We want to touch on a few things right at the top here. One, Chris Matthews did not make news by saying that the President is able to negotiate with Tehran but not the Republicans, which Chuck Todd purposely misquoted to illustrate how what Mr. Matthews said will be interpreted by the Republicans. So since Mr. Matthews did not give Republicans the appropriate statement for political fodder, Mr. Todd made sure they got it.
Mr. Matthews explained the intractable position each side has on immigration and the Affordable Care Act. Republicans take the lion's share of the heat when it comes to not being able to negotiate, as they should. The party has demonized the very word compromise, which follows the direction that has been given a small but very vocal base. With that said, that doesn't by any means give a pass to President Obama. This will get to more in a minute.
But first the second thing we wanted to comment on is the newly reported execution of an American aid worker, Peter Kassig, by ISIS. NBC's Richard Engel pointed out that Mr. Kassig in part was executed because he was at one time a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq. After his service, he returned to the region in Syria to do aid work where ISIS captured him in 2013. What we see is hubris driving an ill-advised farce of a pretext to launch a war that sent thousands upon thousands of U.S. soldiers to the Middle East, one of them Mr. Kassig, where on the way over 100,000 Iraqis die they saw unspeakable horrors of war up close. Perhaps that's what happened to Mr. Kassig who then felt compelled to go back and help people in the midst of violence; violence in all that had been set off by the invasion of Iraq and resulted in a terrorist state swallowing up what was formerly part of the country. Mr. Kassig was then killed by that terrorist group. The fractures caused by the Iraq war run deep and here's one more way in which they manifest themselves.
***
You can tell from last week's column, that we thought compromise between the Republican-controlled Congress and the Obama Administration would be a fallacy and sure enough within one week, the political war of words have been turned up to eleven. Case in point, the interview with Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal (R) on today's program, where he stated that the president is breaking the law by executing an executive order on immigration that would essentially stop deportation of 5 million undocumented immigrants. He also stated that the President would shutdown the government by doing so.
The president would neither be breaking the law nor shutting down the government by signing this executive order - those are simply facts. For one, Congress shuts down the government, not the president who would not act if it were an impeachable (illegal) act. We get what Mr. Jindal was trying to do in his blunt rhetoric. His implication is that if the president goes by executive order, he'll force the Republicans to shut down the government.
It would be foolish for Republicans to do this. The Congressional overreach that The New York Times' Helene Cooper mentioned at the end of the program will come to fruition, and the reason is because as a shutdown continues on, ultimately in the American people's collective the reason for the shutdown fades and sharp attention turns to those responsible for keeping it going and their refusal to end it.
One way in which the Republicans could stop the president from signing the executive order would be for the House to take up the Senate immigration bill. By saying they would do this, they take the political high ground on the president who would surely take a sharp political hit if he still went ahead with the order. The Republicans in the House could mark up the bill to their liking, vote on it and send it to the Republican-controlled Senate for a vote who could then pull out reconciliation to pass it with a simple majority. This way, they wrestled the issue away from the president handing him a defeat, give the perception to the American people that you are there to govern, and provided what is in the bill endear yourself as a party to the Hispanic community.
But the Republicans' position, according to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), is that there will be no immigration reform at all. The reason is that anything in the bill that even smells of amnesty would anger the base of the party. Conversely, the business leaders that support the Republican party want provisions in any reform that call for leniency with regard to guest workers - a non-starter for the base. The result is that Republicans have no alternative to present.
This segues nicely into the fact that Republicans who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) have not presented an alternative proposal. Governor Jindal gave reasons why he didn't like the ACA and said he had an alternative plan, but he never said what it is. With no alternative, it will be very difficult for Senator Mitchell McConnell (R-KY) who said that he wants to pull out Obamacare 'root and branch' to explain why he has the healthcare tree in his hand once 250,000 of his constituents have had their KYNECT (Kentucky exchange) health insurance taken away, much less the rest of the country.
Avik Roy, opinion writer for Forbes, said that the increasing number of people on medicaid is driving up premiums for people with private insurance. However, by most accounting, overall premium costs across the country have gone down. Additionally, inflation on healthcare overall is slowing because more people are buying into the system. Mr. Roy's argument didn't even hold up throughout the program hour, but there is legitimate concern for small business owners who may not be able to handle the employer mandate of the law. Unfortunately, Republicans will not fix this because in an all-or-nothing approach all you want is a hammer, there's no need for a wrench. Repair is superfluous.
Very soon, the rhetoric is going to meet the road and repeal-only of one big issue and sitting on your hands for another are not going to maintain the Congressional majorities Republicans surely want to keep. There is no agenda in these tactics, and within the next two years the American people will recognize this solely as such. If Republicans want to stop the president, stay in power and have a shot at the White House; then they need a real agenda and pretty darn quick.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Chris Matthews, "Hardball" MSNBC; Reid Wilson, The Washington Post; Carly Fiorina.
One more thing - On Net Neutrality, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has no idea what he's talking about and his comparison of it to Obamacare is both stupid and irresponsible. With net neutrality, the playing field is no longer level for web entrepreneurs vs. big corporations. Instead of all of the internet moving at the same speed, big corporations would be able to unfairly move faster and that would stifle innovation. The internet is not broken, and end neutrality would do just that.
One more one more thing - We want to speak to the people who are asking Carly Fiorina if she is running for president. She was coy in her answer to Chuck Todd and she many people are asking her. Well, to them and to Chuck Todd we say - STOP ASKING. Those people are idiots. Are you kidding? A former CEO of Hewlett-Packard who practically tanked the company while getting a golden parachute who moved on to be a failed Senate candidate does not a president make. Sure, more power to anyone who runs for president, but really?
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Sunday, November 09, 2014
11.9.14: Will Washington DC Embrace Compromise?
In this mid-term election postmortem edition of "Meet The Press" the essential question is that now that the election is over will Washington DC break its governing gridlock by engaging in compromise to move the country forward? From what was said by the collection of guests and panel participants, the answer is: not likely. Amy Walker of the Cook Political Report answered that there can not be compromise when all the moderates have been voted out.
But at the moment, members of Congress are doing what they do best, which is talk a good game and they want to keep people hopeful that something positive for all of the American people can still happen, given that now the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress while the Democrats still control The White House.
With the exception of the Georgia Senate race (we said it would go to a run-off), our predictions from last week's column were all spot on, and what can be said about that is that they were correct because they were easy calls to make. There are various reasons why Republicans won so big, but one of them IS NOT President Obama's policies even though the Republicans framed this mid-term as a referendum on them.
Today's program made clear that rural and small town America hasn't felt the economic recovery as much as the concentrated population centers have, but by all indicators the economy is moving forward: 5.9% unemployment, record stock market numbers, less deficit spending, healthcare costs growing at a slower rate than they have in a decade. None of which Republicans can take credit for, but they effectively demonized the president so much that they had the Democrats running away from the president's policies. It was a fatal mistake that the Democrats made and frankly with regard to the Kentucky Senate race, if Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) can not admit to voting for Barack Obama then she doesn't deserve to win.
All of the above is the result of President Obama's policies, like it or not. And another indication that the election results were more of the Democrats not standing up for their principles, something that Howard Dean rightly admonished his party for on today's program, than the actual policies is that in 5 red state referendums the overwhelming majority voted for a raise in the minimum wage. This is something that President Obama has been calling for over the years but Republicans are against the raise. (This is just a simple look at the facts of the matter.)
Yet there remains the notion of moving the country forward. What ever you take that to mean (most people think of it in terms of the economy), it's difficult for us to see how that is going to happen considering that the one thing Republicans have said all along, as Senator-elect Mike Rounds (R-SD) reiterated, is that they are going to do all they can to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which in essence is re-litigating the past. "Dismantle it section by section" is how Mr. Rounds put it.
For the President's part, he said that if Congress does not act on immigration by the end of the year, he is going to sign an executive order to reform the policy as much as the law will allow without the consent of Congress. As former Congressman Eric Cantor put it, that would be 'lighting the fuse.' However, we're with NBC's Jose Diaz-Balart in that the president should sign the executive order because it's the House that has been intransigent the most on this issue. Mr. Diaz-Balart said that if it 'poisons the well, then they should change the water.' The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill on immigration but because it came from a Democratic-controlled chamber, the Republican-controlled House just sat on it. Now that the Republicans control the Senate, they'll throw that bill out and recreate another that more reflects their majority view, again this is going backwards.
So now that we've painted a bit of a bleak picture for compromise, where does that leave us? The Republicans' attacks on the President were a winning strategy to win control of Congress and there's no reason why they won't continue that strategy and insist that having a Republican in The White House is best for the country. That the most likely Democratic candidate is Hillary Clinton is incidental in terms of this strategy. It wouldn't matter who were to run on the Democratic side, that person will be framed as a continuation of President Obama, something that Scott Walker didn't fail to mention in his victory lap interview on the program. With Hillary Clinton being the 'front-runner,' she's a bigger profile likely candidate so she's easier to hit.
The panel got into a back and forth about what constitutes incendiary actions in Washington. Eric Cantor said that if the president signs an executive order on immigration that would be considered such an action, though it was the House of Representatives that he lead that subverted any reform. When Chuck Todd presented the scenario of Republicans repealing the ACA as something to carry the incendiary label, Mr. Cantor answered that repealing the ACA is not incendiary because everyone knows that is what Republicans are going to do it. This drew dismissive laughs from the rest of the panel, as it should have. We don't know for sure how these election results will playing out the two years, whether our political leaders can compromise. However, with Eric Cantor's presence on the program today, it reminded us of one thing: we're glad he's gone.
Panel: Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Deputy Campaign Manager for President Barack Obama; Eric Cantor (R), fmr. House Majority Leader
But at the moment, members of Congress are doing what they do best, which is talk a good game and they want to keep people hopeful that something positive for all of the American people can still happen, given that now the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress while the Democrats still control The White House.
