If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man.
-Ric Flair
We didn't anticipate starting off today's column with a quote from professional wrestling icon Ric Flair, but this is how Chuck Todd assessed the Republican race despite its devolution into a name-calling challenge. Conservative standard bearer, RedState's Erick Erickson called the performances at Thursday night's Republican debate "childish." But here we stand with Donald Trump in the clear lead to win the Republican party nomination for president - an unmitigated disaster for the party establishment who will stay home, according to Mr. Erickson, if Mr. Trump is in fact the nominee.
Senators Rubio and Cruz have had to get waist-deep in the mud with Mr. Trump in a last ditch effort to stop his momentum, which as Mr. Todd described as unsuccessful. Not surprising for Senator Cruz as anyone can rationalize that it was just a matter of time before that happened, and by natural extension Mr. Cruz contributed more today by saying that Mr. Trump has done business with the mafia in his development dealings. A serious charge that at this point just comes across as just another inflammatory remark thrown into the circus-like mix of rhetoric. However, for Senator Rubio, going to this level debases his candidacy and will ultimately be his downfall. He has wrongly been advised that to win, Mr. Rubio has to play Mr. Trump's game, but here's the problem with that: It's Trump's game, and as a casino owner will tell you, "The house always wins." If Senator Rubio really wants to win, he has to change the game entirely, which he seems unable to do.
Andrea Mitchell said that a Democratic woman would have trouble in a debate against a candidate like Mr. Trump, but especially Hillary Clinton who is vulnerable on the e-mail issue and on political Benghazi attacks. However, looking at the field, it may be that only a Democratic woman could change the game and beat Mr. Trump. Senator Rubio, the establishment's hope, is going to lose - period, hard stop.
Given that, it's either an open convention, which would turn a fracture into a clean break of the Republican party or it's a Trump nomination where the establishment, and its money, will stay home. Either way, it doesn't look good for the Republican Party headed into Super Tuesday, for which Mr. Todd outlined a number of scenarios in which either Mr. Rubio or Mr. Cruz could emerge as the legitimate number 2 candidate for the nomination. However, none of it matters because after Tuesday, if the polls are projecting even somewhat accurately Mr. Trump is going to be too far ahead for them to catch up.
Charles Cook explained today how Mr. Trump is held to a lower standard than the other candidates by the press as he is never asked what policies he would put in place, only offering that for what ever it is it will be bigger and better if Mr. Trump is president. One, this is true, and two, it will change during the general election when the press gangs up on him with the realization that he could actually take the office.
However, it's also a matter of leadership, which wasn't discussed today and we're referring to the leadership that should be coming from the party itself, meaning Reince Preibus the Republican National Committee chair. He has been absent during this campaign and under his leadership, he has allowed the Republican race to become a "farce," as Erick Erickson described it. Mr. Preibus seems to believe that even Donald Trump, under the moniker of the Republicans, winning the presidency would be a good thing for his party, which is so misguided that it is a wonder he's still the chairman of the party.
Helping Mr. Preibus' delusion is the fact that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsed Mr. Trump for president this week, something that the entire panel assessed as naked political opportunism, which it most certainly is. The endorsement is completely disingenuous, sure, but let's face it, Gov. Christie is going to need a job. If Trump wins, Christie's in the cabinet. If Mr. Trump loses, at least for his loyalty, Mr. Christie will have a job with Mr. Trump doing something somewhere. Well played Mr. Christie.
And speaking of endorsements, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) came on today's "Meet The Press" to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for president. For the Democrats the debate has been much more civil by comparison and productive to the voters - there's substance there. We like the fact that Sec. Clinton has had the strong challenge from the left courtesy of Senator Sanders because otherwise, the Democratic voters wouldn't have had a say in the positions that the eventual nominee with advocate for in the general election, the point made by Heather McGhee of Demos Action. However, in Rep. Gabbard's reasons endorsement of Senator Sanders, she explained the he has a military mindset and would be strong on foreign policy. Maybe he will be strong in that area, but a 'military mindset' is something Senator Sanders has yet to show.
