It's simply perplexing to us why a country that has played a leadership role in the world culturally, geographically, philosophically and linguistically for the past, say, five centuries would now willing decide to abdicate that responsibility and become small, and diminish itself. That's exactly what Britain did with their "Brexit" vote this week.
In these first 48 hours since the vote, the fall-out has sent shock waves through the British government, set global stock markets reeling, and has every world leader scratching their heads wondering what is going to happen next.
One thing that may happen next is that Scotland, which overwhelming voted to stay in the European Union, may have another referendum on whether or not to declare independence from England. If they vote to divorce England, they'll stay in the E.U. and then have leverage over an even further diminished England. Does Northern Ireland follow suit, essentially ending what is known as Great Britain?
Predominantly England felt they could recreate the past as opposed to charging into the future only to now realize there's no going back. Stupid. But as presidential historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin outlined, David Cameron did this to himself. He courted England's extreme right, which he didn't need to do, promising an E.U. vote and the result for him was his resignation. Way to go.
Though The New York Times' Helene Cooper warned about making too many parallels between "Brexit" and sentiments here in the United States and how they play to the Trump campaign's strengths, don't be fooled. Paul Manafort on today's program was making them very forcibly, but what he and Donald Trump are arguing for is xenophobic isolationism. (Note: read Mr. Manafort's Wikipedia page and decide whether you want such a person advising an American presidential candidate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort.) Even though Mr. Manafort called David Miliband, fmr. Labor-Party member of Parliament arrogant, Mr. Miliband was accurate when he said that the friendship between The United States and Britain will always be there, but the partnership would be subordinated. The E.U. is a bigger trading partner to the United States than Great Britain and the U.S. should rightly prioritize the former over the latter.Don't blame the U.S. for that.
Mr. Manafort refused to answer Chuck Todd's question as to whether or not "Brexit" is good for the United States. We know it's good for Donald Trump, personally, because he said as much from his new golf resort in Scotland that a weaker pound will make him more money. Speaking of which, the Trump Corporation as illustrated by Mr. Todd today makes money off of the Trump Campaign. And Republicans are O.K. with that?
So even if Donald Trump the candidate loses the election his corporation which he'll then go back to running will have made a profit.
Say what you will about the establishment and your/our varying degrees of rejection of it, but the result of low-informed or dis-informed voting is not the answer - that's what "Brexit" was. It does matter that respected Republicans and conservatives are rejecting Donald Trump (Brent Scowcroft, fmr. National Security Advisor; Henry Paulson, fmr. Treasury Sec; George Will, conservative columnist). If America is thinking that we can recreate the past or shut out the rest of the world, abdicating global leadership, and that's it's a good idea, you're simply being foolish. America now has a view through the window to what the future may hold we decide to elect Donald Trump and it isn't pretty. In other words, you really want to live in fear then vote for Trump.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
One More Thing...
We don't really have that much interest in the speculation game of who will be the respective Vice-Presidential candidates so we'll let you know what we think of the choices once they're made.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
6.12.16: Now With Orlando, We Truly Have Failed As A Society
No matter the motive or the affiliation, the ease in which an individual in this country can obtain, legally or illegally, a mass killing machine is a failure of our society.
An assault weapon. Sold for what purpose? To hunt dear during the season in the forests of Pennsylvania? No, any hunter true to American traditions would never use an AR-15 for dear, and yet some would go as far as to say that hunting with any thing other than a bow is not really hunting. So if we don't assault animals with the assault rifle, what it is meant for? The only reason to own one is for the purpose of killing multiple individuals, quickly and easily - assaulting them.
For home protection, how about a shotgun?
For target shooting, how about a pistol?
This idiotic religiosity of guns, especially military style ones (the AR-15 is a civilian model of the military M-16), has to end.
We as an American society have failed to act in any responsible way when it comes to public safety and firearms. When obtaining a firearm in America, it's no questions asked. The questions only come after it's used to commit the largest single mass murder in American history - a terrorist hate crime, a new hybrid motive for massing killing. And why? Because it is all too easy to accomplish.
