Meet The Press may be taking a break this week, but we're not. Unfortunately for Meet The Press, the only news it seems to be making lately is how poorly it's doing in the rating battles with other Sunday programs. We even read about a rumor that Meet The Press will convert from a Sunday news program to a daily political gossip program... a horrible idea. The 'program of record' would cease to be just that.
Since there is no show this week, we'll take the liberty to produce our own and address what should have been covered today, had the program aired this week.
We'd start with an on-the-ground- report from Ukraine and the latest on the referendum vote.
International consensus says that the end result of this referendum vote will see the Donetsk and Eastern region of Ukraine wanting to break away, but this vote has also been widely condemned as illegal by the world community. Even Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, has asked for a postponement. Military skirmishes have already broken out in eastern Ukraine and all this referendum will do make a civil war official.
And if full-scale civil war breaks out in Ukraine, President Putin will have no reservations about assisting the eastern separatists so the question is to what degree the west will help the Kiev government.
Meet the Press at this point could introduce in-studio guest.. say... Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, and ask what the west is prepared to do?
The west could impose even harsher sanctions on Russia but now you just have another situation like that of Iran and Syria. Sanctioning one country when all the death is occurring in another, where there is no willingness to stop it. And the only outside troops Mr. Putin wants on the scene are his own because he wants as much of Ukraine as he can get. All this rules out international peacekeeping forces instantly.
We understand Mr. Putin's motivations, those are pretty clear. We can also understood Europe's collective trepidation about retaliating against this subversive Russian behavior because of differing agendas and energy reliance. We can even understand the U.S. not wanting to get involved simply because of foreign intervention fatigue.
But here's what we don't get. A Ukrainian national (regardless of what language you speak) that had been oppressed by a dictatorial centralized government for decades then went through the Orange Revolution to gain independence, now wants to go back under the control of the former oppressor. Separatists would say that that is not what they want, but to become an independent state with the right to become part of the Russian Federation again.
The past is always comforting because we choose to remember the simpler and gentler things about it, but trying to go back to it is a fool's goal because of new reality that exists, the conditions are never the same for some wishful return to 'how it was.' If the separatists truly wanted independence that would be one thing, but to 'vote' yourself back into Russian is easy cowardly way forward.
Deputy Secretary, what is the United States prepared to do to prevent bloodshed in the Ukraine? That's the question and then we'd follow it up with two members of the roundtable with opposite perspectives to comment. We'd repeat this with a second topic - interview followed by two more of the members of the day's round table, then sitting them all down to close everything out.
And for today's second topic, that would be about domestic issues, focusing specifically on the debate of a minimum wage increase, the repeal or continuation of the Affordable Care Act, and as a transition start with the new select committee hearings on Benghazi, which is related to both foreign and domestic politics.
Invite Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC), head of the select House committee, on the program to ask him how this committee investigation will differ from the previous hearings. In our estimation, these new Benghazi hearings are purely political on the part of Republicans, but what is different is their target. It used to be President Obama but who they really want to damage now is former Security of State Hilary Clinton. As we always say, if we can see this from where we're sitting then its pretty obvious. You could also Mr. Gowdy why he called these new committee hearings a 'trial' earlier in the week. That doesn't sound like an investigation to find out what happened but a targeted prosecution of individuals.
After this short interview, invite two congresspeople from opposite sides to debate that and answer the questions of the minimum wage and the ACA.
[This column has spoken on both these topics and our short answers, once again, here are that the minimum wage should be increased - at the very least an immediate compromise between Republicans and Democrats as to how much, and then go from there. As for the ACA, no repeal, fix what needs fixing and let's all move on.]
Two good foils for such questions could be Representatives James Clyburn (D-SC) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), legislators that both buck the stereotypes of their respective states' political leanings who also give serious answers.
As for the members of today's fictitious round table... since we're calling the shots... (the non-B.S. crowd): The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, Correspondent for The Atlantic and Bloomberg View
Columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot, national editor
of the Cook Political Report Amy Walter
What a show today!
Happy day for all Mothers in the United States and everywhere in the world.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Sunday, May 04, 2014
5.4.14: Thinking on Execution & The Rick Perry Interview
We'll try to ignore the fact that with all the important issues confronting the United States at home and abroad, Meet The Press decided to not only begin the program with discussion of the White House Correspondents Dinner, but also end the program with that same topic. How out of touch do you have to be?
Before we get to the interview with Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), we'll comment again (following up last week) on the controversial owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Donald Sterling, just to say we agree with Sacramento mayor and former NBA All-Star Kevin Johnson that it was great to see everyone in the NBA, particularly the players, come down strong with condemnation and action in sanctioning the owner for his racist comments. However, at the end of the season, the Clippers players (we'll give them a pass right now as their in the midst of doing their jobs in the playoffs) have to act by refusing to play for the team called the Clippers as long as Mr. Sterling is owner. Now having the knowledge that they do, there's no justification for playing for an owner with such views.
As round table guest, will.i.am noted, most of the inmates in our prisons are African American and Latino, which speaks to an element of institutional racism in this country, something that billionaires like Mr. Sterling do nothing to combat.
This leads us to the 'botched' execution that occurred this week in Oklahoma and Governor Perry's comments about it. Mr. Perry said that he didn't know if what happened was inhumane, but it was definitely 'botched.' And yes, it was disturbing that he also used the word 'botched' to describe his presidential run. Clayton Lockett, with an accomplice, sexually assaulted and murdered two women before burying them alive. He received a multi-chemical lethal injection this week for that heinous crime, but something went wrong. Instead of a painless death, Mr. Lockett died of a very painful heart attack.
