Charlie Black, Chairman of the Prime Policy Group (a conservative think tank), said unequivocally that Donald Trump would not be the nominee of the Republican party for the presidency. He and Alex Castellanos described him as a 'more likable Pat Buchanan' and a 'strongman,' meaning that his appeal has a ceiling that is only so high, many people thinking he has reached it already. As Amy Walter pointed out, it's August over a year before the election, and those descriptors above are all Mr. Trump has to be because substance at this point isn't important.
And honestly, there wasn't much substance to today's program. It was simply more 'Hillary e-mail' and 'Donald upsetting the Republican field,' dull presidential political fodder (no offense to the panel guests). There was nothing of the faltering stock market, China devaluing its currency, or the Iranian Nuclear Deal.
Any substance of the program was pushed online, so Mr. Todd said explaining that more of the Carly Fiorina interview was online. However, there it's all chopped up into clips, no full interview at the ready. All the video clips skip around making for a very frustrating experience. And what are we talking about in politics? Birthright citizenship... Unbelievable. At least we got to hear Ms. Fiorina bring a common sense answer to the table. This political summer has been what Peter Hart, Hart Research Association, accurately described as one part anger and two parts anxiety. What gets our anger up that gives us a touch of anxiety is when you're frustrated in trying to come up with something original to say when the program you're commenting on has been talking about the same two things for an entire summer.
Sure it's August and no one's paying attention, but we are. And you know, we're hot, we're bothered and today "Meet The Press," frankly, doesn't deserve that much of our time.
Panel: Jon Ralston, "Ralston Live;" Susan Page, USA Today; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Alfonso Aguilar - Former Bush Administration Advisor.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Sunday, August 16, 2015
8.16.14: More Trump for Breakfast, with a Side of Sanders
"Meet The Press" is milking the interest in Donald Trump for all it's worth these summer Sunday mornings, there is no doubt. We would advise journalist Jeff Greenfield's analogy, drink some decaf and take it easy on the Trump show.
Frankly, we're tired of commenting on Donald Trump content on "Meet The Press," but we do have a few fresh thoughts given that his interview was followed by an interview with the Democratic Party 'outsider' candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT).
Mr. Trump's campaign slogan is 'Make America Great Again,' and Chuck Todd asked him when he thought the last time was when America was 'great.' Mr. Trump's response was when Ronald Reagan was president. He talked about other subjects like immigration, for which he would end automatic birthright citizens and deport families who have American-born kids, but undocumented foreign-born parents even if they've been here for decades. He stated that the Iranian Nuclear Deal would lead to a nuclear Holocaust and said the President Obama really let Israel down. And he commented that our national debt is so high that we're going to become Greece on steroids. Maybe we do need to make America 'Reagan' great again.
However, in thinking about it for a moment, during President Reagan's two terms, the United States became a debtor nation when his administration drastically lowered taxes ushering in the go-go '80s for many, but a new kind of financial pain for many many more. The Reagan Administration, as is well-documented, also traded arms with an embargoed Iran through Central American militia groups (the Contras) to free American hostages. On immigration, President Reagan brought 11 million people in from the shadows; or taken from the reverse perspective, he granted amnesty to them.
But Mr. Trump who has said that we "don't have time for tone," must certainly focused on it in citing the mood and tone of the Reagan era, because we don't thinking he's referring to the policies.
Conversely, what Senator Sanders, not a big fan of the Reagan Administration, proposes is to take the United States back to a reflection of pre-Reagan tax policies where the wealthiest pay the most, percentage-wise, to bring down the yearly deficits that grow the debt.
Where it looks like the two polar-opposite candidates agree is on campaign financing. Mr. Trump states that he's not influenced by lobbyists, special interests and big-money donors because he doesn't need the money. "I can't be bought," he said. People understandably like this because they see the rest of the Republican field beholden to a small cast of lesser known billionaires (Marco Rubio, for example, gets most of his campaign money from Norman Braman, former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles.). Senator Sanders, for his part, gets his campaign money from 350,000 donors who have contributed an average of $31.20, not being beholden to the terrible consequences of a money-flooded campaign system created by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
Both are adamant about not being influenced by big money donors, but where they are drastically different is that one is saying that we need to change the system where the other is saying you have to beat it.
Panel: Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico and The Daily Beast
Frankly, we're tired of commenting on Donald Trump content on "Meet The Press," but we do have a few fresh thoughts given that his interview was followed by an interview with the Democratic Party 'outsider' candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT).
Mr. Trump's campaign slogan is 'Make America Great Again,' and Chuck Todd asked him when he thought the last time was when America was 'great.' Mr. Trump's response was when Ronald Reagan was president. He talked about other subjects like immigration, for which he would end automatic birthright citizens and deport families who have American-born kids, but undocumented foreign-born parents even if they've been here for decades. He stated that the Iranian Nuclear Deal would lead to a nuclear Holocaust and said the President Obama really let Israel down. And he commented that our national debt is so high that we're going to become Greece on steroids. Maybe we do need to make America 'Reagan' great again.
However, in thinking about it for a moment, during President Reagan's two terms, the United States became a debtor nation when his administration drastically lowered taxes ushering in the go-go '80s for many, but a new kind of financial pain for many many more. The Reagan Administration, as is well-documented, also traded arms with an embargoed Iran through Central American militia groups (the Contras) to free American hostages. On immigration, President Reagan brought 11 million people in from the shadows; or taken from the reverse perspective, he granted amnesty to them.
But Mr. Trump who has said that we "don't have time for tone," must certainly focused on it in citing the mood and tone of the Reagan era, because we don't thinking he's referring to the policies.
Conversely, what Senator Sanders, not a big fan of the Reagan Administration, proposes is to take the United States back to a reflection of pre-Reagan tax policies where the wealthiest pay the most, percentage-wise, to bring down the yearly deficits that grow the debt.
Where it looks like the two polar-opposite candidates agree is on campaign financing. Mr. Trump states that he's not influenced by lobbyists, special interests and big-money donors because he doesn't need the money. "I can't be bought," he said. People understandably like this because they see the rest of the Republican field beholden to a small cast of lesser known billionaires (Marco Rubio, for example, gets most of his campaign money from Norman Braman, former owner of the Philadelphia Eagles.). Senator Sanders, for his part, gets his campaign money from 350,000 donors who have contributed an average of $31.20, not being beholden to the terrible consequences of a money-flooded campaign system created by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.
Both are adamant about not being influenced by big money donors, but where they are drastically different is that one is saying that we need to change the system where the other is saying you have to beat it.
Panel: Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico and The Daily Beast
Sunday, August 09, 2015
8.9.15: Keeping It Real and the Iranian Nuclear Deal
Once again, "Meet The Press," hence we have to start with Donald Trump and the post-debate fallout. Mr. Trump lashed out post debate against Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly saying that her questions were unfair and that she was obviously angry commenting, "...blood coming out of her whatever..." By the end of today's interview, even Mr. Trump was asking to talk about the real issues. Funny thing is, if Mr. Trump were to answer questions about actual issues, his answers would really get him in trouble.
Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, who will be moderating the next Republican primary debate, said that Mr. Trump obviously doesn't have the temperament to be president because of the off-color statements that he continues to make. However, we would more importantly add, and this is a warning to his supporters, is this huge oversight. Donald Trump is a greatly successful businessman with billions of dollars to show for it, but he's never had to consider others in those decisions. They've all been made ultimately for his benefit. What we're saying is that to get anything done as president you have to consider the strong, most of the time inflexible, opinions of 535 other people, otherwise known as Congress. And the way in which Congress operates these days, if you alienate members on one issue, you lose them on others as well - a package deal or no deal at all.
