4.19.15: A Little Early for Presidential Campaign Analysis, but Gov. John Kasich...

We have no intention of going on too much today because the program primarily centered around the presidential campaign, and as Mr. Todd said, there are ninteen months until the election so we have a little time. However, having said that, we’ll offer a few thoughts on one guest in particular. First, it was no surprise that Gov. John Kasich of Ohio (R) was not going to give a scoop to “Meet The Press” in the form of an announcement on whether he’s running for president or not. Given the fact that he was a commentator on the Fox News Network, it would stand to reason that If anyone is going to get scoop, it would be Fox.

But he sure did sound like a candidate for president, and in our humble opinion he is really the one that can give Hillary Clinton the most trouble. He's the governor of the quintessential swing state that plays a vital role in any candidate’s hopes for presidential victory. He's a conservative but he is also a pragmatist, which answers the question of why he took the money for Medicaid under the construct of the Affordable Care Act, much to the chagrin of his conservative compatriots. But Mr. Kasich sees it as most people do, “Why wouldn't you take that money?” The federal government is helping the state government help its most struggling citizens.  He said it himself that there is a way to compromise without having to sacrifice your principles.  Governor Kasich said that the two most important considerations as to whether he is going to run is first his family, and secondly, (his words – paraphrasing) what the Lord is guiding him to do in his life. Of course you always have to consider the scrutiny that your family will have to endure as you the candidate run through the gauntlet of the press and campaign trail. The other consideration whether the Lord has indicated if this is what he should do with his life, take it easy hardcore liberals that the statement came off as it was coming more from the place in the strength that he finds in being religious, not some direct call from the God, while he has a crazy look in his eye.  But make no mistake, God’s going to tell him to run.

The only problem we would have with a Kasich Administration is that it would preside over a Republican Congress, and he’d rubberstamp anything that they put forward then rest on them the justification for it if it went south.  It’s happened before. Chuck Todd mentioned that there were nineteen prospective Republican candidates at this point and not at anytime we would presume to tell you how to vote, but if you're considering Ted Cruz or Ben Carson or Mike Huckabee, then you shouldn't be really reading this blog.  We all know that we like their collective entertainment value, but taking them seriously as presidential material is just downright scary.  Needless to say, they’ve all rendered themselves disqualified to hold any public office, forget the oval one.

The other little bit about today's program with regard to presidential politics all centered around Hillary Clinton's rollout of her campaign. Some on the panel thought it was too scripted, the journey to Iowa too scripted, and that there were opportunities lost, as Mr. Todd said. To all of which we say, “ Of course it was scripted.” She's just getting out on the road – why make an early mistake if you can avoid it.  Also, she's not really taking the temperature of the people so much as she is taking the temperature of the press coverage about the campaign launch.

The launch was what it was; all that matters is that we know she is official in the race. Here are two things to keep in mind in these early stages, 1) Mrs. Clinton put out broad strokes of what her campaign is going to be about, which is restoring the middle class. However, she really needs to start refining of vision and message quickly or everyone is going to view her candidacy simply as an attempted land grad. On the other side of that, Republicans need more than Hillary bashing and greedy tax policies. That's simply not going to fly.  But as we said, there are nineteen months to go so we’re not going to waste too much energy today going on about a race that's just started.

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; David Axrelrod, former advisor to President Obama; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Steve Schmidt, former John McCain campaign manager. 

One last thing: We agree with Steve Schmidt and David Axelrod that what Florida postman Doug Hughes did - flying his Gyro copter into Capitol airspace to deliver a letter to bring attention to the reform of campaign finance was reckless and showed an extremely poor lack of judgment; he could have been shot down. Security became a large part of the story, and his message got lost in the on-air mail. Granted, we all know that this country desperately needs campaign finance reform in the biggest way because billionaires are essentially owning their own political candidates. However, the one question that’s been sticking with us throughout the story is where can we get a Gyrocopter? How cool is that?

4.12.15: Hillary Clinton's Announcement

Wouldn't it be funny if Hillary Clinton announced today that she wasn't running for president?  The number one topic that dominated today's program, despite a responsible addressing of all the week's news, was the presumed candidacy of Hillary Clinton; keyword being 'presumed.'

However, to our own mild surprise, we're going to trust NBC News because it's "Meet The Press." (We write a blog on it as you know.)  And Mr. Todd mentioned that the campaign is launching with the title - Hillary for America.  However, we're going to start with a point of discussion that the panel had at the end, which was the Atlantic Monthly's Jonathan Ruuch and his politician expiration date equation.  Mr. Todd explained that Mr. Rauch determined that the optimal time for a winning politician is if the person has been in the public eye for less than fourteen years. As an elected official, Hillary Clinton has accrued fifteen years, but if you factor in her time as first lady then it jumps up to a quarter of a century.  There were two lists of the prospective candidates outlining their over-under the fourteen-year threshold.