With the exception of the Georgia Senate race (we said it would go to a run-off), our predictions from last week's column were all spot on, and what can be said about that is that they were correct because they were easy calls to make. There are various reasons why Republicans won so big, but one of them IS NOT President Obama's policies even though the Republicans framed this mid-term as a referendum on them.
Today's program made clear that rural and small town America hasn't felt the economic recovery as much as the concentrated population centers have, but by all indicators the economy is moving forward: 5.9% unemployment, record stock market numbers, less deficit spending, healthcare costs growing at a slower rate than they have in a decade. None of which Republicans can take credit for, but they effectively demonized the president so much that they had the Democrats running away from the president's policies. It was a fatal mistake that the Democrats made and frankly with regard to the Kentucky Senate race, if Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) can not admit to voting for Barack Obama then she doesn't deserve to win.
All of the above is the result of President Obama's policies, like it or not. And another indication that the election results were more of the Democrats not standing up for their principles, something that Howard Dean rightly admonished his party for on today's program, than the actual policies is that in 5 red state referendums the overwhelming majority voted for a raise in the minimum wage. This is something that President Obama has been calling for over the years but Republicans are against the raise. (This is just a simple look at the facts of the matter.)
Yet there remains the notion of moving the country forward. What ever you take that to mean (most people think of it in terms of the economy), it's difficult for us to see how that is going to happen considering that the one thing Republicans have said all along, as Senator-elect Mike Rounds (R-SD) reiterated, is that they are going to do all they can to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which in essence is re-litigating the past. "Dismantle it section by section" is how Mr. Rounds put it.
For the President's part, he said that if Congress does not act on immigration by the end of the year, he is going to sign an executive order to reform the policy as much as the law will allow without the consent of Congress. As former Congressman Eric Cantor put it, that would be 'lighting the fuse.' However, we're with NBC's Jose Diaz-Balart in that the president should sign the executive order because it's the House that has been intransigent the most on this issue. Mr. Diaz-Balart said that if it 'poisons the well, then they should change the water.' The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill on immigration but because it came from a Democratic-controlled chamber, the Republican-controlled House just sat on it. Now that the Republicans control the Senate, they'll throw that bill out and recreate another that more reflects their majority view, again this is going backwards.
So now that we've painted a bit of a bleak picture for compromise, where does that leave us? The Republicans' attacks on the President were a winning strategy to win control of Congress and there's no reason why they won't continue that strategy and insist that having a Republican in The White House is best for the country. That the most likely Democratic candidate is Hillary Clinton is incidental in terms of this strategy. It wouldn't matter who were to run on the Democratic side, that person will be framed as a continuation of President Obama, something that Scott Walker didn't fail to mention in his victory lap interview on the program. With Hillary Clinton being the 'front-runner,' she's a bigger profile likely candidate so she's easier to hit.
The panel got into a back and forth about what constitutes incendiary actions in Washington. Eric Cantor said that if the president signs an executive order on immigration that would be considered such an action, though it was the House of Representatives that he lead that subverted any reform. When Chuck Todd presented the scenario of Republicans repealing the ACA as something to carry the incendiary label, Mr. Cantor answered that repealing the ACA is not incendiary because everyone knows that is what Republicans are going to do it. This drew dismissive laughs from the rest of the panel, as it should have. We don't know for sure how these election results will playing out the two years, whether our political leaders can compromise. However, with Eric Cantor's presence on the program today, it reminded us of one thing: we're glad he's gone.
Panel: Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Deputy Campaign Manager for President Barack Obama; Eric Cantor (R), fmr. House Majority Leader
Sunday, November 02, 2014
11.2.14: Mid-Term Elections Analysis, Rand Paul and Kaci Hickox
In this midterm election special on today's "Meet The Press," it's easy to see why all the key Senate races are so tight, and that's because of the obvious conundrum the American people find themselves in. They are unhappy with the predominately Democratic incumbents, but they see that the Republican leadership alternative isn't any better.
From Chuck Todd's interview clips of likely voters around the country, the predominating theme is that the American people want more moderate leaders, ones that can compromise with the best interest of people in mind to ultimately move the country forward. However, what the American people also know is that neither party offers such candidates. The reason that these candidates don't exist in larger numbers [read: not all political leaders fit into this negative box] is because they are more beholden to donors and special interests than they are to their constituents in their respective districts. None of this is a mystery to the American people so they feel stuck, hence close races.
Because of this evident frustration, it's not surprising that the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter assessed the midterms as one of anti-incumbency, and that falls on the Democrats given they have control over the executive office and the Senate. (The House districts, by the way, are so completely gerrymandered that no one's even giving those races any attention. Don't get us started.) In the interview with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Mr. Todd brought up that Senator Paul once said that the Republican brands 'sucks.' But here's what sucks more with regard to these midterms and that is the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Michelle Nunn in Georgia, is that they have run away from President Obama's policies - their Democratic party leader. If your a Democrat defending your seat and you voted with the president, own it and make the argument for it. It shows principle and conviction, which are two qualities voters respond to. That doesn't mean you have to agree with Mr. Obama on every issue, but distancing yourself so far away, essentially making yourself Republican-light, shows no guts.
For the Republicans' part, they're capitalizing to the max on all the political negativity they've created. So much so that they will take control of the U.S. Senate with easy wins in Kentucky, Iowa, Arkansas and Colorado; and run-off wins in Georgia and Louisiana. All of this obvious stuff - as Charlie Cook explained that these are all really home games for the Republicans.
However, even in lieu of the consensus opinion of all the guests on the program the Senator Pat Roberts' campaign in Kansas was the worst, we wouldn't be surprised if Independent Greg Orman couldn't seal the deal and win. Asking for people's votes (aka 'their trust') while never clearly stating your positions on anything, as Mr. Orman does (or does not as the case may be), will catch up to you, and it's not too late; call it the cold-feet factor.
(We also think that Rick Scott in Florida's Gubernatorial race will prevail, as crazy as that sounds given Mr. Scott's poor performance as governor.)
Senator Paul, during his interview with Mr. Todd, provided a window into the future as to how Republicans will act as a result of these wins. First and foremost, there will be a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare in its totality, which the president will surely veto. Again, no surprise here but it will be interesting to see how this plays out politically. Our feeling is that the American people won't like it because not only are they weary of wars oversees but they're also exhausted from the 'wars' at home.
The Kentucky Senator does talk a really good game when it comes to sounding reasonable and conciliatory toward people who disagree with him, but his unwillingness to compromise is as firm as the rest of his party's. In addition to his statements about Obamacare, Senator Paul also talked about voting rights, advocating for early voting. He didn't disagree with the Republican position of requiring voter I.D. cards, but just the tactic of leading with it as a campaign issue. What good is being able to vote early if you don't have a I.D.? Let's face it, all voter I.D. laws do is disenfranchise voters. In today's elections in the United States, to commit the kind of wide scale fraud to actually effect a result would take millions of dollars - something that would hardly go unnoticed, don't you think?
And of course this disenfranchisement disproportionately affects minorities and the poor who tend to vote more Democratic. Though given this truth, it did sound like a bit of desperation on the part of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) when she said the South is bad for African-Americans and women, playing on the sympathies of people to attain their votes. Senator Landrieu has always been perceived as someone who is more interested in her own self-interest, hence self-preservation so when Senator Paul says falsely that most African-Americans feel taken for granted by the Democratic party, it seems plausible.
***
Lastly, we'd like to comment on Mr. Todd's interview with Kaci Hickox, the American healthcare worker who was quarantined in Newark upon her return from West African where she was working to combat the Ebola virus crisis.
It was an important interview because it gave Americans a chance to hear from Ms. Hickox and see that she is like every other American. And like many Americans, she showed the compassion and commitment to helping others. As a healthcare worker who understands the disease better than most, coupled with the desire to live, she demonstrated that she is responsible in self monitoring her health. She had it absolutely correct that we should approaching this problem with the lens of science instead of the prism of politics.
And if you're in Maine, you should consider two things leading up to your trip to the voting booth. One, consider Ms. Hickox's action and service as heroic. Also, consider that your governor, running for re-election, would like to arbitrarily take away the personal liberty of an American citizen while personally attacking that person's character and is using empty rhetoric to play upon your fears.
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!!
Panel 1: Charlie Cook and Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Fred Yang, Democratic Pollster; Bill McInturff, Republican Pollster
Panel 2: Michael Steele, fmr. Chair of Republican National Committee; Robert Gibbs, fmr. White House Press Secretary; Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent NBC News; Joe Scarborough, host of "Morning Joe."
kaci kickox - ebola nurse
from maine
talking about science and not politicas
paul lapage - gov.
villated every promise she made so far
self -quarantine - community has been through a lot
will no go into town -
population centers - different rules? no - kaci
presidential politcas already oat the midterms
contemplators club
no one's in a hurry
gibbs - more entused about republicans
lose a book tour - andera -
has to be authentic
rand paul - republican front runner - michael steele
joe - not going to win -
jeb or christ
mitt romney -
john kasich -
From Chuck Todd's interview clips of likely voters around the country, the predominating theme is that the American people want more moderate leaders, ones that can compromise with the best interest of people in mind to ultimately move the country forward. However, what the American people also know is that neither party offers such candidates. The reason that these candidates don't exist in larger numbers [read: not all political leaders fit into this negative box] is because they are more beholden to donors and special interests than they are to their constituents in their respective districts. None of this is a mystery to the American people so they feel stuck, hence close races.
Because of this evident frustration, it's not surprising that the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter assessed the midterms as one of anti-incumbency, and that falls on the Democrats given they have control over the executive office and the Senate. (The House districts, by the way, are so completely gerrymandered that no one's even giving those races any attention. Don't get us started.) In the interview with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Mr. Todd brought up that Senator Paul once said that the Republican brands 'sucks.' But here's what sucks more with regard to these midterms and that is the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Michelle Nunn in Georgia, is that they have run away from President Obama's policies - their Democratic party leader. If your a Democrat defending your seat and you voted with the president, own it and make the argument for it. It shows principle and conviction, which are two qualities voters respond to. That doesn't mean you have to agree with Mr. Obama on every issue, but distancing yourself so far away, essentially making yourself Republican-light, shows no guts.