In terms of the debate performances, we agree with the consensus opinion that Carly Fiorina did very well as did Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). We differ in our assessment of Dr. Ben Carson's performance because our take is that his answers do not come off as thought as much as it seems like he's searching for one,which doesn't inspire any confidence. Not to mention the fact that by his own admission he is still learning about foreign policy. If this column knows more than a candidate on foreign policy, you're disqualified.
And speaking on that, Hugh Hewitt said that the GOP really lost on debate night because the candidates weren't asked about the Iran deal and where they stood. That may be true but it was most probably for the best because we would speculate that at least 6 out of the 10 candidates would have said something that Democrats would be able to use in an attack ad. It's better to get these types of answers, or really non-answer in Senator Rubio's case, in an interview setting.
Senator Rubio is obviously against the Iranian Nuclear Deal, but his reflections on Russia and China worry us. He said that Russia and China have never acted in the interests of America, which isn't entire true, but by walking away from the deal, the United States' Congress must understand that those relationships will become even more adversarial, and Iran would then have the freedom and the money to achieve nuclear statehood. The Republican candidate in his answer doesn't seem to consider the repercussions internationally to walking away; the very reason why former Defense Security, Robert Gates says it should go through while being rightly very critical of the deal. Reflected in Mr. Rubio's answer, is the general attitude Republicans have to such complicated matters and that is, "We're going to do this. You do what ever you want then, but don't do this, this, and this, or else..."
Conversely, you would hope that more Senators were taking Senator Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) lead and finding out what the repercussions are. Our thinking is that the answers that she gets are going to prompt her to be in favor of the deal because the money is going to start flowing regardless of what Congress decides. You have to surmise that the responsibility for being in this situation falls squarely on the Obama Administration, like it or not.
But given the current situation, we are very uncomfortable with the effect this deal has on the relationship with Israel and the United States, and what it means for the safety or our closest ally in the region, but without the deal, Iran will become more dangerous to all U.S. interests. We sympathize with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as the deal puts him in a very tight position, making it understandable that he is opting against it. However, if we can get 15 years of a nuclear free Iran, with the possibility of more time, then what choice is there? Senator McCaskill asked the question: If the United States walks away from the deal, what does the world look like? Answer: A much more dangerous place.
Panel: Hugh Hewitt, Conservative Talk Host; Heather McGhee, President Demos & Demos Action; Andrea Mitchell; NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times
One more thing...
Eric Erickson is having his annual Red State Gathering and Mr. Trump is not invited. The clip shown on the program was of Mr. Erickson explaining that his kids would be there so Mr. Trump isn't going to be in attendance. Mr. Trump's unsurprising retort was to call Mr. Erickson a loser. Mr. Erickson, point taken.
However, John Kasich is also not invited because Mr. Erickson said that the governor of Ohio would be a terrible nominee for the party. This assessment stems from Governor Kasich accepting the Affordable Care Act's Medicare funding for his state.
Here's the problem with both scenarios. Mr. Erickson and other so called party influencers only want to see the Republican Party that they want to, and not how it actually is. Republicans have to face the demographic and electoral reality of the United States. Keeping themselves in the 'gentle' bubbles the likes of ones Mr. Erickson creates is done at one's supreme disappointment. It reminds of us how Republicans were shocked because they couldn't believe Mr. Romney lost the election. That's because a handful of people didn't tell Republican supporters the truth, just what they wanted to hear, and it wasn't real.
It's a private event and Mr. Erickson can invite whomever he would like, but just because you don't like a particular candidate in your own party, doesn't mean he or she doesn't exist.
Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, who will be moderating the next Republican primary debate, said that Mr. Trump obviously doesn't have the temperament to be president because of the off-color statements that he continues to make. However, we would more importantly add, and this is a warning to his supporters, is this huge oversight. Donald Trump is a greatly successful businessman with billions of dollars to show for it, but he's never had to consider others in those decisions. They've all been made ultimately for his benefit. What we're saying is that to get anything done as president you have to consider the strong, most of the time inflexible, opinions of 535 other people, otherwise known as Congress. And the way in which Congress operates these days, if you alienate members on one issue, you lose them on others as well - a package deal or no deal at all.
In terms of the debate performances, we agree with the consensus opinion that Carly Fiorina did very well as did Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). We differ in our assessment of Dr. Ben Carson's performance because our take is that his answers do not come off as thought as much as it seems like he's searching for one,which doesn't inspire any confidence. Not to mention the fact that by his own admission he is still learning about foreign policy. If this column knows more than a candidate on foreign policy, you're disqualified.
And speaking on that, Hugh Hewitt said that the GOP really lost on debate night because the candidates weren't asked about the Iran deal and where they stood. That may be true but it was most probably for the best because we would speculate that at least 6 out of the 10 candidates would have said something that Democrats would be able to use in an attack ad. It's better to get these types of answers, or really non-answer in Senator Rubio's case, in an interview setting.
Senator Rubio is obviously against the Iranian Nuclear Deal, but his reflections on Russia and China worry us. He said that Russia and China have never acted in the interests of America, which isn't entire true, but by walking away from the deal, the United States' Congress must understand that those relationships will become even more adversarial, and Iran would then have the freedom and the money to achieve nuclear statehood. The Republican candidate in his answer doesn't seem to consider the repercussions internationally to walking away; the very reason why former Defense Security, Robert Gates says it should go through while being rightly very critical of the deal. Reflected in Mr. Rubio's answer, is the general attitude Republicans have to such complicated matters and that is, "We're going to do this. You do what ever you want then, but don't do this, this, and this, or else..."
Conversely, you would hope that more Senators were taking Senator Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) lead and finding out what the repercussions are. Our thinking is that the answers that she gets are going to prompt her to be in favor of the deal because the money is going to start flowing regardless of what Congress decides. You have to surmise that the responsibility for being in this situation falls squarely on the Obama Administration, like it or not.
But given the current situation, we are very uncomfortable with the effect this deal has on the relationship with Israel and the United States, and what it means for the safety or our closest ally in the region, but without the deal, Iran will become more dangerous to all U.S. interests. We sympathize with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as the deal puts him in a very tight position, making it understandable that he is opting against it. However, if we can get 15 years of a nuclear free Iran, with the possibility of more time, then what choice is there? Senator McCaskill asked the question: If the United States walks away from the deal, what does the world look like? Answer: A much more dangerous place.
Panel: Hugh Hewitt, Conservative Talk Host; Heather McGhee, President Demos & Demos Action; Andrea Mitchell; NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times
One more thing...
Eric Erickson is having his annual Red State Gathering and Mr. Trump is not invited. The clip shown on the program was of Mr. Erickson explaining that his kids would be there so Mr. Trump isn't going to be in attendance. Mr. Trump's unsurprising retort was to call Mr. Erickson a loser. Mr. Erickson, point taken.
However, John Kasich is also not invited because Mr. Erickson said that the governor of Ohio would be a terrible nominee for the party. This assessment stems from Governor Kasich accepting the Affordable Care Act's Medicare funding for his state.
Here's the problem with both scenarios. Mr. Erickson and other so called party influencers only want to see the Republican Party that they want to, and not how it actually is. Republicans have to face the demographic and electoral reality of the United States. Keeping themselves in the 'gentle' bubbles the likes of ones Mr. Erickson creates is done at one's supreme disappointment. It reminds of us how Republicans were shocked because they couldn't believe Mr. Romney lost the election. That's because a handful of people didn't tell Republican supporters the truth, just what they wanted to hear, and it wasn't real.
It's a private event and Mr. Erickson can invite whomever he would like, but just because you don't like a particular candidate in your own party, doesn't mean he or she doesn't exist.
Sunday, August 02, 2015
8.2.15: "Meet The Press," the Donald Trump Edition
Welcome to "Meet The Press," the Donald Trump Edition. After Chuck Todd spoke to the man himself, Mr. Trump was the ensuing basis of all the presidential conversations moving forward on today's program. (Yes, there were a few moments of exception, one important point which we'll get to - noted in the postscript below.)
