The Iowa caucuses are upon us and Mr. Todd packed it in to today's program with four candidate guests, all senators: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. Mr. Todd cut right to the heart of the matter with each candidate, which was essentially "Why you?"
Before we get into what each said, it's worth mentioning at the top here that it was refreshing that Rand Paul actual met the press, taking questions from the various journalists on the panel. One thing that he said of note which we agree with and that you should consider when polls are referenced is that they are taken among older voters. To Senator Paul's credit not many politicians would be at all comfortable doing that, especially Mr. Rubio, with whom we'll start.
So why if Mr. Rubio enjoys great popularity is he not doing better in the polls? The reason is that at the end of the day, people don't think he's mature enough to be the president of the United States. What that means is that people like what he says but don't trust him enough that he'll be his own man when making a decision. It's like voters get the feeling that in a crisis, he won't be able to handle it. Call it a feeling or whatever, but it's real. Illustrating this very point is the clip that Mr. Todd showed of Mr. Rubio, while a member of the Florida House, support cap and trade legislation with an EPA mandate. He then turns around and says that clip was taken out of context. It's difficult to take Mr. Rubio seriously when he accuses Ted Cruz of just saying anything to get a vote. Also, Mr. Rubio said that he went to Washington to solve the immigration problem and the fact is, he hasn't. He instead walked away from legislation that he was instrumental in crafting. This contradiction is strictly his, but he insists on casting blame elsewhere. Not to mention that Mr. Rubio has completely abdicated his world view to the neo-conservatives in the Republican party and that's the kind of foreign policy of foolish hegemony. Mr. Rubio is essentially the shadow-establishment candidate.
For Mr. Cruz's part, he is the front runner in Iowa without a doubt, but it's going to be tight if as predicted the turn out is high. Plus, the way that the caucus is set up for the Republicans, as Mr. Todd helpfully explained, is that it is basically a firehouse primary because people drop in a secret ballot, which benefits Donald Trump's potential first-time voters. Ultimately, Mr. Cruz gets in trouble with Iowa voters on the ethanol issue because while what he says about ending all subsidies of any kind for energy production may sound good to Republicans, Iowans' ethanol economy is going to get squeezed because they don't peddle the influence that oil and gas do. That's the part that Mr. Cruz isn't telling them but it is what they know and they're not crazy about it, to say the least. And because it is convenient, we'll read into Mr. Cruz's description of the only way he runs a political race, "scared," was his quote. Why would you vote for someone who readily admits that?
Interestingly, what also makes it a tight race for Republicans is the fragmentation of the evangelical vote, which David Brody described. The nuance, he said, between the evangelical Cruz voter and the evangelical Trump voter is that for Mr. Trump, they represent traditional Christian cultural mores where the Cruz voter is more dedicated - the Wednesday night church goer. If that's the case then Mr. Carson's support (He should not still be in the race.) along with Mr. Huckabee's would fall to Mr. Cruz. Mr. Brody also explained that the evangelical voter is tired of being played like a political pawn for so long, like Karl Rove masterfully did for George W. Bush, and boy (!) is he correct. No block of voters has been deceived like evangelical Republican voters. Evangelical voters want their religious choices legislated on to the rest of the population and not in an incremental way, which is very difficult to get done in the United States, but politicians promise this anyway. It's easy to see why they're upset.
For the Republicans in Iowa, it's a question of who comes in third? This position will speak to what is the main argument on the Democratic side, which is practical electability. For Republicans, that comes down to the aforementioned Mr. Rubio, Mr. Bush, Mr. Christie, and Mr. Kasich. Of this group, it comes down to Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Given this lackluster choice, in our humble opinion, no Republican in their right mind would vote for Marco Rubio.
"Practical Electability" is not a phrase that we would use to describe Senator Bernie Sanders, on the Democratic side of things. For his part, he would use the term 'bold,' and fighting for single payer healthcare while - let's face it - Obamacare is still being fought over is quite daring. Mr. Sanders' broadest appeal is among younger voters, which we'll be a great benefit to him if they show up. Conceding that they do, the way the Democrats caucus supports more of the 'herd mentality,' for which a younger voter is more susceptible, hence benefiting Mr. Sanders. However, there is no question that in a general election Hillary Clinton will fair much better than Mr. Sanders in terms of wider support, yes, the notion of having a woman president - a wave not to be underestimated. Now, is it good to denounce Mr. Sander's plan on the basis of practicality as Mrs. Clinton did? No because on the campaign trail you don't want to come across as adverse to great and bold ideas. On a more detailed note, Mr. Sanders did mention that a main factor driving increased healthcare costs is the price for prescription drugs, but know that to curb those costs it is not a necessity to have single payer healthcare.
