Here's a change we've noticed over the years, the holiday season gets shorter and shorter in people's minds, just more things on the long list the need to be checked off, (despite the marketing) and the New Year's holiday can not be over soon enough. In other words, let's just get on with it.
This week's "Meet The Press" is certainly getting on with it moving head on into anger and presidential politics. Discussing the the presidential candidates (Mr. Trump aside) definitely causes one to become anger, the candidates spur more anger out on the campaign trail and poor administration (presidential) policies over the last 15 years have made Americans angry. Yes, you could say that a lot of it going around, and it's all going to come to a head during this presidential campaign cycle.
But here's the rub... in the long run, anger is a loser, especially in presidential politics, and that's why no matter what happens in the primaries, Donald Trump will not win the presidency because in the end it comes down to having a hopeful message, from which all Americans can take a little something, and he doesn't have it.
Conversely, two of the Republican candidates that have a positive message were on today's program - Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Do we agree with everything they had to say, no of course not, but could we take away something that we liked, yes. Gov. Kasich used the phrase 'real solutions to real problems' meaning that the governor understands that while he has his conservative principles, he also understands that there are many who do not share his politics - that there's another political party out there. At least that's how we read it.
Senator Paul explained that he didn't think Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) had the proper personality to be president because Mr. Cruz's willingness to attack people's character on the floor of the Senate breaking with the rules and decorum of the upper chamber. When asked why he hasn't been on the campaign trail for two weeks, refreshingly he said that he had spent time with family, did pro bono [eye] surgery and was in Washington doing his job as Senate adding that that is what his constituents pay him to do - taking a clear shot at Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).
Speaking of whom, Mr. Rubio seems neither angry nor passionate. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin described him as being 'too effortless' for his own good. He just doesn't put the time in despite his campaign's philosophy that deems it unnecessary to pound the pavement in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's actually this message riding the undercurrent right now that damages Mr. Rubio the most - that he just doesn't put the time in. Also, there is the perception that he's a Manchurian candidate of sorts - that his message really isn't his but the interests of other individuals that back him and is void of any vision of his own.
Yet, it seems that when the amount of candidates on the Republican side narrows, Senator Rubio will be one of the three or four still standing, and odds are that Mr. Kasich and Mr. Paul will be on the outside looking in.
As we've said before, the United States sometimes veers to the center-left and at other times to the center-right, but never too far to either flank. Right now, the mood is that people want to take the country back to the center-right away from President Obama's center-left but they just don't see the right (pardon the term) candidate that can take them there, which in and of itself also contributes fuel to the angry fire that is Donald Trump. Many of the top candidates are majorly flawed and Americans know it. With Mrs. Clinton, there's reservation because of the propensity of scandal; With Jeb Bush, there's the potential for foreign policy folly; Dr. Carson is a brilliant surgeon, but out of his depth; Bernie Sanders is weak on foreign policy and a 'socialist'; Rubio is fake and lazy; Cruz is a jerk (no one votes for one of those); Carly Fiorina tanked HP; Martin O'Malley was the mayor of Baltimore; and Chris Christie - cones.
All that's enough to make us really frustrated - certainly angry, but not Donald Trump kind of angry. His kind of angry is the right-wing radio sort of angry - you know, really good at saying what's wrong and who to blame, but never offering a solution. Americans are angry, but what they need, what they're looking for is a Happy Warrior.
Panel: Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Sara Fagen, CNBC; Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Chris Matthews, MSNBC
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Sunday, December 27, 2015
12.27.15: Donald Trump Has 'Schlonged' Us All in 2015
"Things can break late," The Washington Post's Michael Gerson said of the run up to the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary at the beginning of February, 2016. What's funny is that he was saying it as a veiled plea to Republicans to have a moment of clarity before the vote and defeat the Donald Trump candidacy. But it's true, any candidate can get 'schlonged' at any moment, even Mr. Trump. (Btw - yes, a crude, crass and cross Yiddish term that would not be welcomed in any Jewish household as Rep. Wasserman-Schultz explained so of course we used it in the title of this week's column. As for Mr. Trump's usage, so much for presidential discourse...) Mr. Gerson is hoping it's him...
And here's where it could happen. Caucusing in Iowa, in February. Despite the extreme weather event we're experiencing right now with this unseasonably, unreasonably warm weather, it will be a long cold day when Iowans gather to pick their candidate, and whether Donald Trump can rally that kind of determined support is yet to be seen. Our guess here is that Mr. Trump's campaign is better organized on the ground than it appears, but despite that Ted Cruz's campaign is even better and he'll be this election cycle's 'Rick Santorum' of the Iowa caucus and win it. This leaves New Hampshire where it's just you and your conscious at the ballot box and that might not work out well for Mr. Trump either. The point of all this speculation is that it illustrates that it has certainly been a tiring year of Trump, and the only thing for certain is that he's not going to go quietly in 2016.
To Yahoo News' Matt Bai goes credit for pointing out that the press has been the biggest enabler of the Donald Trump candidacy and his campaign's success. That isn't going to change until or if he is no longer the front runner so moving forward we would suggest looking for other sources for the claims that Mr. Trump and and all the candidates make. Case in point: A joint interview with fmr. Amb. to Russia Michael McFaul and fmr. Under-Secretary of State Wendy Sherman commenting on Mr. Trump's praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Amb. McFaul stated, Mr. Trump's admiration is 'wrong on so many levels,' but what he specifically pointed out is Mr. Trump making the false equivalency of what the United States does abroad as part of its foreign policy to what Mr. Putin does at home to his own citizens. But for Mr. Trump, he statements indicate that the ends are justified by the means and for him it's all about ratings. No matter how it's accomplished Mr. Putin has an 80 percent approval rating and that's all that counts in Mr. Trump's assessment.
