people. How well is that going to go over?
Round Table former Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum; national editor
of the Cook Political Report Amy Walter; Peter Baker of the New York
Times; and the youngest mayor in the history of Ithaca, NY, Svante
Myrick
A Couple of Questions...
We're proud of Senator Ron Wyden's (D-Ore) stand in opposition to the N.S.A.'s mass data collection, but isn't odd that the Senator doesn't have a straight forward answer on the question of whether or not Edward Snowden is a criminal? What ever his answer, no matter, but he doesn't have one?
And when you see Meet The Press produce a new segment "Meeting America," doesn't it make you ask why they don't just bring back the "Meet The Press Minute?" keeping the content more directly relevant to the program itself. It does have the history that the other programs do not.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Sunday, March 23, 2014
3.23.14: A Threat to the New World Order
"A threat to the new world order," is how New York Times columnist David Brooks described Russian President Vladimir Putin. Rich Lowry explained how when German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Putin, she thought he was 'living in a different world.' The new world order that Mr. Brooks was referring to is one in which economies are integrated and governments don't go invading other countries.
But it can be said that Mr. Putin is living very much in this world because taking that explanation at its face, the United States has also been in violation of what it quote-unquote civilized with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. We're not going to re-litigate that decision for the up-teenth time her today, but there needs to be clarification. What Mr. Brooks is referring to is an ideal, and it is certainly not the reality, but what he's saying is that a G8 country shouldn't be acting in this fashion. There are better ways to achieve power than how Mr. Putin is doing it, but let's face it - a self-absorbed greed is what permeates in this integrated world economy, and given that, anything is possible. And greed is not only relegated to monetary wealth and that's what we're seeing from Mr. Putin.
However, where he is making his biggest mistake is in his hubris that all of these aggressive moves that he has been making will stand without consequences. Not only will the west react as they have already begun to do with sanctions, but what happens as time goes by and all these people newly embraced by Russia realize that there lives have become no better because monetary help from the Kremlin is not coming. Nationalism is a very potent political aphrodisiac, as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, but it's only going to get you so far. Just ask the people of South Ossentia.
Mr. Putin respects the bully mentality and as he looks around the room at the other world leaders, there is no one stepping up that he thinks can slap him down so to speak, and unless President Obama does substantial as Mr. Brooks described, the Russian president will keep annexing resources. However, where we disagree with Mr. Brooks, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and National Review editor Rich Lowry is in outright arming the Ukrainians. If Mr. Putin continues to be aggressive and western Europe doesn't stand up to him in a unified manner, which they are reluctant to do, willing to have Ukraine's back as it were, then it won't matter how much weaponry you give them, they'll be rolled by the Russia army and you'll give Putin justification for doing so, however flimsy it may come off.
Rep. Rogers, speaking to Mr. Gregory in a prerecorded interview from the Republic of Georgia, presented an interest tidbit for all you conspiracy theorists out there that Edward Snowden who is under the control of Russian intelligence services has provided information to the Russian government that has made it easier Mr. Putin to make aggressive military moves. Mr. Gregory asked what evidence there was for thinking Mr. Snowden has cooperated with the Russians and all Mr. Rogers could offer is that it is a consensus belief in the intelligence community. His non-answer renders this theory as a bit of a stretch, but in a technologically integrated world its already been shown that one individual can cause an 'order changing' amount of chaos.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times columnist David Brooks, National Review Editor Rich Lowry and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
On Another Note:
Obamacare is four years old this week and two things that were said within the round table discussion struck us: 1) that Rich Lowry was correct that if Republicans control the government in 2017, which is certainly possible, Obamacare will be repealed so it's not a definite that it's here to stay. David Brooks, on the other hand, said that while it's a good thing for many that they now have insurance, the cost controls touted by the president and Democratic officials will not happen. Obamacare is going to end up costing us a lot more than we all anticipated.
And yes, that's worrisome but it wouldn't be if the government did spend so many other dollars in the wrong places, just like the debate on today's program about whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. For us, the answer is no because as NCAA President Mark Emmert said, then they would cease to be students. We kept hearing this general notion that college sports is big business (we all know this as Reggie Love noted) and that universities are profiting heavily on the backs of these athletes. It seems to us that universities are just another place where they're spending big money in the wrong places. We don't claim to be experts but it seems obvious that this is the case - all these millions being made in the big business of college sports yet student loan debt in this country tops $1 trillion; why is that?
But it can be said that Mr. Putin is living very much in this world because taking that explanation at its face, the United States has also been in violation of what it quote-unquote civilized with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. We're not going to re-litigate that decision for the up-teenth time her today, but there needs to be clarification. What Mr. Brooks is referring to is an ideal, and it is certainly not the reality, but what he's saying is that a G8 country shouldn't be acting in this fashion. There are better ways to achieve power than how Mr. Putin is doing it, but let's face it - a self-absorbed greed is what permeates in this integrated world economy, and given that, anything is possible. And greed is not only relegated to monetary wealth and that's what we're seeing from Mr. Putin.