Senator Sanders is running a strong campaign, but Sec. Clinton with a blow out win in South Carolina and favored heavily in most Super Tuesday primary states, the party seems to be running its most predicable course. The Republican primary, on the other hand, has come close to reaching its full potential of volatility, in which the culmination of these smaller rhetorical explosions on the campaign trail could result in a political nuke being set off at the Republican convention in Cleveland. So much potential that it makes the 'predictability' of the Democratic race translate into 'stability.'
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Charles Cook, The Cook Political Report; Heather McGhee, President of Demos Action; Erick Erickson, RedState.com
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Sunday, February 21, 2016
2.21.16: Hugh Hewlitt's Lost Logic and Harry's Solid For Hillary
After last night's South Carolina primary, it's clear from today's "Meet The Press" that Hugh Hewlitt's logic writ large on the Republican race has been knocked off its moorings. Mr. Hewlitt is still sticking to the line of thinking that Marco Rubio has a chance to win in Nevada and will win Florida, his home state, to which the rest of the panel all scoffed. The go-to for Nevada politics, Jon Ralston, said that Trump would win easily in Nevada, given his financial ties. Mr. Hewlitt hasn't come to the reality that Joy-Ann Reid sharply put into focus for him which is that winning the establishment vote as Marco Rubio is doing isn't winning the nomination. That goes to someone who actually comes in first and that's Donald Trump. When Chuck Todd posed to Mr. Hewlitt that if the front runner were anyone else besides Donald Trump, the nomination would already be sewn up, to which he replied, because "This is the last war." The time between now and the March 1st super Tuesday, 14-state primary will be make or break for a 'traditional' Republican candidate.
When he commented on the Democratic race, he was no more sound. His general premise always has been the Hillary Clinton is a 'tremendously flawed' candidate. Never mind that in terms of flaws, the Republicans candidate are on the same playing field. That aside, he went on to explain that voters are sophisticated and will realize this. But who was he referring to, exactly?
Was he talking about voters in general or just Democratic voters as they relate to Hillary Clinton's campaign. We dissect this because obviously he doesn't think that Republican voters are sophisticated because they're voting for Donald Trump so he must be referring to Democrats who by extension are smarter voters?
If that wasn't enough, at the end of the program, Mr. Hewlitt stated that he'd rather lose the election than lose the Supreme Court, to which Chuck Todd pointed out that Republicans lose the election, they do in fact lose the Supreme Court. To save face, Mr. Hewlitt clarified as a general premise. But what is he talking about? Who ever wins the next election that person could be confirming three new justices who will all most probably serve for the remainder of his lifetime.
This is the general state of denial that the establishment is experiencing. As for the Republican talk-radio establishment, they're not fairing any better getting behind Ted Cruz. In his interview today, Sen. Cruz talked about how real conservatives were uniting around his campaign, building momentum. Chuck Todd had to take him down, and did. Below is the full clip, beginning with Mr. Cruz calling last night, "an incredible evening."
Senator Cruz finished third as Mr. Todd bluntly [read: rightly] pointed out, in the most evangelical state so far. If in South Carolina they deem your campaign the most dishonest, you know you have to be scraping the bottom of people's favorability lists. On this first Super Tuesday, Texas and Tennessee will be key indicator states for both Senators Cruz and Rubio respectively. The panel didn't seem bullish on the prospect of Senator Cruz carrying his own state and in Tennessee where establishment candidates go to become whole again, Senator Rubio's chances are iffy at best. Senator Rubio said that 70 percent of Republicans [nationally] are against Mr. Trump and those are the people who will eventually back him, but don't believe the hype on that because there will be 5 candidates in the race, most probably, through the March 15th primary that features Florida and Ohio. This is the day that John Kasich gets out. He'll carry his home state but lose big overall yet be ready for the VP choice if the nominee isn't Trump. Rubio, as we are now obligated to point out to Hugh Hewlitt and others, hasn't won any state contests yet.