For the Republicans' part, they're capitalizing to the max on all the political negativity they've created. So much so that they will take control of the U.S. Senate with easy wins in Kentucky, Iowa, Arkansas and Colorado; and run-off wins in Georgia and Louisiana. All of this obvious stuff - as Charlie Cook explained that these are all really home games for the Republicans.
However, even in lieu of the consensus opinion of all the guests on the program the Senator Pat Roberts' campaign in Kansas was the worst, we wouldn't be surprised if Independent Greg Orman couldn't seal the deal and win. Asking for people's votes (aka 'their trust') while never clearly stating your positions on anything, as Mr. Orman does (or does not as the case may be), will catch up to you, and it's not too late; call it the cold-feet factor.
(We also think that Rick Scott in Florida's Gubernatorial race will prevail, as crazy as that sounds given Mr. Scott's poor performance as governor.)
Senator Paul, during his interview with Mr. Todd, provided a window into the future as to how Republicans will act as a result of these wins. First and foremost, there will be a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare in its totality, which the president will surely veto. Again, no surprise here but it will be interesting to see how this plays out politically. Our feeling is that the American people won't like it because not only are they weary of wars oversees but they're also exhausted from the 'wars' at home.
The Kentucky Senator does talk a really good game when it comes to sounding reasonable and conciliatory toward people who disagree with him, but his unwillingness to compromise is as firm as the rest of his party's. In addition to his statements about Obamacare, Senator Paul also talked about voting rights, advocating for early voting. He didn't disagree with the Republican position of requiring voter I.D. cards, but just the tactic of leading with it as a campaign issue. What good is being able to vote early if you don't have a I.D.? Let's face it, all voter I.D. laws do is disenfranchise voters. In today's elections in the United States, to commit the kind of wide scale fraud to actually effect a result would take millions of dollars - something that would hardly go unnoticed, don't you think?
And of course this disenfranchisement disproportionately affects minorities and the poor who tend to vote more Democratic. Though given this truth, it did sound like a bit of desperation on the part of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) when she said the South is bad for African-Americans and women, playing on the sympathies of people to attain their votes. Senator Landrieu has always been perceived as someone who is more interested in her own self-interest, hence self-preservation so when Senator Paul says falsely that most African-Americans feel taken for granted by the Democratic party, it seems plausible.
***
Lastly, we'd like to comment on Mr. Todd's interview with Kaci Hickox, the American healthcare worker who was quarantined in Newark upon her return from West African where she was working to combat the Ebola virus crisis.
It was an important interview because it gave Americans a chance to hear from Ms. Hickox and see that she is like every other American. And like many Americans, she showed the compassion and commitment to helping others. As a healthcare worker who understands the disease better than most, coupled with the desire to live, she demonstrated that she is responsible in self monitoring her health. She had it absolutely correct that we should approaching this problem with the lens of science instead of the prism of politics.
And if you're in Maine, you should consider two things leading up to your trip to the voting booth. One, consider Ms. Hickox's action and service as heroic. Also, consider that your governor, running for re-election, would like to arbitrarily take away the personal liberty of an American citizen while personally attacking that person's character and is using empty rhetoric to play upon your fears.
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE!!
Panel 1: Charlie Cook and Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Fred Yang, Democratic Pollster; Bill McInturff, Republican Pollster
Panel 2: Michael Steele, fmr. Chair of Republican National Committee; Robert Gibbs, fmr. White House Press Secretary; Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent NBC News; Joe Scarborough, host of "Morning Joe."
kaci kickox - ebola nurse
from maine
talking about science and not politicas
paul lapage - gov.
villated every promise she made so far
self -quarantine - community has been through a lot
will no go into town -
population centers - different rules? no - kaci
presidential politcas already oat the midterms
contemplators club
no one's in a hurry
gibbs - more entused about republicans
lose a book tour - andera -
has to be authentic
rand paul - republican front runner - michael steele
joe - not going to win -
jeb or christ
mitt romney -
john kasich -
Sunday, October 26, 2014
10.26.14: There's No Money in Compromise
NBC Congressional Correspondent Luke Russert reported on today's program that $4 billion dollars have been spent on this year's midterm elections, which of course prompted the question as to whether or not money is taking over American politics. While it's mildly commendable that the question would be raised at all since media companies like Comcast, which owns NBC, it's silly to even ask. With a disgustingly gaudy number such as $4 billion staring us in the face, it's more like to what extent is it dominating our political system.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post published a piece outlining how much politicians' wealth has increased over the years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/22/so-just-how-rich-is-congress-richer-than-you/) so it's not difficult to decipher why the money is spent and who eventually benefits from it. Understandably, the system as is motivates politicians little to make any changes. It all stems from a cynical Supreme Court decision - the Citizens United ruling - that has allowed an unlimited amount of dark money (where donors do not have to be disclosed) that has nothing to do with the general welfare of a nation but the narrow agenda of a select few.
The results the American people see are the further enrichment of that select few, gridlock and dysfunction in Washington DC, more polarization between the political parties, and the increasing difficulty for the general populace to make ends meet.
Dan Balz, Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post, explained that everyone is sick of these political ads, even the producers that make them but there is too much money involved to say no. Chuck Todd offhandedly mentioned that it could jeopardize the two-party system, but we're not there yet. Mr. Todd also pushed the notion that the public wants to punish the Democrats without rewarding Republicans, the reward being control of both houses of Congress. This presumes that Democrats are solely at fault because they back the 'failed' policies of President Obama. If you disagree with the President's policies or not, that doesn't necessarily mean they are unsuccessful. For example, you would have to conclude that if the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to insure more people while slowing the growth in healthcare costs, you would have to deem that a success. However, if you own the hospital, you're making less profit so it's a failure.
No matter how the elections turn out - whether either party is punished or rewarded - today's panel seemed to think that little would change in terms of the gridlock. But from Mr. Todd's 'on the road' interviews, once again you see that the American public is ahead of its leaders. The final interview quote was a man in Wisconsin saying that you had to make friends with the people you were most afraid to make friends with, in terms of political viewpoint, which is another way of saying that it is all right to compromise. The sad reality is that there is no money in compromise, only in gridlock.
It's also clear that no matter what happens in the senatorial races, Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are not the men who can fix Washington dysfunction. Hence, it's not encouraging to hear Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rob Portman (R-OH) defend their respective leaders.
Mr. Todd explained that the two most important concerns in this election for voters are the economy and Washington gridlock. (Both go hand in hand.) Coupling that with what Mr. Balz said about the Ebola virus and ISIS providing a general foreboding over this election season, it's no wondering the American people are frustrated. All we want to see is our political leaders come together on something, anything instead of politicizing everything. Unfortunately, there's no money in that either.
Panel: Dan Balz, Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post; Luke Russert, NBC Congressional Correspondent; Caroline Ryan, The New York Times Washington DC Bureau Chief; Nia Malika-Henderson, National Political Reporter for The Washington Post
As for Dr. Fauci's now weekly Ebola update, the only way to stop the Ebola virus here is the eliminate it in West Africa as he explained. Quarantines and travel bans, though he was reluctant in disagreeing, Dr. Fauci said would be detrimental in accomplishing that goal where Dr. Sophie Delaunay, Ex. Dir. of Doctors Without Borders, stated is out of control. She also explained that the doctor in New York followed all the necessary protocols to safeguard against spreading the virus. On all this, we're still with Dr. Fauci in that we're going to put our trust in science and government. What else is there? You tell us!
And this is our 300th published post; thank you so very much for reading us.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post published a piece outlining how much politicians' wealth has increased over the years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/22/so-just-how-rich-is-congress-richer-than-you/) so it's not difficult to decipher why the money is spent and who eventually benefits from it. Understandably, the system as is motivates politicians little to make any changes. It all stems from a cynical Supreme Court decision - the Citizens United ruling - that has allowed an unlimited amount of dark money (where donors do not have to be disclosed) that has nothing to do with the general welfare of a nation but the narrow agenda of a select few.
The results the American people see are the further enrichment of that select few, gridlock and dysfunction in Washington DC, more polarization between the political parties, and the increasing difficulty for the general populace to make ends meet.
Dan Balz, Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post, explained that everyone is sick of these political ads, even the producers that make them but there is too much money involved to say no. Chuck Todd offhandedly mentioned that it could jeopardize the two-party system, but we're not there yet. Mr. Todd also pushed the notion that the public wants to punish the Democrats without rewarding Republicans, the reward being control of both houses of Congress. This presumes that Democrats are solely at fault because they back the 'failed' policies of President Obama. If you disagree with the President's policies or not, that doesn't necessarily mean they are unsuccessful. For example, you would have to conclude that if the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to insure more people while slowing the growth in healthcare costs, you would have to deem that a success. However, if you own the hospital, you're making less profit so it's a failure.
No matter how the elections turn out - whether either party is punished or rewarded - today's panel seemed to think that little would change in terms of the gridlock. But from Mr. Todd's 'on the road' interviews, once again you see that the American public is ahead of its leaders. The final interview quote was a man in Wisconsin saying that you had to make friends with the people you were most afraid to make friends with, in terms of political viewpoint, which is another way of saying that it is all right to compromise. The sad reality is that there is no money in compromise, only in gridlock.
It's also clear that no matter what happens in the senatorial races, Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are not the men who can fix Washington dysfunction. Hence, it's not encouraging to hear Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rob Portman (R-OH) defend their respective leaders.
Mr. Todd explained that the two most important concerns in this election for voters are the economy and Washington gridlock. (Both go hand in hand.) Coupling that with what Mr. Balz said about the Ebola virus and ISIS providing a general foreboding over this election season, it's no wondering the American people are frustrated. All we want to see is our political leaders come together on something, anything instead of politicizing everything. Unfortunately, there's no money in that either.
