New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, clearly illustrated why he will not be the nominee for the Republican party and in doing so also answered why Bernie Sanders is ahead of Hillary Clinton in the first few Democratic primary polls. The reason is that as long as you are answering questions about questionable conduct, you can not state your ideas for moving the country forward. Those ideas do not gain any traction.
Too many hanging questions about 'bridge-gate' for Gov. Christie to escape along with indictments of top staff, while donors are having trepidation about giving money wondering when the other shoe will drop and the feds will come after Mr. Christie himself, are the threatening campaign clouds that keep hovering about. As the saying goes, "something just doesn't smell right." And it's the same with Hillary Clinton and the e-mail issue. Even though, as Mr. Todd noted, the Department of Justice found that Sec. Clinton was within her legal right to delete personal e-mails. "When you use phrases like "within her legal right," you know that's not good for a candidate. The residual effect is going to be negatively lasting, hence Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign is surging.
Keep this in mind, at this point in the campaign: Independents haven't weighed in yet and the polls in both parties are more of a reflection of the attitude of the respective bases. Right now, that thinking is being turned on it's head in the Republican party given that one of the topics on today's program covered the in-fighting within the party. Basically, the Republican electorate is disgusted with its leaders in Washington because they have broken so many promises. Gov. Christie let them have saying that there has been no "repeal and replace" legislation on Obamacare or any tax reform legislation put forward. The governor said the Republican Congress has "under-delivered."
And Governor Christie hasn't? When faced with what are just downright ugly economic statistics for your state, the answer of "you should have seen it when I got there" is an unacceptable answer, seriously. The governor turned down an opportunity to give his state's economy a shot in the arm by not doing a deal with New York state to expand the transit system between north Jersey and New York City. He said that New Jersey would be on the hook for too much money, but the real reason was more of a political nature and the governor not wanting to compromise. That's under-delivering.
Senator Tom Cole (R-OK) in his joint interview with head of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint blamed President Obama for none of the Republican agenda items passing, which is incredibly wrong-headed, and not being honest with yourself as to why none of your agenda is getting through. President Obama is not to blame for what he believes and then acting on those beliefs. The blame is on the Republican caucus and the Republican National Committee for setting the expectations too high in what they promised and employing the strategy of unilaterally opposing the president on every vote turning everyone into a partisan fight while he still maintains the power of the veto all the while never putting forward a clear plan of their own that the electorate can get behind. President Obama is not to blame for that.
As for Mr. DeMint who talked about "common sense conservative ideas" and supports a governmental shutdown over the continued funding of planned parenthood seems to live a a world that doesn't acknowledge the existence of Democrats or Independents - a majority of whom do not agree with him. If you can not compromise with people and continually make it a zero-sum game as Mr. DeMint does then you'll have to get used to disappoint because you're hardly ever going to get your way. The Republican ideal (read: ideological purity) is being promised and reality keeps smacking it down. The booing of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senator Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) by Republican primary voters is well placed because they've perpetuated the paradigm. Reince Priebus should be included in that group as well.
With regard to the other side, Bernie Sanders, his argument to the contrary, would not see much cooperation from Congress for his initiatives if he were president. [Here we like to note that this stems from Mr. Todd asking Senator Sanders about the lack of co-sponsors on legislation that he proposes. We'd add that Mr. Todd is getting better at the friendly-but-tough tact of interviewing, reminiscent of Tim Russert. That's not to say that Mr. Todd is derivative but to say he getting better at facing people down in the moment while maintaining his innate enthusiasm in the topic. All good.]
However, outside of that, Mr. Todd focused on foreign policy with Senator Sanders and on key votes, Mr. Sanders has made the correct decisions - not voting for the Iraq War, but for Afghanistan. He also voted for U.S. intervention in Kosovo, which was big as well. What we take away from all of this is that while his judgement on foreign policy matters is sound, he has no foreign policy agenda, which is to say that we're not sure how he would take the "world" leadership role. Decide for yourself as to whether actually having a foreign policy agenda is a good or bad thing.
Panel: David Brooks, The New York Times; Sara Fagen, CNBC Contributor; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Maria Hinojosa, NPR
One more thing...