After all this talk, we're just glad that people are starting to vote - time to put up or shut up for the candidates... finally.
Panel: Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jennifer Jacobs, The Des Moines Register; David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
1.25.16: Limited Visibility Heading into Iowa
As we head into the Iowa Caucuses, like the historic blizzard that hit the East Coast, the presidential campaign outlook provides only limited visibility.
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post is justified in his astonishment that a 74-year old mayor of Burlington, VT is ahead in some polls over Hillary Clinton, but it's very easy to see why he's in that position and it isn't so astonishing. Senator Sanders is to the Democratic Party as is Donald Trump to the Republican Party - the protest against the status quo. Also, many of the young voters who are turning out for Mr. Sanders have been reared on a diet of disparagement of Mrs. Clinton and the big memory of her is when she lost to President Obama so that voting block isn't excited by her. They weren't a part of the working world in the go-go 90's that Bill Clinton spearheaded.
David Brooks of The New York Times explained that Senator Sanders' has honed his message to one of change and optimism whereas Mrs. Clinton's message lacks enthusiasm and inspiration, relying on the 'experience counts' quality. Given the fact that Mrs. Clinton is not a great campaigner, as Kristen Welker explained, while having the most scrutinizing light put upon her, we'd flip the switch and say that these indicate her strengths. In the political season in which none of these candidates have to actually lead or legislate on what they're telling the electorate, Mrs. Clinton has the most experience and meddle of any candidate to do so; to run a government as Secretary Robert Gates outlined later in the program. Running the government is NOT the same as running a company, as Sec. Gates pointed out.
Mr. Brooks is apparently one of the few who is still rooting against both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz, still holding out hope for the emergence of Marco Rubio, but if you take not just the Republican intellectuals such as Mr. Brooks, The National Review, Erick Erickson, et al. who are anti-Trump but consider the Party writ large with Republican legislators lining up against Mr. Cruz, the establishment is clearly dissatisfied with both and the estimate is that Mr. Trump is really just the lesser of two evils, so to speak. However, as we have alluded to before, we're leery of a Marco Rubio presidency and one of the reasons is in fact David Brooks' hope for his emergence. Mr. Rubio isn't his own guy and is/would be too easily molded by what the establishment wants him to say and do.
Obviously, the Democratic Party, even given the unexpected hugely strong showing of Senator Sanders against Mrs. Clinton's campaign, is in a much healthier state ideologically than the Republican party, without question. With that said, if Sen. Sanders were to become the nominee, and especially if his opponent was Donald Trump, this would be the impetus for fmr. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to jump into the race. We would agree with Mr. Sanders here, that is not a good look for our democracy to have two billionaires running for president of The United States in the same election year, at the very least.
It's for you to decide how bullish you are on Mrs. Clinton's statement that a Bloomberg candidacy will not happen because it will be unnecessary because she will in fact get the Democratic nomination because the primary is her biggest hurdle. In the general, unless it's Jeb Bush, she'll sound like the greater voice of reason because in some ways Mrs. Clinton could be considered a moderate Republican, by Roosevelt (Teddy) and Nixon legislative standards.
All due respect to Mr. Bloomberg, but he definitely isn't the solution to none of the above.
Snow Aftermath Panel: Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post; Kacie Hunt, NBC News; Kristen Welker, NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times
Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post is justified in his astonishment that a 74-year old mayor of Burlington, VT is ahead in some polls over Hillary Clinton, but it's very easy to see why he's in that position and it isn't so astonishing. Senator Sanders is to the Democratic Party as is Donald Trump to the Republican Party - the protest against the status quo. Also, many of the young voters who are turning out for Mr. Sanders have been reared on a diet of disparagement of Mrs. Clinton and the big memory of her is when she lost to President Obama so that voting block isn't excited by her. They weren't a part of the working world in the go-go 90's that Bill Clinton spearheaded.