Panel: Dan Balz, Chief Correspondent for The Washington Post; Luke Russert, NBC Congressional Correspondent; Caroline Ryan, The New York Times Washington DC Bureau Chief; Nia Malika-Henderson, National Political Reporter for The Washington Post
As for Dr. Fauci's now weekly Ebola update, the only way to stop the Ebola virus here is the eliminate it in West Africa as he explained. Quarantines and travel bans, though he was reluctant in disagreeing, Dr. Fauci said would be detrimental in accomplishing that goal where Dr. Sophie Delaunay, Ex. Dir. of Doctors Without Borders, stated is out of control. She also explained that the doctor in New York followed all the necessary protocols to safeguard against spreading the virus. On all this, we're still with Dr. Fauci in that we're going to put our trust in science and government. What else is there? You tell us!
And this is our 300th published post; thank you so very much for reading us.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
10.19.14: Perspectives on Ebola in the U.S.
Does a travel ban make sense if it is only to make the American people feel better? Chuck Todd discussed this with Senators Roy Blount (R-MO) and Bob Casey (D-PA) during today's 'Ebola Summit' on "Meet The Press," among many other aspects in combating an outbreak of the virus. We'll dissect the above mentioned tactic and a couple of other points in an attempt to bring perspective to the whole thing.
Laurie Garrett, senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and long-time medical journalist explained that since Ebola is new, there is a new fear, and what comes with new is unknown so it's natural national reaction. The media hasn't been any help in quelling those natural fears, especially when you present the story in terms of a summit. That's a cheap jab because all the guests offered insightful perspectives.
(Cudos this week to Mr. Todd and his team for their best show so far in terms of pacing, tone, and information. Staging still a little awkward but to an increasingly minimal degree.)
But the first thing that should be noted is when Mr. Todd reminded us that over 50,000 people per year in the United States die of flu and pneumonia; one has died from Ebola, to which Ms. Garrett commented that since it's familiar there is no hysteria. (Makes you think about going out to get that free flu shot now, doesn't it?)
However, and this is a big 'however,' there is an epidemic occurring in Africa - all agreed - and it is to be taken seriously. The Ebola virus is a deadly disease, as we know, that attacks the central nervous system and causes dementia and violent behavior on the way to a quick death. From Ghana, Dr. Anthony Banbury, UN Mission Ebola Emergency Response, warned that the world is not prepared to combat the spread of this virus and the number one resource needed on the ground is more healthcare workers.
When Senator Blount was asked about his support for it, he dialed back his answer saying that we should not issue visas to individuals from countries where there is emergency status. That's a lot different than a travel ban. A ban means no to-and-from at all. A ban means that Dr. Banbury is never going to get those healthcare workers that he needs to fight the spread. As Ms. Garrett commented, it disincentives healthcare professionals from going overseas because they wouldn't be sure that they would allowed to come back. And with all due respect to Senator Blount, you can not call from a travel ban and then NOT support making CDC protocols in hospitals mandatory, reasoning that it's not realistic that all hospitals would comply; as if it's realistic that an issued travel ban is going to keep everyone from west Africa out of the United States. In essence, Senator Blount is saying that it's OK to be irresponsible here at home. (Freedom doesn't mean act stupidly.)
Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, making a return visit to the program, warned that this initial experience should serve as a wake up call for preparedness. We also agreed when he said it would be 'nice' (his word) to have a Surgeon General so that there is a central figure to get information out and coordinate cooperation between agencies - the essential function of a 'czar' he said. (Former vice-presidential chief of staff Ron Klain has been appointed to that position.) But on the topic of Surgeon General, Senator Casey said that simple Washington dysfunction was the reason why we do not have one. Senator Blount blamed senate majority leader Harry Reid for not bringing it up for a vote. The truth there is in what Mr. Todd said that the current nominee (the more than qualified, impeccably credentialed Doctor Vivek Murthy) stated that gun violence is an issue of public health and because of that the National Rifle Association stated it would then score the Senators' votes, hence holding up the process.
If flu and pneumonia, at 50K deaths per year, is a public health concern, why wouldn't 30K deaths per year from guns also be a concern? The NRA will not allow to be versus one death in the United States from Ebola. It would be more than just 'nice' for the United States to have a Surgeon General.
Another curious thing that Dr. Fauci said was that he disagreed with the notion, presented by one of his colleagues earlier in the week in an op-ed that we would have a vaccine by now if budgets for research hadn't been cut by more than 50 percent over the last three years. He explained that nothing less in research is being done, the cuts just mean it's being done slower. Wait....What? He basically just confirmed the point that he disagreed with. As the guests discussed, private funding - tens of millions of dollars - for something like a vaccine for Ebola, a virus never before present in the United States, is going to be readily available, and this is understandable. What's not understandable or comprehensible is increasing funds for border security in reaction to the presence of the Ebola virus while decreasing funding for vaccines. As we stated in last week's column, diligence to what Dr. Fauci called contact tracing along with quick responsible care will stem fears in the U.S.
The doctor also stated that the deadline to reverse the spread of the virus in Africa is Dec. 1st. If the numbers don't start going down by then, the epidemic there will be out of control. Laurie Garrett pointed out that for every known case of infection, there are 2.5 that are unknown according to the World Health Organization so there is no way that deadline will be met and that given that math, 300,000 cases could be recorded in Africa by Christmas.
Dr. Danbury described it as fighting a medical war in Africa, where we don't have enough combatants. Sure sounds that way to us.
Panel: Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist; Andrea Mitchell, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News; Stephanie Cutter, Democratic Strategist; and Manu Raju, Politico
Laurie Garrett, senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations and long-time medical journalist explained that since Ebola is new, there is a new fear, and what comes with new is unknown so it's natural national reaction. The media hasn't been any help in quelling those natural fears, especially when you present the story in terms of a summit. That's a cheap jab because all the guests offered insightful perspectives.
(Cudos this week to Mr. Todd and his team for their best show so far in terms of pacing, tone, and information. Staging still a little awkward but to an increasingly minimal degree.)
But the first thing that should be noted is when Mr. Todd reminded us that over 50,000 people per year in the United States die of flu and pneumonia; one has died from Ebola, to which Ms. Garrett commented that since it's familiar there is no hysteria. (Makes you think about going out to get that free flu shot now, doesn't it?)
However, and this is a big 'however,' there is an epidemic occurring in Africa - all agreed - and it is to be taken seriously. The Ebola virus is a deadly disease, as we know, that attacks the central nervous system and causes dementia and violent behavior on the way to a quick death. From Ghana, Dr. Anthony Banbury, UN Mission Ebola Emergency Response, warned that the world is not prepared to combat the spread of this virus and the number one resource needed on the ground is more healthcare workers.
When Senator Blount was asked about his support for it, he dialed back his answer saying that we should not issue visas to individuals from countries where there is emergency status. That's a lot different than a travel ban. A ban means no to-and-from at all. A ban means that Dr. Banbury is never going to get those healthcare workers that he needs to fight the spread. As Ms. Garrett commented, it disincentives healthcare professionals from going overseas because they wouldn't be sure that they would allowed to come back. And with all due respect to Senator Blount, you can not call from a travel ban and then NOT support making CDC protocols in hospitals mandatory, reasoning that it's not realistic that all hospitals would comply; as if it's realistic that an issued travel ban is going to keep everyone from west Africa out of the United States. In essence, Senator Blount is saying that it's OK to be irresponsible here at home. (Freedom doesn't mean act stupidly.)
Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, making a return visit to the program, warned that this initial experience should serve as a wake up call for preparedness. We also agreed when he said it would be 'nice' (his word) to have a Surgeon General so that there is a central figure to get information out and coordinate cooperation between agencies - the essential function of a 'czar' he said. (Former vice-presidential chief of staff Ron Klain has been appointed to that position.) But on the topic of Surgeon General, Senator Casey said that simple Washington dysfunction was the reason why we do not have one. Senator Blount blamed senate majority leader Harry Reid for not bringing it up for a vote. The truth there is in what Mr. Todd said that the current nominee (the more than qualified, impeccably credentialed Doctor Vivek Murthy) stated that gun violence is an issue of public health and because of that the National Rifle Association stated it would then score the Senators' votes, hence holding up the process.
If flu and pneumonia, at 50K deaths per year, is a public health concern, why wouldn't 30K deaths per year from guns also be a concern? The NRA will not allow to be versus one death in the United States from Ebola. It would be more than just 'nice' for the United States to have a Surgeon General.
Another curious thing that Dr. Fauci said was that he disagreed with the notion, presented by one of his colleagues earlier in the week in an op-ed that we would have a vaccine by now if budgets for research hadn't been cut by more than 50 percent over the last three years. He explained that nothing less in research is being done, the cuts just mean it's being done slower. Wait....What? He basically just confirmed the point that he disagreed with. As the guests discussed, private funding - tens of millions of dollars - for something like a vaccine for Ebola, a virus never before present in the United States, is going to be readily available, and this is understandable. What's not understandable or comprehensible is increasing funds for border security in reaction to the presence of the Ebola virus while decreasing funding for vaccines. As we stated in last week's column, diligence to what Dr. Fauci called contact tracing along with quick responsible care will stem fears in the U.S.
The doctor also stated that the deadline to reverse the spread of the virus in Africa is Dec. 1st. If the numbers don't start going down by then, the epidemic there will be out of control. Laurie Garrett pointed out that for every known case of infection, there are 2.5 that are unknown according to the World Health Organization so there is no way that deadline will be met and that given that math, 300,000 cases could be recorded in Africa by Christmas.
Dr. Danbury described it as fighting a medical war in Africa, where we don't have enough combatants. Sure sounds that way to us.
Panel: Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist; Andrea Mitchell, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News; Stephanie Cutter, Democratic Strategist; and Manu Raju, Politico
Sunday, October 12, 2014
10.12.14: U.S. Culture Wars and Perpetuating Fear
Considering the three main topics of discussion today - the Ebola virus, the war against ISIS, and the culture war/election (in that order), we'll take on the last first as we haven't given it attention previous as much as the other two. After all, it is election season.