Given his crime, some would say, "So what if it was painful," and we totally understand that view. Mr. Perry said that in Texas there was a less likely chance that something like that would happen as they only use one chemical, but he also said that in the case of such heinous crimes, the people of Texas decided that the death penalty was appropriate. The further explained the he, unlike President Obama, doesn't believe that one size fits all decision making works well in America and that states should decide for themselves what to do for it's citizens - one of those decisions being whether to administer the death penalty or not.
However, if you agree with all of that, here are a few things to think about.
We have evolved as a society in how we execute people becoming technically better at doing it - lethal injection seems more reasonable than say the guillotine, but one would wonder why we haven't evolved in our thinking on whether or not it's humane to still carry them out. It's human nature for our species to evolve in our thinking confronting issues, and to not do so on whether we should execute people or not, goes against our nature, hence inhumane.
One could say that even the Bible has evolved on this issue - Old Testament vs. New Testament; eye for an eye vs. turn the other check.
And as far as leaving most major decisions to the states, as both Republican politicians advocated on today's program, what that does is erode America's national identity, which affects the country's ability to speak to the rest of the world with one unified voice of strength. Republican politicians continually complaining that Mr. Obama is weak on foreign policy, and it's because part of the infrastructure of America's political thinking is damaged, so they can not have it both ways.
And in the case of executions, America lecturing the rest of the world about human rights doesn't wash anymore. It's the hard truth, and Mr. Perry doesn't acknowledge that truth.
He mentioned healthcare as another instance whether it should be left up to the states. Well, as it stands right now, the states that have decided not to participate in the Affordable Care Act are denying their citizens health insurance through Medicaid. Where's the humanity in that? will.i.am, who despite being invited on the program for the wrong reason (he attended the W.H.C.D.), discussed the topics in the right way. He talked about education and the overall effect that it has in terms of America's overall common welfare. In American politics, the conversation 'devolves into the parties,' as Anita Dunn said, once the topic gets to Washington.
The devolution is evidenced by the fact that 80 percent of Americans feel the minimum wage should be raised, yet many politicians voted against it. Mr. Perry said that we shouldn't be talking about a minimum wage but instead a maximum wage, explaining the we have to give people the opportunity to earn a maximum wage, but where is that opportunity in his state with Mr. Gregory pointing out that Texas' poverty rate two points higher than the national average.
His explanation was utter nonsense, and it makes us think, given what he said, why Mr. Perry would seek the office of President of the United States. It's evident that he believes more in states' individual identities than a unified national one. In terms of America, the concept and country in the ideal, Congressman Chaffetz said he believed in American exceptionalism, but how is that real if there is no sense of collective progress, or even advocacy for it?
Round Table: will.i.am; Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; Kathleen Parker, Washington Post columnist; Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT); Anita Dunn, former Obama White House Communications Director
Before we get to the interview with Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), we'll comment again (following up last week) on the controversial owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Donald Sterling, just to say we agree with Sacramento mayor and former NBA All-Star Kevin Johnson that it was great to see everyone in the NBA, particularly the players, come down strong with condemnation and action in sanctioning the owner for his racist comments. However, at the end of the season, the Clippers players (we'll give them a pass right now as their in the midst of doing their jobs in the playoffs) have to act by refusing to play for the team called the Clippers as long as Mr. Sterling is owner. Now having the knowledge that they do, there's no justification for playing for an owner with such views.
As round table guest, will.i.am noted, most of the inmates in our prisons are African American and Latino, which speaks to an element of institutional racism in this country, something that billionaires like Mr. Sterling do nothing to combat.
This leads us to the 'botched' execution that occurred this week in Oklahoma and Governor Perry's comments about it. Mr. Perry said that he didn't know if what happened was inhumane, but it was definitely 'botched.' And yes, it was disturbing that he also used the word 'botched' to describe his presidential run. Clayton Lockett, with an accomplice, sexually assaulted and murdered two women before burying them alive. He received a multi-chemical lethal injection this week for that heinous crime, but something went wrong. Instead of a painless death, Mr. Lockett died of a very painful heart attack.
Given his crime, some would say, "So what if it was painful," and we totally understand that view. Mr. Perry said that in Texas there was a less likely chance that something like that would happen as they only use one chemical, but he also said that in the case of such heinous crimes, the people of Texas decided that the death penalty was appropriate. The further explained the he, unlike President Obama, doesn't believe that one size fits all decision making works well in America and that states should decide for themselves what to do for it's citizens - one of those decisions being whether to administer the death penalty or not.
However, if you agree with all of that, here are a few things to think about.
We have evolved as a society in how we execute people becoming technically better at doing it - lethal injection seems more reasonable than say the guillotine, but one would wonder why we haven't evolved in our thinking on whether or not it's humane to still carry them out. It's human nature for our species to evolve in our thinking confronting issues, and to not do so on whether we should execute people or not, goes against our nature, hence inhumane.
One could say that even the Bible has evolved on this issue - Old Testament vs. New Testament; eye for an eye vs. turn the other check.
And as far as leaving most major decisions to the states, as both Republican politicians advocated on today's program, what that does is erode America's national identity, which affects the country's ability to speak to the rest of the world with one unified voice of strength. Republican politicians continually complaining that Mr. Obama is weak on foreign policy, and it's because part of the infrastructure of America's political thinking is damaged, so they can not have it both ways.
And in the case of executions, America lecturing the rest of the world about human rights doesn't wash anymore. It's the hard truth, and Mr. Perry doesn't acknowledge that truth.
He mentioned healthcare as another instance whether it should be left up to the states. Well, as it stands right now, the states that have decided not to participate in the Affordable Care Act are denying their citizens health insurance through Medicaid. Where's the humanity in that? will.i.am, who despite being invited on the program for the wrong reason (he attended the W.H.C.D.), discussed the topics in the right way. He talked about education and the overall effect that it has in terms of America's overall common welfare. In American politics, the conversation 'devolves into the parties,' as Anita Dunn said, once the topic gets to Washington.