NPR's Maria Hinojosa commented that terms like 'stale' and 'expiration date' are very poor choices when describing any woman let alone Mrs. Clinton, and we obviously agree.  But here's the key - all all the people on that list there is only one woman and that is where the equation breaks.  Think about all that Mrs. Clinton has had to accomplish and go through to be in this very position.  As First Lady, she took a pummeling from Republicans over healthcare reform; then she had to win a New York Senate race, followed by losing a difficult presidential bid to relative newcomer Barack Obama; then serve under him as Secretary of State.  Comparatively, no other male candidate has a comparable  resume so she's had to be in the public eye longer by necessity .  You understand the disparity here.

Mrs. Clinton certainly does have trust issues, which are two-pronged.  There are Republicans who simply hate the Clintons and would never vote for them and then there is the more significant dissents, which come from Democrats who can not trust the Mrs. Clinton will do what she says she will.  For example, if Mrs. Clinton talks about the wealth gap in the United States and helping the middle class in a significant way, will she make good on that rhetoric?  This will be hashed out during the campaign and an examination of her vision, which is critical.

And given that, we wouldn't endorse Mrs. Clinton at this time either, not before we heard what she has to say so we agree with Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake that it is not significant that Bill de Blasio who served as he Senate-race campaign manager didn't endorse her today during his interview.  The dynamics of such an endorsement have significantly changed, starting with the fact that Mr. de Blasio is now the mayor of America's largest city, New York.  Also, we wouldn't suggest what she should or should not do on the campaign trail.  We're here to observer and assess as everyone else will do before casting a vote.  And what we'll assess is indeed Mrs. Clinton's vision for the country, and whether or not we think she'll actually carry it out, to earn an endorsement.

Hugh Hewlitt said he found it surreal that one of the talking points for Mrs. Clinton, uttered multiple times by Mr. de Blasio, is that she has been thoroughly vetted - obviously, he disagrees.  If you're a conservative as Mr. Hewlitt is, you're going to find it surreal as well because there are 'so many questions.'  Conversely, if you're a progressive, one would ask, 'what more do you need to know?'  For every politician, there is a sliding scale between the two.  As Mr. Todd pointed out, we know very little of Rand Paul's personal background, nor will he answer any questions about it. Yet, we know that Mrs. Clinton's husband had an affair, with whom and what was done.  To use the word 'surreal' is a bit too conspiracy oriented than is called for, as is saying that the Clintons think they are above the law, like Senator Paul did.

Then there is the ultimate wild-card, alluded to in the last paragraph, which is President Bill Clinton.  Strange that one's spouse would be a wild card, but when one's already been the president of the United States and it's Bill Clinton, then strange is what to expect. Having said that, in more honest campaigning terms, we think Mr. Clinton will stay on the right page more, in line with Mrs. Clinton's wishes this time round, but the variable is how it comes off and how it's perceived by the electorate.

David Brooks mentioned that for Mrs. Clinton it will be all about authenticity and integrity, but as David Axelrod said (in a clip), humility is the order of the day, and though we wouldn't call it humility per se, it's smart that Mrs. Clinton is announcing today because tomorrow, she'll only be a side note at the water cooler, which will be dominated by "Game of Thrones."  So here's to starting our own, the race for presidency of the United States.


Panel: David Brooks, The New York Times; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor of Baltimore (D); Hugh Hewlitt, conservative radio host.


On another note: We'd be negligent if we didn't mention the police shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina, but there isn't much to add except that 1) the alternative hypothetical report that "Meet The Press" put together was a better example of something truly surreal, 2) the policeman, Michael Slager should certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and 3) most importantly, the public trust of the police force, across the entire country, has eroded to a crisis level, and something needs to be done.  Body cameras, as discussed, is a good start, and demilitarizing the force would be a solid second step.

4.5.15: The Iranian Nuclear Deal & Religious Liberty

-->

It's a shame that on an Easter and Passover weekend we cannot speak about the topics from today's program in a more genial tone, but the guests and the subjects did not lend themselves at all well to any sort of conciliatory language.

Here’s the fact:  There is a deal in place.

It is certainly one that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not happy with as he unequivocally and repeatedly stated in his interview with Chuck Todd today that  Iran is the preeminent terrorist state of our time. Mr. Netanyahu, as we know, would like to see a deal that closes Iran's nuclear facilities, entirely rolling back their nuclear program.

But here’s another fact, is that's unrealistic. There is no way that is going to happen as Iran’s program is too far along, so much so that they were only a few months away from total nuclear weapon capability.  Mr. Netanyahu said that he wants a diplomatic deal, but one that is frankly unrealistic.  His only recourse to accomplish what he sees is a good deal would be to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities?  And if indeed that is the course of action, extrapolating out that plan, it would not be Israel that does the bombing, but the United States through authorization of a Republican Congress that frankly Mr. Netanyahu has in his vest pocket.  The deal pushes Iran’s capability back to a year’s time.

At the top of the program Mr. Todd summarized reactions on both sides: the hardliners in Iran felt that their Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, gave away too much and elected officials critical of the Obama administration in the United States said that the United States did not get enough concessions, so what we can surmise is that both sides felt some pain.  The other consideration, a big one, is that there were five other countries involved in negotiations. And this is key for the United States, in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. It does the United States well to be partnered with Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia and China. However, if the U.S. Republican-controlled Congress does not go along with this deal – doesn’t ratify it – essentially killing it then we've lost some key allies and significant partners, not only on this deal but in others where we'll need their cooperation. They will know that the president doesn’t have the ability to negotiate on behalf of the country, rendering the United States an unreliable partner that other countries will cease to seek out.