To the chagrin of social conservatives, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear pending cases on same sex marriage, which essentially paved the way to legalization in now what is a majority of states. After an outlining series of historical clips of Republicans' alliance with the religious right, Chuck Todd discussed with syndicated Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker and David Brody, political director of the Christian Science Network, how Democrats are winning the culture wars right now, dictating its movement which is decidedly left. That would seem to be the case on the surface but the Democrats aren't the deciding factor in this case. No one touched on the core cause of the conflict within the Republican party.
Ms. Parker explained that conservatives, like Pope Francis and the Vatican, are trying to reconcile being opposed to such cultural shifts and not judging too harshly being more accepting - a 'reformation' to use her term. We agree with the notion that same sex marriage is not a potent an issue as abortion and Ms. Parker pointed out. Mr. Brody explained that evangelicals don't always vote in the numbers people think and because of the cultural shifts within the Republican party, there is always the possibility that they could stay home from the polls.
The core conflict within the Republican party is between the notions of social conservatism and libertarianism, and it's odd that none of the three in the discussion outlined it as such. Perhaps unconsciously, Mr. Todd did when he explained that independents [read: libertarians] are cutting into conservative votes in senate races in various states.
One of the unintended consequences of continually advocating for gun freedoms, for example, is that people will start to apply those ideas of freedom in other areas; in other words, live and let live. If two gay people want to get married then so be it. This is what you're seeing from libertarian conservatives, and this is the group that is really causing the shift in the culture wars. Abortion is a different issue because some people consider that to be 'killing a person.' For the record, we would disagree with that - for the sake of the focus of this column, please agree to disagree with us here. Overall point being is that conservatives are the source of the shift and it's the conservative idea of libertarianism that is the cause.
This idea runs counter to another the conservatives are perpetuating right now, because of the election, and that is the politics of fear. A classically effective short-term strategy that is always a long-term loser for Americans - think about the all-consuming NAS data monitoring we now live with. However, it's to be expected that in a bid to control the Senate, Republicans would hammer the President and by extension the Democratic candidates with these kinds of political tactics focusing on the Ebola virus and war with ISIS. As Tom Brokaw correctly noted, the latter more of a dangerous threat than the former.
In the interview with National Security Advisor Susan Rice, we liked most of what we heard. Ms. Rice outlined how Turkey, formerly a non-voice on the scene, is responding with action since ISIS is now 6 miles from its border in the city of Kobani, Syria. They have decided to allow the training of moderate Syrian forces at their bases, they are blocking the flow across their border of foreign fighters to ISIS, among other things. The broad strokes of a strategy that Ms. Rice spoke about - continuing U.S. airstrikes and support of the Kurdish and Iraqi armies and coalition building - all seemed sensible though the degrees to which their employed is debatable. And even if the United States is cooperating with Iran in this fight, we understand why Ms. Rice would deny any such contact.
However, the one thing that Ms. Rice said that was truly disappointing, infuriating in fact, is what she explained as building the capabilities of regional partners and that it is something that takes time, not overnight. With the exception of the Kurds and moderate Syrians, Ms. Rice was referring to the Iraqis and an army, in which the United States has poured billions. How long is that supposed to take after ten years already?
In the one confrontation between ISIS and the Iraqi Army, sans American participation, the Iraqis dropped their guns, turned and ran. Evidence that the training we've been giving them didn't take, unlike the Kurdish Peshmerga who just needed the resources and with the assistance of American air power were able to keep ISIS from advancing. Given this, it shouldn't be surprising to hear NBC's Richard Engel report that ISIS has turned its attention toward Baghdad, where the army is weak and the United States can not bomb.
So we contend with one more of Susan Rice's points, which was her 'yes' answer to whether or not the United States has been successful in its degrading of ISIS. Chuck Todd brought the point to Ms. Rice about a request from an Iraqi minister in the Anbar province for more troops to fight ISIS. With that in mind, it seems as though ISIS is advancing and therefore the answer is clearly 'no,' to success so far.
And lastly, if you listened to what The New York Times Helene Cooper said about traveling to Liberia for two weeks (clip below), political leaders spreading fear about an Ebola outbreak in the United States is irresponsible.
Calm, in control, and disciplined are the qualities that should be expressed.
Anthony Fauci MD, Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, believed this first transmitted case of Ebola to a hospital nurse was due to an inadvertent breach of protocol when removing protective clothing. The aforementioned qualities are more important than ever when it comes to this public health risk, do you think?
Round Table (Panel): Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Gibbs, fmr. Press Secretary for President Barack Obama; and Sara Fagen, fmr. White House Political Director to President George W. Bush.
Question of the Week: Where is Korean Dictator Kim Jung Un? And Susan Rice's awesome answer: We're continuing to monitor.
Sunday, October 05, 2014
10.5.14: America on Edge
Chuck Todd aptly began today's "Meet The Press" with the phrase America on Edge. Americans are in fact on edge because of this ebola scare, yes, but also because they see our institutions getting sloppy like the Secret Service, the Center of Disease Control (CDC), the I.R.S., and the real root of the problem - Congress.
Many members of our House of Representatives and Senate actively sew the seeds of distrust in the federal government and then later harvest all the rewards that it gives a person upon reelection. One of the ways this now established distrust has manifested itself is that it has given the motivation to these leaders to make big cuts in the funding for these institutions rendering them ill-equipped to handle an emergency. With lack of resources and morale trampled by distrust in their work, just like physical infrastructure, our institutions will inevitably break down. This is what we are seeing now, and furthermore we can not, as a country, feel reassured by the President of the United States because the non-stop personal attacks have flooded into damaging the office itself.
However, given that, we do feel reassured when Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the CDC, said that an epidemic in the United States is highly unlikely and it is because, as he also said, the United States, in spite of its communication issues (our injection), is the best in the world in terms of monitoring and containing capabilities. If it turns out that no one else is infected in Dallas then you would have to consider that a big win considering that the U.S. is a free country and it is inevitable that someone infected with the Ebola virus would make it into the country. It's inevitable that it will happen again. And it will be contained with even more diligence, unlike in western Africa where 7,492 have been infected and 3,439 have died in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea as a result of infection.
The United States is the most prepared, but as Joe Scarborough pointed out, the World Health Organization and the governments of these respective African countries have done a poor job in their response to the epidemic, which is troubling. Andrea Mitchell mentioned that the U.S. military is having trouble setting up emergency facilities because any sense of infrastructure in these countries is nonexistent. We disagree with Senator Rand Paul who thinks the U.S. military shouldn't have been deployed to contain the virus. We would contend that this is the sort of preemptive foreign policy that makes sense. With that, Mr. Scarborough pushes the panic button too hard and we agree with David Axelrod when he said that these healthcare professionals do not have political agendas when it comes to the work they're doing, specifically at the CDC.
The two men verbally sparred on the topic, which was inappropriate for "Meet The Press," and as we've said before, having Joe Scarborough on the program hampers the show being synonymous with the moderator. Then again, "Meet The Press" now has a 'coffee bar' on the set, which is the perfect notion of a setting to have an in-depth, serious discussion about the key issues affecting millions of Americans. A coffee bar on the 'program of record?'
In that dig we digress but then yet again the first guest to sit there was Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who is hard to take seriously anyway. But we believe him when he said that it will be considered a loss for Republicans if they do not take control of the Senate in November, a point at which he hammered away repeatedly. He softly predicted Republicans picking up anywhere from 6 to 8 seats in the Senate but we would say that even six is a stretch. As the conservative Mr. Scarborough pointed out, Republicans do not have an agenda, a concrete set of policy proposals that run counter to Mr. Obama's policies, which can do it better. And that's why you see Democratic candidates doing well in states that Mr. Obama didn't win (the south) in 2012. It also plays into the notion we spoke about in a previous column which is that Americans like big state government despite all the conditioning to dislike big federal government.
On the subject of big government, we thought Mr. Todd's tact in questioning Mr. Priebus about the contradiction within the Republican philosophy of deregulating business, but when it comes to abortion clinics Republicans want to heavily regulate them, referring to the state of Texas as the specific example. Mr. Priebus punted on the question saying that Mr. Todd would have to ask someone in Texas. He went onto to say that public money shouldn't be used to fund abortion but that was not what was at issue. But what he didn't say is that abortion should be made illegal - a total ban, which is part of the Republican platform.
It's inflexible ideology that have set Americans on edge because they see it in their government, but not in themselves, and only given stark choices in terms of candidates. It's starting to show through, especially in the Kansas Senate race between Pat Roberts (R) and the independent Greg Orman. Take today's 'Meet The Candidate' series guest, fmr. Democratic Senator and fmr. Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb who used to be a Republican. Mr. Webb would be a potentially compelling candidate for many Americans because you see the ability to compromise there.
As that refers more to domestic policy, on foreign policy we agree with Mr. Webb that the United States does not have a clearly stated approach, which he made a point to say that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush before him are guilty of this. As Mr. Webb correctly reminded us, this escalation of violence in the Middle East (read: ISIS) was all set into motion by the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That was eleven years ago and here we are again. In the op-ed segment with Iraq War veteran Clay Hanna (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/boots-on-the-ground-iraq-111271.html#.VDGAU-dXSX1), he send that the United States already has 'boots on the ground,' which isn't surprising. We know this given the airstrike operations going on, which require personnel on the ground to conduct. However, Mr. Hannah made two critical points: one, that the United States overestimates it's Middle Eastern allies in helping the U.S. In conjunction with this Senator Webb explained that the loyalties of moderate Sunnis are fluid and that he wouldn't be surprised to learn that some senior ISIS fighters were trained by the U.S.
With that in mind, consider the other important point Mr. Hanna made and that is a big victory for ISIS would be a dead American soldier by their hand. That would really put Americans on edge, perhaps over it.