With regard to the upcoming debate on Thursday, Mr. Trump downplayed expectations of his performance, saying that he wasn't a debate and he didn't know how it was going to go. Today's panel offered up predictions, which all depended upon which Donald Trump either the one of audacious ego or the man lowering expectations. Chris Matthews thinks that Trump may surprise and offer some sort of policy prescription perhaps on taxes. Two points particularly stick out to us from the panel discussion on Mr. Trump and the upcoming debate, one of which was The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib's point that Mr. Trump has to be able to answer that 'commander-in-chief' question.' There is no question that Mr. Trump possesses a presidential size personality, but can he show the temperament of a president - be presidential? Mr. Seib's and our question speak to how Mr. Trump would represent the United States abroad and how he would be in an international crisis.
Chris Matthews opined that the biggest challenge for Mr. Trump could be Fox News moderator, Megyn Kelly, who would be supremely qualified to challenge a Republican candidate like Mr. Trump on this point of acting presidential. As Mr. Matthews warned, Mr. Trump would verbally joust with Ms. Kelly at his political peril.
On the question of whether Mr. Trump is hurting the Republican party, the answer is unequivocally 'yes...' Unless, he wins the nomination. Our reasoning for this stems from the fact that Mr. Trump has been called (as cited on the program) a rattlesnake, a drunken NASCAR driver and a cancer on the party to name a few, which just makes voters think negatively of the whole enterprise. For Mr. Trump's part, he said that Wisconsin is a mess (in reference to Walker), that John Kasich when working for Lehman Bros. helped sink the world's economy, and that Rick Perry wears glasses only to look smarter, et al.
Make no mistake, you'll be seeing all of these statements regurgitated in Democratic attack ads against who ever the nominee for the Republicans is come September. It's like 'pick a card, any card...' because Mr. Trump has hit all of his opponents in a like manner. And by the way, if people give all of those criticisms more than a second's thought, they'll realize that he is right. Under Republican governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin has a huge amount of debt. John Kasich was in fact on the board of Lehman Bros., the firm that triggered the 2008 economic meltdown. And on the question of Texas governor Rick Perry's intellectual readiness to be president, we'll let you be the judge.
What is also clear from today's interview with RNC Chair Reince Priebus is that he has no control over these candidates to any degree at all by saying that none of them speak for the Republican Party, something Mr. Priebus curiously referred to as a 'private' organization. We don't know what that's about. He seemed to imply that there are owners, hmmm... However, isn't the idea that all the candidates speak for the party offering something positive to the race? Or maybe not.
With all this Donald Trump bashing, there is one thing he said, to which we have to give unquestioned props. Mr. Trump said that he needed to be himself and he couldn't do that if he were beholden to special interests or pollsters or big money donors, the latter of which he said were in fact not nice people. Two important things here - he really is putting his money where his mouth is, like what comes out of it or not he's spending his own money so he isn't swayed any which way, which is why you will see an article in The Washington Post entitled "Because I Said So." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-trump-platform-because-i-said-so/2015/08/01/4684802c-36f7-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html). It reflects that dynamic. Also, there is his willingness to take on that machine of political industry which will be what sinks him in the end. What was that statistic that Mr. Todd put on the screen?
The above statistic is just sad. It illustrates, among other things, how our political leaders are in the tank for a chosen few, and for the rest, you get what we give you.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Gerald Seib, The Wall Street Journal; Chris Matthews, MSNBC.
A couple more things...
First, Chris Matthews provided us all with a concise explanation on how to differentiate between being a Democrat and being a Socialist. A socialist, Mr. Matthews said, is someone who believes that the government controls the entire economy whereas a Democrat believes in large government but also believes that the market should be the determining factor. In more practical terms, Democrats believe that certain things should be taken off the table that could inhibit economic success - like being beholden to an insurance company's determination on how much you pay for health insurance.
Lastly, one can not help but think that police in this country are out of control, and the brutality first strategy when interacting with the public will not stand any longer. This notion occurred to us - it all comes back to our irresponsible gun laws in this country. We've said it before, we are now at a point where the 'well-regulated' part of the Second Amendment needs to kick in hard. We as a society have failed when it comes to preventing gun violence. The statistical fact cited today is that the most likely way for a black male to die in the U.S. is by homicide, from the use of a gun. This is not meant as an indictment of black males in any way. This fact is the product of a deeply ingrained racially-biased system that we made ourselves. But cops know this fact, and coupled with the apparent lack of proper training they approach every situation wrongly assuming the person has a gun. Taking that approach only leads to fear that provokes confrontation that then ends in tragedy.
With regard to the upcoming debate on Thursday, Mr. Trump downplayed expectations of his performance, saying that he wasn't a debate and he didn't know how it was going to go. Today's panel offered up predictions, which all depended upon which Donald Trump either the one of audacious ego or the man lowering expectations. Chris Matthews thinks that Trump may surprise and offer some sort of policy prescription perhaps on taxes. Two points particularly stick out to us from the panel discussion on Mr. Trump and the upcoming debate, one of which was The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib's point that Mr. Trump has to be able to answer that 'commander-in-chief' question.' There is no question that Mr. Trump possesses a presidential size personality, but can he show the temperament of a president - be presidential? Mr. Seib's and our question speak to how Mr. Trump would represent the United States abroad and how he would be in an international crisis.
Chris Matthews opined that the biggest challenge for Mr. Trump could be Fox News moderator, Megyn Kelly, who would be supremely qualified to challenge a Republican candidate like Mr. Trump on this point of acting presidential. As Mr. Matthews warned, Mr. Trump would verbally joust with Ms. Kelly at his political peril.
On the question of whether Mr. Trump is hurting the Republican party, the answer is unequivocally 'yes...' Unless, he wins the nomination. Our reasoning for this stems from the fact that Mr. Trump has been called (as cited on the program) a rattlesnake, a drunken NASCAR driver and a cancer on the party to name a few, which just makes voters think negatively of the whole enterprise. For Mr. Trump's part, he said that Wisconsin is a mess (in reference to Walker), that John Kasich when working for Lehman Bros. helped sink the world's economy, and that Rick Perry wears glasses only to look smarter, et al.
Make no mistake, you'll be seeing all of these statements regurgitated in Democratic attack ads against who ever the nominee for the Republicans is come September. It's like 'pick a card, any card...' because Mr. Trump has hit all of his opponents in a like manner. And by the way, if people give all of those criticisms more than a second's thought, they'll realize that he is right. Under Republican governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin has a huge amount of debt. John Kasich was in fact on the board of Lehman Bros., the firm that triggered the 2008 economic meltdown. And on the question of Texas governor Rick Perry's intellectual readiness to be president, we'll let you be the judge.
What is also clear from today's interview with RNC Chair Reince Priebus is that he has no control over these candidates to any degree at all by saying that none of them speak for the Republican Party, something Mr. Priebus curiously referred to as a 'private' organization. We don't know what that's about. He seemed to imply that there are owners, hmmm... However, isn't the idea that all the candidates speak for the party offering something positive to the race? Or maybe not.
With all this Donald Trump bashing, there is one thing he said, to which we have to give unquestioned props. Mr. Trump said that he needed to be himself and he couldn't do that if he were beholden to special interests or pollsters or big money donors, the latter of which he said were in fact not nice people. Two important things here - he really is putting his money where his mouth is, like what comes out of it or not he's spending his own money so he isn't swayed any which way, which is why you will see an article in The Washington Post entitled "Because I Said So." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-trump-platform-because-i-said-so/2015/08/01/4684802c-36f7-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html). It reflects that dynamic. Also, there is his willingness to take on that machine of political industry which will be what sinks him in the end. What was that statistic that Mr. Todd put on the screen?