Former Ambassador to Syria under the Bush Administration Robert Ford said that he disagreed with Richard Engel's assessment in his report that the United States' actions in the region have unleashed the brutality in the region causing the massive refugee crisis. Instead Amb. Ford said that instead the brutal regimes in the region are to blame. What he doesn't acknowledge in his answer is that those brutal regimes are being threatened by groups that want to set up their own brutal regime. ISIS, hello. So yes, the United States toppled a dictator that unleashed a sectarian civil conflict in Iraq that exploded in Syria.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Sunday, September 06, 2015
9.6.15: Pragmatism of the Iranian Deal and the Responsibility for Refugees
On the one year anniversary of Chuck Todd's tenure as the moderator of "Meet The Press," he and the staff produced another well-rounded edition of the program. Leading off with ret. General Colin Powell is never a bad thing given his unique perspective relevant to his place in history and especially since foreign policy and political questions abound.
Gen. Powell certainly and consistently maintains a conservative pragmatist-in-chief reasoning when looking at the world, and he gave a most reasoned and reasonable opinion on the Iranian nuclear deal as everything stands at this time. He said that Iran right now is on a 'superhighway' to obtaining a nuclear weapon and this deal stops it. That's the flash analogy, but here are some facts that he pointed out. One, if the United States rejects the deal, the rest of the world (negotiating countries and the UN) is still going to move on with Iranian engagement. Gen. Powell further explained that after he weighed the consequences of doing the deal or rejecting it, he concluded that taking the Iranians off that superhighway, and at the very least delaying their nuclear capabilities for at least 15 years was better than the alternative. He also presented some more detail with the number of centrifuges and plutonium stores being reduced.
He also said that he thought this deal would make Israel more secure, which stands in contrast to what most of his fellow Republicans are saying. However, we would agree with Gen. Powell in this case, and we'll give the most cynical reasons why, dispensing with the more hopeful, idealistic ones. First, while the entire world is hovering over the Iranians nuclear facilities for 15 years cutting off their way to a nuclear weapon, the Israelis, most probably with U.S. help, can build up their arsenal and defense capabilities to new heights. Also, when the world community becomes aware of freed Iranian funds going to Hamas or Hezbollah, there will much more international pressure to put a stop to it, not contingent of the nuclear deal, as Gen. Powell pointed out, but more of a residual effect. Essentially, instead of Israel having six months to plan and react to a nuclear Iran, this deal buys them at least 15 years and time to prepare if that day comes. And in it's most rudimentary form, go with what the general said, which was "to never trust and always verify."
Staying with the Middle East for a few more moments, despite the fact that ISIS is a movement as Gen. Powell reiterated today, the way in which Syria's civil war simmers down is the military defeat of ISIS and then negotiating a cease fire between the Assad regime and the rebels... that's a start. The military defeat doesn't eliminate the ideology but it eliminates a side in the war that will never 'cease fire.' (Actually, both could be coordinated to occur simultaneously.) The rub is that this joint military force has to consist of Arab countries who are simply not doing their part. The unfortunate but true circumstance.
Obviously, this brings us to the refugee crisis and many European countries scrambling to do something while the world watches. Richard Engel, again this week a key component of the program's success, reporting from the central train station in Budapest, Hungary where thousands of refugees are stranded, said that as Budapest is a focal point, it's Greece that is the front line of the crisis with Lesbos Island being the closest entry point to the EU where the government is trying to provide water and basic sanitation for 25,000 refugees.
You hear a lot of stories about religiously-motivated and xenophobic violence in the EU, but it is Europe that is taking these people in - 800,000 in Germany will be granted asylum. The reason we point this out is because it's astounding the intransigence on the part of the rich Arab nations in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, for not taking in any refugees but also for not stepping up on any of the issues facing the region. The reason is that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates are all monarchies and the number-one goal of any monarchy is self-preservation. Everything is determined and acted upon in terms of that - taking in refugees doesn't help that cause.