Round Table (Panel): David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Obama; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Gwen Ifill, PBS The News Hour
Many members of our House of Representatives and Senate actively sew the seeds of distrust in the federal government and then later harvest all the rewards that it gives a person upon reelection. One of the ways this now established distrust has manifested itself is that it has given the motivation to these leaders to make big cuts in the funding for these institutions rendering them ill-equipped to handle an emergency. With lack of resources and morale trampled by distrust in their work, just like physical infrastructure, our institutions will inevitably break down. This is what we are seeing now, and furthermore we can not, as a country, feel reassured by the President of the United States because the non-stop personal attacks have flooded into damaging the office itself.
However, given that, we do feel reassured when Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the CDC, said that an epidemic in the United States is highly unlikely and it is because, as he also said, the United States, in spite of its communication issues (our injection), is the best in the world in terms of monitoring and containing capabilities. If it turns out that no one else is infected in Dallas then you would have to consider that a big win considering that the U.S. is a free country and it is inevitable that someone infected with the Ebola virus would make it into the country. It's inevitable that it will happen again. And it will be contained with even more diligence, unlike in western Africa where 7,492 have been infected and 3,439 have died in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea as a result of infection.
The United States is the most prepared, but as Joe Scarborough pointed out, the World Health Organization and the governments of these respective African countries have done a poor job in their response to the epidemic, which is troubling. Andrea Mitchell mentioned that the U.S. military is having trouble setting up emergency facilities because any sense of infrastructure in these countries is nonexistent. We disagree with Senator Rand Paul who thinks the U.S. military shouldn't have been deployed to contain the virus. We would contend that this is the sort of preemptive foreign policy that makes sense. With that, Mr. Scarborough pushes the panic button too hard and we agree with David Axelrod when he said that these healthcare professionals do not have political agendas when it comes to the work they're doing, specifically at the CDC.
The two men verbally sparred on the topic, which was inappropriate for "Meet The Press," and as we've said before, having Joe Scarborough on the program hampers the show being synonymous with the moderator. Then again, "Meet The Press" now has a 'coffee bar' on the set, which is the perfect notion of a setting to have an in-depth, serious discussion about the key issues affecting millions of Americans. A coffee bar on the 'program of record?'
In that dig we digress but then yet again the first guest to sit there was Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who is hard to take seriously anyway. But we believe him when he said that it will be considered a loss for Republicans if they do not take control of the Senate in November, a point at which he hammered away repeatedly. He softly predicted Republicans picking up anywhere from 6 to 8 seats in the Senate but we would say that even six is a stretch. As the conservative Mr. Scarborough pointed out, Republicans do not have an agenda, a concrete set of policy proposals that run counter to Mr. Obama's policies, which can do it better. And that's why you see Democratic candidates doing well in states that Mr. Obama didn't win (the south) in 2012. It also plays into the notion we spoke about in a previous column which is that Americans like big state government despite all the conditioning to dislike big federal government.
On the subject of big government, we thought Mr. Todd's tact in questioning Mr. Priebus about the contradiction within the Republican philosophy of deregulating business, but when it comes to abortion clinics Republicans want to heavily regulate them, referring to the state of Texas as the specific example. Mr. Priebus punted on the question saying that Mr. Todd would have to ask someone in Texas. He went onto to say that public money shouldn't be used to fund abortion but that was not what was at issue. But what he didn't say is that abortion should be made illegal - a total ban, which is part of the Republican platform.
It's inflexible ideology that have set Americans on edge because they see it in their government, but not in themselves, and only given stark choices in terms of candidates. It's starting to show through, especially in the Kansas Senate race between Pat Roberts (R) and the independent Greg Orman. Take today's 'Meet The Candidate' series guest, fmr. Democratic Senator and fmr. Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb who used to be a Republican. Mr. Webb would be a potentially compelling candidate for many Americans because you see the ability to compromise there.
As that refers more to domestic policy, on foreign policy we agree with Mr. Webb that the United States does not have a clearly stated approach, which he made a point to say that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush before him are guilty of this. As Mr. Webb correctly reminded us, this escalation of violence in the Middle East (read: ISIS) was all set into motion by the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That was eleven years ago and here we are again. In the op-ed segment with Iraq War veteran Clay Hanna (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/boots-on-the-ground-iraq-111271.html#.VDGAU-dXSX1), he send that the United States already has 'boots on the ground,' which isn't surprising. We know this given the airstrike operations going on, which require personnel on the ground to conduct. However, Mr. Hannah made two critical points: one, that the United States overestimates it's Middle Eastern allies in helping the U.S. In conjunction with this Senator Webb explained that the loyalties of moderate Sunnis are fluid and that he wouldn't be surprised to learn that some senior ISIS fighters were trained by the U.S.
With that in mind, consider the other important point Mr. Hanna made and that is a big victory for ISIS would be a dead American soldier by their hand. That would really put Americans on edge, perhaps over it.
Round Table (Panel): David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Obama; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Gwen Ifill, PBS The News Hour
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
9.21.14: Plowing Through... Defeating ISIS and The New Program Format
We've returned and our sincere apologies for skipping out on last week. We were in the midst of a much needed vacation, but that doesn't mean that we didn't watch last week and this week's show, which for the latter we'll comment in content in a moment (For those who want to skip this part and get right to the topics at hand, we've marked it with an asterisk (*).) For now, we'd just like to opine a bit on the new format of the program, which unfortunately impedes on the ease of providing an in depth thoughtful opinion as it stands, but we're plowing through.
First, there's the obvious awkwardness of introducing a panel at the top of the show and then having them sit for almost half of it seemingly without participating. We get it that they are listening to what the guests have to say, but they can do that off-set. When John Stanton of "Buzzfeed" asked a question to Grover Norquist we thought, yes, that's how "Meet The Press" was originally intended... Great, but then he was the only one to ask a question. It didn't help that everyone had to look over his shoulder around a camera to have the exchange. Hopefully a new set will fix that.
Mr. Todd should first interview the two individuals, in this week's case the aforementioned Mr. Norquist for the Americans for Tax Reform and author and columnist Thomas Frank, and then open up the questioning to the press. And they should all be press if you intend to legitimately drill down deeper into the subject so that viewers have a more thorough understanding of the topic. That's really what the program is all about. This means no activists/lobbyists or political consultants asking questions. Ramesh Ronnuru, Editor at The National Review could have asked one question to Mr. Frank as a counter to Mr. Stanton's. Four journalists asking Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have made for great television two weeks ago. If this really isn't their intention to do it this way, then throwing it out there as they did this week is silly. Just have Mr. Todd ask all the questions.
And what's with Mr. Todd running all over the set? And what was with last week's jazz groovy loop music while Mr. Todd stood at the touchscreen? And what was with this week's worse Marshall music? Let's just try no music at all.
[We also saw this column from Erik Wemple at The Washington Post about the 'Afraid to Say' segment - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/22/chuck-todds-afraid-segment-on-meet-the-press-must-be-killed/.]
And with all that said, the consolation is that the topics and the amount of time spent of them, e.g. The U.S. conflict with ISIS, have been spot on. And as we'll finally get to the discussion, the disjointed way in which the different individual's perspectives are being captured looks clumsy. Your Sunday "Meet The Press" moderator should have a calming, thoughtful presence, which is to say that you don't want to see him one minute up standing, the next down sitting, then standing again, to finally sitting.
Also, Mr. Todd, please stay on topic. Sometimes there is a bit of drift. You don't have to end every segment on a lighter note. There is no need to ask an NFL question after solely discussing only one other particularly serious topic, in this case ISIS with Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Christopher Murphy (D-CT).
Here is the one and only time we'll phrase something this way in this column. They got to work all that shit out!
Enough.
*
From the various answers with regard to combating ISIS from great guests, which included all the above and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers and Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Ret. Admiral Mike Mullen, we don't see it.
Senator Johnson captured it best in saying that he supports the president's decision to go after ISIS, but doesn't quite see a successful strategy. Ambassador Power said that for Saudi Arabia's part in the effort, they would allow the U.S. military to train 5,000 Sunni moderate troops - Free Syrian Army - in their country. In a year's time, after the training, they are going to go back to Syria and fight on two fronts - one against the Assad Regime and one against ISIS. There more than just 5,000 fighters in the Free Syrian Army, but they are still drastically outnumbered. Senator Murphy stated that he didn't vote for arming the moderate Sunnis because he didn't believe they could effectively be the ground force on two fronts. We would agree. The Free Syrian Army will get plowed if that's the case, even with U.S. air power supporting them.
The Free Syrian Army's focus is battling Assad, which ISIS supports. Who's to say that they don't cut a deal with ISIS. Turkey apparently has, which has refused to comment on how they got all their diplomats back from ISIS. Then the U.S. has wasted more money and resources, only to be duped; it's a possibility.
So does that mean the U.S. has to put troops on the ground. Admiral Mullen rightly dismissed the media driven disagreement between the military and the Obama Administration. Of course General Dempsey wouldn't leave anything off the table in making recommendations to the president, and that includes the idea of having troops on the ground, whatever it takes to complete the mission. That's just being prudent. It's for the president to decide whether to take that recommendation or not.
Senator Murphy also pointed out that it's the U.S. that is taking the lead and not the countries in the region. It's a point well taken, but who is there to really step up? The Saudis, an ally the U.S. doesn't need? The Jordanians? Admiral Mullen said they are capable, but they are dealing with keeping the country stable given the immense refugee crisis. The Iraqi army didn't measure up and the Kurdish peshmerga are going to defend the land that they want to make their country. Right now the Kurds don't have any more capability than that.
Technically, there are already U.S. troops on the ground, special forces and advisers; close to 2,000 to help the Iraqi army get back on its feet and to direct U.S. airstrikes. However, these are not ground forces, as in brigades. President Obama simply will not commit to that. Mr. Obama seems to prefer a more stealth, yet ruthless approach - drones and airstrikes along with covert forces. The problem with that is it won't defeat ISIS.