The devolution is evidenced by the fact that 80 percent of Americans feel the minimum wage should be raised, yet many politicians voted against it. Mr. Perry said that we shouldn't be talking about a minimum wage but instead a maximum wage, explaining the we have to give people the opportunity to earn a maximum wage, but where is that opportunity in his state with Mr. Gregory pointing out that Texas' poverty rate two points higher than the national average.
His explanation was utter nonsense, and it makes us think, given what he said, why Mr. Perry would seek the office of President of the United States. It's evident that he believes more in states' individual identities than a unified national one. In terms of America, the concept and country in the ideal, Congressman Chaffetz said he believed in American exceptionalism, but how is that real if there is no sense of collective progress, or even advocacy for it?
Round Table: will.i.am; Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; Kathleen Parker, Washington Post columnist; Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT); Anita Dunn, former Obama White House Communications Director
Sunday, April 27, 2014
4.27.14: If You're Silent, You're Accepting
Interim President of the NAACP, Lorraine Miller, provided the obvious title for today's column because it applied across all the subjects discussed on today's Meet The Press. In making the statement, Ms. Miller was commenting to the racist comments allegedly Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling to his girlfriend. And if it is in fact Donald Sterling's voice on the damaging tape then the NBA should take action to remove him as an owner of a franchise, which would require the other owners, who'd be acting in their own best interest, to vote him out. (We guess that in the context of this situation, Mr. Sterling openly having a girlfriend while being married isn't a big deal.)
Given Mr. Sterling's apparent history of racially related legal troubles, Bryant Gumble's assessment of "it's surprising anyone is surprised" makes perfect sense and now it would leave people surprised to find if it wasn't Mr. Sterling on the tape. And you can include this column in that category, however, we're still a bit uncomfortable with how Reverend Sharpton is always forcefully condemning before confirmation is established. The dear reverend has a track record as you may know but we forgive him for that, can't help but remember it.
Silent therefore accepting of course also applies to the comments made by Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who broke federal law by using public land for personal profit without permission or paying for it. (We state it that way because that is the fact of the matter and what if you owned the land?) And the simple fact that he began a sentence, "And let me tell you something else about the negro," automatically disqualifies him of any intelligent statement. For many people who advocated for this individual and are now running away in silence, it's deplorable behavior, as much so as Mr. Bundy's statements. Making him into some folk hero was wrong at the start and it never righted itself. Silence on what he said is unacceptable.
Given all this, Mr. Gregory asked the round table for clarification on what Bryant Gumble referred to as the 'mass underneath' [these iceberg tips] earlier in the program. However, their answers left us dissatisfied.
For example, in voting 6-2, the Supreme Court decided that it was up to the individual states to decide whether or not to have affirmative action, Mallory Factor, professor at The Citadel outlined, an outcome with which he seemed to agree - no federal law should apply as to achieve some sort of race neutrality, to use the words of Rich Lowry from The National Review. College applicants' scores and accomplishments should be judged equally without consideration for race. Mr. Factor said that we shouldn't ask one person to tie one hand behind his back so that someone else can get the advantage using two. One, that's not how affirmative action enables people.
What affirmative action does is take into consideration the fact that some people didn't have the same resources, in education at the very least, as another person and therefore the test can not be equal for both. Phrased in another way, does the inner city student generally have the same resources available to him or her as kids in an upper middle class suburb? We all know the answer - no. To deny this reality is willful ignorance.
Race neutrality, as Mr. Lowry described, is a grand idea but achieving it just by proclaiming it isn't really solving the problem. We disagree with him that Clive Bundy's statements are a generational thing and that Mr. Sterling is an outlier. First, if you seen any of the interviews with Mr. Bundy's sons, you'll know that they share his same beliefs on the status of the land, why not on race? Secondly, Jeffrey Goldberg asked the right question - how do you [Rich Lowry] know that Mr. Sterling is an outlier amongst NBA owners?
The pernicious views that the round table repeatedly referred to allude to a subtle, perhaps even casual, institutional racism, which is something that the United States has to acknowledge to ever get passed. It's ok to not be silent and admit that it exists.
Lastly, in a much more broad sense, the U.S., Europe and the rest of the world can not be silent on the cirsis going on in Ukraine, especially in light of White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken plainly saying that Vladimir Putin's goal is to destabilize the country. Mr. Blinken did say that it was not his goal to invade, but we would access it a bit differently. It's not Mr. Putin's goal to invade in a traditional sense. What the Russian government is doing is laying the ground by building up opposition to the government in Kiev to create a civil war, one in which Mr. Putin would have considerable influence.
Mr. Blinken outlined how the sanctions imposed by the U.S. have already had a significant effect on the Russian economy, which is projected to grow less than one percent while the ruble is down 20 percent. We agree with Mr. Blinken that Crimea will be a huge weight on the Russian economy as well. As we previously stated in this column, look how well the people of South Ossentia are doing since joining Russia.
Further sanctions will be inevitable because Mr. Putin is willing to jeopardize Russia's economy for hegemony attempting to restore a semblance of the Soviet Union. Europe can not stay silent on this aggressive behavior by Mr. Putin because it does business with him. Leaders in Europe should join with the U.S. to increase support with Ukraine. And though Mr. Blinken didn't refer to it specifically, it was a good idea for the United States to send marines to Poland for joint exercises. Take a strong approach.
And speaking of strong approaches, it's the only thing Tony Blair, former prime minister of England, said in his interview that we agreed with. He didn't have much to say on Ukraine and the reason is that every single interview he does, he has to justify his past actions on Iraq, which frankly are indefensible - so much so you can not even take him seriously.