On the more substantive matter, Mr. Putin is playing both sides in his support of the Assad regime and his bombing of ISIS as Amb. McFaul pointed out. He said that in a Russian bombing raid, a rebel leader supported by the United States was killed, as reported in The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebel-commander-reportedly-killed-in-russian-airstrike/2015/12/25/2db59b60-ab25-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html). However, in the article it describes this 'moderate' rebel leader as having made supportive statements of Al Qaeda, something that Mr. McFaul didn't point out. These are the type of contradictions that you would hope your president understands and considers when making decisions. As a voter, you would understand that Mr. Putin's statement endorsing Mr. Trump as a strong leader is not something you want to hear.
Pragmatic thinking should be the order for 2016 in your assessment of who should lead this country because the tasks at hand for the next president aren't going to get any less complicated, so cut to the conciseness of the candidates' answers.
Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) for example illustrates clearly where he stands on economic issues but when it comes to foreign policy he speaks in much more general terms of what he'd like to see happen. Andrea Mitchell, the only fill-in moderator that should be used when Mr. Todd is out, pressed him on his lack of foreign policy acumen and it was duly noted by the panel - a large part of being president is how you project the United States' image to the rest of the world. And as for Senator Sanders economic policy proposals, we agree that universal healthcare is something we should have like the rest of the developed world, but it's a matter of American practicality... It just isn't.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
One more thing...
Admittedly, we haven't seen Spike Lee's new film, "Chi-Raq," but the bottom line is that Mr. Lee is keeping the discussion of guns and gun violence top of mind and that we commend.
And here's where it could happen. Caucusing in Iowa, in February. Despite the extreme weather event we're experiencing right now with this unseasonably, unreasonably warm weather, it will be a long cold day when Iowans gather to pick their candidate, and whether Donald Trump can rally that kind of determined support is yet to be seen. Our guess here is that Mr. Trump's campaign is better organized on the ground than it appears, but despite that Ted Cruz's campaign is even better and he'll be this election cycle's 'Rick Santorum' of the Iowa caucus and win it. This leaves New Hampshire where it's just you and your conscious at the ballot box and that might not work out well for Mr. Trump either. The point of all this speculation is that it illustrates that it has certainly been a tiring year of Trump, and the only thing for certain is that he's not going to go quietly in 2016.
To Yahoo News' Matt Bai goes credit for pointing out that the press has been the biggest enabler of the Donald Trump candidacy and his campaign's success. That isn't going to change until or if he is no longer the front runner so moving forward we would suggest looking for other sources for the claims that Mr. Trump and and all the candidates make. Case in point: A joint interview with fmr. Amb. to Russia Michael McFaul and fmr. Under-Secretary of State Wendy Sherman commenting on Mr. Trump's praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As Amb. McFaul stated, Mr. Trump's admiration is 'wrong on so many levels,' but what he specifically pointed out is Mr. Trump making the false equivalency of what the United States does abroad as part of its foreign policy to what Mr. Putin does at home to his own citizens. But for Mr. Trump, he statements indicate that the ends are justified by the means and for him it's all about ratings. No matter how it's accomplished Mr. Putin has an 80 percent approval rating and that's all that counts in Mr. Trump's assessment.
On the more substantive matter, Mr. Putin is playing both sides in his support of the Assad regime and his bombing of ISIS as Amb. McFaul pointed out. He said that in a Russian bombing raid, a rebel leader supported by the United States was killed, as reported in The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebel-commander-reportedly-killed-in-russian-airstrike/2015/12/25/2db59b60-ab25-11e5-b596-113f59ee069a_story.html). However, in the article it describes this 'moderate' rebel leader as having made supportive statements of Al Qaeda, something that Mr. McFaul didn't point out. These are the type of contradictions that you would hope your president understands and considers when making decisions. As a voter, you would understand that Mr. Putin's statement endorsing Mr. Trump as a strong leader is not something you want to hear.
Pragmatic thinking should be the order for 2016 in your assessment of who should lead this country because the tasks at hand for the next president aren't going to get any less complicated, so cut to the conciseness of the candidates' answers.
Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) for example illustrates clearly where he stands on economic issues but when it comes to foreign policy he speaks in much more general terms of what he'd like to see happen. Andrea Mitchell, the only fill-in moderator that should be used when Mr. Todd is out, pressed him on his lack of foreign policy acumen and it was duly noted by the panel - a large part of being president is how you project the United States' image to the rest of the world. And as for Senator Sanders economic policy proposals, we agree that universal healthcare is something we should have like the rest of the developed world, but it's a matter of American practicality... It just isn't.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
One more thing...
Admittedly, we haven't seen Spike Lee's new film, "Chi-Raq," but the bottom line is that Mr. Lee is keeping the discussion of guns and gun violence top of mind and that we commend.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
12.20.15: Setting the Bar Differently for Republicans and Democrats
We've really recalibrated the bar to the lower side. Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton was a liar, weak and didn't have the stamina to be president, a veiled reference to the fact that it took her longer to use the bathroom than her male counterparts in last night's debate. He also said that Jeb Bush was a puppet of special interests and a disgrace to the Bush family.
And then conservative commentator Hugh Hewlitt said that he did a good job in the interview. This doesn't even consider the fact of how Trump went on about how he likes Putin and would get along with him. (If the people of eastern Europe - Poland, Lithuania Ukraine - are concerned about President Obama, you should be really worried about a potential Trump presidency.)
