11.18.15: Syrian Refugees - What Not To Do

This blog originates from New York City and we've been here long enough to have experienced what it was like to live here on that tragic September day a little over 14 years ago. The reason we mention this is because today there were rumors going around about not riding the subways and something could be going on in New York, which the police later verified as false. The first thing we did when we left our day job (shocker: we don't blog full-time), it was right to the subway. Because we refuse to live in fear and we're not going to alter our routines because of futile, hateful threats. Not going to happen. Maybe this is just us wearing the New York City badge on our collective sleeve, but that should not be how it goes in the United States.

So what does all that have to do with Syrian refugees?

It strikes us an odd that the same people who would be willing to send our soldiers back to the Middle East as a show of strength are afraid to take in Syrian refugees.  These people would send our troops back to a hotter zone where they're essentially a target for not just ISIS but Hezbollah, the Iranians, Al Qaeda among others. Yet, they are scared of carefully vetting refugees from Syria. And the ones who say that they don't trust this Administration to conduct the vetting process is simply trying to score dirty, cheap political points. If Congress insists that these refugees need to be screened more thoroughly, then so be it. We encourage it, but know it will still be the same people in the FBI doing the vetting no matter who's in the White House. And do you think that if they determine any one to be even slightly suspicious that person would be getting in? Please.

The governors, who really have no control over this, refusing to take in refugees are acting cowardly, frankly. They are living in fear and pessimism, and they're making you think that way as well. Where's the America that says, "You know what? We'll take them in and help them live their dreams here in The States until we defeat the nightmare that is you." Pardon the phrase, but these governors need to man-up.

If you've shown any support or sympathy for the people of France in the past few days (We all have.) then read this:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,

I life my lamp beside the golden door.

                                                                                                     -Emma Lazarus

Of course, that's the inscription on the statue of the big beautiful lady majestically standing in Upper New York Bay, but remember - it was a gift from the French.

11.15.15: Paris Changes Everything

The worst attack on Paris since WWII. Everything has changed, and it is going to get invariably worse before it can get better. The French president, Francois Hollande, declared the attack an act of war.

129 dead.
352 wounded.

We've always said that President Obama's weakness as president has been on foreign policy, and have been a little forgiving at times. We agree with the administration's initiatives in the Iranian nuclear deal, but putting that aside for now, his policy with regard to Syria and ISIS has been a disaster. Tell the French people that ISIS has been contained; that they are diminished.

On today's 'special edition' of "Meet The Press," NBC's Richard Engel outlined ISIS's plan very simply: First, establish territory control in Iraq and Syria then establish a presence in other countries. From there, the next expansion is to attack the west followed lastly by targeting the United States. The president's administration has failed to act adequately, for this there is little doubt. As national security expert Michael Leiter said, the president's policy has been "insufficiently robust."

Two key things are missing from the entire discussion of the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS: One, a coherent U.S. strategy for the region - combating ISIS, which should now be easier to put together if France invokes the NATO charter, which wouldn't be a bad idea. The second and more infuriating aspect is the absence of the richest Arab countries [read: Saudi Arabia] taking a strong stance against ISIS. How is ISIS at this point still flush with cash from black market oil sales? There is great appreciation for moderate Muslim clerics and dignitaries to condemn the attacks, but without a country such as Saudi Arabia lending actionable support, the condemnations then carry little weight.

However, as Andrea Mitchell correctly assessed, you can not have NATO and Russia fighting the same war at the same time, and that's what makes Jeb Bush's suggestion that there should be a no-fly zone so difficult. It sounds good, but it's not realistic as Russia is not going to shutdown their sortie missions.

Speaking of Jeb Bush, when Chuck Todd ask him about all his brother's military advisers (e.g. Paul Wolfowitz) who were the architects of the disastrous Iraq War that started all this on his team, he said that the times and conditions have changed significantly since 2001. That's true but here's the problem with that answer: The group of people that Gov. Bush has assembled for such situations operates with an agenda that would try to exploit the situation. They have never changed their thinking so while Gov. Bush said we need to focus on the future, the past history for some of these individuals isn't (shouldn't) be kind. For Mr. Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, the idea of going into Iraq was eventually to control the oil - a cynical agenda. In other simpler words, they can't be trusted. To be fair, at least Gov. Bush has a reasoned opinion and strategy points as opposed to Dr. Carson who said we have to make ISIS feel like losers.  But just know that Gov. Bush's foreign policy will cast shadows akin to Vice President Dick Cheney's. If that's something you're in favor of then Jeb Bush is the most rational actor of the lot.