However, where he is making his biggest mistake is in his hubris that all of these aggressive moves that he has been making will stand without consequences. Not only will the west react as they have already begun to do with sanctions, but what happens as time goes by and all these people newly embraced by Russia realize that there lives have become no better because monetary help from the Kremlin is not coming. Nationalism is a very potent political aphrodisiac, as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, but it's only going to get you so far. Just ask the people of South Ossentia.
Mr. Putin respects the bully mentality and as he looks around the room at the other world leaders, there is no one stepping up that he thinks can slap him down so to speak, and unless President Obama does substantial as Mr. Brooks described, the Russian president will keep annexing resources. However, where we disagree with Mr. Brooks, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and National Review editor Rich Lowry is in outright arming the Ukrainians. If Mr. Putin continues to be aggressive and western Europe doesn't stand up to him in a unified manner, which they are reluctant to do, willing to have Ukraine's back as it were, then it won't matter how much weaponry you give them, they'll be rolled by the Russia army and you'll give Putin justification for doing so, however flimsy it may come off.
Rep. Rogers, speaking to Mr. Gregory in a prerecorded interview from the Republic of Georgia, presented an interest tidbit for all you conspiracy theorists out there that Edward Snowden who is under the control of Russian intelligence services has provided information to the Russian government that has made it easier Mr. Putin to make aggressive military moves. Mr. Gregory asked what evidence there was for thinking Mr. Snowden has cooperated with the Russians and all Mr. Rogers could offer is that it is a consensus belief in the intelligence community. His non-answer renders this theory as a bit of a stretch, but in a technologically integrated world its already been shown that one individual can cause an 'order changing' amount of chaos.
Round Table: NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, New York Times columnist David Brooks, National Review Editor Rich Lowry and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter
On Another Note:
Obamacare is four years old this week and two things that were said within the round table discussion struck us: 1) that Rich Lowry was correct that if Republicans control the government in 2017, which is certainly possible, Obamacare will be repealed so it's not a definite that it's here to stay. David Brooks, on the other hand, said that while it's a good thing for many that they now have insurance, the cost controls touted by the president and Democratic officials will not happen. Obamacare is going to end up costing us a lot more than we all anticipated.
And yes, that's worrisome but it wouldn't be if the government did spend so many other dollars in the wrong places, just like the debate on today's program about whether or not college athletes should be paid or not. For us, the answer is no because as NCAA President Mark Emmert said, then they would cease to be students. We kept hearing this general notion that college sports is big business (we all know this as Reggie Love noted) and that universities are profiting heavily on the backs of these athletes. It seems to us that universities are just another place where they're spending big money in the wrong places. We don't claim to be experts but it seems obvious that this is the case - all these millions being made in the big business of college sports yet student loan debt in this country tops $1 trillion; why is that?
Sunday, March 16, 2014
3.16.14: Ukraine, Like a Mystery Airliner, Begs More Questions
With the entire world still wondering what exactly happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the Malaysian government has now opened up a criminal inquiry, meaning that the plane was purposely diverted by the pilot who also turned off the transponders cutting off any tracking capability. The information out there only leads to more questions about what happened to the plane. They can not find any wreckage debris but given the amount of time the plane was in the air after last contact, it had to be low on fuel. Whether a terrorist act, an accidental crash, or commitment to suicide, everything is speculation until the plane is found.
Where there are just as many questions with no clear answer is with the crisis in the Ukraine. Today, the Crimean region, which is officially part of the Ukraine, is holding a referendum on whether they will secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer stated that the referendum is an illegal act that the United States would not recognize it.
Moderator David Gregory said that he was working on the assumption that Crimea is lost to Russia and none of his three guests - Mr. Pfeiffer or Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) or Jeff Flake (R-AZ) could say anything to counter that assessment. And the fact is that President Putin, one way or another, is going to annex Crimea into the Russian Federation just as he had done with the Republic of Georgia.
All this leads to the question of whether Russia will then move into eastern Ukraine, emboldened by the lack of response from the west so far. However, the Senators and Mr. Pfeiffer said that sanctions, from both the United States and western European countries, would be forthcoming in days. The sanctions have been essentially approved by the United Nations security counsel that voted to condemn Russia's actions with regard to Crimea, with China notably abstaining.
We're of the opinion that the countries of the west should impose sanctions but we also think that the sanctions will provide the impetus for Russia to move into eastern Ukraine because at that point, Mr. Putin is going to care even less than he does now about what the west thinks or does. It goes with the logic that once you've made someone mad at you, the increasing degrees of which matter less and less. And what Putin, and everyone else for that matter, knows is that western Europe's appetite for a large scale military confrontation are nil. Europe simply will not go there again, but Mr. Putin will not even risk that outside chance so he annex as much as he possibly can, stopping just short of risking an armed confrontation.
Fresh off a trip in Ukraine, Senator Flake described the Ukrainian military as 'hollowed out.' Mr. Pfeiffer said that there was an economic aid package on the floor of Congress for a vote, but there wasn't one for military aid to the country, nor will there be, which translates into more leverage for Mr. Putin. With that, we found it refreshing that Mr. Flake, with a seemingly deeper understanding of the situation there, stated that there was nothing that President Obama said or did that further emboldened Mr. Putin to act the way he has - a concession that runs counter to what his fellow Republican colleague have been saying in criticism of the president.