David Brooks of The New York Times explained that Senator Sanders' has honed his message to one of change and optimism whereas Mrs. Clinton's message lacks enthusiasm and inspiration, relying on the 'experience counts' quality. Given the fact that Mrs. Clinton is not a great campaigner, as Kristen Welker explained, while having the most scrutinizing light put upon her, we'd flip the switch and say that these indicate her strengths. In the political season in which none of these candidates have to actually lead or legislate on what they're telling the electorate, Mrs. Clinton has the most experience and meddle of any candidate to do so; to run a government as Secretary Robert Gates outlined later in the program. Running the government is NOT the same as running a company, as Sec. Gates pointed out.
Mr. Brooks is apparently one of the few who is still rooting against both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz, still holding out hope for the emergence of Marco Rubio, but if you take not just the Republican intellectuals such as Mr. Brooks, The National Review, Erick Erickson, et al. who are anti-Trump but consider the Party writ large with Republican legislators lining up against Mr. Cruz, the establishment is clearly dissatisfied with both and the estimate is that Mr. Trump is really just the lesser of two evils, so to speak. However, as we have alluded to before, we're leery of a Marco Rubio presidency and one of the reasons is in fact David Brooks' hope for his emergence. Mr. Rubio isn't his own guy and is/would be too easily molded by what the establishment wants him to say and do.
Obviously, the Democratic Party, even given the unexpected hugely strong showing of Senator Sanders against Mrs. Clinton's campaign, is in a much healthier state ideologically than the Republican party, without question. With that said, if Sen. Sanders were to become the nominee, and especially if his opponent was Donald Trump, this would be the impetus for fmr. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to jump into the race. We would agree with Mr. Sanders here, that is not a good look for our democracy to have two billionaires running for president of The United States in the same election year, at the very least.
It's for you to decide how bullish you are on Mrs. Clinton's statement that a Bloomberg candidacy will not happen because it will be unnecessary because she will in fact get the Democratic nomination because the primary is her biggest hurdle. In the general, unless it's Jeb Bush, she'll sound like the greater voice of reason because in some ways Mrs. Clinton could be considered a moderate Republican, by Roosevelt (Teddy) and Nixon legislative standards.
All due respect to Mr. Bloomberg, but he definitely isn't the solution to none of the above.
Snow Aftermath Panel: Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post; Kacie Hunt, NBC News; Kristen Welker, NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times
Sunday, January 17, 2016
1.17.16: Perspective on the Candidates' Iran Deal Responses
No one should be surprised that the candidates on the Democratic side of the presidential race support President Obama's strategy and dealings with Iran while the Republican candidates oppose all that his administration is doing. Really it comes down to this: Do you agree with bringing Iran to the negotiating table or not? Secretary Clinton clearly does while Senator Rubio clearly does not. If you read this column then you know we have a distaste for statements that do not acknowledge for fuller dynamics of a given situation. For example, Senator Rubio said that he would reimpose sanctions and cancel the nuclear agreement immediately if he were elected president but what that answer doesn't take into account is the other countries that have signed on to the deal namely Russia and China who will continue to further normalize relations with Iran whether the United States backs out or not. It's a big ask to have Britain and France back out, which is unlikely as well. So really if the United States were to back out and reimpose sanctions, which wouldn't work anyway, it's us that would be left out in the cold, not the Iranians.
Furthermore, there is something we can not let go without comment and must call out Senator Rubio for something he said, which was with regard to the hostage exchange with Iran. He said that if he were the president, it would be 'like Ronald Reagan' and the hostages would be coming home without negotiation. Either Mr. Rubio is a poor student of history and has never heard of Iran-Contra, in which the Reagan administration traded arms for those hostages or he does know his history and get things done in the same manner. Either way, we kindly say to the Florida Senator: Cut the crap.
The Iranian nuclear deal was one of necessity because left unchecked it would have become a nuclear state with 5 years and that's being conservative. We agree with Sec. Clinton that it opens up the dialogue for other areas but her answer didn't consider the fact that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism and it should be able to freely join the international community until that stops. In saying that, understand that the Iranians would ask, terrorism against whom? Saudia Arabia or Israel or both?