But Mr. Hewlitt seems simply blinded by his utter contempt and hatred of Hillary Clinton in his assessment of the Donald Trump interview because Mrs. Clinton during last night's debate declared that ISIS is using Mr. Trump's derogatory comments about Muslims as a recruiting tool, to which he liar label was applied to the former secretary. Even if it isn't true, it's an all too easy conclusion to come to, and today's round table seemed to agree that it would be trouble for her. This can only lead one to conclude that the bar is set at different heights for each party in terms of hyperbolic rhetoric.
The legitimate debate is how the candidates differ on how to approach ISIS and the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. As Mr. Todd pointed out to Mr. Trump, he and Senator Bernie Sanders agree that ISIS has to be dealt with first and then Assad whereas Mrs. Clinton feels that both must be addressed at the same time - regime change and the elimination of ISIS. Senator Sanders repeated this position in his interview segment later in the program. However, what Mr. Todd didn't explain in pointing out the similarity of Mr. Trump's and Senator Sanders' position is the two vastly different motivations for this agreement. Senator Sanders explained that ISIS should be the first priority and then, when they are eliminated, the United States should lead a diplomatic coalition to remove Mr. Assad from power through a democratic process. Conversely, Mr. Trump agrees more with Vladimir Putin that Assad should stay in power in perpetuity. Never mind the oppression of the people of Syria, it's favoring the strong man.
What today's program unknowingly pointed out is that with all this media drooling over the bombast, it's allowed new House Speaker Paul Ryan to fly under the radar a bit and actually get Congress to complete legislation that has required traditional compromise to pass. So there's a little consolation. Of course Speaker Ryan, while saying he has worked productively with President Obama on criminal justice reform and appropriations, has to then pivot and state that Mr. Obama has been the most polarizing president we've ever had. So much for good cheer.
Despite that, we want to wish all who read this column a very safe and happy holiday season.
Panel: Maggie Haberman, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian
And then conservative commentator Hugh Hewlitt said that he did a good job in the interview. This doesn't even consider the fact of how Trump went on about how he likes Putin and would get along with him. (If the people of eastern Europe - Poland, Lithuania Ukraine - are concerned about President Obama, you should be really worried about a potential Trump presidency.)
But Mr. Hewlitt seems simply blinded by his utter contempt and hatred of Hillary Clinton in his assessment of the Donald Trump interview because Mrs. Clinton during last night's debate declared that ISIS is using Mr. Trump's derogatory comments about Muslims as a recruiting tool, to which he liar label was applied to the former secretary. Even if it isn't true, it's an all too easy conclusion to come to, and today's round table seemed to agree that it would be trouble for her. This can only lead one to conclude that the bar is set at different heights for each party in terms of hyperbolic rhetoric.
The legitimate debate is how the candidates differ on how to approach ISIS and the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. As Mr. Todd pointed out to Mr. Trump, he and Senator Bernie Sanders agree that ISIS has to be dealt with first and then Assad whereas Mrs. Clinton feels that both must be addressed at the same time - regime change and the elimination of ISIS. Senator Sanders repeated this position in his interview segment later in the program. However, what Mr. Todd didn't explain in pointing out the similarity of Mr. Trump's and Senator Sanders' position is the two vastly different motivations for this agreement. Senator Sanders explained that ISIS should be the first priority and then, when they are eliminated, the United States should lead a diplomatic coalition to remove Mr. Assad from power through a democratic process. Conversely, Mr. Trump agrees more with Vladimir Putin that Assad should stay in power in perpetuity. Never mind the oppression of the people of Syria, it's favoring the strong man.
What today's program unknowingly pointed out is that with all this media drooling over the bombast, it's allowed new House Speaker Paul Ryan to fly under the radar a bit and actually get Congress to complete legislation that has required traditional compromise to pass. So there's a little consolation. Of course Speaker Ryan, while saying he has worked productively with President Obama on criminal justice reform and appropriations, has to then pivot and state that Mr. Obama has been the most polarizing president we've ever had. So much for good cheer.
Despite that, we want to wish all who read this column a very safe and happy holiday season.
Panel: Maggie Haberman, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian
Sunday, December 13, 2015
12.13.15: Hey Knucklehead! Marco Rubio and the Other Two Stooges
Don't you wish that it was just time for everyone to just shut up and start voting? Thankfully, that time will be hear soon enough, but absolutely can not get here fast enough. We can in no way imagine that this was the type of primary season that RNC Chairman Reince Preibus had in mind when he changed the primary schedule and balloting but you reap what you sew, as they say. With less debates and an early convention, an outrageous candidate like Donald Trump has been able command the race; one in which some one like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) sounds like (gulp) the voice of reason? Then there is the last of the Three Stooges, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and his interview with Chuck Todd.
However, we should clarify something first. Of the aforementioned three names, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz we consider stooges because of the stupid things they say and them not having the slightest inclination that what they are saying is completely counterproductive, to say the very least. On the other hand, we consider Senator Rubio a stooge of a different sort, and it's the kind that is beholden to others (a select, few rich ones) and him not having his own stands. For us, this notion stems from what happened with comprehensive immigration reform where Senator Rubio was one of the key players in crafting the parameters of the legislation and then backed down and disowned his own proposals in the face of a conservative lobby challenge. He bends to special interest and he doesn't seem to always be present, hence all Mr. Todd's questions about him really wanting to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. And there is also that feeling that Senator Rubio just doesn't strike us as someone who is that perceptive, able to put all the pieces together to see the bigger picture.