Training the Free Syrian Army, whose motives are not entirely clear, may turn beneficial for the U.S. but helping the Kurds and the Iraqi Army is really the best chance the region has of eliminating ISIS. But it's not an easy task, as Admiral Mullen alluded to in describing what the Maliki government did to the army - making it a sectarian force instead of an inclusive one.
As Amy Walter of the "Cook Political Report" pointed out, the U.S. public has security concerns, which is true. However, sending large numbers U.S. troops back to Iraq would be a mistake simply for the reason that perpetuity would then be required to maintain peace at a cost to the U.S. that can not be sustained in perpetuity.
Speaking of 'costs in perpetuity,' it's probably not the first time you've read about the economic situation in Kansas before this latest edition of "Meet The Press." Governor Sam Brownback cut taxes in his state so drastically that practically all public services have suffered, economic growth has been far behind other states surrounding it, and the state's deficit is way up.
Yet, Mr. Norquist can effectively explain why Governor Brownback made the correct decision and why economic growth will start moving in the right direction. He cited a number of states that are looking at what is happening in Kansas and are seriously considering doing the same. He also said that states with Republican governors have cut taxes by $30 billion and states with Democratic governors have increased taxes by $40 billion over the past decade.
Yes, the 'blue' states increase taxes, but they also subsidize the 'red' states in taxes to the federal government that gets redistributed to all the states. We can rebut each one of Mr. Norquist's assertions, but what would be the point. The fact, that Republicans frankly refuse to accept, is that big state governments work and the public likes that they work. The mistake Republicans make is that they equate state government action with federal government action.
Thomas Frank threw it down to Chuck Todd saying that Mr. Todd knows that the country is drifting toward being an oligarchy, but is he correct? It's undeniable that the U.S. is the closest to it as it has ever been given Citizens United and all the undisclosed millions that are funneled to candidates' supporting P.A.C.s, making a mockery (a deceitful ruse as it pertains to oligarchy) of the political system. And how do we know that Chuck Todd knows this? He proved Mr. Thomas correct when he analogized that the U.S. voting populace was divided into two groups - Chick-fil-a voters and Starbucks voters.
See you next week.
Round Table (Panel): John Station, Washington Bureau Chief, Buzzfeed; Amy Walter, National Editor, The Cook Political Report; Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor, National Review; Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress
First, there's the obvious awkwardness of introducing a panel at the top of the show and then having them sit for almost half of it seemingly without participating. We get it that they are listening to what the guests have to say, but they can do that off-set. When John Stanton of "Buzzfeed" asked a question to Grover Norquist we thought, yes, that's how "Meet The Press" was originally intended... Great, but then he was the only one to ask a question. It didn't help that everyone had to look over his shoulder around a camera to have the exchange. Hopefully a new set will fix that.
Mr. Todd should first interview the two individuals, in this week's case the aforementioned Mr. Norquist for the Americans for Tax Reform and author and columnist Thomas Frank, and then open up the questioning to the press. And they should all be press if you intend to legitimately drill down deeper into the subject so that viewers have a more thorough understanding of the topic. That's really what the program is all about. This means no activists/lobbyists or political consultants asking questions. Ramesh Ronnuru, Editor at The National Review could have asked one question to Mr. Frank as a counter to Mr. Stanton's. Four journalists asking Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would have made for great television two weeks ago. If this really isn't their intention to do it this way, then throwing it out there as they did this week is silly. Just have Mr. Todd ask all the questions.
And what's with Mr. Todd running all over the set? And what was with last week's jazz groovy loop music while Mr. Todd stood at the touchscreen? And what was with this week's worse Marshall music? Let's just try no music at all.
[We also saw this column from Erik Wemple at The Washington Post about the 'Afraid to Say' segment - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/22/chuck-todds-afraid-segment-on-meet-the-press-must-be-killed/.]
And with all that said, the consolation is that the topics and the amount of time spent of them, e.g. The U.S. conflict with ISIS, have been spot on. And as we'll finally get to the discussion, the disjointed way in which the different individual's perspectives are being captured looks clumsy. Your Sunday "Meet The Press" moderator should have a calming, thoughtful presence, which is to say that you don't want to see him one minute up standing, the next down sitting, then standing again, to finally sitting.
Also, Mr. Todd, please stay on topic. Sometimes there is a bit of drift. You don't have to end every segment on a lighter note. There is no need to ask an NFL question after solely discussing only one other particularly serious topic, in this case ISIS with Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Christopher Murphy (D-CT).
Here is the one and only time we'll phrase something this way in this column. They got to work all that shit out!
Enough.
*
From the various answers with regard to combating ISIS from great guests, which included all the above and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers and Fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of State, Ret. Admiral Mike Mullen, we don't see it.
Senator Johnson captured it best in saying that he supports the president's decision to go after ISIS, but doesn't quite see a successful strategy. Ambassador Power said that for Saudi Arabia's part in the effort, they would allow the U.S. military to train 5,000 Sunni moderate troops - Free Syrian Army - in their country. In a year's time, after the training, they are going to go back to Syria and fight on two fronts - one against the Assad Regime and one against ISIS. There more than just 5,000 fighters in the Free Syrian Army, but they are still drastically outnumbered. Senator Murphy stated that he didn't vote for arming the moderate Sunnis because he didn't believe they could effectively be the ground force on two fronts. We would agree. The Free Syrian Army will get plowed if that's the case, even with U.S. air power supporting them.
The Free Syrian Army's focus is battling Assad, which ISIS supports. Who's to say that they don't cut a deal with ISIS. Turkey apparently has, which has refused to comment on how they got all their diplomats back from ISIS. Then the U.S. has wasted more money and resources, only to be duped; it's a possibility.
So does that mean the U.S. has to put troops on the ground. Admiral Mullen rightly dismissed the media driven disagreement between the military and the Obama Administration. Of course General Dempsey wouldn't leave anything off the table in making recommendations to the president, and that includes the idea of having troops on the ground, whatever it takes to complete the mission. That's just being prudent. It's for the president to decide whether to take that recommendation or not.
Senator Murphy also pointed out that it's the U.S. that is taking the lead and not the countries in the region. It's a point well taken, but who is there to really step up? The Saudis, an ally the U.S. doesn't need? The Jordanians? Admiral Mullen said they are capable, but they are dealing with keeping the country stable given the immense refugee crisis. The Iraqi army didn't measure up and the Kurdish peshmerga are going to defend the land that they want to make their country. Right now the Kurds don't have any more capability than that.
Technically, there are already U.S. troops on the ground, special forces and advisers; close to 2,000 to help the Iraqi army get back on its feet and to direct U.S. airstrikes. However, these are not ground forces, as in brigades. President Obama simply will not commit to that. Mr. Obama seems to prefer a more stealth, yet ruthless approach - drones and airstrikes along with covert forces. The problem with that is it won't defeat ISIS.
Training the Free Syrian Army, whose motives are not entirely clear, may turn beneficial for the U.S. but helping the Kurds and the Iraqi Army is really the best chance the region has of eliminating ISIS. But it's not an easy task, as Admiral Mullen alluded to in describing what the Maliki government did to the army - making it a sectarian force instead of an inclusive one.
As Amy Walter of the "Cook Political Report" pointed out, the U.S. public has security concerns, which is true. However, sending large numbers U.S. troops back to Iraq would be a mistake simply for the reason that perpetuity would then be required to maintain peace at a cost to the U.S. that can not be sustained in perpetuity.
Speaking of 'costs in perpetuity,' it's probably not the first time you've read about the economic situation in Kansas before this latest edition of "Meet The Press." Governor Sam Brownback cut taxes in his state so drastically that practically all public services have suffered, economic growth has been far behind other states surrounding it, and the state's deficit is way up.
Yet, Mr. Norquist can effectively explain why Governor Brownback made the correct decision and why economic growth will start moving in the right direction. He cited a number of states that are looking at what is happening in Kansas and are seriously considering doing the same. He also said that states with Republican governors have cut taxes by $30 billion and states with Democratic governors have increased taxes by $40 billion over the past decade.
Yes, the 'blue' states increase taxes, but they also subsidize the 'red' states in taxes to the federal government that gets redistributed to all the states. We can rebut each one of Mr. Norquist's assertions, but what would be the point. The fact, that Republicans frankly refuse to accept, is that big state governments work and the public likes that they work. The mistake Republicans make is that they equate state government action with federal government action.
Thomas Frank threw it down to Chuck Todd saying that Mr. Todd knows that the country is drifting toward being an oligarchy, but is he correct? It's undeniable that the U.S. is the closest to it as it has ever been given Citizens United and all the undisclosed millions that are funneled to candidates' supporting P.A.C.s, making a mockery (a deceitful ruse as it pertains to oligarchy) of the political system. And how do we know that Chuck Todd knows this? He proved Mr. Thomas correct when he analogized that the U.S. voting populace was divided into two groups - Chick-fil-a voters and Starbucks voters.
See you next week.
Round Table (Panel): John Station, Washington Bureau Chief, Buzzfeed; Amy Walter, National Editor, The Cook Political Report; Ramesh Ponnuru, Senior Editor, National Review; Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress
Sunday, September 07, 2014
9.7.14: Chuck Todd's Debut and the President Obama Inteview
In his debut as the 12th moderator of "Meet The Press," Chuck Todd described the set and the show's format like living in a house while we're changing it, and we'll take him on his word because we're not sold on a set that looks a like one of the daily programs on MSNBC, and our jury is out on having the moderator doing board analysis work, though Mr. Todd is very good at it.
With that said, Mr. Todd's interview with the president gleaned many candid answers - worthy of the program and the mayoral segment displayed some key insights into how cities are rebuilding success in society. We'll comment on this later, but first the interview with President Obama.
(And yes, we'd give a high-five to Chuck Todd at the end of the program, as the credits rolled.)
In a speech scheduled for Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he will inform the American people of the degree of which ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) is a threat to the country and what the administration plans to do. "I'm preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from ISIL," Mr. Obama said.