Appropriately, Mr. Todd interviewed former British foreign secretary, David Miliband, and dramatically asked him who is responsible for Aylan Kurdi, the young boy found dead on a Turkish beach. Primarily Bashar Al-Assad, Mr. Miliband answered noting that it has been four years since Assad starting bombing his own people, which initiated the crisis. But he also said that Russia and the U.S. own responsibility for not 'coming to grips' with the devastation of the civil war. Will the U.S. take in 65,000 refugees? As Gen. Powell noted, a resolution depends in large measure as to what Russia is or is not doing. He also pointed out that since the citizens of Syria see Russia backing Assad they assess that the situation will not become any better so they are compelled to leave the country. The foreign secretary also laid some blame on the EU (given the pictures) then also on wealthy Arab countries. We wouldn't have ordered them that way but the point is that there is enough blame for everyone to have a share. We should point out that only Jordan and Lebanon are taking in refugees and are severely feeling the strain.
Lastly, today's program was interspersed with the lighter, more comic topic it's required to cover - presidential politics, for which we'll say these few things. (the topic was actually needed a bit this week.) As outlined in the Republican primary polls, Scott Walker's campaign is sliding into the abyss and you know from our last column we don't think he has the moxy to pull it out. However, it's clear that the front runners in both parties are face some serious challenges and in both cases, self-made. Sec. Clinton's e-mail scandal is like one of those internet ads that follows you to every site you go to... she can't get rid of it and it's clearly hurting her campaign. The latest poll in New Hampshire has Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) up 49% to 38% for Clinton.
The way in which Sec. Clinton will either subdue the e-mail conversation or not is during a prime-time debate where she answers all questions. With that said, we don't think Clinton is as vulnerable as her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump. Never mind that Mr. Trump didn't know who the Quds forces in Iran were, that's not why he won't get the nomination. (By the way, Mr. Hewlitt's question to Mr. Trump was not a 'gotcha' question. It was simply a question Mr. Trump didn't know the answer to. If Mr. Trump would have said that he was not overly familiar with the Qud, that would have been an acceptable answer.) He will not get the nomination because ultimately the RNC doesn't see a way in which he can win in the general. But who steps up?
As Doris Kearns-Goodwin pointed out, Jeb Bush has had to step up, and fight. It wasn't the primary race that he envisioned but he has to do it. Gov. Bush is at six and eight percent respectively is Iowa and New Hampshire polls, trailing both Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump. The latter is consistently attacking him and his family's policies, to which he must respond. We give Jeb some credit for mixing it up because none of the other candidates seem to be able to.
However, all that stuff we talked about in this column before mentioning presidential politics, the Bush name carries a lot of weigh and baggage with it. And now that's Jeb's problem.
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, radio host and conservative commentator; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Kimberly Davis... the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky who wouldn't issue the marriage licenses...
She got what she deserved, and the jail time is more appropriate than issuing a fine. She swore an oath to uphold the law and she didn't perform that duty so she is to be held in contempt. Her religious views and beliefs are her own and that those of the state or the nation.
Here's the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
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.
You can debate all you want, but the first two phrases clearly state that religion should play not part in the making of a law and that people's freedom to practice any religion will not be impeded. However, syntactically there's a reason it's written that way. The law comes first.
Gen. Powell certainly and consistently maintains a conservative pragmatist-in-chief reasoning when looking at the world, and he gave a most reasoned and reasonable opinion on the Iranian nuclear deal as everything stands at this time. He said that Iran right now is on a 'superhighway' to obtaining a nuclear weapon and this deal stops it. That's the flash analogy, but here are some facts that he pointed out. One, if the United States rejects the deal, the rest of the world (negotiating countries and the UN) is still going to move on with Iranian engagement. Gen. Powell further explained that after he weighed the consequences of doing the deal or rejecting it, he concluded that taking the Iranians off that superhighway, and at the very least delaying their nuclear capabilities for at least 15 years was better than the alternative. He also presented some more detail with the number of centrifuges and plutonium stores being reduced.