Then you read articles like this from the front page of The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-drug-smuggling-ring-that-brought-anguish-tomarco-rubios-family/2015/12/12/473f3a2c-9db6-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_rubiodrugcase644pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
That aside, take his explanation on what to do with ISIS where he outlined the exact things that the Obama Administration is currently doing the only problem being is that particularly President Barack Obama is doing them. Building a coalition: What more can you do then have the U.S., France, England, Russia among others all bombing ISIS? Could we conduct more bombing missions as Senator Rubio stated the president isn't doing enough? The United States has conducted thousands of sorties, but the problem is a lack of precise targeting which would require troops on the ground and he should know that. And getting moderate Sunni governments to commit troops means nothing if you can not explain how you actually make that happen because it hasn't yet. We'd suggest that Senator Rubio be careful when criticizing Mr. Ban-All-Muslims and Senator Carpet Bomb because he doesn't seem to be all that more... what's the word? Perceptive.
Senator Rubio also mentioned that the Republican Party can not be isolationists, unless it comes to climate change which according to them may be happening but doubt man has anything to do with it and that it's certainly not a crisis. Then there's the rest of the world.
We agree with Secretary of State John Kerry in his endorsement of President Obama's leadership that has brought the United States credibility at the Paris climate summit. The president's strength on energy policy is underrated because the reality is that under the Obama administration the country has become the world's top oil producer while taking serious steps to limit carbon emissions. On Keystone, his decision was unpopular but it was the right one. Call us sentimental, but for that few of permanent jobs that it would create, why risk an environmental disaster in the beautiful heartland of America?
And to Mr. Todd's question as to how the commitments would be enforced, aside from just a public shaming, we would answer that there is no way in fact to enforcement the parameters of the agreement, right now. But the operative word in the sentence was 'agreement.' And being in agreement is a good first step because treaties and biding resolutions and coalitions come into form.
If not for anything else, it's a sign of hope that the world sees it the same way on at least one thing.
Panel: Ted Koppel, author; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal
One more thing...
As Helene Cooper gleefully said, a contested convention is a political reporter's ultimate fantasy and no doubt it would be great viewing (not welcomed by the RNC for sure), but contested or not, the Republicans' down-ticket problem is serious. If there is a contested convention that could alienate a lot of Republican voters causing them to stay home, or break for a third party candidate like Donald Trump if he doesn't get the nomination. However, if Mr. Trump does get the nomination in a uncontested convention (unlikely) then in state-wide elections, down ticket could be a disaster for Republicans, not at the very least of costing them control of the Senate.
However, we should clarify something first. Of the aforementioned three names, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz we consider stooges because of the stupid things they say and them not having the slightest inclination that what they are saying is completely counterproductive, to say the very least. On the other hand, we consider Senator Rubio a stooge of a different sort, and it's the kind that is beholden to others (a select, few rich ones) and him not having his own stands. For us, this notion stems from what happened with comprehensive immigration reform where Senator Rubio was one of the key players in crafting the parameters of the legislation and then backed down and disowned his own proposals in the face of a conservative lobby challenge. He bends to special interest and he doesn't seem to always be present, hence all Mr. Todd's questions about him really wanting to win in Iowa and New Hampshire. And there is also that feeling that Senator Rubio just doesn't strike us as someone who is that perceptive, able to put all the pieces together to see the bigger picture.
Then you read articles like this from the front page of The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-drug-smuggling-ring-that-brought-anguish-tomarco-rubios-family/2015/12/12/473f3a2c-9db6-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_rubiodrugcase644pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
That aside, take his explanation on what to do with ISIS where he outlined the exact things that the Obama Administration is currently doing the only problem being is that particularly President Barack Obama is doing them. Building a coalition: What more can you do then have the U.S., France, England, Russia among others all bombing ISIS? Could we conduct more bombing missions as Senator Rubio stated the president isn't doing enough? The United States has conducted thousands of sorties, but the problem is a lack of precise targeting which would require troops on the ground and he should know that. And getting moderate Sunni governments to commit troops means nothing if you can not explain how you actually make that happen because it hasn't yet. We'd suggest that Senator Rubio be careful when criticizing Mr. Ban-All-Muslims and Senator Carpet Bomb because he doesn't seem to be all that more... what's the word? Perceptive.
Senator Rubio also mentioned that the Republican Party can not be isolationists, unless it comes to climate change which according to them may be happening but doubt man has anything to do with it and that it's certainly not a crisis. Then there's the rest of the world.
We agree with Secretary of State John Kerry in his endorsement of President Obama's leadership that has brought the United States credibility at the Paris climate summit. The president's strength on energy policy is underrated because the reality is that under the Obama administration the country has become the world's top oil producer while taking serious steps to limit carbon emissions. On Keystone, his decision was unpopular but it was the right one. Call us sentimental, but for that few of permanent jobs that it would create, why risk an environmental disaster in the beautiful heartland of America?
And to Mr. Todd's question as to how the commitments would be enforced, aside from just a public shaming, we would answer that there is no way in fact to enforcement the parameters of the agreement, right now. But the operative word in the sentence was 'agreement.' And being in agreement is a good first step because treaties and biding resolutions and coalitions come into form.
If not for anything else, it's a sign of hope that the world sees it the same way on at least one thing.
Panel: Ted Koppel, author; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal
One more thing...
As Helene Cooper gleefully said, a contested convention is a political reporter's ultimate fantasy and no doubt it would be great viewing (not welcomed by the RNC for sure), but contested or not, the Republicans' down-ticket problem is serious. If there is a contested convention that could alienate a lot of Republican voters causing them to stay home, or break for a third party candidate like Donald Trump if he doesn't get the nomination. However, if Mr. Trump does get the nomination in a uncontested convention (unlikely) then in state-wide elections, down ticket could be a disaster for Republicans, not at the very least of costing them control of the Senate.