Given that Iran was only months away from constituting a nuclear weapon, this was a critical time and a deal had to be struck or the United States would have to be willing to go to war with Iran, and it would certainly go it alone, with only Israel as a partner, as none of those other five countries would support a war against Iran. Not to mention that, frankly, the American people simply don't want it.

Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT), who called the deal ‘remarkable,’ provided minor consolation for the deal, when he explained that other sanctions related to other issues at hand would remain in place.  Only sanctions as they are related to Iran's nuclear capability would eventually be lifted.  Mr. Murphy also offered the opinion that perhaps if the United States can show it can negotiate with Iran on this issue; perhaps it could negotiate with them on others. That’s a overly optimistic in our opinion.

When it comes right down to it the opinion of this column is one of pragmatism. Given the facts, as they are now, the question at hand is what the U.S. Congress should do now? As we’ve said, if Congress nixes this deal, which they probably will, it puts the United States in a very difficult diplomatic spot.

[Though were not really ready to comment on presidential politics at the moment, if in 2016 a Democrat is elected president and Republican Congress is still in control; will this sort of diplomatic negating tactic stay in place, essentially rendering the United States’ ability to negotiate with other countries completely null and void because of its unpredictability? Point being, is that this could set of very bad precedent that would only get worse moving forward.

And unfortunately speaking of the concept of ‘things-can-only-get-worse’ in the of presidential politics, we think of governors running for president in terms of how they run their states. So when we consider Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal: we ask ourselves: do we want to live Mr. Jindal’s Louisiana? The answer is clearly ‘no.’]

The above supplemental commentary aside, the essential question that Mr. Jindal was on today’s program to answer was in consideration of the validity of these religious liberty laws that have come through Indiana and Arkansas in the past week.

The first amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

In his defense of religious liberty laws, Mr. Jindal quoted referred to the founding fathers and the First Amendment, what is disturbing is that he would have you believe an incorrect reading of the first sentence of the first amendment.  (And frankly, Cardinal Dolan in his interview, was also incorrectly spoke about what the first amendment means.) In the first sentence, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” What that means is Congress should make no laws with regard to religion, and making a religious liberty law is making law about ‘religion,’ which Congress shouldn’t do under any circumstance. The invocation of liberty is open to interpretation, but it's a non-issue regardless because the First Amendment it says no law should be made with respect to religion. That is most rudimentary answer as to why it is unconstitutional.

What these religious liberty laws were designed to do in a practical sense is protects businesses if they wanted to refuse service to a gay couple on the grounds that it goes against the religious values of the business owner. For example, if there is only one florist in town and a gay couple wants to get married – in that town in a state where same-sex marriage is legal - and they go to that florist to get flowers for the wedding.  The florist says, “I don't believe in that kind of marriage for religious reasons, so I am not delivering the flowers,” that business’s discrimination is protected under the law.  It’s protects the business’s right to discriminate based on sexual orientation.   Again - Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion.

Not to mention that throughout the entire interview, Governor Jindal spoke only in terms of Christians.  He didn’t speak at all in terms of all religions, just the Christian religion, which was sad. (And it didn't go unnoticed that Cardinal Dolan only referred to Christians and Jews as practicing religious peacefulness.) We understand and have sympathy for Cardinal Dolan's point of view because he is a cardinal in the Catholic Church, catering to Catholics! However with respect to Gov. Jindal, he signed up for PUBLIC office – public meaning everyone without respect to religion, not the office of the Christian public only. 

Panel:   Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Perry Bacon, NBC News

-->

3.29.15: Is The Obama Administration A Player or Just Being Played?

-->

It's a predictable notion that we’ll comment on the Germanwings plane crash which turned out to be a deliberate act, because we want to share our perspective on what some are calling an inexplicable act.  But before we get into that, we must skip over to the subject of Yemen and what is happening in the greater Middle East along with what the United States is doing in the region. The proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran has been going on for the better part of 30 years, and now that Cold War in the Middle East could become quite hot.

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, said on today's program that the Saudi military was conducting airstrikes in Yemen against Iranian-backed Shia militias at the invitation of the Yemeni government with the goal being, as the ambassador stated, to protect the Yemeni people from these extremists. The ambassador also explained that they are conducting these airstrikes with the full support of the United States. Meanwhile on the other side of things, the Obama administration is in talks with the Iranian regime over its nuclear program. It was outlined on the program that the United States is presenting a pessimistic view of the negotiations while the Iranians are framing things in an optimistic light.

Here’s what we have to say:  At this point in time, there can be no deal no nuclear deal with Iran.

First, as former Ambassador Christopher Hill said, the mullahs in Iran have no interest in normalizing relations with Israel, let alone recognizing the country's right to exist. He used the phrase “a bridge too far” when Chuck Todd asked him why recognition of the Israeli state is not on the table for these negotiations.