Round Table: Mallory Factor, best-selling author and Professor at The Citadel; Jeffrey Goldberg, Correspondent for The Atlantic and Bloomberg View Columnist; Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress; Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Given Mr. Sterling's apparent history of racially related legal troubles, Bryant Gumble's assessment of "it's surprising anyone is surprised" makes perfect sense and now it would leave people surprised to find if it wasn't Mr. Sterling on the tape. And you can include this column in that category, however, we're still a bit uncomfortable with how Reverend Sharpton is always forcefully condemning before confirmation is established. The dear reverend has a track record as you may know but we forgive him for that, can't help but remember it.
Silent therefore accepting of course also applies to the comments made by Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who broke federal law by using public land for personal profit without permission or paying for it. (We state it that way because that is the fact of the matter and what if you owned the land?) And the simple fact that he began a sentence, "And let me tell you something else about the negro," automatically disqualifies him of any intelligent statement. For many people who advocated for this individual and are now running away in silence, it's deplorable behavior, as much so as Mr. Bundy's statements. Making him into some folk hero was wrong at the start and it never righted itself. Silence on what he said is unacceptable.
Given all this, Mr. Gregory asked the round table for clarification on what Bryant Gumble referred to as the 'mass underneath' [these iceberg tips] earlier in the program. However, their answers left us dissatisfied.
For example, in voting 6-2, the Supreme Court decided that it was up to the individual states to decide whether or not to have affirmative action, Mallory Factor, professor at The Citadel outlined, an outcome with which he seemed to agree - no federal law should apply as to achieve some sort of race neutrality, to use the words of Rich Lowry from The National Review. College applicants' scores and accomplishments should be judged equally without consideration for race. Mr. Factor said that we shouldn't ask one person to tie one hand behind his back so that someone else can get the advantage using two. One, that's not how affirmative action enables people.
What affirmative action does is take into consideration the fact that some people didn't have the same resources, in education at the very least, as another person and therefore the test can not be equal for both. Phrased in another way, does the inner city student generally have the same resources available to him or her as kids in an upper middle class suburb? We all know the answer - no. To deny this reality is willful ignorance.
Race neutrality, as Mr. Lowry described, is a grand idea but achieving it just by proclaiming it isn't really solving the problem. We disagree with him that Clive Bundy's statements are a generational thing and that Mr. Sterling is an outlier. First, if you seen any of the interviews with Mr. Bundy's sons, you'll know that they share his same beliefs on the status of the land, why not on race? Secondly, Jeffrey Goldberg asked the right question - how do you [Rich Lowry] know that Mr. Sterling is an outlier amongst NBA owners?
The pernicious views that the round table repeatedly referred to allude to a subtle, perhaps even casual, institutional racism, which is something that the United States has to acknowledge to ever get passed. It's ok to not be silent and admit that it exists.
Lastly, in a much more broad sense, the U.S., Europe and the rest of the world can not be silent on the cirsis going on in Ukraine, especially in light of White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken plainly saying that Vladimir Putin's goal is to destabilize the country. Mr. Blinken did say that it was not his goal to invade, but we would access it a bit differently. It's not Mr. Putin's goal to invade in a traditional sense. What the Russian government is doing is laying the ground by building up opposition to the government in Kiev to create a civil war, one in which Mr. Putin would have considerable influence.
Mr. Blinken outlined how the sanctions imposed by the U.S. have already had a significant effect on the Russian economy, which is projected to grow less than one percent while the ruble is down 20 percent. We agree with Mr. Blinken that Crimea will be a huge weight on the Russian economy as well. As we previously stated in this column, look how well the people of South Ossentia are doing since joining Russia.
Further sanctions will be inevitable because Mr. Putin is willing to jeopardize Russia's economy for hegemony attempting to restore a semblance of the Soviet Union. Europe can not stay silent on this aggressive behavior by Mr. Putin because it does business with him. Leaders in Europe should join with the U.S. to increase support with Ukraine. And though Mr. Blinken didn't refer to it specifically, it was a good idea for the United States to send marines to Poland for joint exercises. Take a strong approach.
And speaking of strong approaches, it's the only thing Tony Blair, former prime minister of England, said in his interview that we agreed with. He didn't have much to say on Ukraine and the reason is that every single interview he does, he has to justify his past actions on Iraq, which frankly are indefensible - so much so you can not even take him seriously.
Round Table: Mallory Factor, best-selling author and Professor at The Citadel; Jeffrey Goldberg, Correspondent for The Atlantic and Bloomberg View Columnist; Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress; Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review
Sunday, April 20, 2014
4.20.14: Despite Geneva, Ukraine Will Worsen
"I made a clear statement, find these bastards and bring them to justice," is what Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, said in response to reports that armed pro-Russian protesters and militia were forcing Jews to register in the eastern city of Donetsk.
We start there for two reasons: one, it's refreshing and highly commendable that Mr. Yatsenyuk would not take the diplomatic approach in answering the question and unequivocally stated his feeling on the matter, a righteous one we may add, but sadly when it comes to eastern Ukraine the truth is that his government has little control over preventing such horrendous actions.
The second reason is to illustrate the logic of Putin's approach to the entire crisis in trying to achieve his end goal, which appears to be the territorial recreation of the former Soviet Union, or as close as he can get to it as possible. "Restore the dream of the Soviet Union," Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said when asked his opinion, adding that it would be the greatest disaster of this century to see its reformation. For Putin, this hateful incident causes no emotional stir any which way and is coldly accessed only on the measure of whether it helps achieve the goal or not. Right now, Mr. Putin's government is trying to sew as many seeds of unrest as possible, and even though Mr. Putin didn't orchestrate this new episode of Jewish persecution, he knows it helps his cause. As noted by Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor, Russia wants to create as much as possible before Ukraine's upcoming election.