Sunday, December 06, 2015
12.6.15: The Aftermath of the Worst U.S. Terrorist Attack Since 9/11
It's clear from Mr. Todd's interview with the Attorney General Loretta Lynch is that through this investigation, the F.B.I. is trying to figure out that the best way to stop this from happening again, let alone more frequently. All of her answered were tightly measured, but understandably since there are so many outstanding questions. With that, two things seem certain: It was a terrorist attack and Tashfeen Malik's radicalization germinated in Pakistan, completely and acted upon here with the help of propaganda courtesy of Al-Nusra Front, Al Qaeda in Syria.
While the question of the overall motivation - terrorism - has been answered, the specific motivation as to why that day in that location still remains somewhat unclear, and by extension how to stop lone-wolf type radicalization. One of the questions that does not remain unclear of course is how could this couple acquire such a large, what is being called an arsenal, amount of weapons? Answer: Simply, it's very easy to legally buy guns in the United States. (We'll get into this more a little later.)
With regard to other measures that could be taken, the clarifying joint interview with Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) illustrated how complicated the matter is from the respective senators (and presidential candidates) differing on troop deployments and surveillance. Senator Graham declared Republican isolationism over, a critique of Senator Paul's position, but the South Carolina senator's idea of ending that isolationist stance is to send tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Raqqa, Syria. And in terms of the bulk collection of data by the NSA, Senator Graham advocates expansion while Senator Paul lead the fight to have the program discontinued.
We appreciate the serious debate between the candidates and these questions are obviously being asked in a timely manner. However, where we seeing a failing on the part of both Senators and the stupidity of partisan politics solely for the sake of partisanship is when Senator Paul mentioned that 40 percent of immigrants in the United States illegally comes from individuals overstaying their visas. Congress has squandered repeated opportunities to pass comprehensive immigration reform and has failed to do so. It's on them.
Interestingly, where there is wider agreement from Senator Graham to The National Review's Rich Lowry to author Asra Mosani is that it is upon the vast majority of moderate Muslims to spoke out against and combat this violent perversion of Islam. Because as activist/author Dalia Mogahed said, ISIS believes that they are prompting a legitimate strain of Islam. With that comes some heavy lifting. There are enough willing participants to perform bombing missions on ISIS targets but the troops have to come from the regional governments, the worst actor of which has been Saudi Arabia, to Ms. Mosani's point during the program. Saudi Arabia spends hundreds of millions of dollars to export Wahhabism, a very fundamentalist practice (a serious understatement) of Islam, in which ISIS pumps huge doses of steroids into in the form of arbitrary mass killing and terrorism via a wash of black market petro-dollars. In terms of troops, the Saudis are preoccupied with Yemen and containing attacks emanating from there directly targeting the the House of Saud.
Until that very delicate and complex strategy and coalition comes together in correct proportions, it leaves governments in a protect and contain posture which brings us back home and what we can do here. Despite your opinion on the The New York Times' front page gun control editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0), the paper's Elisabeth Bumiller poses a legitimate question, which is why is it necessary for Americans to own assault weapons? Rich Lowry's answer was that the AR-15 (semi-automatic assault rifle) is the most popular gun in America, as if to say how could you make it illegal? We find these kinds of intractable positions beyond reason and rationality, in which the answer is to arm more people with more guns more easily. There is no reason to have assault weapons on the market that are designed for killing military and police personnel, but maybe that's just us.
We concede that there is a lot that we don't know and what to do about all the other types of guns that are not assault weapons, but here's what we do. When you want to make a serious purchase in America, like buying a house or a car, there are a number of hoops you have to jump through. These are processes in this country that we all accept. You can not just buy a car and start driving it. First, you have to get the license; then the insurance; get the loan to buy it requiring a credit check (a financial background check); have the car registered with the state; have it inspected on a yearly basis. When buying a house, there's the interview with the bank, the credit check (again), the insurance, the house inspector, the listing on your federal tax return saying you own it.
For serious purchases, we jump through hoops, it's what we do, and buying a firearm and bringing into the home, especially if there are children there, is a serious purchase. In our line of thinking if you really want a gun, that's fine, but you'll have to jump through these series of hoops to get one. We're not every saying that you can not have one, but if you really want it, here's what you have to do - a permit to own a gun, a waiting period, a background check.
The common element in all shootings is a gun, of some sort. At this moment, the question Mr. Todd asked of Attorney General Lynch of are we to now accept this as now the way we live, a part of our society is rhetorical. It is, in fact, a part of living in American society to we as a nation have to endure through mass shootings. Twenty innocent small children were gunned down at their elementary school and now in the worst terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, the perpetrators were able to easily build up an arsenal of weapons in their home. If these two incidents haven't or won't change our behavior and our laws, then nothing will.
So... good luck out there and stay safe.
Panel: Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
"Meet The Press" has truly found its groove again, exemplified by today's top-notch program - the flow, tone, production, breath of different voices/opinions, depth of information delivered really uphold the traditions and intent of the original format. It's this type of programming that will see "Meet The Press" rise back to the top of the rates ranks on Sunday morning, in due time. What's helped, we think, is the daily version in as much as now the Sunday version does not have to scratch the surface of many topics, spreading itself too thin, always in search of the elusive, viral inducing quote and really only comes from more in-depth discourse (unless you're Donal Trump).
The show never had to pretend to be something it wasn't. Welcome back, and thanks.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
11.29.15: Donald Trump's Misinformation Age
It's a rare occurrence that we would even comment on Mr. Todd's 'Nerdscreen' feature, let alone lead off the column with it, but it serves as the most relevant base from which to comment on the rest of today's program.