The above statistic is just sad. It illustrates, among other things, how our political leaders are in the tank for a chosen few, and for the rest, you get what we give you.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Gerald Seib, The Wall Street Journal; Chris Matthews, MSNBC.
A couple more things...
First, Chris Matthews provided us all with a concise explanation on how to differentiate between being a Democrat and being a Socialist. A socialist, Mr. Matthews said, is someone who believes that the government controls the entire economy whereas a Democrat believes in large government but also believes that the market should be the determining factor. In more practical terms, Democrats believe that certain things should be taken off the table that could inhibit economic success - like being beholden to an insurance company's determination on how much you pay for health insurance.
Lastly, one can not help but think that police in this country are out of control, and the brutality first strategy when interacting with the public will not stand any longer. This notion occurred to us - it all comes back to our irresponsible gun laws in this country. We've said it before, we are now at a point where the 'well-regulated' part of the Second Amendment needs to kick in hard. We as a society have failed when it comes to preventing gun violence. The statistical fact cited today is that the most likely way for a black male to die in the U.S. is by homicide, from the use of a gun. This is not meant as an indictment of black males in any way. This fact is the product of a deeply ingrained racially-biased system that we made ourselves. But cops know this fact, and coupled with the apparent lack of proper training they approach every situation wrongly assuming the person has a gun. Taking that approach only leads to fear that provokes confrontation that then ends in tragedy.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
7.26.15: Here We Are Now, Entertain Us
Not to completely discount the serious issues that are being brought up during the primary season, but that's what it's all about right now - entertainment. The Republican primary in particular is its own poorly produced reality show with the press providing the cameras and the candidates trying to distinguish themselves with ever more ridiculous stunts and statements; all in the hope of unseating the ultimate reality star and Republican front-running presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
That was all just a mouthful of 'ugh.'
However, if this crazy Republican primary's goal is in fact to entertain us, here are a few suggestions to make it so. First, since there are 16 candidates, there should be a debate tournament where the candidate highest in the polls faces off against the person with the lowest number. As Chuck Todd pointed though, the lowest polling person will have to be drawn at lottery since more than a few have under one percent. (What's interesting is that all these candidates under one percent are suffering from the Citizens United decision because they're not the ones getting the big checks. If Citizens United were to be overturned, all the candidates would be on more equal footing and you'd hear more from people like Ohio governor John Kasich (R).)
Another way is that all the candidates have to submit a video like Rand Paul did - showing the candidate putting the tax code through a wood chipper. Lindsey Graham could just re-edit his 'phone antics' video to make it about NSA surveillance. And Marco Rubio could make an instructional video on how to stay classy. (Marco Rubio saying that the President of United States has 'no class' is just stupid because unless you make the distinction of saying 'professionally without class,' calling someone classless is a personal attack. That's how it comes off when Mr. Rubio has been using these terms and it just sounds petty. It's something that Mr. Rubio and Mr. Walker for that matter both suffer from, pettiness.)
Lastly, all the Republican candidates have to say something particularly derogatory about another Republican, not running for president. Donald Trump implied (said, until he tried to take it back) that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was not a war hero, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) a 'liar.' Supposedly the majority leader told his fellow Republicans that he wouldn't add amendments (controversial ones - the repeal of the AFA and the re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank) to a transportation bill. And again, we refer you to Senator Rubio calling the president 'classless.' They all have to do this because it seems like our politicians are incapable of restraining themselves from dishing out personal attacks on others. So now you have to be original because we love the fireworks! (As we've said before, if Senator McCain isn't a war hero then who is? And to say that he is not a 'hero' given how he conducted himself while captured, is to what.. suggest that he's the antithesis of that, a coward? As for Mr. Cruz, it seems like he violated the Senate's code of conduct as that term of discourse is forbidden when referring to other senators. Bottom line is that it was a cheap shot for a grab of attention and he should be censured for it. This continued prying off of any reasonable hold on serious political discourse, lead by Mr. Trump, is going to cause real damage to the Republican party in general.)
This 'entertainment factor' in the Republican primary is fostering of an overall distrust of the Republican party's ability to seriously lead, a distrust that eclipses the trust issues people have with Hillary Clinton, and that's saying something.
Ron Fournier, columnist for the National Journal, said that it basically comes down to the level of distrust voters have for Hillary Clinton, Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report agreed, and neither of them are wrong. What tires us, and everyone else, about the Clintons in general is the perpetual flow of shenanigans constantly surrounding them. Whether it's something that Sec. Clinton says or Pres. Clinton says or something that one of their friends did or said it continually begs the question - what now?
What Mrs. Clinton benefits from is that her campaign challenges are just the cutaway scenes in the broader show that is "Reality President." You can't say it hasn't been entertaining.
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Sara Fagen, fmr. political director, Bush White House; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal
That was all just a mouthful of 'ugh.'
However, if this crazy Republican primary's goal is in fact to entertain us, here are a few suggestions to make it so. First, since there are 16 candidates, there should be a debate tournament where the candidate highest in the polls faces off against the person with the lowest number. As Chuck Todd pointed though, the lowest polling person will have to be drawn at lottery since more than a few have under one percent. (What's interesting is that all these candidates under one percent are suffering from the Citizens United decision because they're not the ones getting the big checks. If Citizens United were to be overturned, all the candidates would be on more equal footing and you'd hear more from people like Ohio governor John Kasich (R).)
Another way is that all the candidates have to submit a video like Rand Paul did - showing the candidate putting the tax code through a wood chipper. Lindsey Graham could just re-edit his 'phone antics' video to make it about NSA surveillance. And Marco Rubio could make an instructional video on how to stay classy. (Marco Rubio saying that the President of United States has 'no class' is just stupid because unless you make the distinction of saying 'professionally without class,' calling someone classless is a personal attack. That's how it comes off when Mr. Rubio has been using these terms and it just sounds petty. It's something that Mr. Rubio and Mr. Walker for that matter both suffer from, pettiness.)
Lastly, all the Republican candidates have to say something particularly derogatory about another Republican, not running for president. Donald Trump implied (said, until he tried to take it back) that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was not a war hero, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) a 'liar.' Supposedly the majority leader told his fellow Republicans that he wouldn't add amendments (controversial ones - the repeal of the AFA and the re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank) to a transportation bill. And again, we refer you to Senator Rubio calling the president 'classless.' They all have to do this because it seems like our politicians are incapable of restraining themselves from dishing out personal attacks on others. So now you have to be original because we love the fireworks! (As we've said before, if Senator McCain isn't a war hero then who is? And to say that he is not a 'hero' given how he conducted himself while captured, is to what.. suggest that he's the antithesis of that, a coward? As for Mr. Cruz, it seems like he violated the Senate's code of conduct as that term of discourse is forbidden when referring to other senators. Bottom line is that it was a cheap shot for a grab of attention and he should be censured for it. This continued prying off of any reasonable hold on serious political discourse, lead by Mr. Trump, is going to cause real damage to the Republican party in general.)
This 'entertainment factor' in the Republican primary is fostering of an overall distrust of the Republican party's ability to seriously lead, a distrust that eclipses the trust issues people have with Hillary Clinton, and that's saying something.
Ron Fournier, columnist for the National Journal, said that it basically comes down to the level of distrust voters have for Hillary Clinton, Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report agreed, and neither of them are wrong. What tires us, and everyone else, about the Clintons in general is the perpetual flow of shenanigans constantly surrounding them. Whether it's something that Sec. Clinton says or Pres. Clinton says or something that one of their friends did or said it continually begs the question - what now?
What Mrs. Clinton benefits from is that her campaign challenges are just the cutaway scenes in the broader show that is "Reality President." You can't say it hasn't been entertaining.