Despite insistence by some to the contrary, there is a clear front runner is both races. While to understate the convoluted nature of the Republican race, on the Democratic side, the case for Hillary Clinton is becoming ever stronger, and despite what Mr. Hewlitt would tell you, she is the most electable candidate on either side of the aisle. The panel touched on a point that is going to start resonating louder and louder and that is that the proposals that Senator Sanders has been advocating for are going to be insanely expensive, as high as $31 Trillion over ten years. Once moderate Democrats and Independents start thinking about that number seriously, Sec. Clinton will solidify her advantage and her argument that it's just not realistic to reshape the economy so drastically as Senator Sanders proposes.
That's the argument but as Joy-Ann Reid expertly pointed out, it will be African-Americans who will control Hillary Clinton's fate and ultimately who is nominated. Ms. Reid also explained that it would specifically be African-Americans over 50, which is one of the key groups that we would argue knows best the pulse of the Democratic heart. Growing up as teenagers in neglected cities of the seventies, you remember the people who came and stood up for you the longest because at this point, this group of people has seen it all when it comes to the system being stacked in another direction, admitting what they know it is: institutional racism. Thank you, Ms. Reid for this point.
That fact, along with Harry Reid making a few phone calls (not everything that happens in Vegas stays there), carried the state of Nevada for Sec. Clinton. How about that?
As Jon Ralston explained, Senator Harry Reid - the guy even many Democrats love to hate - is still the most powerful pugilist in Nevada politics and on his way out changed the direction of the race, giving Hillary Clinton a vital up, the line she needed to climb to the nomination. And he did one more solid for a guy he is rather fond of, President Barack Obama. One must acknowledge that Senator Reid fought some ugly fights on behalf of the president and was motivated to protect his legacy by getting people out to the polls ultimately for the person who's openly still advocating for the president's policies.
And if, in fact, the momentum from Sec. Clinton's win in Nevada propels her to the nomination and then she goes on to indeed win the presidency, she will appoint those judges and that will be the legacy of Senator Harry Reid.
Mr. Hewlitt's worst nightmare.
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Jon Ralston, Reno Gazette-Journal
A few more things:
Mr. Hewlitt explained that Jeb Bush was the wrong man for the wrong time. Perhaps. However, unfortunately for Jeb Bush, the real irony perhaps is that following his older brother's presidency there never was nor would there be a right time. Will Gov. Bush's legacy be rewritten as Ms. Reid described, to which Mr. Todd agreed that he benefited from the Clinton economy in the 90's when he was in office and then got out before his brother became established in his office? Maybe, but we would speculate, unlikely.
And lastly, as I always like to do - a shout out to our veterans, no matter what generation. I took this photo yesterday in lower Manhattan, The Korean War Memorial. Note the background, specifically through the soldiers left leg.
click on photo to enlarge
When he commented on the Democratic race, he was no more sound. His general premise always has been the Hillary Clinton is a 'tremendously flawed' candidate. Never mind that in terms of flaws, the Republicans candidate are on the same playing field. That aside, he went on to explain that voters are sophisticated and will realize this. But who was he referring to, exactly?
Was he talking about voters in general or just Democratic voters as they relate to Hillary Clinton's campaign. We dissect this because obviously he doesn't think that Republican voters are sophisticated because they're voting for Donald Trump so he must be referring to Democrats who by extension are smarter voters?
If that wasn't enough, at the end of the program, Mr. Hewlitt stated that he'd rather lose the election than lose the Supreme Court, to which Chuck Todd pointed out that Republicans lose the election, they do in fact lose the Supreme Court. To save face, Mr. Hewlitt clarified as a general premise. But what is he talking about? Who ever wins the next election that person could be confirming three new justices who will all most probably serve for the remainder of his lifetime.