In the joint interview with Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they both agreed that the United States should take action now, meaning that punitive sanctions should be put in place immediately. And why not, there no intention on the part of the pro-Russian opposition in eastern Ukraine and it doesn't stop Mr. Putin from doing as he wills. On the other hand, one would have to figure that if the United States were to impose sanctions, in the mind of Mr. Putin's government, that is justification to become directly involved in eastern Ukraine including sending in troops. Mr. Putin would say, "Stop the sanctions and we'll stop moving into Ukraine," but he wouldn't, and then you'd have to consider Senator's Murphy's proposition that a NATO ally could be next. David Brooks described Mr. Putin as 19th century expansionist, which seems completely ludicrous in the 21st century, but here we are.
And for Mr. Obama's part, his administration's focus should be assisting the newly formed Ukrainian government on its feet with aid in all forms. When asked what Ukraine needed the prime minister said that it was an easy question to answer because they were in need of so many things. Most notably they need military assistance, but that is something the Obama Administration is reluctant to do. Even though this is a reenactment of the cold war, supplying weapons could turn a cold war into an actual war, something no one wants. Senator Corker said that U.S. policy has helped in creating the crisis in Ukraine, meaning that U.S. inaction in situations like Syria emboldened Russia. However, the senator's comment isn't constructive because the alternative would be direct military intervention. He also repeatedly said that the United States was 'embarrassed' by Russia, which isn't the case and is even rhetorically an unfortunate choice of words, as it reflects poorly on all government, not just the administration.
But Senator Corker's suggestion of building up the security relationship with Ukraine is a much more prudent idea, but a potentially shrewd one, that we agree with because not only does it help with internal defense, it can create the conditions for a large diplomatic presence, which puts military options on pause.
Chuck Todd explained that even inside the administration (of course outside), people are concerned that the president is not 'alpha dog' enough in his posture. Not many actually disagree with the measures that he's taken, but feel that his rhetoric stance is too quiet. So is it a stylistic approach or actual policy that leads Senator Corker to say that the president's foreign policy is always a day late and a dollar short? In other words, the president doesn't talk tough. We're OK with that, as long as Mr. Obama is thoughtful yet quickly decisive. It is what's demanded of the office, and too much chest-thumping isn't.
Round Table: Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; David Brooks, New York Times Columnist; Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor; David Shribman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Executive Editor
We start there for two reasons: one, it's refreshing and highly commendable that Mr. Yatsenyuk would not take the diplomatic approach in answering the question and unequivocally stated his feeling on the matter, a righteous one we may add, but sadly when it comes to eastern Ukraine the truth is that his government has little control over preventing such horrendous actions.
The second reason is to illustrate the logic of Putin's approach to the entire crisis in trying to achieve his end goal, which appears to be the territorial recreation of the former Soviet Union, or as close as he can get to it as possible. "Restore the dream of the Soviet Union," Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said when asked his opinion, adding that it would be the greatest disaster of this century to see its reformation. For Putin, this hateful incident causes no emotional stir any which way and is coldly accessed only on the measure of whether it helps achieve the goal or not. Right now, Mr. Putin's government is trying to sew as many seeds of unrest as possible, and even though Mr. Putin didn't orchestrate this new episode of Jewish persecution, he knows it helps his cause. As noted by Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor, Russia wants to create as much as possible before Ukraine's upcoming election.
In the joint interview with Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), both members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they both agreed that the United States should take action now, meaning that punitive sanctions should be put in place immediately. And why not, there no intention on the part of the pro-Russian opposition in eastern Ukraine and it doesn't stop Mr. Putin from doing as he wills. On the other hand, one would have to figure that if the United States were to impose sanctions, in the mind of Mr. Putin's government, that is justification to become directly involved in eastern Ukraine including sending in troops. Mr. Putin would say, "Stop the sanctions and we'll stop moving into Ukraine," but he wouldn't, and then you'd have to consider Senator's Murphy's proposition that a NATO ally could be next. David Brooks described Mr. Putin as 19th century expansionist, which seems completely ludicrous in the 21st century, but here we are.
And for Mr. Obama's part, his administration's focus should be assisting the newly formed Ukrainian government on its feet with aid in all forms. When asked what Ukraine needed the prime minister said that it was an easy question to answer because they were in need of so many things. Most notably they need military assistance, but that is something the Obama Administration is reluctant to do. Even though this is a reenactment of the cold war, supplying weapons could turn a cold war into an actual war, something no one wants. Senator Corker said that U.S. policy has helped in creating the crisis in Ukraine, meaning that U.S. inaction in situations like Syria emboldened Russia. However, the senator's comment isn't constructive because the alternative would be direct military intervention. He also repeatedly said that the United States was 'embarrassed' by Russia, which isn't the case and is even rhetorically an unfortunate choice of words, as it reflects poorly on all government, not just the administration.
But Senator Corker's suggestion of building up the security relationship with Ukraine is a much more prudent idea, but a potentially shrewd one, that we agree with because not only does it help with internal defense, it can create the conditions for a large diplomatic presence, which puts military options on pause.
Chuck Todd explained that even inside the administration (of course outside), people are concerned that the president is not 'alpha dog' enough in his posture. Not many actually disagree with the measures that he's taken, but feel that his rhetoric stance is too quiet. So is it a stylistic approach or actual policy that leads Senator Corker to say that the president's foreign policy is always a day late and a dollar short? In other words, the president doesn't talk tough. We're OK with that, as long as Mr. Obama is thoughtful yet quickly decisive. It is what's demanded of the office, and too much chest-thumping isn't.
Round Table: Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director & Chief White House Correspondent; David Brooks, New York Times Columnist; Radhika Jones, TIME Deputy Managing Editor; David Shribman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Executive Editor
Sunday, April 13, 2014
4.13.14: Civil and Voting Rights/ Poor Producing on MTP
We appreciate that Meet The Press went to Boston to honor the city and its heroes one year after the Marathon bombing, but the programming of this week's episode was a true disappointment. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have done the Boston tribute, but it's what they put around it that made for poor Sunday news program television.