The Iraq War, as the neocons hoped for, also created the conditions where the U.S. military would have to have a large presence in Iraq for decades, on the scale of South Korea where we've been for over 60 years. But an American public that felt duped had no appetite for such a long-term military expansion, especially in a region as volatile as the Middle East. This gave President Obama the political will coming from public opinion to remove troops from Iraq. Should those troops been removed so quickly as Republicans argue against the president? That was not the problem as much as the administration not staying heavily engaged with Iraqi politicians, putting pressure on Nouri al-Maliki much earlier.

As you can see, it's easy to get bogged down in the minutiae discussing the complicated conflicts in the Middle East, but the bottom line is that the United States now needs to act more assertively and decisively in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, standing with France, its oldest ally (as President Obama stated).  Supporting the people of France is an honor that the United States should never forfeit.

The political effect here in the United States should be that everyone's attention should be snapped into focus for this presidential campaign because surely the next president is going to have to have a strategy for combating ISIS and a workable proposal to end the Syrian civil war. For the Democrats, it's obvious especially given the clip of the focus group that Hillary Clinton is the consensus choice to lead on foreign policy and she will be more hawkish than President Obama. In the debate last night, however, she did tack to the left in abdicating U.S. leadership role in the fight, saying it was not ours. Surely, it is a moment she wish she could take back because she knows that to defeat ISIS, the United States has to lead. Russia isn't going to do it because Putin's primary agenda is to keep Assad in power.

For the other side, are the Republican front runners, Donald Trump and Ben Carson, up to the task of leading the nation through these perilous conflicts? When Chuck Todd asked Jeb Bush, he said that this is why we have elections. But clearly conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin and Jeff Greenfield simply wanted him to answer with a resounding 'no,' as he should have. As Ms. Rubin said, Gov. Bush needs to call these people out. As you're aware, we're on the record saying that Ben Carson would be downright dangerous for this country in how much his inexperience would jeopardize our national security. And don't be mad at us for saying it, but that's nothing compared what Donald Trump has been saying these past few days, calling the man pathologically diseased among other things, clearly going off the rails in his rhetoric. So before Donald Trump completely denigrates every other candidate in the race, Republicans need to decide who can rationally step up to the task because right now the only vote they're all qualified to get is 'no confidence.'


Panel: Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico contributor.

11.8.15: We Want It in Writing... With a Signature

One of our pet peeves is when people, especially in the press, use the phrase, "the devil is in the details." Our contention is that, "No! the devil is NOT in the details, the information is in details." (However, if you're Carly Fiorina, it's a case of the lack thereof.)

And within the details of what Dr. Carson said in response to what he has written, the retired neurosurgeon said that he had better things to do beside being president. We'll be honest in saying that it upset us throughout the program until Marc Caputo from Politico recognized this statement toward the end of the program. Hugh Hewlitt was spot on to say that, "You have to want it," and that the martyr thing doesn't fly (our words).

We agree with Bernie Sanders that these personal embellishments (if that's what they actually are) Dr. Carson is making don't really matter that much. The squabbling between Ms. Maddow and Mr. Hewlitt over the West Point scholarship offers was superfluous. But the fact that he doesn't believe that human activity plays a role in climate change and that is naive thinking. He wants to do away with Medicare, he has said. So yes, in that respect Dr. Carson is, as he stated, a threat to the secular progressive 'movement,' as if that is some evil organization that should be feared. He also said the 'personal' attacks on him go beyond anything seen by other candidates, even beyond the attacks about President Obama's birth certificate, which is simply ridiculous. But what does he expect? He has no record of voting, of taking positions, and is running on his biography so the press will ask him about it.

Speaking of asking questions, we like PBS's Gwen Ifil like the forum-type format for engaging with the candidates, but what could have been truly insightful became an infomercial for the Democratic candidates. And for the Republican side, the 'offense' that the candidates take at a question that contends with something they've said, like a 10 percent tax on everyone not adding up in terms of not exploding the deficit, candidates become 'offended.' Give us a break, this isn't a game show and we're not low-information voters hence requiring detailed information, taking nothing on faith which is how Dr. Carson would prefer us to take it.

And speaking of detailed plans, Ms. Fiorina has a lot of nerve in saying that she's not going to put any of her positions down on paper, that the written word is no more important than what she says. Sound bites are not the equivalent of a well thought out, detailed written plan.

Also, it's a matter of sourcing. The press could transcribe what she says as Rachel Maddow suggested but that leaves room for bucking responsibility for what you say. Anything less than a detailed written statement on a position is simply not serious and reflects disqualifying silly political games. Ms. Fiorina, Americans want it in writing... with your name signed to it.