This is the general state of denial that the establishment is experiencing. As for the Republican talk-radio establishment, they're not fairing any better getting behind Ted Cruz. In his interview today, Sen. Cruz talked about how real conservatives were uniting around his campaign, building momentum. Chuck Todd had to take him down, and did. Below is the full clip, beginning with Mr. Cruz calling last night, "an incredible evening."
Senator Cruz finished third as Mr. Todd bluntly [read: rightly] pointed out, in the most evangelical state so far. If in South Carolina they deem your campaign the most dishonest, you know you have to be scraping the bottom of people's favorability lists. On this first Super Tuesday, Texas and Tennessee will be key indicator states for both Senators Cruz and Rubio respectively. The panel didn't seem bullish on the prospect of Senator Cruz carrying his own state and in Tennessee where establishment candidates go to become whole again, Senator Rubio's chances are iffy at best. Senator Rubio said that 70 percent of Republicans [nationally] are against Mr. Trump and those are the people who will eventually back him, but don't believe the hype on that because there will be 5 candidates in the race, most probably, through the March 15th primary that features Florida and Ohio. This is the day that John Kasich gets out. He'll carry his home state but lose big overall yet be ready for the VP choice if the nominee isn't Trump. Rubio, as we are now obligated to point out to Hugh Hewlitt and others, hasn't won any state contests yet.
Despite insistence by some to the contrary, there is a clear front runner is both races. While to understate the convoluted nature of the Republican race, on the Democratic side, the case for Hillary Clinton is becoming ever stronger, and despite what Mr. Hewlitt would tell you, she is the most electable candidate on either side of the aisle. The panel touched on a point that is going to start resonating louder and louder and that is that the proposals that Senator Sanders has been advocating for are going to be insanely expensive, as high as $31 Trillion over ten years. Once moderate Democrats and Independents start thinking about that number seriously, Sec. Clinton will solidify her advantage and her argument that it's just not realistic to reshape the economy so drastically as Senator Sanders proposes.
That's the argument but as Joy-Ann Reid expertly pointed out, it will be African-Americans who will control Hillary Clinton's fate and ultimately who is nominated. Ms. Reid also explained that it would specifically be African-Americans over 50, which is one of the key groups that we would argue knows best the pulse of the Democratic heart. Growing up as teenagers in neglected cities of the seventies, you remember the people who came and stood up for you the longest because at this point, this group of people has seen it all when it comes to the system being stacked in another direction, admitting what they know it is: institutional racism. Thank you, Ms. Reid for this point.
That fact, along with Harry Reid making a few phone calls (not everything that happens in Vegas stays there), carried the state of Nevada for Sec. Clinton. How about that?
As Jon Ralston explained, Senator Harry Reid - the guy even many Democrats love to hate - is still the most powerful pugilist in Nevada politics and on his way out changed the direction of the race, giving Hillary Clinton a vital up, the line she needed to climb to the nomination. And he did one more solid for a guy he is rather fond of, President Barack Obama. One must acknowledge that Senator Reid fought some ugly fights on behalf of the president and was motivated to protect his legacy by getting people out to the polls ultimately for the person who's openly still advocating for the president's policies.
And if, in fact, the momentum from Sec. Clinton's win in Nevada propels her to the nomination and then she goes on to indeed win the presidency, she will appoint those judges and that will be the legacy of Senator Harry Reid.
Mr. Hewlitt's worst nightmare.
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Jon Ralston, Reno Gazette-Journal
A few more things:
Mr. Hewlitt explained that Jeb Bush was the wrong man for the wrong time. Perhaps. However, unfortunately for Jeb Bush, the real irony perhaps is that following his older brother's presidency there never was nor would there be a right time. Will Gov. Bush's legacy be rewritten as Ms. Reid described, to which Mr. Todd agreed that he benefited from the Clinton economy in the 90's when he was in office and then got out before his brother became established in his office? Maybe, but we would speculate, unlikely.