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Sara Fagen, fmr. political director, Bush White House; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal
Sunday, July 19, 2015
7.19.15: What the Iranian Nuclear Deal Means
The nuclear deal with Iran is a tricky one, no doubt.
England's Prime Minister David Cameron stated that it must be qualified as a success because it takes the prospect of a nuclear Iran off the tables for 15 years. We wouldn't go that far because the deal was an inevitability so it was the making best of a bad situation, especially given how New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman explained the lead up. Mr. Friedman said that since the Iraq war was a failure for the United States, it took the military option in the region off the table in negotiations, and the Iranians recognized that. That assessment basically outlines the balance of leverage that the different sides have.
You have to weigh each sides hand against one another and for the United States that means potentially getting one big upside in exchange for a lot (and we mean a lot) of potential smaller downsides. The big upside, of course, is that United States gets an Iran without nukes, but it could also mean that the Iranians have a lot more money, through the lifting of sanctions and through commerce, to play their proxy military terror games with.
We understand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to denounce the deal as loudly as possible, but the agreement was necessary. The fact remains that Russian and China want to do commerce with Iran and they were going to start with or without a deal in place. At that point, Iran will be free to proceed toward their goal of being a nuclear power. Iran is an existential threat to Israel, but we'd like that to be more in the conventional sense than in a nuclear one.
However, this is what really gets to us, where Republicans have a point, and that is this deal legitimizes Iran as a rational regional power without them having to change their behavior in the larger sense outside of the nuclear issue. You have to concede to Senator Tom Cotton's (R-AR) use of the term 'enabling,' clearly. And the fall down that was allowing the end of the conventional arms embargo ensures that it's full speed ahead with weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. More Kalashnikovs point in the direction of the United States and Israel is never a good idea.
Another big point that makes us uncomfortable is the 10-year period of stringent monitoring; it should have been 20 years. This way, it's a true generational shift in the leadership of Iran and with that would come a change in attitude, possibly, as they would at that time be more integrated into the world economy. It really speaks to the mentality of the two countries: For the United States, ten years is a long time, especially in politics, but a country like Iran has a much longer view of history and ten years is nothing.
The Iranians made this deal about more than just nuclear weapons and the United States, Britain and France, at least, should have insisted on the same. Not having nuclear weapons for 10 years doesn't all of sudden make you a legitimate, rational actor in the region, with undo influence. It's not just about nuclear proliferation, it's more than that. Fmr. governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) commented that we didn't even insist on a 'show of faith' with the releases of the 4 Americans in Iranian prisons, certainly a black eye for the Administration. The unfettered mindset that it is only about nuclear weapons, is the flaw in Secretary Kerry's thinking.
All right... We got that out... and now that we've said that piece, here's another: you sign off on it, and hold Iran to their word. To skeptics that say Iran will most certainly cheat, we would argue to go into it with that assumption, and when cheating is verified then the deal is off anyway. Congress should not vote it down and insist on a better deal because they're not going to get it, no chance. Republicans are going to have to buck their reputation of having ceremonious votes that will accomplish nothing.
(You can only hope that American intelligence agencies will use what ever means and then some to spy on Iran, to stay a few steps ahead of them. More international commerce for Iran means more Iranians traveling abroad hence more intelligence targets.)
And speaking of 'accomplishing nothing,' there's presidential candidate Donald Trump, who just yesterday criticized Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in the senator's home state saying, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren't captured." To paraphrase Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he's an idiot mouthing off who trying to land a TV show. We've never agreed with Senator McCain's overly hawkish positions, but he's definitely a American hero. If he's not, then who is?
And if you think that Donald Trump is destroying the Republican party brand, which he is, don't blame the press because we all know that celebrity news sells and you can't ignore that. Blame goes to the Republican party who gave him crowning status in all those years he didn't declare himself as a candidate. Neither the character nor the temperament as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) put it.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Bill Richardson, fmr. Governor of New Mexico and US Ambassador to the UN.
A couple more things...
In the immigration debate between Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Raul Labrador (R-UT), Mr. Labrador said that we need to limit our legal immigration, which would draw a raised eyebrow, for sure. But then he went on to explain that our outdated system can not handle the volume. Another term for federal computer systems is 'infrastructure,' something that Republicans do not want to raise one dime for through taxes to pay for.
And we can not come to accept that lone-wolf Islamic terrors acts are the new norm in this country as Michael Leiter described. We're not there yet, but we're close - it's just that it is so randomly spread out that the American people don't sense the entire forest, and its constancy.
Lastly, as Chuck Todd admitted at the end, today's program covered a lot of ground, no joke. Overall, Meet The Press is starting to get back up to spec., but it's not quite there yet. Lots of good information today, lots to choose from if you happen to write a blog about the show, but they shouldn't be afraid of some longer form segments utilizing the panel as questioners.
England's Prime Minister David Cameron stated that it must be qualified as a success because it takes the prospect of a nuclear Iran off the tables for 15 years. We wouldn't go that far because the deal was an inevitability so it was the making best of a bad situation, especially given how New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman explained the lead up. Mr. Friedman said that since the Iraq war was a failure for the United States, it took the military option in the region off the table in negotiations, and the Iranians recognized that. That assessment basically outlines the balance of leverage that the different sides have.
You have to weigh each sides hand against one another and for the United States that means potentially getting one big upside in exchange for a lot (and we mean a lot) of potential smaller downsides. The big upside, of course, is that United States gets an Iran without nukes, but it could also mean that the Iranians have a lot more money, through the lifting of sanctions and through commerce, to play their proxy military terror games with.
We understand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to denounce the deal as loudly as possible, but the agreement was necessary. The fact remains that Russian and China want to do commerce with Iran and they were going to start with or without a deal in place. At that point, Iran will be free to proceed toward their goal of being a nuclear power. Iran is an existential threat to Israel, but we'd like that to be more in the conventional sense than in a nuclear one.
However, this is what really gets to us, where Republicans have a point, and that is this deal legitimizes Iran as a rational regional power without them having to change their behavior in the larger sense outside of the nuclear issue. You have to concede to Senator Tom Cotton's (R-AR) use of the term 'enabling,' clearly. And the fall down that was allowing the end of the conventional arms embargo ensures that it's full speed ahead with weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah. More Kalashnikovs point in the direction of the United States and Israel is never a good idea.
Another big point that makes us uncomfortable is the 10-year period of stringent monitoring; it should have been 20 years. This way, it's a true generational shift in the leadership of Iran and with that would come a change in attitude, possibly, as they would at that time be more integrated into the world economy. It really speaks to the mentality of the two countries: For the United States, ten years is a long time, especially in politics, but a country like Iran has a much longer view of history and ten years is nothing.
The Iranians made this deal about more than just nuclear weapons and the United States, Britain and France, at least, should have insisted on the same. Not having nuclear weapons for 10 years doesn't all of sudden make you a legitimate, rational actor in the region, with undo influence. It's not just about nuclear proliferation, it's more than that. Fmr. governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) commented that we didn't even insist on a 'show of faith' with the releases of the 4 Americans in Iranian prisons, certainly a black eye for the Administration. The unfettered mindset that it is only about nuclear weapons, is the flaw in Secretary Kerry's thinking.
All right... We got that out... and now that we've said that piece, here's another: you sign off on it, and hold Iran to their word. To skeptics that say Iran will most certainly cheat, we would argue to go into it with that assumption, and when cheating is verified then the deal is off anyway. Congress should not vote it down and insist on a better deal because they're not going to get it, no chance. Republicans are going to have to buck their reputation of having ceremonious votes that will accomplish nothing.
(You can only hope that American intelligence agencies will use what ever means and then some to spy on Iran, to stay a few steps ahead of them. More international commerce for Iran means more Iranians traveling abroad hence more intelligence targets.)