He also said that he thought this deal would make Israel more secure, which stands in contrast to what most of his fellow Republicans are saying. However, we would agree with Gen. Powell in this case, and we'll give the most cynical reasons why, dispensing with the more hopeful, idealistic ones. First, while the entire world is hovering over the Iranians nuclear facilities for 15 years cutting off their way to a nuclear weapon, the Israelis, most probably with U.S. help, can build up their arsenal and defense capabilities to new heights. Also, when the world community becomes aware of freed Iranian funds going to Hamas or Hezbollah, there will much more international pressure to put a stop to it, not contingent of the nuclear deal, as Gen. Powell pointed out, but more of a residual effect. Essentially, instead of Israel having six months to plan and react to a nuclear Iran, this deal buys them at least 15 years and time to prepare if that day comes. And in it's most rudimentary form, go with what the general said, which was "to never trust and always verify."
Staying with the Middle East for a few more moments, despite the fact that ISIS is a movement as Gen. Powell reiterated today, the way in which Syria's civil war simmers down is the military defeat of ISIS and then negotiating a cease fire between the Assad regime and the rebels... that's a start. The military defeat doesn't eliminate the ideology but it eliminates a side in the war that will never 'cease fire.' (Actually, both could be coordinated to occur simultaneously.) The rub is that this joint military force has to consist of Arab countries who are simply not doing their part. The unfortunate but true circumstance.
Obviously, this brings us to the refugee crisis and many European countries scrambling to do something while the world watches. Richard Engel, again this week a key component of the program's success, reporting from the central train station in Budapest, Hungary where thousands of refugees are stranded, said that as Budapest is a focal point, it's Greece that is the front line of the crisis with Lesbos Island being the closest entry point to the EU where the government is trying to provide water and basic sanitation for 25,000 refugees.
You hear a lot of stories about religiously-motivated and xenophobic violence in the EU, but it is Europe that is taking these people in - 800,000 in Germany will be granted asylum. The reason we point this out is because it's astounding the intransigence on the part of the rich Arab nations in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, for not taking in any refugees but also for not stepping up on any of the issues facing the region. The reason is that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates are all monarchies and the number-one goal of any monarchy is self-preservation. Everything is determined and acted upon in terms of that - taking in refugees doesn't help that cause.
Appropriately, Mr. Todd interviewed former British foreign secretary, David Miliband, and dramatically asked him who is responsible for Aylan Kurdi, the young boy found dead on a Turkish beach. Primarily Bashar Al-Assad, Mr. Miliband answered noting that it has been four years since Assad starting bombing his own people, which initiated the crisis. But he also said that Russia and the U.S. own responsibility for not 'coming to grips' with the devastation of the civil war. Will the U.S. take in 65,000 refugees? As Gen. Powell noted, a resolution depends in large measure as to what Russia is or is not doing. He also pointed out that since the citizens of Syria see Russia backing Assad they assess that the situation will not become any better so they are compelled to leave the country. The foreign secretary also laid some blame on the EU (given the pictures) then also on wealthy Arab countries. We wouldn't have ordered them that way but the point is that there is enough blame for everyone to have a share. We should point out that only Jordan and Lebanon are taking in refugees and are severely feeling the strain.
Lastly, today's program was interspersed with the lighter, more comic topic it's required to cover - presidential politics, for which we'll say these few things. (the topic was actually needed a bit this week.) As outlined in the Republican primary polls, Scott Walker's campaign is sliding into the abyss and you know from our last column we don't think he has the moxy to pull it out. However, it's clear that the front runners in both parties are face some serious challenges and in both cases, self-made. Sec. Clinton's e-mail scandal is like one of those internet ads that follows you to every site you go to... she can't get rid of it and it's clearly hurting her campaign. The latest poll in New Hampshire has Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) up 49% to 38% for Clinton.
The way in which Sec. Clinton will either subdue the e-mail conversation or not is during a prime-time debate where she answers all questions. With that said, we don't think Clinton is as vulnerable as her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump. Never mind that Mr. Trump didn't know who the Quds forces in Iran were, that's not why he won't get the nomination. (By the way, Mr. Hewlitt's question to Mr. Trump was not a 'gotcha' question. It was simply a question Mr. Trump didn't know the answer to. If Mr. Trump would have said that he was not overly familiar with the Qud, that would have been an acceptable answer.) He will not get the nomination because ultimately the RNC doesn't see a way in which he can win in the general. But who steps up?