And lastly, as I always like to do - a shout out to our veterans, no matter what generation. I took this photo yesterday in lower Manhattan, The Korean War Memorial. Note the background, specifically through the soldiers left leg.
click on photo to enlarge
Sunday, February 14, 2016
2.14.16: More Trouble For Republicans and The Bernie Referendum
As if it couldn't get any worse for Republicans, it just did.
With the unfortunate, untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, this throws all three branches of government hip deep into the muddy race for the executive. It's also sad when The National Journal's Ron Fournier says that with a call, it had already turned political 20 minutes after he passed. However, those are the terms in which justice are put because of the life time appointment. People spend years calculating the day one passes and hence who will get to make the appointment.
Speaking of which, President Obama will put forward a nominee, of course. However, let's be clear, President Obama should put forth a nominee. As John Kasich said during today's interview, it's the president's prerogative. Just because the circumstance hasn't happened in 80 years does mean that the president should not conduct the business of the office even in his last year; another way of saying that we agree with the premise of Chuck Todd's question today to the Republican candidates of the 'three-year term' for the president? That's not the way it should be for either side - the the luck of the dice when it comes to life time appointments. The Republican-controlled Senate, lead by Mitch McConnell (R-KY) can then certainly delay the process and complain, but it will be at the peril of a Republican candidate winning the White House, certainly. The image of a Republican Senate unable to get anything done will come into sharp focus and hover over the election affecting the down ballot, especially if their nominee is Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
This will become even more difficult in the general election on the heels of this what likely is to go down as the presidential primary with the nastiest character assassination rhetoric in at least the last century, because of the direct nature of the attacks - to your face, on national television. Donald Trump called the presidency of George Bush a 'reign.' He also called Senator Cruz the 'single biggest liar' on the stage, implying that there were others. Mr. Cruz, for his part, confronted Senator Rubio in Spanish after he said that Mr. Cruz didn't know how. Bottom line: It was ugly.
This begs the question of how the Republican nominee is going to come out at the end of this fight. No matter who wins the Republican nomination, there is going to be a large contingent of unhappy and vocal people at the convention.
As for the Democratic nominees, the panel discussed the notion of the Clinton campaign being able to turn the primary race into a referendum on her opponent, Bernie Sanders, specifically on his record concerning issues important to black voters; his record of championing for their rights.
However, given today's panel discussion, the referendum on Senator Sanders has already begun, at least in the press.
The panel made the point that Senator Sanders rarely addresses blacks specifically, always opting to frame things within the larger economically argument that theoretically transcends race. But in lieu of that, this is where Senator Sanders is at a disadvantage to Sec. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has a long record of supporting causes important to the African-American community. Then the questions of how Senator Sanders intends to pay for his proposals compounds the argument against his candidacy.
If you're a left of center Democrat, the primary is going pretty much how you want it because Senator Sanders is pulling Hillary Clinton to the left but the sight on the horizon seems to be that Sec. Clinton will prevail, the 'establishment' candidate. Okay, what ever.
For the Republicans, it's a completely different story - there is no consensus candidate and the one with the most positive message (John Kasich) has the least amount of support. (And with all due respect to Dr. Carson, we'll put it kindly that he'd be doing his brand well by suspending his candidacy.) Kathleen Parker described Jeb Bush as 'desperate' - Laura Bush is now making appearances on Jeb's behalf as well as George in South Carolina this week. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are wildcards at best. That's why it's easy to see how many in the establishment like Marco Rubio - he can be molded. We know that his rhetoric is tightly scripted and memorized with discipline. However, Senator Rubio should be careful what he wishes for because it has been proven that one-on-one he has folded, and Sec. Clinton is a strong debater. If it even gets to that point, which is doubtful.
Chris Cillizza described Donald Trump as 'off the rails' at last night's debate. It's safe to extrapolate that sentiment out over the entire Republican primary.
Panel: Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post.