And speaking of 'accomplishing nothing,' there's presidential candidate Donald Trump, who just yesterday criticized Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in the senator's home state saying, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren't captured." To paraphrase Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he's an idiot mouthing off who trying to land a TV show. We've never agreed with Senator McCain's overly hawkish positions, but he's definitely a American hero. If he's not, then who is?
And if you think that Donald Trump is destroying the Republican party brand, which he is, don't blame the press because we all know that celebrity news sells and you can't ignore that. Blame goes to the Republican party who gave him crowning status in all those years he didn't declare himself as a candidate. Neither the character nor the temperament as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) put it.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Bill Richardson, fmr. Governor of New Mexico and US Ambassador to the UN.
A couple more things...
In the immigration debate between Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Raul Labrador (R-UT), Mr. Labrador said that we need to limit our legal immigration, which would draw a raised eyebrow, for sure. But then he went on to explain that our outdated system can not handle the volume. Another term for federal computer systems is 'infrastructure,' something that Republicans do not want to raise one dime for through taxes to pay for.
And we can not come to accept that lone-wolf Islamic terrors acts are the new norm in this country as Michael Leiter described. We're not there yet, but we're close - it's just that it is so randomly spread out that the American people don't sense the entire forest, and its constancy.
Lastly, as Chuck Todd admitted at the end, today's program covered a lot of ground, no joke. Overall, Meet The Press is starting to get back up to spec., but it's not quite there yet. Lots of good information today, lots to choose from if you happen to write a blog about the show, but they shouldn't be afraid of some longer form segments utilizing the panel as questioners.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
7.12.15: Perspective on U.S. Adversaries
We'll concede Senator Corker's point that Mitt Romney's statement about Russia being our number one adversary isn't so far fetched, but it's still not correct. The Tennessee Senator himself explained that there are several significant concerns, not necessarily placing one of the other - to name a few: ISIS, the Iranian nuclear deal; and China... of course.
We'd like to hear more from the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate on China and what we're doing about cyber-security. As Ret. Maj. Gen. Brett Williams explained, the hacking of the 21.5 million background checks from the Office of Personnel Management was an act of pure espionage. Strategically, China tops the list of U.S. competitors for global influence, by far. Putin wants a 'benevolent' dictatorship in Russia, but that's not what China is about at all. In fact, there's little likelihood that something like that would happen in China. In addition to cyber-espionage, China has also been aggressive militarily in disputed waters with several of our Pacific-Rim allies, claiming islands and building bases. And then there is omnipresent economic entanglement.
Given all of that, it's unbelievable to hear Maj. Gen. Williams say that cyber-security and hence cyber-warfare doesn't figure into the overall strategic defense plan; that it is treated separately. More discouraging was his statement that there is no will to make the difficult decisions to get anything done, translate to appropriate the money. Perhaps worst of all is that there has been poor risk assessment... is that what defense is all about?
He also said something that we all know but always bears repeating, which is that we spend the money in the wrong places. It was only of some consolation that he demurred when Mr. Todd asked him if the United States is involved in cyber-espionage, giving a vague answer that the United States uses all the tools available for defense. From the 'John Q. Public' perspective, the answer is, "We better be!" which has some wisdom in its simplicity.
And on Iran, we couldn't how politically versus factual based Senator Corker's statement about the negotiations being on a downward trend for a while actually was. We side with his concerns inspections and verification, and in the case we welcome a tempered conservative perspective on what's in the deal. That comes from no distrust of the Obama Administration as much as it does the Iranian regime. Mr. Corker was absolutely correct in saying the Iran will cheat by the inch. The reason for our certainty is that we all do it, given the opportunity in a particular situation, human nature.
It was good to hear Mr. Corker endorsing the Obama Administration in its forcing of the issue as it were. The United States has to because ultimately Russia and China are not as concerned as we are about Iran having nuclear capabilities, and if Iran having nuclear weapons benefits Russia and China's interests in the region then so be it. Russia has been helpful in the negotiations because their interest is served by having Iran help them with eliminating Islamic extremists before they start to fully infiltrate into Chechnya. However, does feel the same on that existential threat as the United States does when it comes to Iran's threat to Israel.
All of this comes into play while assessing Secretary Kerry's negotiating skills, with which Mr. Corker said he was not impressed. However, with the details of the deal apparently coming this week, we'll have to leave it at, "We''ll see."
***
What separates the pros from us are articulated statements like Matt Bai's of Yahoo News, in which he said that, "Her [Governor Nikki Haley's] journey on the flag is the Republicans' journey on the flag." Concise and true. When asked about her profile being on the rise, Ms. Haley responded that she thinks about the Emanuel 9, as she called them, and the effect their deaths have had on the state of South Carolina in particular let alone the country. Providing some perspective on 'Ms. Haley's journey,' it's the first time that Southern conservative politicians have really begun to understand the meaning of that flag through the eyes of African Americans, and they have begun to see the horror in it.
And when the victims' families showed that there is no political high ground in terms of Christian forgiveness, the effect on southern republican thinking was profound.
Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Matt Bai, Yahoo! News; Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute
One Last Thing...
And the Trump Effect is real, and it's wreaking havoc in the Republican primary and with the RNC. Chairman Reince Priebus is a chump if he thinks Mr. Trump is going to listen to him on anything. Trump knows that people buying what he's selling, not the Republican National Committee, and because of it the damage to the Republican Party will be felt hard. The politician that benefits the most from all this turmoil is Hillary Clinton because moderate Republicans, especially woman, will ultimately migrate to her.
We'd like to hear more from the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate on China and what we're doing about cyber-security. As Ret. Maj. Gen. Brett Williams explained, the hacking of the 21.5 million background checks from the Office of Personnel Management was an act of pure espionage. Strategically, China tops the list of U.S. competitors for global influence, by far. Putin wants a 'benevolent' dictatorship in Russia, but that's not what China is about at all. In fact, there's little likelihood that something like that would happen in China. In addition to cyber-espionage, China has also been aggressive militarily in disputed waters with several of our Pacific-Rim allies, claiming islands and building bases. And then there is omnipresent economic entanglement.
Given all of that, it's unbelievable to hear Maj. Gen. Williams say that cyber-security and hence cyber-warfare doesn't figure into the overall strategic defense plan; that it is treated separately. More discouraging was his statement that there is no will to make the difficult decisions to get anything done, translate to appropriate the money. Perhaps worst of all is that there has been poor risk assessment... is that what defense is all about?
He also said something that we all know but always bears repeating, which is that we spend the money in the wrong places. It was only of some consolation that he demurred when Mr. Todd asked him if the United States is involved in cyber-espionage, giving a vague answer that the United States uses all the tools available for defense. From the 'John Q. Public' perspective, the answer is, "We better be!" which has some wisdom in its simplicity.
And on Iran, we couldn't how politically versus factual based Senator Corker's statement about the negotiations being on a downward trend for a while actually was. We side with his concerns inspections and verification, and in the case we welcome a tempered conservative perspective on what's in the deal. That comes from no distrust of the Obama Administration as much as it does the Iranian regime. Mr. Corker was absolutely correct in saying the Iran will cheat by the inch. The reason for our certainty is that we all do it, given the opportunity in a particular situation, human nature.
It was good to hear Mr. Corker endorsing the Obama Administration in its forcing of the issue as it were. The United States has to because ultimately Russia and China are not as concerned as we are about Iran having nuclear capabilities, and if Iran having nuclear weapons benefits Russia and China's interests in the region then so be it. Russia has been helpful in the negotiations because their interest is served by having Iran help them with eliminating Islamic extremists before they start to fully infiltrate into Chechnya. However, does feel the same on that existential threat as the United States does when it comes to Iran's threat to Israel.