At the Pulse night club in Orlando, there was an Orlando police officer working security at the club, yet 50 people have died and another 53 were wounded, status pending. Pardon our cynicism, but the good guy with the gun didn't stop the bad guy with the gun.
That disingenuous reasoning was enough for cowardly politicians to hide behind after 20 elementary school children were gunned down with an AR-15 subsequently taking no action to prevent such carnage from happening again in the future.
Well, the future is now, our hearts have been assaulted once again. What's left of them go out to the families who have directed suffered in this tragedy.
And for those politicians we referred to earlier, those who still oppose any kind of regulation on assault weapons should have to answer directly to the victims' families. The shamefulness and callousness of these people is despicable. (For God's sake, show some damn courage... just once.)
An assault weapon. Sold for what purpose? To hunt dear during the season in the forests of Pennsylvania? No, any hunter true to American traditions would never use an AR-15 for dear, and yet some would go as far as to say that hunting with any thing other than a bow is not really hunting. So if we don't assault animals with the assault rifle, what it is meant for? The only reason to own one is for the purpose of killing multiple individuals, quickly and easily - assaulting them.
For home protection, how about a shotgun?
For target shooting, how about a pistol?
This idiotic religiosity of guns, especially military style ones (the AR-15 is a civilian model of the military M-16), has to end.
We as an American society have failed to act in any responsible way when it comes to public safety and firearms. When obtaining a firearm in America, it's no questions asked. The questions only come after it's used to commit the largest single mass murder in American history - a terrorist hate crime, a new hybrid motive for massing killing. And why? Because it is all too easy to accomplish.
At the Pulse night club in Orlando, there was an Orlando police officer working security at the club, yet 50 people have died and another 53 were wounded, status pending. Pardon our cynicism, but the good guy with the gun didn't stop the bad guy with the gun.
That disingenuous reasoning was enough for cowardly politicians to hide behind after 20 elementary school children were gunned down with an AR-15 subsequently taking no action to prevent such carnage from happening again in the future.
Well, the future is now, our hearts have been assaulted once again. What's left of them go out to the families who have directed suffered in this tragedy.
And for those politicians we referred to earlier, those who still oppose any kind of regulation on assault weapons should have to answer directly to the victims' families. The shamefulness and callousness of these people is despicable. (For God's sake, show some damn courage... just once.)
Sunday, June 05, 2016
6.5.16: Two Men from Lexington (Muhammad Ali Commentary)
At a late hour in the Detroit Airport, the dads were tired as they ambled through an empty terminal with their boys. Then an airport transport cart carrying a single individual zipped by the group and when the young boys saw who was on the back they started to yell and chase after it. The man on the back leaned over to the cart driver, telling him to stop. Muhammad Ali stepped off the cart and walked toward the three excited 12 year-old boys, yelling in enthusiasm. I stood there in awe as the champ asked me my name taking my hand in his, huge yet smooth. "What're y'all doing here so late?" he asked.
"We're hockey players," my friend David answered.
"So you's is tough then," the champ responded, still holding onto my hand.
"I'm not afraid to fight you," my other teammate Chris challenged. Surprised, Muhammad Ali took half a step back, putting up his fists, giving us the subtle, signature, juke of the shoulders as the iconic smile broke across his face with this act of love.
Someone had put a paper and pen in the champ's hand and the next thing I know, he handed me an autograph. "Keep fightin," he said as he got back onto the cart and waved to us.
The paper is a little worse from wear, but the signature is still there.
Forever inspired.
Jim Brown left us with one final message today and that was that his friend "hated discrimination and racism," so it's sad for all of us that one of our nominees for president, a position that we're supposed to admire, makes racist statements toward a federal judge, Gonzalo Curiel, in an effort to protect himself.
Andrea Mitchell described the Mr. Trump's statements as blatantly racist, with the same sentiment in writing from conservative author Erick Erickson to back up the point. The National Journal's Ron Fournier described Mr. Trump's statements a "racist bullhorn." If you have any doubts about these descriptions consider that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from the same hometown as Muhammad Ali, refused to answer Mr. Todd's question as to whether he thought the statements were racist or not. He said that he disagreed with them, fine, but he couldn't bring himself to admit that Mr. Trump's statements about the judge were in fact racist. (It's a tell-tale sign of what the answer really is when a politician refuses to give a direct answer.)