With the unfortunate, untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, this throws all three branches of government hip deep into the muddy race for the executive. It's also sad when The National Journal's Ron Fournier says that with a call, it had already turned political 20 minutes after he passed. However, those are the terms in which justice are put because of the life time appointment. People spend years calculating the day one passes and hence who will get to make the appointment.
Speaking of which, President Obama will put forward a nominee, of course. However, let's be clear, President Obama should put forth a nominee. As John Kasich said during today's interview, it's the president's prerogative. Just because the circumstance hasn't happened in 80 years does mean that the president should not conduct the business of the office even in his last year; another way of saying that we agree with the premise of Chuck Todd's question today to the Republican candidates of the 'three-year term' for the president? That's not the way it should be for either side - the the luck of the dice when it comes to life time appointments. The Republican-controlled Senate, lead by Mitch McConnell (R-KY) can then certainly delay the process and complain, but it will be at the peril of a Republican candidate winning the White House, certainly. The image of a Republican Senate unable to get anything done will come into sharp focus and hover over the election affecting the down ballot, especially if their nominee is Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
This will become even more difficult in the general election on the heels of this what likely is to go down as the presidential primary with the nastiest character assassination rhetoric in at least the last century, because of the direct nature of the attacks - to your face, on national television. Donald Trump called the presidency of George Bush a 'reign.' He also called Senator Cruz the 'single biggest liar' on the stage, implying that there were others. Mr. Cruz, for his part, confronted Senator Rubio in Spanish after he said that Mr. Cruz didn't know how. Bottom line: It was ugly.
This begs the question of how the Republican nominee is going to come out at the end of this fight. No matter who wins the Republican nomination, there is going to be a large contingent of unhappy and vocal people at the convention.
As for the Democratic nominees, the panel discussed the notion of the Clinton campaign being able to turn the primary race into a referendum on her opponent, Bernie Sanders, specifically on his record concerning issues important to black voters; his record of championing for their rights.
However, given today's panel discussion, the referendum on Senator Sanders has already begun, at least in the press.
The panel made the point that Senator Sanders rarely addresses blacks specifically, always opting to frame things within the larger economically argument that theoretically transcends race. But in lieu of that, this is where Senator Sanders is at a disadvantage to Sec. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has a long record of supporting causes important to the African-American community. Then the questions of how Senator Sanders intends to pay for his proposals compounds the argument against his candidacy.
If you're a left of center Democrat, the primary is going pretty much how you want it because Senator Sanders is pulling Hillary Clinton to the left but the sight on the horizon seems to be that Sec. Clinton will prevail, the 'establishment' candidate. Okay, what ever.
For the Republicans, it's a completely different story - there is no consensus candidate and the one with the most positive message (John Kasich) has the least amount of support. (And with all due respect to Dr. Carson, we'll put it kindly that he'd be doing his brand well by suspending his candidacy.) Kathleen Parker described Jeb Bush as 'desperate' - Laura Bush is now making appearances on Jeb's behalf as well as George in South Carolina this week. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are wildcards at best. That's why it's easy to see how many in the establishment like Marco Rubio - he can be molded. We know that his rhetoric is tightly scripted and memorized with discipline. However, Senator Rubio should be careful what he wishes for because it has been proven that one-on-one he has folded, and Sec. Clinton is a strong debater. If it even gets to that point, which is doubtful.
Chris Cillizza described Donald Trump as 'off the rails' at last night's debate. It's safe to extrapolate that sentiment out over the entire Republican primary.
Panel: Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
2.7.16: The Republican Rumble and Democratic Mental Notes
One wouldn't really be able to comment on most of today's "Meet The Press" without having watched last night's Republican debate on ABC. So yes, since we're commenting, and hence admit that we spent our Saturday night watching it. There were also significant insights in the respective Democratic candidates' interview; more on this in a bit.