All of this comes into play while assessing Secretary Kerry's negotiating skills, with which Mr. Corker said he was not impressed. However, with the details of the deal apparently coming this week, we'll have to leave it at, "We''ll see."
***
What separates the pros from us are articulated statements like Matt Bai's of Yahoo News, in which he said that, "Her [Governor Nikki Haley's] journey on the flag is the Republicans' journey on the flag." Concise and true. When asked about her profile being on the rise, Ms. Haley responded that she thinks about the Emanuel 9, as she called them, and the effect their deaths have had on the state of South Carolina in particular let alone the country. Providing some perspective on 'Ms. Haley's journey,' it's the first time that Southern conservative politicians have really begun to understand the meaning of that flag through the eyes of African Americans, and they have begun to see the horror in it.
And when the victims' families showed that there is no political high ground in terms of Christian forgiveness, the effect on southern republican thinking was profound.
Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Matt Bai, Yahoo! News; Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute
One Last Thing...
And the Trump Effect is real, and it's wreaking havoc in the Republican primary and with the RNC. Chairman Reince Priebus is a chump if he thinks Mr. Trump is going to listen to him on anything. Trump knows that people buying what he's selling, not the Republican National Committee, and because of it the damage to the Republican Party will be felt hard. The politician that benefits the most from all this turmoil is Hillary Clinton because moderate Republicans, especially woman, will ultimately migrate to her.
7.12.15: The Ted Cruz Interview
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) used the term 'true believer' to describe President Barack Obama when praising the president's passion when it came to fighting for what he believed in. Then in the next breath, Mr. Cruz praised Donald Trump for being the one to bring up the immigration debate.
These two points speak directly to why Mr. Cruz would not be a good president and by extension a poor candidate and even by extending further a failed leader in the Senate.
First, Mr. Cruz lacks sound and shrewd tactics on every political level. In coming out in support of Donald Trump, he is illustrating poor judgement of sound political tactics. In the case of the government shutdown, he bullied through the door getting his shutdown over healthcare and then embittered other Republicans because he had no endgame. For his filibuster all it is remembered for - the joke clip that will be forever used in b-roll - is when he recited Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham. Poor Tactics.
Another point is that he doesn't, or isn't willing to, recognize how people view him, he has very little self-awareness, which is interesting in as much as it's a trait of being cocky, a state of being he thought he shed when he said that he wasn't picked to serve in the Bush Administration; being the "Michael J. Fox in American President." The Bush Administration didn't want Ted Cruz because he is the true believer himself, and they certainly were not, not on small government and social issues. Mr. Cruz wanted to be the one saying, "Do the right thing, Mr. President," and that's exactly what they didn't need.
We respect the fact that Mr. Cruz remains strong in his convictions and political beliefs, though with many we disagree. However, it is difficult to take those views seriously when such buffoonery occurs trying to impose those views on resistant forces. If President Obama is as to the left as Mr. Cruz says he is being his polar opposite on the right, the Senator from Texas doesn't seem to recognize what separates the two of them when comparing levels of success. Mr. Obama seems the long game and prepares for a long debate - plans long and sees long. And his administration is keenly aware of what people are saying - constantly pushing buttons to influence thinking.
Speaking of influencing thinking, it's never going to happen when you propose that judges should run for election as Mr. Cruz did. This is even a matter of bad tactics as much as it is just simply a stupid idea, not thought out for even a second.
At the very cynical least, in his defense of Donald Trump, Mr. Cruz makes the unforced error of also offending the Hispanic community, one where he should be a leader, and not understanding that he would need those votes. Unlike Rand Paul, Ted Cruz makes no attempt to speak effectively to constituency groups that have different views from his own. You can't lead America if you don't want to consider and talk to most Americans.
As for the rest, you get the point...
(full post on this week's "Meet The Press" coming shortly.)
These two points speak directly to why Mr. Cruz would not be a good president and by extension a poor candidate and even by extending further a failed leader in the Senate.
First, Mr. Cruz lacks sound and shrewd tactics on every political level. In coming out in support of Donald Trump, he is illustrating poor judgement of sound political tactics. In the case of the government shutdown, he bullied through the door getting his shutdown over healthcare and then embittered other Republicans because he had no endgame. For his filibuster all it is remembered for - the joke clip that will be forever used in b-roll - is when he recited Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham. Poor Tactics.
Another point is that he doesn't, or isn't willing to, recognize how people view him, he has very little self-awareness, which is interesting in as much as it's a trait of being cocky, a state of being he thought he shed when he said that he wasn't picked to serve in the Bush Administration; being the "Michael J. Fox in American President." The Bush Administration didn't want Ted Cruz because he is the true believer himself, and they certainly were not, not on small government and social issues. Mr. Cruz wanted to be the one saying, "Do the right thing, Mr. President," and that's exactly what they didn't need.
We respect the fact that Mr. Cruz remains strong in his convictions and political beliefs, though with many we disagree. However, it is difficult to take those views seriously when such buffoonery occurs trying to impose those views on resistant forces. If President Obama is as to the left as Mr. Cruz says he is being his polar opposite on the right, the Senator from Texas doesn't seem to recognize what separates the two of them when comparing levels of success. Mr. Obama seems the long game and prepares for a long debate - plans long and sees long. And his administration is keenly aware of what people are saying - constantly pushing buttons to influence thinking.
Speaking of influencing thinking, it's never going to happen when you propose that judges should run for election as Mr. Cruz did. This is even a matter of bad tactics as much as it is just simply a stupid idea, not thought out for even a second.
At the very cynical least, in his defense of Donald Trump, Mr. Cruz makes the unforced error of also offending the Hispanic community, one where he should be a leader, and not understanding that he would need those votes. Unlike Rand Paul, Ted Cruz makes no attempt to speak effectively to constituency groups that have different views from his own. You can't lead America if you don't want to consider and talk to most Americans.
As for the rest, you get the point...
(full post on this week's "Meet The Press" coming shortly.)
Sunday, June 28, 2015
6.29.15: Supreme Court Decisions in 'Just Another' American Week
What a week... Or ten days as it were...
-Republicans siding with President Obama on the Pacific trade pact
-Confederate Flags being removed from state houses throughout the South
-The Supreme Court uploading a provision of Obamacare, essentially saving it
-ISIS orchestrating three near simultaneous terror attacks in three continents - Tunisia, Yemen and
France
-The return of the Supreme Court to render that marriage equality is the law of the land
-President Obama delivering an inspired foundation-grounding eulogy for Reverend Clementa
Pinkney leading the congregation through "Amazing Grace"
And those are even come close to covering it... Welcome to the world.
The moderator, Chuck Todd, had it correct that these past ten days cement President Obama's legacy and also bring it into distinct focus, the good and the bad.
The two Supreme Court decisions were to be expected, frankly. The Obamacare challenge should have never even come up, but that it had and now that the court has issued its ruling, repeal mentioned by Governor Bobby Jindal in his interview today (R-LA) is not a political reality. And the only thing that Republicans are gathering consensus is a feeling of relief. Now that the court has ruled they can continue to rhetorically oppose the law without the responsibility of coming up with a viable alternative. Obamacare may be flawed, for certain, but the truly disingenuous political games that Republicans have been playing - e.g. wasting time and tax payers' money with 50+ votes for repeal in the House - make you want to root for the law's success.
Though Justice John Roberts said that people across the country can celebrate the decision but not the reading of the Constitution that brought the decision about. Once again we turn to Mr. Jindal who said that he strongly opposes the Supreme Court's ruling because it's an attack on religious liberty and how it could man redefine an institution created by God? Obviously, five justices disagreed with Judge Roberts but even given the conflict of interpretation, in a less binding but equally significant document, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," which we now rightfully include women, understanding that it means both. For Mr. Jindal's part, the notion that religious liberty is being thwarted in some way is ridiculous because when you consider and equate religious liberty to religious tolerance, the United States is more religiously tolerant than ever before. And marriage is a man-made tradition inspired by a belief in God, but still man-made which can be changed.