This means the United States is definitely and rightly going to do something, and the reason we say 'rightly' is because if the world community lead by the United States waits until ISIL starts turning its attention outward from the territory they are now trying to occupy then it's too late. And it may seem periphery that the U.S. killed the head of Al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda off-shoot, in Somalia, but it's not. ISIL recruits from all over the world and groups like Al-Shabab are certainly looking to connect with ISIL.
Mr. Obama said that he'll explain that ISIL is a serious threat, but one that we can deal with, and here's the plan, but as he mentioned he's going to need the support of Congress, with whom he said he has been consulting and which by early indications is coming around to supporting the president. It's happening slowly, as is the building of an international coalition, but it is happening. Joe Scarborough, who will be a regular contributor to "Meet The Press," said that it's been in fact a conservative position in taking a measured stance as to what to do about the chaos in the Middle East. If this is an accurate assessment, then the president should have congressional support.
(We do not think this is a good idea to have Joe Scarborough as a prominent contributor. Mr. Scarborough has his own program, where he opines loudly, and Mr. Todd needs to be the dominating personality on the program at all times. Chuck Todd is "Meet The Press" now.)
It was also important to hear the president outline what the United States is not going to do, which is putting 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. However, we would be careful of the nuance in this answer because we all know that ISIL can not be defeated by air strikes alone. Mr. Obama said that the United States military will be instrumental in coordinating Iraqi and Kurdish troops, but there also must be a large international force, the bulk of which will be made up of U.S. troops because the reality is that anything short of that is not going to eliminate ISIL as is the president's stated goal. That's the rub, that's the 'preparation' that the president referred to, but we agree with Mr. Obama in that the United States can not serially occupy countries in the Middle East, or around the world for that matter. As the president said, we just don't have the resources (money) to do it.
And, as Mr. Obama accurately explained, the United States is the country that when there is a crisis in Ukraine, it is the one that mobilizes other countries to act; when there is an outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, other countries look to the U.S. for solutions and security.If you believe in the idea of American Exceptionalism, these are the kinds of burdens and the costs (hard and otherwise) that come with being exceptional.
And that's the reasoning behind Mr. Obama's decision to be careful in how the U.S. engages ISIL in Syria. The president said we would hunt down ISIL members and assets. Well, to do that it's going to take American personnel on the ground, there's no way around it. But finding and funding the Free Syrian Army (moderate Sunnis) is going to be tricky because the United States is going to need help from Shia populations in the region to defeat ISIL, populations that include Iran's. For the moment, the United States also needs Assad in place to defeat ISIL so that results in Saudia Arabia not giving its support. As Micheal Leiter noted on the program, the Saudis do not trust the president to do all he can to take out Assad. (There's so much to be said about the Saudis and trust and doing the right, humane thing, but we'll just leave it... we really don't want to get that upset on this football Sunday.)
On this Sunday, Mr. Todd introduced a new feature to the program entitle "Who Needs Washington?" which was a very good segment interviewing three mayors in three different parts of the country from three different political party affiliations.
(A segment with such a title implies that Washington does know anything, so we found it funny that later in the program there was another feature entitled, "What Everyone in Washington Knows," and because of the stale topic of Hillary Clinton political aspirations, we'd answer that premise with, "Not much.")
We poke fun, but the segment with the three mayors gave the viewer a very good perspective of what local officials are doing to improve the lives of citizens in their cities. What was most telling about the segment was how all three mayors were instituting policies that run in 'sharp contrast' (Mr. Obama's phrase in describing the countries party differences) to Tea Party policy choices - this was across the board. Instead of giving vouchers for schools in Tacoma, Washington, Mayor Marilyn Strickland (I) talked about giving vouchers for housing so that children can maintain continuity in their education by staying at the same school. Speaking of education, you expect Democratic Pittsburgh Mayor, Bill Peduto, to express expanding early childhood education - a publicly funded program that is long overdue in national scale. And even though Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett said that people of his city, describing their conservative leaning, don't like program they can't 'touch and feel," meaning public programs, he signed a tax increase, a Republican tax increase, to improve and repair infrastructure. As ideological as the two major national political parties are, local politics are all about practicality.
Round Table: Amy Walter, National Editor of The Cook Political Report; John Stanton, Washington Bureau Chief for Buzzfeed.com; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Nia-Malika Henderson, The Washington Post
Post Note: Our wish would have been for Mr. Todd to interview the President in studio (we understand the difficulties of presidential scheduling), live for 20 minutes because it would have spoke volumes to the renewed importance of the 'program of record.' Plus, not chopping up the interview and running it as one longer segment is what separates serious journalism from commercialized TV journalism, no? Further impressing upon the viewer the importance of the interview and hence the program. Alas, it was just a wish.
And apologies for not getting to the topic of immigration this week.
With that said, Mr. Todd's interview with the president gleaned many candid answers - worthy of the program and the mayoral segment displayed some key insights into how cities are rebuilding success in society. We'll comment on this later, but first the interview with President Obama.
(And yes, we'd give a high-five to Chuck Todd at the end of the program, as the credits rolled.)
In a speech scheduled for Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he will inform the American people of the degree of which ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) is a threat to the country and what the administration plans to do. "I'm preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from ISIL," Mr. Obama said.
This means the United States is definitely and rightly going to do something, and the reason we say 'rightly' is because if the world community lead by the United States waits until ISIL starts turning its attention outward from the territory they are now trying to occupy then it's too late. And it may seem periphery that the U.S. killed the head of Al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda off-shoot, in Somalia, but it's not. ISIL recruits from all over the world and groups like Al-Shabab are certainly looking to connect with ISIL.
Mr. Obama said that he'll explain that ISIL is a serious threat, but one that we can deal with, and here's the plan, but as he mentioned he's going to need the support of Congress, with whom he said he has been consulting and which by early indications is coming around to supporting the president. It's happening slowly, as is the building of an international coalition, but it is happening. Joe Scarborough, who will be a regular contributor to "Meet The Press," said that it's been in fact a conservative position in taking a measured stance as to what to do about the chaos in the Middle East. If this is an accurate assessment, then the president should have congressional support.
(We do not think this is a good idea to have Joe Scarborough as a prominent contributor. Mr. Scarborough has his own program, where he opines loudly, and Mr. Todd needs to be the dominating personality on the program at all times. Chuck Todd is "Meet The Press" now.)
It was also important to hear the president outline what the United States is not going to do, which is putting 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. However, we would be careful of the nuance in this answer because we all know that ISIL can not be defeated by air strikes alone. Mr. Obama said that the United States military will be instrumental in coordinating Iraqi and Kurdish troops, but there also must be a large international force, the bulk of which will be made up of U.S. troops because the reality is that anything short of that is not going to eliminate ISIL as is the president's stated goal. That's the rub, that's the 'preparation' that the president referred to, but we agree with Mr. Obama in that the United States can not serially occupy countries in the Middle East, or around the world for that matter. As the president said, we just don't have the resources (money) to do it.
And, as Mr. Obama accurately explained, the United States is the country that when there is a crisis in Ukraine, it is the one that mobilizes other countries to act; when there is an outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, other countries look to the U.S. for solutions and security.If you believe in the idea of American Exceptionalism, these are the kinds of burdens and the costs (hard and otherwise) that come with being exceptional.
And that's the reasoning behind Mr. Obama's decision to be careful in how the U.S. engages ISIL in Syria. The president said we would hunt down ISIL members and assets. Well, to do that it's going to take American personnel on the ground, there's no way around it. But finding and funding the Free Syrian Army (moderate Sunnis) is going to be tricky because the United States is going to need help from Shia populations in the region to defeat ISIL, populations that include Iran's. For the moment, the United States also needs Assad in place to defeat ISIL so that results in Saudia Arabia not giving its support. As Micheal Leiter noted on the program, the Saudis do not trust the president to do all he can to take out Assad. (There's so much to be said about the Saudis and trust and doing the right, humane thing, but we'll just leave it... we really don't want to get that upset on this football Sunday.)
On this Sunday, Mr. Todd introduced a new feature to the program entitle "Who Needs Washington?" which was a very good segment interviewing three mayors in three different parts of the country from three different political party affiliations.
(A segment with such a title implies that Washington does know anything, so we found it funny that later in the program there was another feature entitled, "What Everyone in Washington Knows," and because of the stale topic of Hillary Clinton political aspirations, we'd answer that premise with, "Not much.")
We poke fun, but the segment with the three mayors gave the viewer a very good perspective of what local officials are doing to improve the lives of citizens in their cities. What was most telling about the segment was how all three mayors were instituting policies that run in 'sharp contrast' (Mr. Obama's phrase in describing the countries party differences) to Tea Party policy choices - this was across the board. Instead of giving vouchers for schools in Tacoma, Washington, Mayor Marilyn Strickland (I) talked about giving vouchers for housing so that children can maintain continuity in their education by staying at the same school. Speaking of education, you expect Democratic Pittsburgh Mayor, Bill Peduto, to express expanding early childhood education - a publicly funded program that is long overdue in national scale. And even though Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett said that people of his city, describing their conservative leaning, don't like program they can't 'touch and feel," meaning public programs, he signed a tax increase, a Republican tax increase, to improve and repair infrastructure. As ideological as the two major national political parties are, local politics are all about practicality.
Round Table: Amy Walter, National Editor of The Cook Political Report; John Stanton, Washington Bureau Chief for Buzzfeed.com; Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Nia-Malika Henderson, The Washington Post
Post Note: Our wish would have been for Mr. Todd to interview the President in studio (we understand the difficulties of presidential scheduling), live for 20 minutes because it would have spoke volumes to the renewed importance of the 'program of record.' Plus, not chopping up the interview and running it as one longer segment is what separates serious journalism from commercialized TV journalism, no? Further impressing upon the viewer the importance of the interview and hence the program. Alas, it was just a wish.
And apologies for not getting to the topic of immigration this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)