****

We agree with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that the United States needs to have a joint strategy with Russia to combat ISIS, or ISIL as she referred to it, but how that would play out just makes the imagination run wild. And you can believe that it when Senator Feinstein says that there is a "strong probably" that it was indeed a bomb that downed that Russian passenger jet in Egypt. If the Islamic State is in fact as described, a state, then they have committed an act of war against Russia.

The FBI is on the ground investigating and if they conclude the cause to be a bomb then Russia will have a big choice to make, and unfortunately as you can deduce from the Senator's statements that we'll be a big factor in that decision. If the U.S. and Russia were to have a joint strategy, maybe it plays out that the two nations work cooperatively; creating two fronts in which to combat ISIL; meeting in the middle in defeating them; splitting up influence in the region; eventually setting up fierce competition for power and influence in a vital region in the world.

Haven't we already lived that history? Or is our imagination just running wild?


Panel: Gwen Ifil, PBS News Hour; Rachel Maddow, MSNBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Marc Caputo, Politico (Florida desk)


One more thing...

We owe a couple columns/opinions. We're on it, and thanks for reading!

10.25.15: Common Sense and the Lack Thereof

In defense of his inexperience, presidential candidate Ben Carson said that common sense (which he implies that he possesses) is more important than the collective political experience of the other candidates in the race, but in interviews Dr. Carson doesn't demonstrate that he has any of the common sense he's referring to.

And speaking of 'making no sense,' the Benghazi hearing need to end. Wrap it up... now.

After watching just a few hours (we have working lives that interfere with watching 11 hours of pointless testimony) of the hearings, it's clearly evident that the Republicans controlling the committee are just out to capture of soundbite from Secretary Clinton that they can use as indictable 'evidence' in the court of public opinion to damage her candidacy for president. At this juncture, these hearings are pointless, senseless, a waste of money and time.

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who heads the committee said that it concerns him that Secretary Clinton testified that she takes responsibility for what happened, but never really answered the question of what went wrong for which she takes responsibility. With all due respect to Congressman Gowdy, he had 11 hours to ask these questions and get that answer. If he's still asking the question at the point, then he hasn't done his job as committee chair. He said that he still didn't know what errors were made and who made them. That's on him and his committee!  Chuck Todd ask Mr. Gowdy why the committee didn't ask the secretary about Libya policy in general, and the reason is because Republicans are interested in that.  When will Republicans give up the pettiness and stop embarrassing themselves.

Which brings us back to Dr. Carson who must stop with comparing everything to Nazism and Slavery. First, it trivializes both and second, most importantly, the comparisons are offensive because his logic (his common sense) is so off-base that it disqualifies him to be president. If the Jews in Germany were armed, they would have stopped the Nazis from committing the Holocaust is one of Dr. Carson's statements, to which he said that Jewish leads said he was 'spot on.' No, not all. The Polish, French and Russian armies were armed and didn't fare so well.

Obamacare is the worst thing the U.S. government has done to its people since slavery is another one of Dr. Carson's gems. Never mind that he forgets about Native American genocide, Japanese internment camps, Jim Crow laws. Just because Dr. Carson is soft spoken doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about because he clearly doesn't.

And what consideration does he show to women and their well-being when he says that they should not be allowed to obtain an abortion because of rape or incest? It's a complete disregard for women's health, specifically their mental health (if not for anything else). And doesn't this disregard constitute a breach of his hippocratic oath as a doctor?

Yet, mental health consideration should be a determination when purchasing a gun according the Dr. Carson whose interpretation of the Second Amendment as he outlined today is incorrect. He said that the second amendment assures that people have the right to the same guns as its government so that tyranny by said government could never occur. His is a dangerous reading because it discounts a critical word in the amendment, which is 'regulated.'

The Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Panel: Doris Kearns-Godwin, Presidential Historian; John Harwood, CNBC; Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Stephen Henderson, Detroit Free Press


A few more things...
Though we didn't quote the panel at all this week, we did notice the slight change in format for the program, stacking into the second half of the program - all sitting at a table. This pretty much reverts back to the format of one when Tim Russert was moderator. Much better use of the panel for sure.

And then there is Mitt Romney who even when he gets it right, he gets it wrong (the fatal flaw of his candidacy as John Harwood pointed out). Mitt Romney walked back a comment he wrote about Romneycare, which was followed by Obamacare making the inference that both in the end were good ideas. Mr. Romney is still unable to truly speak his mind so we'll take the gross liberty of doing it for him.  Yes, they were both good ideas.