This brings us to another statement that Senator McConnell made in saying that "the party of Lincoln wants to win the White House." With Donald Trump as the nominee, McConnell's statement render his party inexcusably, morally bankrupt as Mr. Trump's statements are now the Republican party's statements, and that is not the party of Lincoln. With Trump as the party standard-bearer, the moniker no longer applies. The party's leaders are so consumed with self-preservation, unable to look passed an election cycle as the Hoover Institute's Lanhee Chen suggested, that they're willing to support a bigot who is wholly unqualified to be president. Cynically, it's all about the Supreme Court appointments for the Kentucky senator, and his party-at-all-costs over country is a disgraceful stance. For Paul Ryan's part, we'll call his earlier in the week vocalized support of Mr. Trump "sad" as the House Speaker simply walked away from principle.
Jim Brown said today that Muhammad Ali showed other athletes that money is not God, that standing on principle and having integrity are more important, as Mr. Ali did with his stand against the Vietnam War which almost cost him his boxing career. Senator McConnell, from the same city - Lexington - as the champ, shares none of these qualities.
Panel: Donna Edwards (D-MD), Congresswoman; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institute; Ron Fournier, The National Journal
One More Thing...
In case it wasn't clear, Senator Mitch McConnell makes us shake our heads in disgust. If you dislike how Washington operates, look for no other prime example than this individual.
"We're hockey players," my friend David answered.
"So you's is tough then," the champ responded, still holding onto my hand.
"I'm not afraid to fight you," my other teammate Chris challenged. Surprised, Muhammad Ali took half a step back, putting up his fists, giving us the subtle, signature, juke of the shoulders as the iconic smile broke across his face with this act of love.
Someone had put a paper and pen in the champ's hand and the next thing I know, he handed me an autograph. "Keep fightin," he said as he got back onto the cart and waved to us.
The paper is a little worse from wear, but the signature is still there.
Forever inspired.
Jim Brown left us with one final message today and that was that his friend "hated discrimination and racism," so it's sad for all of us that one of our nominees for president, a position that we're supposed to admire, makes racist statements toward a federal judge, Gonzalo Curiel, in an effort to protect himself.
Andrea Mitchell described the Mr. Trump's statements as blatantly racist, with the same sentiment in writing from conservative author Erick Erickson to back up the point. The National Journal's Ron Fournier described Mr. Trump's statements a "racist bullhorn." If you have any doubts about these descriptions consider that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) from the same hometown as Muhammad Ali, refused to answer Mr. Todd's question as to whether he thought the statements were racist or not. He said that he disagreed with them, fine, but he couldn't bring himself to admit that Mr. Trump's statements about the judge were in fact racist. (It's a tell-tale sign of what the answer really is when a politician refuses to give a direct answer.)
This brings us to another statement that Senator McConnell made in saying that "the party of Lincoln wants to win the White House." With Donald Trump as the nominee, McConnell's statement render his party inexcusably, morally bankrupt as Mr. Trump's statements are now the Republican party's statements, and that is not the party of Lincoln. With Trump as the party standard-bearer, the moniker no longer applies. The party's leaders are so consumed with self-preservation, unable to look passed an election cycle as the Hoover Institute's Lanhee Chen suggested, that they're willing to support a bigot who is wholly unqualified to be president. Cynically, it's all about the Supreme Court appointments for the Kentucky senator, and his party-at-all-costs over country is a disgraceful stance. For Paul Ryan's part, we'll call his earlier in the week vocalized support of Mr. Trump "sad" as the House Speaker simply walked away from principle.
Jim Brown said today that Muhammad Ali showed other athletes that money is not God, that standing on principle and having integrity are more important, as Mr. Ali did with his stand against the Vietnam War which almost cost him his boxing career. Senator McConnell, from the same city - Lexington - as the champ, shares none of these qualities.