First, do the producers of the show have so little faith in its moderator that they feel the need to fill up a good part of the program with recorded segments (Harry Smith's MTP Boston story; Andrea Mitchell's interview with fmr. Sec. Kathleen Sebelius) and weekly features? The interview with Secretary Sebelius should have been conducted on Meet The Press! But sadly, MTP doesn't seem to have the clout that it once did or it would have.
But here's why this week's program was an editorial fall-down. This week is indeed the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon, but it's also the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the civil rights act. It was all over the news this week and Meet The Press didn't touch it at all. The panel discussed voting rights, during the Boston Marathon segment, first-responder Kent Scarna talked about living in a free and open society, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns discussed his new film about the Gettysburg Address, yet Mr. Gregory never discussed why four living presidents gathered in Austin, TX this week. It was like a bad movie where they keep feeding you foreshadowing that goes no where.
All of today's topics tied into the Civil Rights act in someway so it was so odd to us that it was never brought to the fore of the discussion. Not to mention that there were new developing events in Ukraine over night, also not discussed.
The ad naseum discussion of the Affordable Care Act would have not be necessary had the interview with Secretary Sebelius been on Meet The Press. Mr. Gregory did ask one pertinent question, framing it in the correct context; Politically, should the resignation of Ms. Sebelius be seen as a success or failure? Everything beyond that was superfluous. Did Andrea Mitchell ask the former Secretary good questions? Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that Meet The Press shouldn't have to borrow.
President Obama's comments this week on voting rights, tied into the Civil Rights Acts, spurred the conversation for the Round Table. Mr. Obama said that voting was an issue of citizenship and that it was not an issue of either Democrat or Republican. However, he went on to single out Republicans for trying to suppress the vote by enacting all kinds of restrictions that would work against minorities. As you can imagine, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal said that there is no evidence that the vast number of laws state Republican legislatures have passed have had any effect on voting. That's true but there hasn't been a national election (a mid-term for example) since many of them have been enacted. We'll have to wait and see, but what we can say is that we shouldn't be making laws to restrict people from voting but to enable more people to do it.
It's what Kara Swisher, editor of Re/Code, was saying that technology in how we do other things - shopping, communicating - should be applied to our civic responsibilities. That's fine, but she missed the point of the question that charged Republicans with making big efforts to prevent that very evolution of expanded voting. But is it really what Republicans are trying to do? Well, they want to win elections so they're doing what ever they can to make those wins happen. The Republican National Committee knows, though would never admit, that Republican chances of taking over the White House, no matter what they do, are becoming slimmer and slimmer. However, where they can win is in local Congressional districts, and through those local wins maintain power and relevance nationally. To facilitate those wins, Republican controlled state legislatures will gerrymander the district, restrict voting by requiring picture identification, shorten registration and advance balloting periods, pour money into advertising, and you may not like any of it. And if you don't, well here's the rub, it's all legal so Republicans are well within the right of the law to make those moves. If Democrats don't like it, they have to get their act together and grind in the corners - compete for those local seats.
Round Table: Re/Code Co-Executive Editor Kara Swisher, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot, and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Panel in Boston: historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. David will also talk with Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki and former New England Patriots player Joe Andruzzi
A couple of "By the Ways:"
With agree with Mr. Scarna, who we mentioned earlier, that we don't agree with the apologists because this column believes that ultimately it is you who is responsible for your own actions. Should we, as a society, do all that we can to prevent tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing? Of course. Do we? Of course not.
A thank you to Senator Ed Markey for mentioning that the Boston segment was produced at Logan Airport and reminding us that it was that very airport from which the 9/11 hijackers took off.
(So the production team for Meet The Press flew into Logan Airport and did the show from Logan Airport? They didn't even go into the city... lame. How about a... oh, we don't know... an American historical site in Boston!)
And in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, below is the entire text of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a speech that Ken Burns called the greatest speech ever made in the American English language.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
First, do the producers of the show have so little faith in its moderator that they feel the need to fill up a good part of the program with recorded segments (Harry Smith's MTP Boston story; Andrea Mitchell's interview with fmr. Sec. Kathleen Sebelius) and weekly features? The interview with Secretary Sebelius should have been conducted on Meet The Press! But sadly, MTP doesn't seem to have the clout that it once did or it would have.
But here's why this week's program was an editorial fall-down. This week is indeed the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon, but it's also the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson signing the civil rights act. It was all over the news this week and Meet The Press didn't touch it at all. The panel discussed voting rights, during the Boston Marathon segment, first-responder Kent Scarna talked about living in a free and open society, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns discussed his new film about the Gettysburg Address, yet Mr. Gregory never discussed why four living presidents gathered in Austin, TX this week. It was like a bad movie where they keep feeding you foreshadowing that goes no where.
All of today's topics tied into the Civil Rights act in someway so it was so odd to us that it was never brought to the fore of the discussion. Not to mention that there were new developing events in Ukraine over night, also not discussed.
The ad naseum discussion of the Affordable Care Act would have not be necessary had the interview with Secretary Sebelius been on Meet The Press. Mr. Gregory did ask one pertinent question, framing it in the correct context; Politically, should the resignation of Ms. Sebelius be seen as a success or failure? Everything beyond that was superfluous. Did Andrea Mitchell ask the former Secretary good questions? Of course, but that's not the point. The point is that Meet The Press shouldn't have to borrow.