The focus of the Nerd Screen concerned the opposing economic outlook between what is essentially blue-America (living in cities and suburbs around cities) and red-America (living in rural areas, more faith-based communities), and blue-America is much more optimistic about the future of the economy than red-America. In fact, red-America is depressed and pessimistic about their economic future. However, let's not mince words here, red-America is lead by conservative, Republican governors and legislatures. In states such as Kansas and Louisiana for example, ideological conservative economic principles are getting in the way of the practical needs of these states' citizens. Being conservative about fiscal matters is not a bad approach per se, but not at the expense of the majority of constituents.
As Joe McQuaid, publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, reasoned, governors have to understand the mechanisms of government and have to be real [read: practical] about solutions, and being real means being conservative in some areas and more progressive in others. This is how he essentially justified his paper's endorsement of the governor for president of the United States. What he wasn't describing are thegovernorships of Sam Brownback in Kansas and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. (see this Washington Post editorial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cleaning-up-bobby-jindals-mess-in-louisiana/2015/11/26/58cd4e2c-9231-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html).
These governors and others are economically running their respective states into the ground, and instead of being like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio who took the Medicaid expansion to help the state, there is unwillingness to bend even slightly away from a pure ideological line. But if people are still unhappy, purity for the sake of it, becomes plain cynical the more people suffer. Instead of changing the approach, it's much easier and politically expedient to do two things: point the finger at someone to blame and make people upset about something else.
And this is the approach of the Republican presidential front runners: Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. The most subtle: In response to his comment about comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs, Dr. Carson said that the Syrian people understood what he was saying that he was referring to extremists and that he found it interesting how the American media as a whole misunderstood him. Words do matter and Dr. Carson doesn't take responsibility for any of his, and what's really disheartening is that he's not the worst offender in the race, which of course is Mr. Trump.
The most outrageous example is his statements about thousands of people in Jersey City and Patterson, New Jersey (across the river) respectively were cheering when the Towers came down on September 11, 2001. Not only is he perpetuating and exaggerating a gross lie that has thoroughly been debunked by various news agencies, he's using the tragedy of that day solely for his own political gain while in the process denigrating the memories of the people who died that day but also demonizing an entire population of Americans.
To his credit, Mr. Todd tried to step up the argument with the Republican front runner but was unsuccessful - Mr. Trump barked louder, citing 'reliable' sources like Twitter. Mr. Trump insists that we take it on faith that he 'knows people' who told him that President Obama's real plan is to bring in 200K-250K Syrian refugees into the country, not 65,000 or even 10,000, which Trump called a potential Trojan Horse of terrorism. There is no basis or real source for his figures but it doesn't matter because it achieves the goal of making your hardships the fault of someone else - President Obama and Muslims. It's not so sad that Mr. Trump says these things - Molly Ball called it his political genius - but that people listen... and believe.
To this point, the biggest turkey on this holiday weekend goes to conservative commentator Hugh Hewlitt for passively aggressively defending Donald Trump's gross falsehoods by laying blame on the media for not going after Hillary Clinton as doggedly on her e-mails as they have gone after Donald Trump. We give him the turkey for being chicken.
And of course, all this roundabout talk of irresponsible rhetoric leads us to what happened this past Friday in Colorado Springs at a Planned Parenthood clinic where a mentally deranged man in possession of a gun (of course) terrorized the facility in what appears to be politically motivated.
As the panel understandably acknowledged, Republicans' responses have been muted because the incident speaks negatively to their positions on guns and abortion. The panel also had consensus on the fact that Democrats who have customarily staying away from these issues, are 'leaning in' to them as it was described. The issue of gun regulation, more so than the issue of abortion rights, is becoming trickier for the Republican party because when domestic terrorism and/or mass shooting happen, the NRA and 2nd Amendment absolutists eventually just ride out the storm letting time pass to forget about it. However, the growing frequency of such mass shootings is alarming and not allowing us to forget. We can only hope that there isn't a similar waiting game being played to the end where mass-shootings are a socially accepted consequence of living in America.
But if that happens, we're sure that some 'political' leader like Trump will find something else for us to be afraid of and most certainly know who exactly is to blame. That's living in Donald Trump' age of misinformation.
Panel: Molly Ball, The Atlantic Monthly; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One more thing...
We stayed away from ISIS this column despite the significant perhaps game-changing incident for Russia this week where one of their fighter jets was shot down over Turkey over its air space. We'll hit it later in the week because talking about Donald Trump so much makes our brain ache.
The focus of the Nerd Screen concerned the opposing economic outlook between what is essentially blue-America (living in cities and suburbs around cities) and red-America (living in rural areas, more faith-based communities), and blue-America is much more optimistic about the future of the economy than red-America. In fact, red-America is depressed and pessimistic about their economic future. However, let's not mince words here, red-America is lead by conservative, Republican governors and legislatures. In states such as Kansas and Louisiana for example, ideological conservative economic principles are getting in the way of the practical needs of these states' citizens. Being conservative about fiscal matters is not a bad approach per se, but not at the expense of the majority of constituents.
As Joe McQuaid, publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, reasoned, governors have to understand the mechanisms of government and have to be real [read: practical] about solutions, and being real means being conservative in some areas and more progressive in others. This is how he essentially justified his paper's endorsement of the governor for president of the United States. What he wasn't describing are thegovernorships of Sam Brownback in Kansas and Bobby Jindal in Louisiana. (see this Washington Post editorial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cleaning-up-bobby-jindals-mess-in-louisiana/2015/11/26/58cd4e2c-9231-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html).
These governors and others are economically running their respective states into the ground, and instead of being like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio who took the Medicaid expansion to help the state, there is unwillingness to bend even slightly away from a pure ideological line. But if people are still unhappy, purity for the sake of it, becomes plain cynical the more people suffer. Instead of changing the approach, it's much easier and politically expedient to do two things: point the finger at someone to blame and make people upset about something else.