Panel: Donna Edwards (D-MD), Congresswoman; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institute; Ron Fournier, The National Journal
One More Thing...
In case it wasn't clear, Senator Mitch McConnell makes us shake our heads in disgust. If you dislike how Washington operates, look for no other prime example than this individual.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
5.29.16: California Is An Elimination Game for Senator Sanders
Even though it's Memorial Day, "Meet The Press" was politics as usual Mr. Todd forget to ask Senator Sanders anything about this solemn holiday or ask Governor Schwarzenegger for that matter. Instead he discussed acquiescence to the respective front running candidates. That's all there is of the news cycle now with MTP towing the line - we get it - but there could have been at least one question to Senator Sanders, a person who aspires to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, what Memorial Day means to him.
Just saying.
Senator Sanders believes he has three paths to the nomination still: 1) bringing more pledged delegates into the convention, 2) convince super-delegates who are voting against their states' results switch over, and 3) have super delegates who have pledged their support Hillary Clinton before the primary began reconsider their support (given poll results showing Sen. Sanders doing better than Sec. Clinton in the general).
Let's play politics!
It's a good chance that Sen. Sanders could win in California, which would put him on the road to achieving his first path goal of bringing more delegates to the convention, but winning is a big "if." California is everything to the Sanders campaign right now because contrary to what he said in his interview today, if he doesn't win it really is over for him. The other two paths, if you would even call them that, are practically pointless if the first path isn't a success.
Also, to base one of the paths on favorable poll numbers in a head to head match up is ridiculous. The polls now show Sanders beating Trump, but if you want Republican big money all in for Trump then Sanders is your guy. That machine has been sitting on the sidelines because of its deep distrust of Donald Trump figuring that indeed Clinton would be better for the country and their interests. As evidenced from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R-CA) none answer on whether he would support Donald Trump or not, most remain uncommitted. Sanders, however, would be a disaster for big money interests so every smear that you could possibly imagine will be laid to bear, of this there is little doubt. Let's see where the polls numbers would be at that point.
Senator Sanders to this point in the race has not been the target of that many direct attacks comparatively to the other candidates still in the race. Donald Trump mostly attacks Hillary Clinton who is busy defending herself from a three-pronged attack. The three fronts: from Sanders on the left, from Trump on the right, and from herself (emails) right down the middle.
Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal, said that it sounded as though Bernie has already started negotiating eventual support for Sec. Clinton in the general. Though he has toned down the attacks on Hillary Clinton, we don't think he hit the negotiating stage of grief just yet. If he were anywhere in the cycle, it would be in denial, but the California primary hasn't taken place yet so that's not completely accurate either. One thing is for sure, June 7th is an elimination game for Bernie Sanders - win or go home.
Panel: Neera Tanden; President for the Center of American Progress; KellyAnne Conway, Republican Strategist; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal
Just saying.
Senator Sanders believes he has three paths to the nomination still: 1) bringing more pledged delegates into the convention, 2) convince super-delegates who are voting against their states' results switch over, and 3) have super delegates who have pledged their support Hillary Clinton before the primary began reconsider their support (given poll results showing Sen. Sanders doing better than Sec. Clinton in the general).
Let's play politics!
It's a good chance that Sen. Sanders could win in California, which would put him on the road to achieving his first path goal of bringing more delegates to the convention, but winning is a big "if." California is everything to the Sanders campaign right now because contrary to what he said in his interview today, if he doesn't win it really is over for him. The other two paths, if you would even call them that, are practically pointless if the first path isn't a success.
Also, to base one of the paths on favorable poll numbers in a head to head match up is ridiculous. The polls now show Sanders beating Trump, but if you want Republican big money all in for Trump then Sanders is your guy. That machine has been sitting on the sidelines because of its deep distrust of Donald Trump figuring that indeed Clinton would be better for the country and their interests. As evidenced from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R-CA) none answer on whether he would support Donald Trump or not, most remain uncommitted. Sanders, however, would be a disaster for big money interests so every smear that you could possibly imagine will be laid to bear, of this there is little doubt. Let's see where the polls numbers would be at that point.