President Obama's comments this week on voting rights, tied into the Civil Rights Acts, spurred the conversation for the Round Table. Mr. Obama said that voting was an issue of citizenship and that it was not an issue of either Democrat or Republican. However, he went on to single out Republicans for trying to suppress the vote by enacting all kinds of restrictions that would work against minorities. As you can imagine, Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal said that there is no evidence that the vast number of laws state Republican legislatures have passed have had any effect on voting. That's true but there hasn't been a national election (a mid-term for example) since many of them have been enacted. We'll have to wait and see, but what we can say is that we shouldn't be making laws to restrict people from voting but to enable more people to do it.
It's what Kara Swisher, editor of Re/Code, was saying that technology in how we do other things - shopping, communicating - should be applied to our civic responsibilities. That's fine, but she missed the point of the question that charged Republicans with making big efforts to prevent that very evolution of expanded voting. But is it really what Republicans are trying to do? Well, they want to win elections so they're doing what ever they can to make those wins happen. The Republican National Committee knows, though would never admit, that Republican chances of taking over the White House, no matter what they do, are becoming slimmer and slimmer. However, where they can win is in local Congressional districts, and through those local wins maintain power and relevance nationally. To facilitate those wins, Republican controlled state legislatures will gerrymander the district, restrict voting by requiring picture identification, shorten registration and advance balloting periods, pour money into advertising, and you may not like any of it. And if you don't, well here's the rub, it's all legal so Republicans are well within the right of the law to make those moves. If Democrats don't like it, they have to get their act together and grind in the corners - compete for those local seats.
Round Table: Re/Code Co-Executive Editor Kara Swisher, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot, and Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Panel in Boston: historian and author Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. David will also talk with Boston Globe photographer John Tlumacki and former New England Patriots player Joe Andruzzi
A couple of "By the Ways:"
With agree with Mr. Scarna, who we mentioned earlier, that we don't agree with the apologists because this column believes that ultimately it is you who is responsible for your own actions. Should we, as a society, do all that we can to prevent tragedies like the Boston Marathon bombing? Of course. Do we? Of course not.
A thank you to Senator Ed Markey for mentioning that the Boston segment was produced at Logan Airport and reminding us that it was that very airport from which the 9/11 hijackers took off.
(So the production team for Meet The Press flew into Logan Airport and did the show from Logan Airport? They didn't even go into the city... lame. How about a... oh, we don't know... an American historical site in Boston!)
And in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, below is the entire text of President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a speech that Ken Burns called the greatest speech ever made in the American English language.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863
Sunday, April 06, 2014
4.6.14: More Money and Louder Speech
The 13th year of war.
Twenty-two returned U.S. veterans commit suicide everyday. In the past year, that's 8,030 individuals.
A soldier returns home from war to find service benefits problematic to get, transition into civilian life difficult to make, and possibly the idea that the reason we went to war in Iraqi was based on information that turned out to not be true, leaving that individual disillusioned and lost. This is part of the legacy for making the decision to fight a preemptive war, an unnecessary one.
Admiral Michael Mullen, Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his interview with David Gregory, emphasized the mental health aspect in the challenges returned soldiers have adjusting and that there is a shortage of mental health professionals in the military. In fact, he went on to say that it's a national problem as well. The result of all this is another mass shooting incident at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.
The all too obvious answer is that we're not doing enough. One thing that the government could do is making free mental health counseling part of the benefits of service - immediately upon return. When a soldier is finished with his or her service, they have the option to get mental health treatment if they want it. As a matter of fact, a military administrator would tell you that veterans have access to such service, but that not until the person has successfully jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops to get insurance - unacceptable.
For practical measures, Admiral Mullen said that there also needs to be better security military bases, but don't you also find it curious that he didn't advocate for soldiers walking around armed? The former leader of all of the nation's soldiers basically said that he doesn't think it's a good idea for soldiers to be carrying guns when they shouldn't need to. And when they're on base, they shouldn't.
What it says is that the leaders of the world's most powerful military do not think that ubiquitous possession of weapons by its soldiers at all times is a good idea; they feel adding more guns to the equation produces a whole separate set of problems, problems Admiral Mullen didn't specifically address. Yet, for the country's citizenry, it's advocated that everyone should be armed.
We guess all you can say to that is, "Welcome the the United States."
And, if you have enough money, you can get politicians to do what ever you want them to do. That was the case before the Supreme Court decided this week to ban caps on how many candidates you can contribute money to. This week's partisan 5 to 4 decision just further weakened campaign finance rules so that the richest have their more heavily weighted say at the policy table. Mr. Gregory asked both guests, "Could this lead to quid pro quo, a corrupt political system as Justice Steven Breyer suggested?" There's no need to even ask the question really. If there was no quid pro quo then why would oil refinery owners be giving millions of dollars to political candidates in the first place?
In another well done debate segment, Mr. Gregory moderated a discussion between the man who brought the case to the court, Shaun McCutcheon, and president of Public Citizen Robert Weissman. When you initially hear about a court decision like this, most just dismiss it as the rich just 'getting richer' as it were, but when you can put a face to it (Mr. McCutcheon's), you can at least try and see the other side of the argument. Now, one of the main premises of Mr. McCutcheon's argument is that money equals speech. One is entitled to that opinion, one which we would strongly disagree with. During the round table, columnist Kathleen Parker casually stated it as fact and then went further saying that 'lots of money is louder speech,' hence making the person with more money more important. In the overall scheme of American Constitutional philosophy, that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that today, it is.
However, in a way, we kind of agree with Mr. McCutcheon in as much as there's so much money in U.S. politics already, what difference is this decision going to make anyway? Justice Clarence Thomas said that he didn't see a reason to have any campaign finance caps on money. We rarely, if ever in this column, cast direct dispersions on someone, but Justice Thomas is an idiot and if it were left solely to him to make legal decisions for this country, he'd tank the whole works. There, we said it.