And this is the approach of the Republican presidential front runners: Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. The most subtle: In response to his comment about comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs, Dr. Carson said that the Syrian people understood what he was saying that he was referring to extremists and that he found it interesting how the American media as a whole misunderstood him. Words do matter and Dr. Carson doesn't take responsibility for any of his, and what's really disheartening is that he's not the worst offender in the race, which of course is Mr. Trump.
The most outrageous example is his statements about thousands of people in Jersey City and Patterson, New Jersey (across the river) respectively were cheering when the Towers came down on September 11, 2001. Not only is he perpetuating and exaggerating a gross lie that has thoroughly been debunked by various news agencies, he's using the tragedy of that day solely for his own political gain while in the process denigrating the memories of the people who died that day but also demonizing an entire population of Americans.
To his credit, Mr. Todd tried to step up the argument with the Republican front runner but was unsuccessful - Mr. Trump barked louder, citing 'reliable' sources like Twitter. Mr. Trump insists that we take it on faith that he 'knows people' who told him that President Obama's real plan is to bring in 200K-250K Syrian refugees into the country, not 65,000 or even 10,000, which Trump called a potential Trojan Horse of terrorism. There is no basis or real source for his figures but it doesn't matter because it achieves the goal of making your hardships the fault of someone else - President Obama and Muslims. It's not so sad that Mr. Trump says these things - Molly Ball called it his political genius - but that people listen... and believe.
To this point, the biggest turkey on this holiday weekend goes to conservative commentator Hugh Hewlitt for passively aggressively defending Donald Trump's gross falsehoods by laying blame on the media for not going after Hillary Clinton as doggedly on her e-mails as they have gone after Donald Trump. We give him the turkey for being chicken.
And of course, all this roundabout talk of irresponsible rhetoric leads us to what happened this past Friday in Colorado Springs at a Planned Parenthood clinic where a mentally deranged man in possession of a gun (of course) terrorized the facility in what appears to be politically motivated.
As the panel understandably acknowledged, Republicans' responses have been muted because the incident speaks negatively to their positions on guns and abortion. The panel also had consensus on the fact that Democrats who have customarily staying away from these issues, are 'leaning in' to them as it was described. The issue of gun regulation, more so than the issue of abortion rights, is becoming trickier for the Republican party because when domestic terrorism and/or mass shooting happen, the NRA and 2nd Amendment absolutists eventually just ride out the storm letting time pass to forget about it. However, the growing frequency of such mass shootings is alarming and not allowing us to forget. We can only hope that there isn't a similar waiting game being played to the end where mass-shootings are a socially accepted consequence of living in America.
But if that happens, we're sure that some 'political' leader like Trump will find something else for us to be afraid of and most certainly know who exactly is to blame. That's living in Donald Trump' age of misinformation.
Panel: Molly Ball, The Atlantic Monthly; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One more thing...
We stayed away from ISIS this column despite the significant perhaps game-changing incident for Russia this week where one of their fighter jets was shot down over Turkey over its air space. We'll hit it later in the week because talking about Donald Trump so much makes our brain ache.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
11.22.15: Exacerbating the Threat To Public Safety
If we are in fact at war, as Tom Brokaw stated, then we're certainly not in a sufficient state of readiness, and we're not talking about our reactionary preparedness to a terrorist attack. We talking about political leadership here at home and abroad. There is no doubt that that serious people like New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson are working on keeping us safe, but President Obama, even though we agree with him on the substance of Republican presidential candidates speaking completely irresponsibly, can not make statements that smell of pettiness. Unfortunately for President Obama and the majority of Americans, Republicans have poisoned the well of this president's ability lead to us all so much that Ron Fournier's worry about how this country would react to another 9/11-style attack is real cause for concern.
President Obama hasn't been great, but in all due fairness he hasn't gotten any support either, and where he has been right is on not playing to the politics of fear like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. And for all his shiny new poll numbers, Marco Rubio is being completely irresponsible in saying that this 'war' is a clash of civilizations. What is also very clear in the Republican presidential race is that these front-running candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) have the Republican electorate so washed in the paranoid politics that more reasonable voices such as Governor John Kasich's (How crazy is it when you say that the man who proposed a Judeo-Christian federal agency is a reasonable voice.) get no traction.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/gop-candidates-playing-on-the-politics-of-fear--572056131507
It's of little consolation that when candidates do speak up against Donald Trump's idea of registering and surveil Muslim Americans because these same candidates won't stand up to an NRA that doesn't support a bill to restriction gun purchases by individuals on the terrorist watch list, on which Commissioner Bratton called upon Congress to act on the program today. And in that clip, you listen to Mr. Trump and you can't help but think that he wants to run the country like he would want to run one of his companies, but companies aren't democracies. Everything he talked about directly flies in the face of American values, then cheered on by uninformed people. Senator Cruz does his best as always to stoke bigotry and division and what kind of doctor is Dr. Ben Carson that he would analogize Syrian refugees with rabid dogs. So much for the Hippocratic oath, which has a passage in it by the way that says, I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. Maybe Dr. Carson left that part out when it took it.
Enough of that... Because what happened in Paris and Bamako, Mali this week required serious-minded solutions and negotiations, not bluster, which only serves to exacerbates the threat to public safety. Helene Cooper's question to fmr. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta cut to the heart of the matter, which was how do you build a coalition with Russia and Iran, two governments with adversarial competing agendas to the United States in the Middle East? Secretary Panetta called Assad an international criminal yet Vladimir Putin supports him and wants him to stay in power as does Iran. Due to this, a coordinated effort to combat ISIS or Daesh (It's Arabic name) doesn't exist as Richard Engel pointed out in his report. Sec. Panetta pointed out that NATO should invoke Article 5, which means that if one member state is attacked, they all are and need to come to a common defense (loosely paraphrased), and he was surprised that this hasn't happened yet.