Mr. Jindal also explained that when it comes to race relations in the United States, he has spoken many times on the subject and is a strong advocate of racial equality. This is great that Mr. Jindal believes that no one in the United States should be discriminated against based on race, but gender and sexual identity is a completely different story? He mentioned the first amendment and if his reasoning for being against marriage equality is because it goes against God then that's a potential attack on that very amendment, which says that no law shall be made with respect to religion. (Our first amendment is quite pliable.)
It may seem like a lot of rapid social change going on a once, but the reality is that both racial and sexual-orientation justice have been a long long time in the making, as Newt Gingrich pointed out in the case of gay rights with the riots of Stonewall occurring 46 years ago. He also said that once same-sex marriage started happening in one state, there was no going back and that it was a just a matter of time before all states recognized it.
It has been all those little unrecognized transformational moments, drawn from pain from agony, that have come before to deliver 'just another one' like those delivered upon this week.
As for the Confederate Flag, we think you know where we stand. In the laws of social physics, there's only so much pressure that can build up before things blow [read: change dramatically].
With regard to Mr. Obama's presidency, his legacy and the credit to be given, the panel considered the term 'transformational.' His presidency is hyper-historic and his legacy, two defining aspects will be the Affordable Care Act and the significant social change that happened during his two terms. Kathleen Parker posed the question as to how much credit President Obama should receive for all this. We'd come down on the answer of 'a lot' but not 'all.' The president gets the credit because it is his administration that sets the tone, makes the arguments, presents the agendas and forces its position requiring others to respond.
Senator Ted Cruz's (R-TX) response was to call this week's one of the darkest in our history. Mr. Jindal said that if the country wanted to save money, it should get rid of the court as it is reading neither the Constitution nor the dictionary; if so, what makes him think they are reading the Bible either? It's not required reading for the justices. Mr. Todd asked him why Louisiana is the only state not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, Mr. Jindal responded by trying to dismiss this fact and half-heartedly gave a few 'procedural' answers.
But the real reason is that he doesn't like it hence the state is dragging its feet, a passive aggressive move not good if you're running for president; all because he believes it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Now that's taking religious liberties.
Panel: Charles Ogletree, Harvard University; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University; Newt Gingrich, Republican at Large
Quick Note...
Governor Jindal and Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) for that matter getting into the presidential race will bring the official count for the 'why not me' primary to 14, and this number doesn't include probable entrant Governor Scott Walker (R-WI). First, at 15 hopefully the party will feel it's reached its quota for candidates. We sit and hear the argument for Mr. Walker, but Mr. Jindal and Mr. Christie? Please, why? They must be running for cabinet positions, in which the joke would be on us when Mr. Christie is appointed Secretary of Transportation. Secondly, this many candidates with bomb-throwing tempers could have a gladiatorial political death effect on some careers. But what ever, why not me?
-Republicans siding with President Obama on the Pacific trade pact
-Confederate Flags being removed from state houses throughout the South
-The Supreme Court uploading a provision of Obamacare, essentially saving it
-ISIS orchestrating three near simultaneous terror attacks in three continents - Tunisia, Yemen and
France
-The return of the Supreme Court to render that marriage equality is the law of the land
-President Obama delivering an inspired foundation-grounding eulogy for Reverend Clementa
Pinkney leading the congregation through "Amazing Grace"
And those are even come close to covering it... Welcome to the world.
The moderator, Chuck Todd, had it correct that these past ten days cement President Obama's legacy and also bring it into distinct focus, the good and the bad.
The two Supreme Court decisions were to be expected, frankly. The Obamacare challenge should have never even come up, but that it had and now that the court has issued its ruling, repeal mentioned by Governor Bobby Jindal in his interview today (R-LA) is not a political reality. And the only thing that Republicans are gathering consensus is a feeling of relief. Now that the court has ruled they can continue to rhetorically oppose the law without the responsibility of coming up with a viable alternative. Obamacare may be flawed, for certain, but the truly disingenuous political games that Republicans have been playing - e.g. wasting time and tax payers' money with 50+ votes for repeal in the House - make you want to root for the law's success.
Though Justice John Roberts said that people across the country can celebrate the decision but not the reading of the Constitution that brought the decision about. Once again we turn to Mr. Jindal who said that he strongly opposes the Supreme Court's ruling because it's an attack on religious liberty and how it could man redefine an institution created by God? Obviously, five justices disagreed with Judge Roberts but even given the conflict of interpretation, in a less binding but equally significant document, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," which we now rightfully include women, understanding that it means both. For Mr. Jindal's part, the notion that religious liberty is being thwarted in some way is ridiculous because when you consider and equate religious liberty to religious tolerance, the United States is more religiously tolerant than ever before. And marriage is a man-made tradition inspired by a belief in God, but still man-made which can be changed.
Mr. Jindal also explained that when it comes to race relations in the United States, he has spoken many times on the subject and is a strong advocate of racial equality. This is great that Mr. Jindal believes that no one in the United States should be discriminated against based on race, but gender and sexual identity is a completely different story? He mentioned the first amendment and if his reasoning for being against marriage equality is because it goes against God then that's a potential attack on that very amendment, which says that no law shall be made with respect to religion. (Our first amendment is quite pliable.)
It may seem like a lot of rapid social change going on a once, but the reality is that both racial and sexual-orientation justice have been a long long time in the making, as Newt Gingrich pointed out in the case of gay rights with the riots of Stonewall occurring 46 years ago. He also said that once same-sex marriage started happening in one state, there was no going back and that it was a just a matter of time before all states recognized it.
It has been all those little unrecognized transformational moments, drawn from pain from agony, that have come before to deliver 'just another one' like those delivered upon this week.
As for the Confederate Flag, we think you know where we stand. In the laws of social physics, there's only so much pressure that can build up before things blow [read: change dramatically].
With regard to Mr. Obama's presidency, his legacy and the credit to be given, the panel considered the term 'transformational.' His presidency is hyper-historic and his legacy, two defining aspects will be the Affordable Care Act and the significant social change that happened during his two terms. Kathleen Parker posed the question as to how much credit President Obama should receive for all this. We'd come down on the answer of 'a lot' but not 'all.' The president gets the credit because it is his administration that sets the tone, makes the arguments, presents the agendas and forces its position requiring others to respond.
Senator Ted Cruz's (R-TX) response was to call this week's one of the darkest in our history. Mr. Jindal said that if the country wanted to save money, it should get rid of the court as it is reading neither the Constitution nor the dictionary; if so, what makes him think they are reading the Bible either? It's not required reading for the justices. Mr. Todd asked him why Louisiana is the only state not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, Mr. Jindal responded by trying to dismiss this fact and half-heartedly gave a few 'procedural' answers.
But the real reason is that he doesn't like it hence the state is dragging its feet, a passive aggressive move not good if you're running for president; all because he believes it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Now that's taking religious liberties.
Panel: Charles Ogletree, Harvard University; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University; Newt Gingrich, Republican at Large
Quick Note...
Governor Jindal and Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) for that matter getting into the presidential race will bring the official count for the 'why not me' primary to 14, and this number doesn't include probable entrant Governor Scott Walker (R-WI). First, at 15 hopefully the party will feel it's reached its quota for candidates. We sit and hear the argument for Mr. Walker, but Mr. Jindal and Mr. Christie? Please, why? They must be running for cabinet positions, in which the joke would be on us when Mr. Christie is appointed Secretary of Transportation. Secondly, this many candidates with bomb-throwing tempers could have a gladiatorial political death effect on some careers. But what ever, why not me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)