It's refreshing that "Meet The Press" is back to a place where Republican as well as Democratic politicians appear, and today was the epitome of that notion given the aforementioned Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rubio along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Sanders being guests. What you can glean from all of their respective answers is that Senator Sanders' foreign policy would reflect Barack Obama's but not as hawkish while Sec. Clinton's would fall more hawkish than the president. Senator Rubio's foreign policy seems to be a shoot first, aim later type of strategy while Gov. Bush is also hard right but with a tempered approach given consideration for his brother's legacy.
As Richard Engel reported, yesterday was implementation day for the deal so now only time, and stringent inspections, will tell.
Usually we're not crazy about panel's dominated by strategists and partisan commentators but today's insight into the unanimous opinion that the biggest take away from the four interviews was that Jeb Bush referred to Donald Trump as 'the big guy in the race,' as if Mr. Trump is now beyond touch or something. The more you think about it and the focus that it will be given, it's a massive concession. And speaking of the making of a big deal, there's Bernie Sanders in a dead heat with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, and no - don't be surprised, especially for Iowa where the primary left is really left and the primary right is all the way over. Stephanie Cutter clearly defined the 'why' explaining that just as Donald Trump is the angry-vote response to the current state of our politics, Bernie Sanders represents that same sentiment for the left.
Though we beat up on Senator Rubio earlier for his foreign policy tough talk, we do agree with his opinion of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in as much as he does things for political expediency and his own advancement; the reason why none of his colleagues like him. We like many, take exception to Mr. Cruz's 'New York values' comment and in particular that he said that the people of South Carolina know what New York values are but that New Yorkers do not. We would call that stereotyping. And as Mr. Rubio conveniently pointed out, Mr. Cruz has no trouble making disparaging remarks about New Yorkers, but will go there without hesitation when he needs money. We would call that being a jerk.
Panel: Joy Ann Reid, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist; Stephanie Cutter, political consultant
A Few More Things...
Hugh Hewlitt said that Hillary Clinton dodged the question about Benghazi as it relates to the movie, 13 Hours. He went on to suggest to Chuck Todd that he should ask he later at the debate if she had seen the movie. First, Mr. Todd, don't take Mr. Hewlitt's advise. As Secretary of State at the time, Mrs. Clinton isn't going to comment on a movie beyond what she said today. How many times do we have to go here?
And then there is Maldives, a string of islands (with resorts) in the middle of the Indian Ocean, recruitment center and vacation destination for ISIS. If an international coalition can not restrict a despotic regime on a tiny island country, how is it to manage something bigger, like Syria. And if it takes Amal Clooney, International Human Rights lawyer, to bring it to our attention, we just say 'thank you.'
Furthermore, there is something we can not let go without comment and must call out Senator Rubio for something he said, which was with regard to the hostage exchange with Iran. He said that if he were the president, it would be 'like Ronald Reagan' and the hostages would be coming home without negotiation. Either Mr. Rubio is a poor student of history and has never heard of Iran-Contra, in which the Reagan administration traded arms for those hostages or he does know his history and get things done in the same manner. Either way, we kindly say to the Florida Senator: Cut the crap.
The Iranian nuclear deal was one of necessity because left unchecked it would have become a nuclear state with 5 years and that's being conservative. We agree with Sec. Clinton that it opens up the dialogue for other areas but her answer didn't consider the fact that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism and it should be able to freely join the international community until that stops. In saying that, understand that the Iranians would ask, terrorism against whom? Saudia Arabia or Israel or both?
It's refreshing that "Meet The Press" is back to a place where Republican as well as Democratic politicians appear, and today was the epitome of that notion given the aforementioned Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rubio along with Mr. Bush and Mr. Sanders being guests. What you can glean from all of their respective answers is that Senator Sanders' foreign policy would reflect Barack Obama's but not as hawkish while Sec. Clinton's would fall more hawkish than the president. Senator Rubio's foreign policy seems to be a shoot first, aim later type of strategy while Gov. Bush is also hard right but with a tempered approach given consideration for his brother's legacy.
As Richard Engel reported, yesterday was implementation day for the deal so now only time, and stringent inspections, will tell.