As Doris Kearns-Goodwin pointed out, Jeb Bush has had to step up, and fight. It wasn't the primary race that he envisioned but he has to do it. Gov. Bush is at six and eight percent respectively is Iowa and New Hampshire polls, trailing both Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump. The latter is consistently attacking him and his family's policies, to which he must respond. We give Jeb some credit for mixing it up because none of the other candidates seem to be able to.
However, all that stuff we talked about in this column before mentioning presidential politics, the Bush name carries a lot of weigh and baggage with it. And now that's Jeb's problem.
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, radio host and conservative commentator; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Kimberly Davis... the Rowan County Clerk in Kentucky who wouldn't issue the marriage licenses...
She got what she deserved, and the jail time is more appropriate than issuing a fine. She swore an oath to uphold the law and she didn't perform that duty so she is to be held in contempt. Her religious views and beliefs are her own and that those of the state or the nation.
Here's the first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
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.
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. -
See more at:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.xI3kcp8X.dpuf
You can debate all you want, but the first two phrases clearly state that religion should play not part in the making of a law and that people's freedom to practice any religion will not be impeded. However, syntactically there's a reason it's written that way. The law comes first.
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
8.30.15: A Worthy Week of "Meet The Press"/ Our Take On Gov. Scott Walker
We'll comment quickly here at the top that we seriously doubt anyone from "Meet The Press" actually reads this blog, but either someone really did listen to us or the scheduling gods are just placating us because this week's program was in much finer form. In addition to an interview of one of the more intriguing candidates in the Republican field, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), the program covered New Orleans 10 years after Katrina and just as important, ISIS and U.S. strategy to fight them. All three main topics provided insight and perspective which is why one should be tuning into "Meet The Press" in the first place.
With that...
Setting aside Gov. Walker's utterly stupid statement that there should be a wall on the Canadian border, there were topics that really caught our attention. [A wall on the Canadian border, really? That would include increased security, and how would the good people of Wisconsin and Minnesota living on the border get their prescription drugs conveniently and cheaply if they can't cross the border easily?] It was Gov. Walker's answers with regard to the new arena deal he made for the Bucks and he comments on the deal with Iran that provided the insight.
He said that one of the reasons the new arena will be publicly funded is because the pro athletes on the Milwaukee Bucks payment $6 million a year in taxes for the state implying that that was money the state couldn't afford to lose. Hmmm... The arena is going to cost $250 million, so if you do some quick math it would take that yearly tax revenue about 42 years to break even on the arena. And when he was being asked the question he gave that politician, forced smile - the one where he knew the question was going to hurt, that he didn't want to answer it at all. With the 'Canada' answer and this logic on the public funding, one has to wonder what in the world is Gov. Walker thinking, or is he thinking at all when answering these questions? This brings us to the Iran deal where he said he'd tear up on his first day in office. The Iranian nuclear deal will be well in place by the time the next president takes office so what he's saying is that he would break the terms of the deal, essentially reneging on it which will cause a great fracture with our allies' allegiances when we start talking tough with military threats - it's a de facto green light for Iran to resume its nuclear program.
Or there's the more reasonable explanation that Gov. Walker is simply feeding 'red meat' to his Republican base attempting to score political points knowing full well that once this deal is in place, it has to go forward, while the United States has keep up the intensity of those inspections. Another promise that he would not be able to keep without eventually going to war with Iran.
Either way, Gov. Walker seems at worst, a poor performing 'yes' man, but certainly... ultimately... He's a follower.
We are self-aware enough to realize that that is quite a harsh take down of Gov. Walker's candidacy, but if he really wants to win, he has to stand firm on his answers and in doing so they first have to be thought out carefully. The better student example is Marco Rubio who understands this dynamic thoroughly and has it down.