Of course this column is a strong supporter of Israel, but, that is not the sole reason why we say that there should be no deal.  The other is that we just don’t see the wisdom in enabling Iran in extending its reach across the region by putting this deal in place, which would essentially lift sanctions give them greater resources. Now, it was brought up that if there is no nuclear deal then that would allow Iran to try and constitute its nuclear program freely as they would be able to kick out U.N. inspectors. The essential problem is that Iran is not acting in good faith – it will say what it has to so that the sanctions are lifted but still pursue a nuclear weapon.

The discussion on today’s program explained that while the US is supporting the Saudi's in their airstrikes against Shia militias in Yemen, the United States is also on the same side as Iran in the fight against ISIS. However, just to stay up to speed, it was reported in the New York Times this morning that Iranian led militias in Iraq left the fight for Tikrit in protest because of United States involvement in the form of airstrikes.  

Unless the Obama administration has some sort of Jedi chess move that we're not seeing, it seems like to us that it is being played by lead by both sides.  The Saudi's and the Iranians are essentially war with one another – hot, cold, lukewarm, covert, overt, whatever - and the U.S. is enabling both of them, but to what end?

The United States in no way should help Iran accrue the resources it needs to spread more of its control throughout the Middle East. What's tricky is that what you are left with is partnering with a regime that protects individuals that export extremism and terrorism targeting the United States, and that is Saudi Arabia. And that's not even to mention the Saudi's horrible human rights record and the way that they treat women.

The United States military in the Middle East should take a stance and posture of support. And what we mean by that is no airstrikes on ISIS. If the Iranians want to take that fight, let them, but the United States should keep the hefty sanctions in place as a certain deterrent to interfering with Kurdistan, Jordan, or of course Israel.

Because in this fight between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one which both sides clearly want to have, the United States shouldn't be fighting for either side. However, we've already thrown our support to the Saudi's, that's clear, but at the same time appeasing Iran is not the way to go.  Why be played by both sides?

It's not so much that we have a problem with the goals that the Obama Administration is trying to achieve – peace in the region. The problem we have is no one's listening to the Obama Administration; no one cares what they have to say; they are basically just in the way in the minds of the major regional players and are carrying no clout. No one is listening to them. 

Update: We want to add here that there could be a deal but there shouldn't be when all of the players involved are presently firing rockets and dropping bombs.

***

And now will briefly comment about the Germanwings plane crash, to try to provide a little insight. It's been reported that the co-pilot Andreas Lubitz had been suffering from depression, and The New York Times reported this morning that he was having problems with his eyesight.  The latter possibly causing Mr. Lubitz anxiety about losing his job, possibly ending his flying career.   Whether the concern about eyesight is legitimate or not, make no mistake the depression was there first. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker said on today's program that she wasn't completely convinced that the deliberate act of crashing the plane was due to a mental health issue. We don't have all the evidence so it is possible that there was a motivation that hasn't been identified as of yet.

But if, in fact, it was due to mental illness on the part of Mr. Lubitz, let's put that into a little perspective. Think about society today and how individuals are so physically cut off from one another. We live predominantly communicating through screens -the information that we give and the information that we receive.  We are more and more isolated, living inside our own heads too much and pre-occupied with self, especially true of younger people who have grown up in this technological isolating context. On top of that, take into consideration a general feeling around the world that economically life is never going to be easy, throwing a shadow of foreboding for massive amounts people.

It’s reasoned that someone who is suicidal will go and commit this act, and given that analysis, Mr. Lubitz should be considered a mass murderer of 149 individuals.  While he is, indeed, a mass murderer, maybe he was also (wrongly) thinking that for anyone to sympathize and understand his pain – to hear the cry - he had to bring spectacular attention to it and himself.  For him, the way was to down a passenger jet with all of those people on it.   That in no way explains away anything, serving no justification, but the notion that it was some inexplicable act we just don't buy.

Panel: Joe Scarborough, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe;” Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Sam Stein, The Huffington Post; Neera Tanden, CEO of the Center for American Progres

3.22.15: Conditions on the Ground Dictate

There will not be a two-state solution while Benjamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister.  That's what candidate Netanyahu said to court the hard Israeli right wing to win reelection.  He walked those comments back two days after the election, but it's his initial statement that is correct and will turn to be fact.  The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, explained that under current conditions on the ground, there will not be a Palestinian state, and that's what Mr. Netanyahu meant, and not that he wasn't in favor of one. 

In sorting this out, let's be clear - Mr. Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution, and it's curious that he doesn't see that it's in Israel's best long-term interest that there be.  However, where we agree with Mr. Dermer, Israel should not give statehood to the Palestinians if Israel is not getting peace in return.  If the Palestinians can not see their way in getting along peacefully with Israel then what's the point?

And this is where Mr. Riyad Monsour, Palestinian Observer at the United Nations, lost the argument. He said on today's program that Israel could not negotiate because Mr. Abbas's government in the West Bank didn't represent all Palestinians.  However, later when Mr. Abbas partnered with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, bringing the two factions together, Israel still couldn't negotiate.  That's the best he can do?  Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist as a state, which is an instantaneous deal-breaker. Their dual purpose of a free Palestine that can attack and destroy Israel is farce, and if actualized, is really the first step to their destruction.