But first, boy, was it a dozzy of a debate! The whale of a take away from last night is something that we've been saying for a while now, which is another way of saying that it has been painfully obvious, that Marco Rubio is a scripted candidate that can not move off of scripted talking points. Last night, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) verbally ran over Senator Rubio like a dear in the headlights on a Jersey back road headed home late night from the shore. Mr. Rubio had that same panicked look in his eye like when he reached for the water off-camera during his State of Union response. He didn't know what hit him. NBC's Hallie Jackson noted his new nickname - Marco Roboto... ouch.
And despite what Hugh Hewlitt said about the rest of the debate being a strong one for Mr. Rubio outside those three minutes, that's the lasting image and it will hurt him in the primary. On the other hand Donald Trump, despite being booed by the debate audience on a few occasions, did well to maintain his posture as the front runner in New Hampshire. The billionaire's toughest moment came on the issue of imminent domain, which Mr. Hewlitt pointed out, conservatives hate.
The Atlantic City property that raised the imminent domain issue for Mr. Trump.
(Aside: Mr. Trump's best moment was at the top of the debate where he essentially called out Ted Cruz for not having the guts to acknowledge to his face an attack he made of Mr. Trump on the campaign trail.)
Governor John Kasich (R-OH) and Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) were the two candidates that benefited the most and certainly presented themselves as the most reasonable in their responses. Mr. Rubio responses were reasoned, yes, but the question is if they are really his responses. For Governor Christie's part in instructively pointing this out, he really didn't advance his cause in terms of polling percentage. Mr. Bush, unfortunately for him once again did his futile best to take on Mr. Trump, dirtying himself just enough that it was Mr. Kasich's positive message that shined the best (his strongest performance), which will make a difference for his candidacy come Tuesday.
Speaking of positive messages, that brings us back to Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, who is trailing in New Hampshire polling. Despite this, Mrs. Clinton projected the more positive demeanor of the two, which is understood to be "putting on a good face when things aren't going well," but if her campaign can convey a positive vision that while being empathetic to the Sanders protest vote, the protest answer isn't necessarily the solution.
Look, the people in politics who understand that The United States is one humongous shipped that in order to be turned, it has to be done gradually or the whole thing will tip over are the ones who last and orchestrate long-term change. If you agree with this analogy then center-right or center-left are your preferred lanes depending on how you lean. To give you names, that's Bush, Kasich, Clinton, Christie (to a lesser degree).
The other very evident observation from the two interviews is that Mr. Sanders' answers on foreign policy aren't sure-footed enough, and in our humble opinion it's a topic that has been wrongly subordinated in this election cycle, with the possible exception of ISIS, which only begs the question for us as to when the United States is going to start recognizing Boko Haram as the threat that it is. We thankfully acknowledge that Mr. Sanders' judgements in his foreign policy votes were sound, it's not enough. Conversely, Secretary Clinton has the understanding that not only ISIS constitutes a foreign policy response but that also the Zika virus, for example, requires one as well. In the context of the world bringing a crazy plethora of dangers to our door with no ability to predict them, you have to at least know who you're dealing with, at the very least.
Lastly, given our pragmatic view, calling Wall Street finance and banking industry a fraud is counter-productive. Stating that it is a fraud whether true or not is not going to change the fact that it isn't going away. We're all for heavy regulation because we understand that basic fact, and in light of that it's more productive to work for changing the industry if necessary instead of just tearing the whole thing down.
These Democratic mental notes may not manifest into strengths for Mrs. Clinton and deficits for Mr. Sanders before New Hampshire votes, but down the line they'll only begin to matter more and more heading toward a general election.
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Chris Matthews, MSNBC
One more thing...
Super Bowl Sunday - an unofficial holiday. But if that's the understanding and we're indeed calling it that then we hope that this message finds you well and with family enjoying each others' company on this distinct American holiday, the same as we would on any other.
No prediction, instead, here's to family time... and a good game!