And lastly, repealing Roe v. Wade is a non-starter for this column. We do not advocate for women to have abortions and we wish that they were only few and rare, including in cases of rape and incest unlike what Dr. Carson appalling said today. However, that decision ensures that and assures all women in the United States that they have complete control over their own bodies not to be dictated to by any government entity. In other words, freedom to decide. Personal freedom is important to all conservatives (emphasized because this group speaks loudest about the concept) and all Americans so to be true to that ideal then it has to be defended on all fronts.

10.4.15: Is Government Abdicating Its Responsibility on Guns?

Another mass-shooting in America - this time in Roseburg, Oregon at the Umpqua Community College, the 294th according the mass-shooting tracking data. What can we possibly say that hasn't already been said? This is an American failure, without question. How can one not say that we as a society have failed by endangering itself by not regulating deadly weapons. Some of the observations from today's panelists and the political soundbites stuck with us as key insights into the problem, the politics and the lack of a solution.

The National Review's Rick Lowry outlined the problem succinctly when he explained that doing things around the margins of the gun laws aren't enough the stem the problem or gun violence and anything beyond that infringes on people's individual gun rights under the constitution. Mark Leibovich of The New York Times noted that President Obama in his statement in reaction to the shooting accurately predicted everything that Republicans would say and how the media would cover it, and he really did.

Republican presidential candidates' statements ranged from Jeb Bush's lackluster "stuff happens" to Ben Carson and Marco Rubio saying that more gun laws don't protect us from the crazies and John Kasich said that gun control laws aren't a good idea because it takes guns away from law abiding citizens, which is conflating the problem with confiscation and that is not what should be done.

With all that laid out, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post was correct in saying that for the government not to do anything is an abdication of its responsibilities, and those responsibilities do not include confiscation, to be clear.  However, the car-gun comparison does make you do more than just scratch your head. You have to get a license to drive (all 50 states), you have to have insurance (all 50 states), register the car (all 50 states) and in some states have it inspected yearly. You can draw your own conclusion as to whether having a license to own a gun infringes on your rights to have one.  You can own a car and not have a license or insurance, but it's then unlawful to use it without those things.

And for Donald Trump's comments about Chicago having the strictest gun laws yet gun violence is out of control is to not understand the comprehensiveness of the problem. The only way to solve this comprehensive problem is to act nationally, through Congress, because leaving the problem to the individual states won't solve it. Debate away on that one. Another notion to chew one would be the result of any stronger gun laws would essentially slow the amount of guns being purchased, not limit the amount, but slow the pace of the number in society. The NRA can never go for that.

Using Mr. Trump as a pivot point in the conversation, we are leery of his statements on Syria in as much as he thinks its a good idea that Vladimir Putin has brought Russia into the conflict unmistakably on the side of Assad.  Fmr. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul explained that Putin is in Syria because he's been supporting Assad all along but now weapons and money are not enough and Russia has to become directly involved in the conflict. Putin is "doubling down," Amb. McFaul said.  And in that 'doubling down' Mr. Putin will certainly would mind having some proxy wins against its adversary the United States, like this week's bombing of rebel bases backed by the CIA. It's less likely that Mr. Putin will get bogged down in Syria as Mr. Trump described and more likely that in the midst of a practical power vacuum in the country, Mr. Putin sees the opportunity for a strategic foothold in the region, with an assistant from Iran.  Not to mention that it shows such a cynical and callous view of life and suffering for Mr. Trump to say that things are better with Assad, Gaddafi, and Hussein still in power.

However, even though Mr. Trump is ahead in the polls (the only thing that matters to him), he really has no interest in overthinking these things. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be when deciding your vote.


Panel: Mark Leibovich, The New York Times; Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Amy Holmes, Anchor on The Blaze Network; Rich Lowry, The National Review

One More Thing...
Mixed Emotions... about there being an hour-long "MTP Daily" program on MSNBC. It's completely understandable that NBC wants Mr. Todd on the air more. His strength as a good, fair questioner is paying dividends that David Gregory couldn't deliver which was to have political guests from both parties come to the table.  We also understand that Meet The Press is now Mr. Todd's brand and the two are hand in hand. We get it.

We not sure if it diminishes "Meet The Press" as the institution that it is or not, but here's the thing. Institutions, attitudes, and laws have to change with the times and we live in a different age where seeing you for an hour a week will lead to success, you 'gotta get it out there more,' as it were.  The formats are different in that the daily is typical cable news/talk format that differs from the Sunday edition, but even so it would be great to differentiate the Sunday a bit more - a portion of the program that is truly meeting the press.  Otherwise, more "Meet The Press?" Why not?!

(Whether we'll be commenting on it all remains to be seen, but it is giving us a reason to pause and think about our format as well.)

P.S. We'll be off for the next two weeks.

9.20.15: Respect and Compromise, the Next Political Trend?