Subtracting all the rhetoric, the reality is that a two-state solution is NOT the road to peace, but the end of the road of peace. But Hamas can not get with that program so two states are highly unlikely to happen on Mr. Netanyahu's watch, and there after.

And as Mr. Dermer pointed out, the prospect of another Iranian-backed extremist group on your doorstep - Hamas as junior partner - provides little incentive to do a deal.  And now that Iran has essentially taken control of another capital - Sanaa in Yemen - their growing influence begs the question of what point is it to sit down with a group when it's another country that really makes the decisions?

And speaking of Yemen, the country has broken down into the chaos of a sectarian civil war between Saudi-backed Sunni militias and Iranian-backed Shiite militias.  And though, as we alluded to above, this seeming victory for Iran looks good in the short-term, but it's right at Saudi Arabia's border, which makes it a completely different set of circumstances.  The Saudis will ruthlessly do anything to keep Iranians off the peninsula.  And while the Iranians will be weathering more crippling sanctions because of a failed nuclear deal, the Saudis, though deplorable human rights violators yet enjoying good international standing, will freely put even more money into Sunni extremist groups, like ISIS, to fight the Iranians.  The collateral damage of those extremist groups be damned in the mind of the Saudis.

Conditions on ground (in the region) dictate, and the one sure conclusion is that the conditions will not be getting better any time soon, certainly not in the time that Mr. Netanyahu is prime minister. 

***

 Conditions on the ground...

It's an all-too-nice segue into commenting on the interview with Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA), who said that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who will officially be the first person to declare a candidacy (tomorrow) for president of the United States in 2016, is completely unfit to hold the office on the basis of simply being a climate denier.  For this reason and a host of others, we couldn't agree more with Governor Brown. For the sack of some brevity, we'll just stick with climate change for today.

First, whether you believe climate change exists or not, the fact is that ice melt in the Arctic has set records this year, and with that fact here's a scientific fact that we all agree on - when ice melts it turns to water.  If you don't believe in climate change, then how about coastal change because that what's going to happen - that water has to go somewhere when all that ice melts.

Governor Brown mentioned extreme weather, which includes years-long drought that California is experiencing, as an effect of climate change, which shouldn't be confused with global warming.  We've pointed this out before, but it's worth reiterating and that is this:  when the climate changes in one region of the world other regions will be affected so when it gets warmer in the Arctic, it will become even wetter in tropical and coastal areas.  In the case of the East Coast of the United States, it is becoming wetter but the air remains cold hence the increase in snow fall.  However, one day decades from now the air will become warmer thus rain instead of snow.  So getting back to the case of California, it's dry and becoming worse. (And it will not get better before water is an emergency in the state.

If you're following Mr. Cruz's lead on this subject, we'll understate, being charitable, in saying their you're having an impairment of judgement.

Panel: John Stanton, Buzzfeed Washington Bureau; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Jane Harman, the Wilson Center

3.15.15: Congressional Killing of Time

Mr. Todd asked fmr. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen the same question that he asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) last week, and he was surprised that he got the same answer.  The question being who they feared more - Iran or ISIS, and both men answered Iran.  But the problem is not with the answer, it's with the question. 

Given Mr. Graham's track record of ill-advised foreign policy positions in the past, we'll still give him the benefit of the doubt here along with Admiral Mullen of course, that they are answering the question from a long-term strategic perspective, whereas the question is framed in terms of fear [of being attacked]. 

If you look at it that way, which seemed evident in Adm. Mullen's interview, then it makes perfect sense because the fact is that ISIS has too many enemies and Iran has too much influence. It's the expansion of that influence that prompts answers from these types of people.  Not too mention the other significant point that Andrea Mitchell brought up, which was the question of Iran's deliver systems and how advanced those are. So on a more macro level, their answers are well-founded because beside nuclear weapons ambitions, Iran wants the same oil influence in the world as Saudi Arabia has, which makes many vested parties more than uncomfortable - summed up by NBC's Bill Neely.  And lastly, Iran's position that Israel doesn't have the right to exist is completely unacceptable.  It has the right, it does exist - get over it and deal.  Maybe that seems trite, but if Iran only has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program then why the provocation?  And it's a continuing one, because Iran must know that before the first of anything hits the ground in Israel, the United States will have already dropped hundreds.  From the Iranian perspective, they play a dangerous foolish game, provoking the United States.

Tough talk... which should be delivered by the president, not by Congress in a sophomoric letter, in which it now has been established that neoconservative Bill Kristol consulted freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) on the idea.  Disappointingly and not surprisingly, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) has not second thoughts about signing it even given this week Senator John McCain admitting it wasn't thought out well unlike some of Mr. Kristol's other ideas like Sarah Palin for VP or the Iraq War.