Then again, what's the point of limits and laws and rules if everyone easily circumvents them? What we did find heartening is that everyone, from Mr. Weismann to Mr. McCutcheon to Senator Sununu, agreed that there should be transparency in terms of who donates what to whom. It would actually be better to have no limits but make it a firm law that full transparency is required than having faux limits with no transparency.
With full transparency, public opinion - whether it would accept or ostracize - would definitely make big donors think twice about where they're putting their money.
Round Table: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Columnist; John E. Sununu, Fmr. New Hampshire Senator (R) and Boston Globe Contributor; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); and Steve Case, Fmr. Chairman & CEO of America Online.
A Last Note:
Harold Ford said the president shouldn't do a victory lap now that over seven million people have signed up for insurance through the exchanges. Mr. Ford is very much for the Affordable Care Act, but also has his concerns. We always find Mr. Ford's punditry frustrating because it seems as though he continual wants it both ways. Now, we realize that every issue has its nuance and every big law like the ACA is in need of fixing, but in terms wanting to have people listen to what you say, you have to sound as though you believe in something more solidly.
Pardoning that brief digression, at the end of this first marathon the president's run, where everyone and their mother has been sticking out a leg to try to trip you, he successfully crossed the finish. Take the lap.
Twenty-two returned U.S. veterans commit suicide everyday. In the past year, that's 8,030 individuals.
A soldier returns home from war to find service benefits problematic to get, transition into civilian life difficult to make, and possibly the idea that the reason we went to war in Iraqi was based on information that turned out to not be true, leaving that individual disillusioned and lost. This is part of the legacy for making the decision to fight a preemptive war, an unnecessary one.
Admiral Michael Mullen, Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his interview with David Gregory, emphasized the mental health aspect in the challenges returned soldiers have adjusting and that there is a shortage of mental health professionals in the military. In fact, he went on to say that it's a national problem as well. The result of all this is another mass shooting incident at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.
The all too obvious answer is that we're not doing enough. One thing that the government could do is making free mental health counseling part of the benefits of service - immediately upon return. When a soldier is finished with his or her service, they have the option to get mental health treatment if they want it. As a matter of fact, a military administrator would tell you that veterans have access to such service, but that not until the person has successfully jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops to get insurance - unacceptable.
For practical measures, Admiral Mullen said that there also needs to be better security military bases, but don't you also find it curious that he didn't advocate for soldiers walking around armed? The former leader of all of the nation's soldiers basically said that he doesn't think it's a good idea for soldiers to be carrying guns when they shouldn't need to. And when they're on base, they shouldn't.
What it says is that the leaders of the world's most powerful military do not think that ubiquitous possession of weapons by its soldiers at all times is a good idea; they feel adding more guns to the equation produces a whole separate set of problems, problems Admiral Mullen didn't specifically address. Yet, for the country's citizenry, it's advocated that everyone should be armed.
We guess all you can say to that is, "Welcome the the United States."
And, if you have enough money, you can get politicians to do what ever you want them to do. That was the case before the Supreme Court decided this week to ban caps on how many candidates you can contribute money to. This week's partisan 5 to 4 decision just further weakened campaign finance rules so that the richest have their more heavily weighted say at the policy table. Mr. Gregory asked both guests, "Could this lead to quid pro quo, a corrupt political system as Justice Steven Breyer suggested?" There's no need to even ask the question really. If there was no quid pro quo then why would oil refinery owners be giving millions of dollars to political candidates in the first place?
In another well done debate segment, Mr. Gregory moderated a discussion between the man who brought the case to the court, Shaun McCutcheon, and president of Public Citizen Robert Weissman. When you initially hear about a court decision like this, most just dismiss it as the rich just 'getting richer' as it were, but when you can put a face to it (Mr. McCutcheon's), you can at least try and see the other side of the argument. Now, one of the main premises of Mr. McCutcheon's argument is that money equals speech. One is entitled to that opinion, one which we would strongly disagree with. During the round table, columnist Kathleen Parker casually stated it as fact and then went further saying that 'lots of money is louder speech,' hence making the person with more money more important. In the overall scheme of American Constitutional philosophy, that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that today, it is.
However, in a way, we kind of agree with Mr. McCutcheon in as much as there's so much money in U.S. politics already, what difference is this decision going to make anyway? Justice Clarence Thomas said that he didn't see a reason to have any campaign finance caps on money. We rarely, if ever in this column, cast direct dispersions on someone, but Justice Thomas is an idiot and if it were left solely to him to make legal decisions for this country, he'd tank the whole works. There, we said it.
Then again, what's the point of limits and laws and rules if everyone easily circumvents them? What we did find heartening is that everyone, from Mr. Weismann to Mr. McCutcheon to Senator Sununu, agreed that there should be transparency in terms of who donates what to whom. It would actually be better to have no limits but make it a firm law that full transparency is required than having faux limits with no transparency.
With full transparency, public opinion - whether it would accept or ostracize - would definitely make big donors think twice about where they're putting their money.
Round Table: Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Columnist; John E. Sununu, Fmr. New Hampshire Senator (R) and Boston Globe Contributor; Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); and Steve Case, Fmr. Chairman & CEO of America Online.
A Last Note:
Harold Ford said the president shouldn't do a victory lap now that over seven million people have signed up for insurance through the exchanges. Mr. Ford is very much for the Affordable Care Act, but also has his concerns. We always find Mr. Ford's punditry frustrating because it seems as though he continual wants it both ways. Now, we realize that every issue has its nuance and every big law like the ACA is in need of fixing, but in terms wanting to have people listen to what you say, you have to sound as though you believe in something more solidly.
Pardoning that brief digression, at the end of this first marathon the president's run, where everyone and their mother has been sticking out a leg to try to trip you, he successfully crossed the finish. Take the lap.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
3.30.14: Politicians Pushing The Fragile Reality
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.
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)