Once again, this time through an interview lightning round of Republican presidential candidates, you see that John Kasich is one of them that the Democrats should be most worried about because he's the type that can draw Independents and conservative Democrats who don't like all of President Obama's policies. Unless the Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders, their candidate is going to be an extend of President Obama's presidency.

 John Kasich's personal politics are pretty conservative but as a public figure, he's a centrist Republican equidistant on the opposite side of the middle axis as Hillary Clinton is a centrist Democrat. It's a rare breed these days to hear a Republican, especially one running for president, say that we have to 'respect the basic institutions.' Mr. Kasich seems to recognize that there is another political party present in the United States and that they have a say in how things work.

Contrast with the other two candidates interviewed today - Donald Trump and Ben Carson.  First off, the more we listen to Donald Trump the more quickly you get bored because he really doesn't say anything. He simply talks about the polls, what other people are saying about him, who he likes and doesn't like and the polls, again.  However, in his defense of his not refuting a questioners claim during a rally that the president is a Muslim and that we have a 'Muslim' problem here in this country, Mr. Trump said that it wasn't his obligation to correct him.  No, it is Mr. Trump's responsibility to correct him. Exactly what John Kasich was talking about in as much as Mr. Trump doesn't respect the office of the presidency.

As far as Ben Carson is concerned, his view that a Muslim should not be able to hold the office of President of the United States disqualifies him from holding the office himself because as Hugh Hewlitt described, he is putting a religious litmus test for holding the office which is unacceptable. It's safe to say that Dr. Carson would apply that very same test in hiring administration staff and that's against the law.  You see where we're going with this.

Conversely, Dr. Carson did have the most coherent ISIS policy, from a Republican perspective that is, that we've heard. We don't agree with ground forces, but he said that he would use ground troops to push ISIS out of Iraq and into Syria and then let them fight it out with Asaad, then clean up the mess from there. Politically there's a problem with sending troops back into Iraq. If that were to happen it would be it seem like Republicans want more war while the Democrats do not, and at this point the American people are weary of war.

How all of this stacks up against Hillary Clinton and her campaign woes, right now we agree with Maria Shriver that we need to take a step back. Think about it this way, the panel discussion focused on Mrs. Clinton not having the charisma of Bill, likability, etc. What they weren't focusing on was the handling of e-mails.  What Mrs. Clinton's apology did was subdue the press attacks a bit. This gives her the opportunity to move beyond it and perhaps change some of those opinions. Whether you like Mrs. Clinton or not, she is, by experience, the most qualified of all candidates. And for what it's worth, having Bernie Sanders in the race is key for Mrs. Clinton because it will pull her a little left [read: populace] on some issues, you're already seeing.

Lastly, and this is weird for us to say, but our initial reaction to the interview with Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase, is that we didn't have a problem with anything he said. The banks are going to do what they are going to do in terms of trading and creating financial products to sell that no one understands. It's up to government to properly regulate and see that they don't break the law - hold them responsible... And to have a contingency plan.  This is just our practical nature as to how we see it. Let's be honest, when the banks are booming and you have an IRA or 401(k), you're feeling pretty good.  And we appreciated his honesty about his bank getting involved with Detroit.  Mr. Dimon has that he was thinking that it's good for the bottom line of the bank, but at the same time, he sees a problem where the bank can help. That's the trade-off, the compromise. And speaking of that, Republicans should listen to his advice that 'my way or the highway' isn't thinking about America and a shutdown is bad management.  All makes sense, right?

And last of the lastlies, the shutdown over planned parenthood, exacerbated by Ms. Fiorina's graphic abortion description during the debate, is counter-productive at the least. Instead of working through each sides' concerns and issues, it says we don't want to work at all.  And make no mistake that Republicans will take the blame and rightly so.

America is so tired of tone-deaf ideological stance where no compromise is possible. The voices of mutual respect are starting to speak up. Hopefully, the momentum will build.


Panel: Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Hugh Hewlitt, Radio Host; Maria Shrvier, NBC; David Maraniss, The Washington Post

A few more things...

First, on the cusp of Pope Francis' visit to the United States, one quick take that we have is that the pope speaking about income inequality and climate change and current issues because he recognizes that in order to lead a billion people, you have to be in touch with what they are talking about and what there concerns are. He wants to make the Church relevant and he knows that if he can do that, the residual effect is more people in the pews.

And then...the best for last (we told you so).

Scott Walker better give the money to the Milwaukee Bucks to build a new arena because one thing is for sure, he's got no game. Ouch!

9.13.15: Blaming President Obama and Unrealistic Expectations

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.

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.

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.

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?