Senator Sanders to this point in the race has not been the target of that many direct attacks comparatively to the other candidates still in the race. Donald Trump mostly attacks Hillary Clinton who is busy defending herself from a three-pronged attack. The three fronts: from Sanders on the left, from Trump on the right, and from herself (emails) right down the middle.
Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal, said that it sounded as though Bernie has already started negotiating eventual support for Sec. Clinton in the general. Though he has toned down the attacks on Hillary Clinton, we don't think he hit the negotiating stage of grief just yet. If he were anywhere in the cycle, it would be in denial, but the California primary hasn't taken place yet so that's not completely accurate either. One thing is for sure, June 7th is an elimination game for Bernie Sanders - win or go home.
Panel: Neera Tanden; President for the Center of American Progress; KellyAnne Conway, Republican Strategist; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal
5.29.16: Memorial Day, Always Remember
2,852,901
Two million, eight hundred, fifty-two thousand, nine hundred and one.
Two million, eight hundred, fifty-two thousand, nine hundred and one.
The number of soldiers killed or wounded in United States conflicts since its founding.
Countless family affected.
This weekend, a small "thank you" and a brief thought of the families - not much to ask.
Enjoy your Memorial Day!
5.22.16: Let's Worry About All Three
This post comes late to comment on last week's "Meet The Press;" however, in our notes we had come away with three questions that we had planned to address given Hillary Clinton's interview and the subsequent events that happened during the week.
1. Is Bernie Sanders dividing the Democratic Party to a point that it is benefiting Donald Trump?
2. Is Donald Trump indeed qualified to be President of the United States?
and
3. Is Hillary Clinton any better a choice than Donald Trump?
As you can see, they're still relevant given the week's events so we thought we'd elaborate with some answers.
With regard to question number one, Senator Sanders is most certainly dividing the Democratic Party. However, in one way it was to be expected and in yet in another way, Senator Sanders is being a bit hypocritical in his attacks on Sec. Clinton, and here's what we mean. First, it was expected because the Democratic Party is not the Democratic Socialist Party, a political philosophy to which Senator Sanders subscribes. He has never really been a part of the Democratic Party and his views are far to the left of what the Democratic Party has become. That's not meant as a commentary on said views, just a note to the political fact. Just as Donald Trump is running in the Republican Party but is certainly not a conservative, Senator Sanders is running in the Democratic Party but isn't center-left, just simply left.
And then there's the hypocritical part - two words: Tax returns.
Where are they?
There's been a significant amount of discussion about Donald Trump's tax returns disclosure, or lack thereof, but what about Senator Sanders? One could argue that when Sec. Clinton releases transcripts of her "Wall Street" speeches, the Vermont senator will release his returns, but that's a false equivalent. Sec. Clinton has releases decades of returns, an pre-presidential act that has been in place for over 40 years. If Senator Sanders demands transparency then he must practice it as well.
Secondly, if Senator Sanders thinks the rules of nominating the Democratic candidate for president are unfair then, frankly, too bad. It is his adopted party and if he didn't know the rules going in then he didn't prepare well enough, or his staff didn't. But saying the system is "rigged" as Donald Trump does only furthers the notion of 'government for the people' as a whole being discredited. It starts the slippery slope.
In terms of the second two questions of whether Donald Trump is qualified or not and if perhaps Hillary is a better choice, it could be presumable implicitly that Bernie Sanders stands are reasonable alternative to the others. However, we're not so sure that's the case. Senator Sanders has run a great campaign, no doubt, but as far as accomplishments in the Senate, there has been little of substance. We keep coming back to an odd notion that we're not being leveled with in terms of how much of what is promised can be accomplished because a lot is being promised from the Sanders campaign. In today's political climate over-promising is disconcerting.
There are certainly better candidates than others, but the three remaining give all of us reason to pause.
May 22nd Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Draper, The New York Times Magazine
1. Is Bernie Sanders dividing the Democratic Party to a point that it is benefiting Donald Trump?
2. Is Donald Trump indeed qualified to be President of the United States?
and
3. Is Hillary Clinton any better a choice than Donald Trump?
As you can see, they're still relevant given the week's events so we thought we'd elaborate with some answers.