But first, boy, was it a dozzy of a debate! The whale of a take away from last night is something that we've been saying for a while now, which is another way of saying that it has been painfully obvious, that Marco Rubio is a scripted candidate that can not move off of scripted talking points. Last night, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) verbally ran over Senator Rubio like a dear in the headlights on a Jersey back road headed home late night from the shore. Mr. Rubio had that same panicked look in his eye like when he reached for the water off-camera during his State of Union response. He didn't know what hit him. NBC's Hallie Jackson noted his new nickname - Marco Roboto... ouch.
And despite what Hugh Hewlitt said about the rest of the debate being a strong one for Mr. Rubio outside those three minutes, that's the lasting image and it will hurt him in the primary. On the other hand Donald Trump, despite being booed by the debate audience on a few occasions, did well to maintain his posture as the front runner in New Hampshire. The billionaire's toughest moment came on the issue of imminent domain, which Mr. Hewlitt pointed out, conservatives hate.
The Atlantic City property that raised the imminent domain issue for Mr. Trump.
(Aside: Mr. Trump's best moment was at the top of the debate where he essentially called out Ted Cruz for not having the guts to acknowledge to his face an attack he made of Mr. Trump on the campaign trail.)
Governor John Kasich (R-OH) and Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) were the two candidates that benefited the most and certainly presented themselves as the most reasonable in their responses. Mr. Rubio responses were reasoned, yes, but the question is if they are really his responses. For Governor Christie's part in instructively pointing this out, he really didn't advance his cause in terms of polling percentage. Mr. Bush, unfortunately for him once again did his futile best to take on Mr. Trump, dirtying himself just enough that it was Mr. Kasich's positive message that shined the best (his strongest performance), which will make a difference for his candidacy come Tuesday.
Speaking of positive messages, that brings us back to Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, who is trailing in New Hampshire polling. Despite this, Mrs. Clinton projected the more positive demeanor of the two, which is understood to be "putting on a good face when things aren't going well," but if her campaign can convey a positive vision that while being empathetic to the Sanders protest vote, the protest answer isn't necessarily the solution.
Look, the people in politics who understand that The United States is one humongous shipped that in order to be turned, it has to be done gradually or the whole thing will tip over are the ones who last and orchestrate long-term change. If you agree with this analogy then center-right or center-left are your preferred lanes depending on how you lean. To give you names, that's Bush, Kasich, Clinton, Christie (to a lesser degree).
The other very evident observation from the two interviews is that Mr. Sanders' answers on foreign policy aren't sure-footed enough, and in our humble opinion it's a topic that has been wrongly subordinated in this election cycle, with the possible exception of ISIS, which only begs the question for us as to when the United States is going to start recognizing Boko Haram as the threat that it is. We thankfully acknowledge that Mr. Sanders' judgements in his foreign policy votes were sound, it's not enough. Conversely, Secretary Clinton has the understanding that not only ISIS constitutes a foreign policy response but that also the Zika virus, for example, requires one as well. In the context of the world bringing a crazy plethora of dangers to our door with no ability to predict them, you have to at least know who you're dealing with, at the very least.
Lastly, given our pragmatic view, calling Wall Street finance and banking industry a fraud is counter-productive. Stating that it is a fraud whether true or not is not going to change the fact that it isn't going away. We're all for heavy regulation because we understand that basic fact, and in light of that it's more productive to work for changing the industry if necessary instead of just tearing the whole thing down.
These Democratic mental notes may not manifest into strengths for Mrs. Clinton and deficits for Mr. Sanders before New Hampshire votes, but down the line they'll only begin to matter more and more heading toward a general election.
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Chris Matthews, MSNBC
One more thing...
Super Bowl Sunday - an unofficial holiday. But if that's the understanding and we're indeed calling it that then we hope that this message finds you well and with family enjoying each others' company on this distinct American holiday, the same as we would on any other.
No prediction, instead, here's to family time... and a good game!
Sunday, January 31, 2016
1.31.16: Finally, Time to Put Up or Shut Up
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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)