And here's why Senator Tim Kane's (D-VA) co-sponsored bill that Congress must ratify any negotiated nuclear deal with Iran is a bad idea.  First, we want to point out that Senator Kane specifically said that the letter was "an unacceptable level of contempt of the office of the presidency," the very point we touched on in our last post.  In spirit, it's a good idea actually, but in practicality, a complete embarrassing disaster waiting to happen.  Keep in mind that the negotiations with Iran also involves the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, England, The United States, and France) and Germany.  If the bill languishes in Congress, which is likely - passing in the Senate and dead in the House where does that leave the deal?  The others go ahead and the U.S. is left out? We impose sanctions and no one else does while Iran continues on with it's nuclear program? If the bill does pass both Houses and the president vetoes it, then what? All this only to make the United States look fractured and indecisive - very problematic.

With what seems like a Congressional majority for the legislation that gives them a ratifying say in the matter, Congress is completely hands off when it comes to a formal authorization for the use of force against ISIS, which at least on the surface seems like there would be broad consensus, but instead just killing time.

Speaking of legislation and 'problematic,' how about Congress pass a law that limits the amount of times Congress can investigate an incident of government scale, like Benghazi.  Before Mr. Todd's interview with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who heads up the Benghazi investigation.

The sixth one.

Now, fmr. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton clouded the issue with the personal e-mail controversy, but as Congressman Gowdy explain, she is but a very small part of the overall investigation.  He also said that his committee was the first one to interview Mrs. Clinton and several others.  This leads one to ask what the other committees that conducted investigations were doing.  Mrs. Clinton did testify in front of Congress so we'll presume he's differentiating between Congressional testimony and an interview.  It still makes no sense to do five investigations without interviewing all relevant officials.  Admiral Mullen was part of one of those investigations and he said on the program that he was completely comfortable with what his committee did and the conclusions they came to.  Mr. Gowdy's committee is doing work that should have already been done, what a waste.  And bringing it full circle, Mr. Todd mentioned that Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) wants an investigation into Mrs. Clinton's e-mails.  Not the most judicious use of time, wouldn't you agree?


Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Karen Finney, fmr. DNC Communications Director; Kevin Madden, fmr. senior advisor for Mitt Romney; Matt Bai, Yahoo News


A Note to the Producers:  On "Meet The Press," viewers, and the panel itself, are better served when it consists of only journalists, reporters, op-ed writers, et. al.  In other words the press, and not strategists.  The discussion of Mrs. Clinton's e-mails became a verbal joust between Kevin Madden and more egregiously Karen Finney (in Mrs. Clinton's defense), in which Mr. Todd has to shift from moderator to referee, which is inappropriate for "The Meet Press." That's for cable.

3.10.15: Seven Dwarfed By Forty-Seven Idiots

Forty-Seven Republican Idiots...

If you actually think that what these forty-seven Republicans Senator did in signing an ill-conceived letter written by freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) then you have no idea of how foreign policy should be conducted and the signal that this sends allies and adversaries alike.

Here are the seven still worthy of the office (the adults in the room):  Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.  If he didn't think it was a good idea, then why would his forty-seven colleagues not heed that advice.

How did all of these supposedly experienced legislators with names like Hatch and McCain think this was a good idea?  We expect counterproductive legislators like Ted Cruz or James Inhofe to sign onto such stupidity.  But not the Republicans that have in fact shown some common sense like Rand Paul or Kelly Ayotte. 

Way to lead your Senate caucus Mr. McConnell...  Why don't you just thrown the gavel over your shoulder like a bouquet for anyone to catch.

And why are we so angry with this move? These Republican senators not only embarrassed themselves with this stunt, but all of us.  Secondly, not matter what these individuals think of the president, you do not disrespect the office of the presidency.  If you believe that the United States is an exceptional nation, for good or ill, you do not disrespect the lead office that is the face of our foreign policy.

Idiots...

And if you don't believe us that it was stupid and dangerous then read David Ignatius's (someone who is very critical of Mr. Obama's foreign policy) column in today's Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/10/gop-senators-letter-to-iran-is-dangerous-and-irresponsible/

Maybe you think it's farce... like how Dan Milbank describes Republicania, also from today's Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-set-up-their-own-breakaway-nation/2015/03/10/1618f6d4-c749-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html?hpid=z3

As idiotic and deplorable as this stunt was, we wouldn't go quite this far (but we love the provocation):

Wow, what's next?

3.8.15: Knowing Your Adversaries

“Embarrassing, humiliating and very arrogant” are the words that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) used to describe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress this past week.  Say what you will about that description, but there’s no doubt about another one of her comments, which was that no American ally would have done what he did.  Israel does enjoy a special relationship with the United States, that’s not at issue, but that the Prime Minister taking advantage of that to win re-election is deplorable.

However, in light of the above commentary, the one thing we agree with Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on is that Iran is a much more dangerous adversary than ISIS.  That’s proven by the influence that Iran wields in the region – Shiites throughout the Middle East follow Iran’s lead.  Mr. Graham used to the term ‘enemy,’ which connotes that no negotiation or agreement can be reached.  Like Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Graham doesn’t want any agreement with Iran at all, but more severe sanctions and the use of military action always on the table.  Mr. Netanyahu seems to dictate the Republican view (with the exception of Senator Rand Paul who didn’t applaud enough… please) of Middle East policy.  The result of all this will be more instability in the region, which will then lead to more U.S. intervention, not less.