With regard to question number one, Senator Sanders is most certainly dividing the Democratic Party. However, in one way it was to be expected and in yet in another way, Senator Sanders is being a bit hypocritical in his attacks on Sec. Clinton, and here's what we mean. First, it was expected because the Democratic Party is not the Democratic Socialist Party, a political philosophy to which Senator Sanders subscribes. He has never really been a part of the Democratic Party and his views are far to the left of what the Democratic Party has become. That's not meant as a commentary on said views, just a note to the political fact. Just as Donald Trump is running in the Republican Party but is certainly not a conservative, Senator Sanders is running in the Democratic Party but isn't center-left, just simply left.
And then there's the hypocritical part - two words: Tax returns.
Where are they?
There's been a significant amount of discussion about Donald Trump's tax returns disclosure, or lack thereof, but what about Senator Sanders? One could argue that when Sec. Clinton releases transcripts of her "Wall Street" speeches, the Vermont senator will release his returns, but that's a false equivalent. Sec. Clinton has releases decades of returns, an pre-presidential act that has been in place for over 40 years. If Senator Sanders demands transparency then he must practice it as well.
Secondly, if Senator Sanders thinks the rules of nominating the Democratic candidate for president are unfair then, frankly, too bad. It is his adopted party and if he didn't know the rules going in then he didn't prepare well enough, or his staff didn't. But saying the system is "rigged" as Donald Trump does only furthers the notion of 'government for the people' as a whole being discredited. It starts the slippery slope.
In terms of the second two questions of whether Donald Trump is qualified or not and if perhaps Hillary is a better choice, it could be presumable implicitly that Bernie Sanders stands are reasonable alternative to the others. However, we're not so sure that's the case. Senator Sanders has run a great campaign, no doubt, but as far as accomplishments in the Senate, there has been little of substance. We keep coming back to an odd notion that we're not being leveled with in terms of how much of what is promised can be accomplished because a lot is being promised from the Sanders campaign. In today's political climate over-promising is disconcerting.
There are certainly better candidates than others, but the three remaining give all of us reason to pause.
May 22nd Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Draper, The New York Times Magazine
Sunday, May 15, 2016
5.15.16: The Conservative No Show
Not only is there no show this week, but what's also been a no show this week is courage on the part of Republican politicians for conservative principles.
In the light of Donald Trump not holding firmly on any kind of principle, Republican politicians are coming out in support of him this week after Mr. Trump being in Washington for a whole half of a day. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that he wasn't there yet. Yet. We've reached the stage where we have to commend someone in the party leadership for at least holding out this long, which is sad commentary. Incidentally, 'sad' is a word we heard repeatedly this week to describe Senator John McCain (R-AZ) due to his support of Mr. Trump, who disrespected the war hero because he got shot down and was held prisoner for five and half years. These past nine years prompt people to say, What on earth has happened to John McCain?
Former Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) called Mr. Trump a narcissist, egomaniac; Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said a speck of dirt is more qualified to be president (good one); Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) invoked cancer, and yet they are all endorsing him. Establishment Republicans question Mr. Trump's conservative principles because his views have veered to only the extremes on the right and left. And now the conservative electorate, not the bigoted constituency, has to question the principles of these 'conservatives' as well. What makes it pathetic (yes, a strong word) is that it's so nakedly obvious why they're doing it. McCain and Paul are running for reelection in November in states that Trump won and Jindal and Perry are looking for a spot in the administration or God forbid on the ticket.
Paul Ryan can not pull a Senator Kelly Ayotte and say that he's not endorsing anyone but will support the nominee, which means nothing. He's the Speaker of the House and eventually he's going to have to come down on this one way or another. Postulating, we suspect that Speaker Ryan will come out with an endorsement with reservation, citing conservative principles as the reason for reservation and that Mr. Trump embrace them. But the rub with that tact is that it reeks of a stance solely of self-preservation too much.
That seems like the only 'conservative' principle on display at the moment. Divided conservative will not only fall, but they will fail. However, united may render the same result.