Usually we're not crazy about panel's dominated by strategists and partisan commentators but today's insight into the unanimous opinion that the biggest take away from the four interviews was that Jeb Bush referred to Donald Trump as 'the big guy in the race,' as if Mr. Trump is now beyond touch or something. The more you think about it and the focus that it will be given, it's a massive concession. And speaking of the making of a big deal, there's Bernie Sanders in a dead heat with Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, and no - don't be surprised, especially for Iowa where the primary left is really left and the primary right is all the way over. Stephanie Cutter clearly defined the 'why' explaining that just as Donald Trump is the angry-vote response to the current state of our politics, Bernie Sanders represents that same sentiment for the left.
Though we beat up on Senator Rubio earlier for his foreign policy tough talk, we do agree with his opinion of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, in as much as he does things for political expediency and his own advancement; the reason why none of his colleagues like him. We like many, take exception to Mr. Cruz's 'New York values' comment and in particular that he said that the people of South Carolina know what New York values are but that New Yorkers do not. We would call that stereotyping. And as Mr. Rubio conveniently pointed out, Mr. Cruz has no trouble making disparaging remarks about New Yorkers, but will go there without hesitation when he needs money. We would call that being a jerk.
Panel: Joy Ann Reid, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist; Stephanie Cutter, political consultant
A Few More Things...
Hugh Hewlitt said that Hillary Clinton dodged the question about Benghazi as it relates to the movie, 13 Hours. He went on to suggest to Chuck Todd that he should ask he later at the debate if she had seen the movie. First, Mr. Todd, don't take Mr. Hewlitt's advise. As Secretary of State at the time, Mrs. Clinton isn't going to comment on a movie beyond what she said today. How many times do we have to go here?
And then there is Maldives, a string of islands (with resorts) in the middle of the Indian Ocean, recruitment center and vacation destination for ISIS. If an international coalition can not restrict a despotic regime on a tiny island country, how is it to manage something bigger, like Syria. And if it takes Amal Clooney, International Human Rights lawyer, to bring it to our attention, we just say 'thank you.'
Sunday, January 10, 2016
1.10.16: Franken-Republicans' Monster and the Circular Firing Squad
It took us a moment at the end of today's "Meet The Press" to truly get out thoughts together due to the fact that we just didn't know where to begin. At the top, respected Republican strategist Alex Castellanos admitted that he got 'no takers' from the big-donor Republican establishment crowd to produce an anti-Trump media campaign. At the end, conservative journalist Jeff Greenfield called Donald Trump a 'bloviating billionaire with weird hair.' If that weren't enough, the middle was stuffed with the discussion of Ted Cruz's (R-TX) Canadian birther charge, which has the senator clearly rattled because the other candidates have piled on to what Donald Trump started. It actually speaks negatively of Mr. Cruz's character if his fellow Republicans don't have his back on this. Amazing...
The Republican establishment doesn't want to attack Donald Trump right now because they see Ted Cruz receiving the residual benefit, and that it does not want. We also suspect that there is a fear that Donald Trump could put these peoples' names in the news and they definitely don't want that. But here we all are, waiting to see if the establishment's Franken-Republican monster destroys all or dies. The Republican establishment had stoked and fanned the angry fires of their electorate for so many years without ever coming through on their promises, and they sought Donald Trump's endorsement and support in the past; then he got fed up as well. Uh-oh...
Mr. Trump said it himself in his interview today with Mr. Todd, that President Obama is a terrible negotiator with everyone except with Republicans; so they're the worst. And this doesn't bode well for the other Republican 'establishment' candidates obviously because they're the ones who've been doing the negotiating. Meanwhile they're engaged in what Mr. Todd called a 'circular firing squad;' here's how we noted it:
Rubio on Christie,
Bush on Rubio,
Christie on Rubio and Cruz.
Ben Ginsberg, fmr. counsel for Republican Administrations called it a 'demolition derby.' Collectively, Republicans are having a really hard time coming up with a candidate that they think can make it through the primary and the general elections, one they can rally around. Jennifer Jacobs from the Des Moines Register said it's going to be close because even though Mr. Trump leads, Mr. Cruz's favorability numbers are in the seventies. She also explained that each of the top two candidates are worried about one another, nuancing their respective positions to cater specifically to Iowa caucus goers. And as Mr. Castelllanos duly noted that it's too late for any of the establishment candidates to catch up with either of the front runners.