As we pointed out last week, it's reasonable that it would be but also it should be to put pressure on Turkey (a NATO member) to act more responsibly when it comes to ISIS because Turkey is has been a wildcard here playing it a bit on both sides. They tacitly assist in the fight against ISIS but goods flow from Turkey easily into ISIS territory because ISIS fights the Kurds who the Turks despise.
As Secretary Panetta said, eventually both Assad and ISIS have to go and that requires uniting leadership and nuance that we need to see more of from the President because frankly, it isn't coming from the loudest Republican voices right now.
In the case of ISIS, Sec. Panetta said that to defeat them we have to take their territory aware from them and to do that it's going to require send soldiers to Syria... U.S. soldiers. As long as Assad is in power, that can not happen - strategically not sharp let's face it not to mention that lack of enthusiasm the American people have for such an idea. The issue of the Syrian refugees and the divisive rhetoric coming from Republican candidates is too far gone to be settled at the primary ballot box (see our last column). However, on the issue of ISIS, American political leaders have to get on the same page, or at the very least reading the same book, for the good of us all because the squabbling and talking at each other instead of with each other puts our safety at risk.
Put your politics aside and give credit to the Administration, particularly Secretary of State John Kerry, for taking the small but significant step of getting stakeholders to the table to negotiate a ceasefire, which has ISIS worried. David Ignatius from The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-surprise-in-syrias-civil-war-that-could-be-bad-news-for-the-islamic-state/2015/11/20/83fe3fd8-8fc6-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-alt1-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Panel: Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Ron Fournier, The National Journal
President Obama hasn't been great, but in all due fairness he hasn't gotten any support either, and where he has been right is on not playing to the politics of fear like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. And for all his shiny new poll numbers, Marco Rubio is being completely irresponsible in saying that this 'war' is a clash of civilizations. What is also very clear in the Republican presidential race is that these front-running candidates (Trump, Cruz, Carson) have the Republican electorate so washed in the paranoid politics that more reasonable voices such as Governor John Kasich's (How crazy is it when you say that the man who proposed a Judeo-Christian federal agency is a reasonable voice.) get no traction.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/gop-candidates-playing-on-the-politics-of-fear--572056131507
It's of little consolation that when candidates do speak up against Donald Trump's idea of registering and surveil Muslim Americans because these same candidates won't stand up to an NRA that doesn't support a bill to restriction gun purchases by individuals on the terrorist watch list, on which Commissioner Bratton called upon Congress to act on the program today. And in that clip, you listen to Mr. Trump and you can't help but think that he wants to run the country like he would want to run one of his companies, but companies aren't democracies. Everything he talked about directly flies in the face of American values, then cheered on by uninformed people. Senator Cruz does his best as always to stoke bigotry and division and what kind of doctor is Dr. Ben Carson that he would analogize Syrian refugees with rabid dogs. So much for the Hippocratic oath, which has a passage in it by the way that says, I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. Maybe Dr. Carson left that part out when it took it.
Enough of that... Because what happened in Paris and Bamako, Mali this week required serious-minded solutions and negotiations, not bluster, which only serves to exacerbates the threat to public safety. Helene Cooper's question to fmr. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta cut to the heart of the matter, which was how do you build a coalition with Russia and Iran, two governments with adversarial competing agendas to the United States in the Middle East? Secretary Panetta called Assad an international criminal yet Vladimir Putin supports him and wants him to stay in power as does Iran. Due to this, a coordinated effort to combat ISIS or Daesh (It's Arabic name) doesn't exist as Richard Engel pointed out in his report. Sec. Panetta pointed out that NATO should invoke Article 5, which means that if one member state is attacked, they all are and need to come to a common defense (loosely paraphrased), and he was surprised that this hasn't happened yet.
As we pointed out last week, it's reasonable that it would be but also it should be to put pressure on Turkey (a NATO member) to act more responsibly when it comes to ISIS because Turkey is has been a wildcard here playing it a bit on both sides. They tacitly assist in the fight against ISIS but goods flow from Turkey easily into ISIS territory because ISIS fights the Kurds who the Turks despise.
As Secretary Panetta said, eventually both Assad and ISIS have to go and that requires uniting leadership and nuance that we need to see more of from the President because frankly, it isn't coming from the loudest Republican voices right now.
In the case of ISIS, Sec. Panetta said that to defeat them we have to take their territory aware from them and to do that it's going to require send soldiers to Syria... U.S. soldiers. As long as Assad is in power, that can not happen - strategically not sharp let's face it not to mention that lack of enthusiasm the American people have for such an idea. The issue of the Syrian refugees and the divisive rhetoric coming from Republican candidates is too far gone to be settled at the primary ballot box (see our last column). However, on the issue of ISIS, American political leaders have to get on the same page, or at the very least reading the same book, for the good of us all because the squabbling and talking at each other instead of with each other puts our safety at risk.
Put your politics aside and give credit to the Administration, particularly Secretary of State John Kerry, for taking the small but significant step of getting stakeholders to the table to negotiate a ceasefire, which has ISIS worried. David Ignatius from The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-surprise-in-syrias-civil-war-that-could-be-bad-news-for-the-islamic-state/2015/11/20/83fe3fd8-8fc6-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-alt1-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Panel: Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Ron Fournier, The National Journal
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
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:
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.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)