But Senator Flake's candid observation runs tandem with something else that he said that we completely agree with, which is that there is nothing we can do to withstand a Russian move on the Ukraine. That's just being non-politically honest.
Senator Durbin didn't concede ground as easily but it was more than evident that the two men were certainly on the same page, as it were, which despite the direness of the situation, lends itself well to the notion of the United States having more sound foreign policy, at least for this particular circumstance.
That's certainly not the case on domestic issues despite Dan Pfeiffer thinking that there is still a window of opportunity for there to be immigration reform this year. The round table declared it all but dead as well, and for good reason. It's the perfect conundrum for the president in the eyes of Republicans, a classic lose-lose as it stands right now. For Democrats, as Mr. Gregory noted to the senior adviser, without immigration reform, Mr. Obama is becoming known as the deporter-in-chief while Republicans can rhetorically hammer away that the president wants to give amnesty to millions. There's no reason why Republicans would want to change that dynamic, especially in an election year.
Speaking to the overall trust issues the public has with the president and Washington in general, it's easily to understand why. You don't trust the president to get things done because you know that he will stiff opposition simply because of who he is, never mind the idea.
With the subject of truth in mind, the CIA spying on Congress? For now, we'll reserve comment while this develops... #politically juicy.
Round Table: NBC News Political Contributor Robert Gibbs, the Heritage Foundation’s Israel Ortega, Jon Ralston of “Ralston Reports,” and New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan
Where there are just as many questions with no clear answer is with the crisis in the Ukraine. Today, the Crimean region, which is officially part of the Ukraine, is holding a referendum on whether they will secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer stated that the referendum is an illegal act that the United States would not recognize it.
Moderator David Gregory said that he was working on the assumption that Crimea is lost to Russia and none of his three guests - Mr. Pfeiffer or Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) or Jeff Flake (R-AZ) could say anything to counter that assessment. And the fact is that President Putin, one way or another, is going to annex Crimea into the Russian Federation just as he had done with the Republic of Georgia.
All this leads to the question of whether Russia will then move into eastern Ukraine, emboldened by the lack of response from the west so far. However, the Senators and Mr. Pfeiffer said that sanctions, from both the United States and western European countries, would be forthcoming in days. The sanctions have been essentially approved by the United Nations security counsel that voted to condemn Russia's actions with regard to Crimea, with China notably abstaining.
We're of the opinion that the countries of the west should impose sanctions but we also think that the sanctions will provide the impetus for Russia to move into eastern Ukraine because at that point, Mr. Putin is going to care even less than he does now about what the west thinks or does. It goes with the logic that once you've made someone mad at you, the increasing degrees of which matter less and less. And what Putin, and everyone else for that matter, knows is that western Europe's appetite for a large scale military confrontation are nil. Europe simply will not go there again, but Mr. Putin will not even risk that outside chance so he annex as much as he possibly can, stopping just short of risking an armed confrontation.
Fresh off a trip in Ukraine, Senator Flake described the Ukrainian military as 'hollowed out.' Mr. Pfeiffer said that there was an economic aid package on the floor of Congress for a vote, but there wasn't one for military aid to the country, nor will there be, which translates into more leverage for Mr. Putin. With that, we found it refreshing that Mr. Flake, with a seemingly deeper understanding of the situation there, stated that there was nothing that President Obama said or did that further emboldened Mr. Putin to act the way he has - a concession that runs counter to what his fellow Republican colleague have been saying in criticism of the president.
But Senator Flake's candid observation runs tandem with something else that he said that we completely agree with, which is that there is nothing we can do to withstand a Russian move on the Ukraine. That's just being non-politically honest.
Senator Durbin didn't concede ground as easily but it was more than evident that the two men were certainly on the same page, as it were, which despite the direness of the situation, lends itself well to the notion of the United States having more sound foreign policy, at least for this particular circumstance.
That's certainly not the case on domestic issues despite Dan Pfeiffer thinking that there is still a window of opportunity for there to be immigration reform this year. The round table declared it all but dead as well, and for good reason. It's the perfect conundrum for the president in the eyes of Republicans, a classic lose-lose as it stands right now. For Democrats, as Mr. Gregory noted to the senior adviser, without immigration reform, Mr. Obama is becoming known as the deporter-in-chief while Republicans can rhetorically hammer away that the president wants to give amnesty to millions. There's no reason why Republicans would want to change that dynamic, especially in an election year.
Speaking to the overall trust issues the public has with the president and Washington in general, it's easily to understand why. You don't trust the president to get things done because you know that he will stiff opposition simply because of who he is, never mind the idea.
With the subject of truth in mind, the CIA spying on Congress? For now, we'll reserve comment while this develops... #politically juicy.
Round Table: NBC News Political Contributor Robert Gibbs, the Heritage Foundation’s Israel Ortega, Jon Ralston of “Ralston Reports,” and New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan
Sunday, March 09, 2014
3.9.14: Who's Teaching Whom?
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)