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, of course, but what Senator Feinstein said about needing Russia and Iran’s help in ridding Syria of the Assad regime is true.  However, that’s simply not going to happen, and it leaves you with Chuck Todd’s question about who are really the U.S.’s Arab allies in the region who are able to fight ISIS and Assad. 

Here’s the problem for the United States: it’s fighting a strategy battle in the Middle East while almost everyone else is fighting a religious war.   What that means is that the U.S. needs to greatly strength its alliances with moderate strategic partners, Jordan and the Kurds to fight ISIS.  (This column has said before that the Kurds should have their own state  - the compromise being that the Kurds don’t get any present Turkish territory.  If this upsets Turkey, so be it.)  The religious war being fought by proxies for Iran and Saudi Arabia respectively cannot include the United States so it has to stop from getting sucked into those battles, which it hasn’t managed to do.

 

But here is what’s also really messed up (understating it), that Republican politicians in Washington will follow Mr. Netanyahu’s lead lock-step, but in Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich (R) committed suicide because of a whisper campaign that he was Jewish.   When conservative try to eviscerate the president for reminding people of the Christianity’s darker days of religious purity, they need to re-examine their collective righteousness because there a conservative political action committee (PAC) that wants religious purity in its candidates.  Senator Claire McCaskill who attended Mr. Schweich’s funeral this week stated that dark undisclosed money needs to be eliminated and that Congress should pass the Disclose Act to institute more transparency as to who is responsible for such messages.

Citizens United did put the final nail in the coffin of honesty or transparency in our politics, without a doubt.  For those who agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling to allow all this dark money in our politics don’t have the high-ground when it comes to Hilary Clinton and this e-mail scandal – that she was being illegally secretive.

 

When thinking about this, always keep in mind Amy Walter’s (from the “Cook Political Report”) notion that it is not at all about the e-mails.  It’s all about the narrative of Clinton secrecy.  Helping that along, Mr. Todd enforced the notion by saying that the Clintons follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Give us a break… What politician doesn’t do that?  To Mrs. Clinton’s defense, what she did is not without precedent (Colin Powell used private e-mail.) and she did not break the law.  However, did Mrs. Clinton not think that this could be problematic and just give Republicans more to dig through?   Even though the law wasn’t broken, you may with agree with Senator Feinstein that Mrs. Clinton should clarify and shed light on all this.  If so, then as The New York Times Jonathan Martin said, it must be before the announcement of her candidacy.  Then again, if she didn’t break the law, then what’s there to explain?

What’s funny about this is that we don’t blame Mrs. Clinton for setting up her own server for communication purposes while Secretary of State given how much more efficient the private sector is over government in trusting that it will work well.  When you think of it like that, it’s a good idea.  And if she did use the server for official business, has anyone just asked for access to the whole server, because that would be justified.   If she cannot do that, then you have to agree with Kathleen Parker that Mrs. Clinton has poor judgment or is hiding something.  Our feeling is that it’s a political story that the press ate right up, simply because it is about Hillary Clinton.  

 

And here’s another funny notion, slightly related.  Lindsey Graham in his interview today said that he never sends e-mail, doesn’t use it.  Mr. Graham may run for president but does he know that not using e-mail disqualifies him for the office.  Follow us here… You don’t use e-mail, which says to anyone under 35 that you are not tech savvy, don’t understand the internet or social media, and hence don’t understand American life today… why would that person vote for Lindsey Graham?  She or he wouldn’t. 

Panel: Jonathan Martin, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Manu Raju, Politico; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report  

A Note:  Yeah, sure… Obamacare is a disaster… that’s standard critical the line, but because of Obamacare the number of uninsured has decreased in every state, which disqualifies the law as a disaster.

Oh wait; we have our facts wrong.  The uninsured has not decreased in every state as Kansas is the only state that saw an increase of 4 percent.  Kansas’s political body completely opposes the law, didn’t use the federal money to expand Medicaid, and obviously didn’t set up its own exchange.  Way to go.

Program note: Good panel of journalists this week that was underutilized in only discussing presidential politics or Hillary Clinton, which is also presidential politics. 

3.1.15: Homeland Security and Immigration... and Stupidity

It's insultingly predictable that Republicans would blame the president for the current legislative mess that is now going on in Congress, which is what House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) did in his interview today.  To agree with him, you would align with Hugh Hewlitt’s description that the president has exceeded his constitutional questions authority by issuing executive orders on immigration laws. It is these executive orders that are hence causing the potential shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. (By the way, Congress managed to pass a bill keeping it open for another week.  Speaker Boehner couldn’t rally is party for a three-week extension). Because border security is an aspect of homeland security, which relates to the immigration debate, the Republicans decided to tie a Department of Homeland Security funding bills to the repeal of the president's executive orders on immigration.

Coun-ter Pro-duc-tive…

In addition to not having much success blaming the president for the current situation, Congressman McCarthy kept saying that Senator Harry Reid, the [now] minority leader, had to decide whether he wanted to work with Republicans, and if he did, then everything could move forward. Doesn’t Mr. McCarthy know that Mr. Reid is no longer the person in control of the Senate – that would be Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky who did the sensible thing and split the votes.