Even on Islamic terrorism, Gov. Walker's comments seemed canned, political and without serious depth. In the fight against ISIS, Gov. Walker explained that 'political' restrictions have to be lifted on the 3,000 U.S. troops that are in country and they need to be free to go out in the field to provide coordinates for air strike targets. Describing the decision to move those troops into a forward area where armed confrontation with ISIS would be inevitable as political doesn't seem to take into account the value of U.S. assets, namely our soldiers. Put the troops in a forward area and run the risk of one of them getting caught, ending up in an orange jumpsuit on Arabic TV. Again, Mr. Walker needs to choose his words more carefully; he's running to become the commander in chief. Even given what The New York Times Helene Cooper said about her experience on an aircraft carrier where planes were returning from missions without dropping any munitions due to lack of targets. To that we say, so be it. But dipping your toe into a battle with ISIS with only 3,000 troops is a potential disaster.
And speaking of ISIS, the program provided perspective in understanding that the ISIS 'brand' (We have a distaste for that description, but what can you do?) and ideology is spreading globally more quickly than Al Qaeda ever could. That may be so but cutting off the head - the caliphate in Iraq and Syria - would go a long way in stifling that growth. While the U.S. has to stay vigilant for its own protection, it is ultimately for the Muslim governments to act together to eliminate ISIS. It will happen but unfortunately the tipping point will not come until ISIS overreaches and attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon or Turkey in Ankara or something of that nature. As the man in Richard Engel's report explained, he left ISIS because they kill too many Muslims.
At this point, if anyone thinks the neoconservatives were right on Iraq and your name isn't Cheney, Bolton or Kristol, that individual shouldn't be running for president. Mr. Bush? Mr. Graham? Mr. Walker?
And while we're mentioning presidential candidates, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) is disqualified. If we haven't stated that already, we're making it official here. The poverty rate in New Orleans is 27%, Louisiana is 18.5%, both over the national average of 14 percent. The state ranks 49th in a list of 51, the second poorest, finishing only ahead of Mississippi. Our source - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate - so take it for what you will, but do you want to vote for the governor who presides over the second poorest state? Melissa Harris-Perry made a significant point. The governor dissolved the teachers union in New Orleans and two things are happening. One, despite Malcolm Gladwell's opinion on the size of the sample, New Orleans schools are performing poorer post-Katrina when the union was in place. And two, unions ensured a good wage for New Orleans teachers, predominantly African-American. So by getting rid of the union, people are making less money and the students' education isn't as good. We're not saying that unions are perfect, by no means, but they can be a very positive force for working people.
Today's program measured up to the standard.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times, Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist; Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC
A few more things...
Steve Schmidt was priceless during the program. The visible contempt that he has for the incompetent Republican presidential field and the Republican-led Congress was on full display. Mr. Schmidt explained that the Republican electorate has "complete contempt for Republican politicians in Washington." Speaking the truth right there.
Mr. Schmidt, sadly (our word), used the term 'intractable' when discussing the NRA hold on the Republican party, and many Democrats as well. Once again, you could empathize with his disgust as we keep racking up mass shootings in this country, the latest killing a reporter and her camera man on live television. Where does it end?
With that...
Setting aside Gov. Walker's utterly stupid statement that there should be a wall on the Canadian border, there were topics that really caught our attention. [A wall on the Canadian border, really? That would include increased security, and how would the good people of Wisconsin and Minnesota living on the border get their prescription drugs conveniently and cheaply if they can't cross the border easily?] It was Gov. Walker's answers with regard to the new arena deal he made for the Bucks and he comments on the deal with Iran that provided the insight.
He said that one of the reasons the new arena will be publicly funded is because the pro athletes on the Milwaukee Bucks payment $6 million a year in taxes for the state implying that that was money the state couldn't afford to lose. Hmmm... The arena is going to cost $250 million, so if you do some quick math it would take that yearly tax revenue about 42 years to break even on the arena. And when he was being asked the question he gave that politician, forced smile - the one where he knew the question was going to hurt, that he didn't want to answer it at all. With the 'Canada' answer and this logic on the public funding, one has to wonder what in the world is Gov. Walker thinking, or is he thinking at all when answering these questions? This brings us to the Iran deal where he said he'd tear up on his first day in office. The Iranian nuclear deal will be well in place by the time the next president takes office so what he's saying is that he would break the terms of the deal, essentially reneging on it which will cause a great fracture with our allies' allegiances when we start talking tough with military threats - it's a de facto green light for Iran to resume its nuclear program.