The only thing that the establishment can hang its hat on, so to speak, is something that Mr. Ginsberg said which was that in this election cycle the first four primary states have less significance than in past elections. But we're not so sure of that, especially if Mr. Trump wins the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and possibly a third in South Carolina. What that could possibly lead to is no clear nominee come convention time. (It's difficult not to get ahead of yourself on this given the anxiety you witness among Republicans.)
The conservative electorate may be undecided on whether they want to go with Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz, but the political establishment clearly signals that it prefers neither but this is a situation of their own making and having Reince Preibus leading the RNC has probably made things worse. As the process moves on more damage will certainly be done to all the candidates as votes start being cast and no matter who comes out on top in the end could be well past the point of no return to appeal to a majority in the general election.
When Mr. Todd asked Mr. Trump to fill in the blank: The state of our union is what? Mr. Trump answered, "a mess." Seems like everyone's thinking that he's referring to the union within the Republican party.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jennifer Jacobs, The Des Moines Register; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico
One more thing...
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan is a sad and despicable situation on so many levels. That the water was not lead-free in the first place; that Governor Rick Snyder's office has been passive to do anything as this has gone on for over a year; that the national media is not giving this the attention that should be paid give credence to our description. As Helene Cooper said: this is so basic and we're not a third-world country. So focused on the sensational are we that we are forgetting what is really important. Fix it!
The Republican establishment doesn't want to attack Donald Trump right now because they see Ted Cruz receiving the residual benefit, and that it does not want. We also suspect that there is a fear that Donald Trump could put these peoples' names in the news and they definitely don't want that. But here we all are, waiting to see if the establishment's Franken-Republican monster destroys all or dies. The Republican establishment had stoked and fanned the angry fires of their electorate for so many years without ever coming through on their promises, and they sought Donald Trump's endorsement and support in the past; then he got fed up as well. Uh-oh...
Mr. Trump said it himself in his interview today with Mr. Todd, that President Obama is a terrible negotiator with everyone except with Republicans; so they're the worst. And this doesn't bode well for the other Republican 'establishment' candidates obviously because they're the ones who've been doing the negotiating. Meanwhile they're engaged in what Mr. Todd called a 'circular firing squad;' here's how we noted it:
Rubio on Christie,
Bush on Rubio,
Christie on Rubio and Cruz.
Ben Ginsberg, fmr. counsel for Republican Administrations called it a 'demolition derby.' Collectively, Republicans are having a really hard time coming up with a candidate that they think can make it through the primary and the general elections, one they can rally around. Jennifer Jacobs from the Des Moines Register said it's going to be close because even though Mr. Trump leads, Mr. Cruz's favorability numbers are in the seventies. She also explained that each of the top two candidates are worried about one another, nuancing their respective positions to cater specifically to Iowa caucus goers. And as Mr. Castelllanos duly noted that it's too late for any of the establishment candidates to catch up with either of the front runners.
The only thing that the establishment can hang its hat on, so to speak, is something that Mr. Ginsberg said which was that in this election cycle the first four primary states have less significance than in past elections. But we're not so sure of that, especially if Mr. Trump wins the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, and possibly a third in South Carolina. What that could possibly lead to is no clear nominee come convention time. (It's difficult not to get ahead of yourself on this given the anxiety you witness among Republicans.)
The conservative electorate may be undecided on whether they want to go with Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz, but the political establishment clearly signals that it prefers neither but this is a situation of their own making and having Reince Preibus leading the RNC has probably made things worse. As the process moves on more damage will certainly be done to all the candidates as votes start being cast and no matter who comes out on top in the end could be well past the point of no return to appeal to a majority in the general election.
When Mr. Todd asked Mr. Trump to fill in the blank: The state of our union is what? Mr. Trump answered, "a mess." Seems like everyone's thinking that he's referring to the union within the Republican party.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Jennifer Jacobs, The Des Moines Register; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Jeff Greenfield, Politico
One more thing...
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan is a sad and despicable situation on so many levels. That the water was not lead-free in the first place; that Governor Rick Snyder's office has been passive to do anything as this has gone on for over a year; that the national media is not giving this the attention that should be paid give credence to our description. As Helene Cooper said: this is so basic and we're not a third-world country. So focused on the sensational are we that we are forgetting what is really important. Fix it!
Sunday, January 03, 2016
1.3.16: The Angry Avatar and The Happy Warrior
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
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)