The Republicans in the House have a rule, which is that they will not vote on something unless there are a majority of Republicans in favor of it. Only concerning oneself with a majority of a partiality of the House body ensures that nothing will get done.  No longer can Republicans vote with Democrats on anything, making every single vote a controversial issue, when they certainly shouldn’t be. The Republicans chose to tie the funding for the Department of Homeland Security to these executive orders, but they didn’t need to be.  Is there a constitutional question about whether the Pres. overstepped his executive authority? Possibly. However, that should not affect the funding of a whole department, a vital one to the safety of American citizens at that.

It's like Republicans have made the issue of immigration into one like vaccinations, because of a few ideologues, they’re willing to put all of us at risk.

Politically, there is something worse for Republicans than being blamed for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, and that would be any respect and trust people have in them to accomplish anything. If the Republicans spoke with one voice, giving sensible reasons for why they're denying this funding the Department of Homeland Security, then people would in fact listen and decide for themselves.  But now, we’re all just shaking our heads.

The Senate has taken a clean vote and a bill to fund the DHS, and they have also passed a bipartisan immigration bill that the House is yet to take up.  DHS funding should not wait, cannot wait.

Everyone on the panel conceded that whether the entire thing was triggered by the President or not, Republicans were the ones who were going to be blamed for any government shutdown due to their Congressional control. If not for anything else, the perception of Congress’s performance has gotten worse since the Republicans have taken over control of both Houses.

With regard to immigration at this point, Republicans have only blocked and obstructed legislation so now anything that they do loses more Latino votes. They've basically put themselves in a position where they can do no right in the eyes of Latinos when it comes to immigration reform before the motives will always be questioned.

If there is a constitutional question then Hugh Hewitt's suggestion was of the free common sense good one which was from the Department of Homeland Security and keep the injunction in place on Pres. Obama's executive orders because there is an injunction at this time handed down by a district judge.

This column agrees with the hard right in as much as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) being one of the main problems in the House, be it for different reasons. Our reason has to do with his inability to bring along the hard right in his own party. Mr. Boehner can't reason with them, then folds to their indefensible positions and saying things that are completely irrational, or just plain stupid.

This brings us to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s to a joint session of Congress this Tuesday.  Here’s our basic take on the Prime Minister – he’s a real horse's ass.   His family lived in Cheltenham, PA, a suburb of Philadelphia where he in fact graduated from Cheltenham High School so he would understand perfectly what we mean.  He’s got stubbornness that always gets in the way of being productive, and then grows to a point to where it's counter-productivity is feeding off of itself.

And that's what next week's speech is going to be. Hopefully, what will happen is is what former Sen. Joe Lieberman described inasmuch as the speech will be complementary to Pres. Obama while stating concerns about the Iranian, maybe even turning out to be graceful.  Were not confident in that happening again, but it’s not Mr. Netanyahu’s fault.

It’s Speaker John Boehner’s.  As a politician with an upcoming re-election bid, Mr. Netanyahu’s instinct for self-political-preservation is dictating everything, and an opportunity to get head and shoulders above his opponents with the optics of addressing a joint session are too tempting to resist. Speaker Boehner invited him and created a political mess that set a very bad precedent.   He disrespected the office of the President of the United States by acting disgracefully.

So atthis point, who cares who goes to the speech and who doesn't - everything that needs to be said has already been.  And as not to lose sight of what it's all about, the Prime Minister is going to say that the United States is making a bad deal with Iran on its nuclear program. But as Senator Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) pointed out, if not this deal what is the alternative? Going to war?

In his interview, potential presidential candidate, Ben Carson's answer for what should be done in the Middle East was completely ridiculous.  He said that he would give the military all authority to do what ever they deemed necessary to eradicate ISIS and also Shia extremists – otherwise known as the ‘kill them all’ policy?  

What he outlined was giving the military full authority to go to war, not only with ISIS, but Shia extremists as well.  Does that mean Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran? See where we’re going with this.  We respect the fact that Mr. Carson is perhaps the finest pediatric neurosurgeon alive, but his view on Middle East policy and engagement is downright idiotic.

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, “The Hugh Hewlitt Show;” Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post

And one more thing: Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich (R) committed suicide this week, apparently, in part, because there was a ‘whisper campaign’ against him for his family's Jewish heritage. In Chuck Todd's interview segment with St. Louis Post Dispatch Editor Tony Messenger, they didn’t specifically refer to the ‘whisper campaign’ as what it really was – anti-Semitism.  Instead, they talked about it in terms of the ‘politics of personal destruction.” Right, but our question is: How in the hell is a gubernatorial candidate in Missouri, U.S.A. in this day and age, being destructed by attacks on his family’s Jewish heritage.  If this does turn out to be the reason or plays a large role, that would lead us to our second question: why  aren’t federal investigators there getting to the bottom of this? 

And one more after that:  With the murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in Moscow on Friday, with the Kremlin as a backdrop no less, one can only think that there are even darker days on the horizon for Russians’ and their freedoms as they wander back into Mr. Putin’s totalitarian forest.