Or there's the more reasonable explanation that Gov. Walker is simply feeding 'red meat' to his Republican base attempting to score political points knowing full well that once this deal is in place, it has to go forward, while the United States has keep up the intensity of those inspections. Another promise that he would not be able to keep without eventually going to war with Iran.
Either way, Gov. Walker seems at worst, a poor performing 'yes' man, but certainly... ultimately... He's a follower.
We are self-aware enough to realize that that is quite a harsh take down of Gov. Walker's candidacy, but if he really wants to win, he has to stand firm on his answers and in doing so they first have to be thought out carefully. The better student example is Marco Rubio who understands this dynamic thoroughly and has it down.
Even on Islamic terrorism, Gov. Walker's comments seemed canned, political and without serious depth. In the fight against ISIS, Gov. Walker explained that 'political' restrictions have to be lifted on the 3,000 U.S. troops that are in country and they need to be free to go out in the field to provide coordinates for air strike targets. Describing the decision to move those troops into a forward area where armed confrontation with ISIS would be inevitable as political doesn't seem to take into account the value of U.S. assets, namely our soldiers. Put the troops in a forward area and run the risk of one of them getting caught, ending up in an orange jumpsuit on Arabic TV. Again, Mr. Walker needs to choose his words more carefully; he's running to become the commander in chief. Even given what The New York Times Helene Cooper said about her experience on an aircraft carrier where planes were returning from missions without dropping any munitions due to lack of targets. To that we say, so be it. But dipping your toe into a battle with ISIS with only 3,000 troops is a potential disaster.
And speaking of ISIS, the program provided perspective in understanding that the ISIS 'brand' (We have a distaste for that description, but what can you do?) and ideology is spreading globally more quickly than Al Qaeda ever could. That may be so but cutting off the head - the caliphate in Iraq and Syria - would go a long way in stifling that growth. While the U.S. has to stay vigilant for its own protection, it is ultimately for the Muslim governments to act together to eliminate ISIS. It will happen but unfortunately the tipping point will not come until ISIS overreaches and attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon or Turkey in Ankara or something of that nature. As the man in Richard Engel's report explained, he left ISIS because they kill too many Muslims.
At this point, if anyone thinks the neoconservatives were right on Iraq and your name isn't Cheney, Bolton or Kristol, that individual shouldn't be running for president. Mr. Bush? Mr. Graham? Mr. Walker?
And while we're mentioning presidential candidates, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) is disqualified. If we haven't stated that already, we're making it official here. The poverty rate in New Orleans is 27%, Louisiana is 18.5%, both over the national average of 14 percent. The state ranks 49th in a list of 51, the second poorest, finishing only ahead of Mississippi. Our source - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate - so take it for what you will, but do you want to vote for the governor who presides over the second poorest state? Melissa Harris-Perry made a significant point. The governor dissolved the teachers union in New Orleans and two things are happening. One, despite Malcolm Gladwell's opinion on the size of the sample, New Orleans schools are performing poorer post-Katrina when the union was in place. And two, unions ensured a good wage for New Orleans teachers, predominantly African-American. So by getting rid of the union, people are making less money and the students' education isn't as good. We're not saying that unions are perfect, by no means, but they can be a very positive force for working people.
Today's program measured up to the standard.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times, Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist; Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC
A few more things...
Steve Schmidt was priceless during the program. The visible contempt that he has for the incompetent Republican presidential field and the Republican-led Congress was on full display. Mr. Schmidt explained that the Republican electorate has "complete contempt for Republican politicians in Washington." Speaking the truth right there.
Mr. Schmidt, sadly (our word), used the term 'intractable' when discussing the NRA hold on the Republican party, and many Democrats as well. Once again, you could empathize with his disgust as we keep racking up mass shootings in this country, the latest killing a reporter and her camera man on live television. Where does it end?
Sunday, August 23, 2015
8.23.15: No Substance on Today's "Meet The Press"
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)