Also...
As we've stated before, we do not subscribe to the "Hillary Clinton is in with the banks" argument. If you're the former U.S. Senator of New York or the Sec. of State those are people someone in that position has to deal with, fact. If it gets to the official point of Sec. Clinton facing Mr. Trump in the general, we'd say this about continuing to use that argument against her - Donald Trump is the bank. Along the way in his New York business building career, if he wasn't in bed with those people, those people were in bed with him. Either way, they're all in the same bed. He is the bank.
In the light of Donald Trump not holding firmly on any kind of principle, Republican politicians are coming out in support of him this week after Mr. Trump being in Washington for a whole half of a day. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that he wasn't there yet. Yet. We've reached the stage where we have to commend someone in the party leadership for at least holding out this long, which is sad commentary. Incidentally, 'sad' is a word we heard repeatedly this week to describe Senator John McCain (R-AZ) due to his support of Mr. Trump, who disrespected the war hero because he got shot down and was held prisoner for five and half years. These past nine years prompt people to say, What on earth has happened to John McCain?
Former Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) called Mr. Trump a narcissist, egomaniac; Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said a speck of dirt is more qualified to be president (good one); Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) invoked cancer, and yet they are all endorsing him. Establishment Republicans question Mr. Trump's conservative principles because his views have veered to only the extremes on the right and left. And now the conservative electorate, not the bigoted constituency, has to question the principles of these 'conservatives' as well. What makes it pathetic (yes, a strong word) is that it's so nakedly obvious why they're doing it. McCain and Paul are running for reelection in November in states that Trump won and Jindal and Perry are looking for a spot in the administration or God forbid on the ticket.
Paul Ryan can not pull a Senator Kelly Ayotte and say that he's not endorsing anyone but will support the nominee, which means nothing. He's the Speaker of the House and eventually he's going to have to come down on this one way or another. Postulating, we suspect that Speaker Ryan will come out with an endorsement with reservation, citing conservative principles as the reason for reservation and that Mr. Trump embrace them. But the rub with that tact is that it reeks of a stance solely of self-preservation too much.
That seems like the only 'conservative' principle on display at the moment. Divided conservative will not only fall, but they will fail. However, united may render the same result.
Also...
As we've stated before, we do not subscribe to the "Hillary Clinton is in with the banks" argument. If you're the former U.S. Senator of New York or the Sec. of State those are people someone in that position has to deal with, fact. If it gets to the official point of Sec. Clinton facing Mr. Trump in the general, we'd say this about continuing to use that argument against her - Donald Trump is the bank. Along the way in his New York business building career, if he wasn't in bed with those people, those people were in bed with him. Either way, they're all in the same bed. He is the bank.
Sunday, May 08, 2016
5.8.16: The Broken Republican Establishment Unable To Tame The Tiger
There's little doubt from all the discussion on today's "Meet The Press" that the Republican party is in trouble and still doesn't know what to do with Donald Trump as their standard bearer. Chuck Todd even started the program with "Trump is tearing the party apart." Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan (R-WI) said this week of supporting Donald Trump that 'he's not there yet.'
When asked in his interview if Speaker Ryan should be the chairman of the convention in July even if he didn't support him, Mr. Trump didn't answer the question but it was clearly implied that the answer was no. In the face of Republican establishment figures who are supporting Trump and simply say that he needs to be surrounded by good [read: establishment conservatives] people and he'll come back into the Republican fold, the panel was rightly skeptical because Mr. Trump, indeed, can not be changed or 'coached up,' as Eugene Robinson put it. The tiger will not be tamed.
Sticking with that analogy for a moment, the Republican establishment has been riding that tiger hard since the Tea Party election year of 2010 and now its clawing and biting at it. Raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy are not Republican orthodoxy but they're the positions that Donald Trump espouses according to what he said today. In his interview, he explained that his tax policy is really only a proposal that still has to be negotiated, which is really a more on the level answer than what you'd hear from any ideologue on either side. In said negotiations, Mr. Trump said that he was less concerned about the wealthy and more focused on the middle class, in accordance to what he's been hearing from constituents on the campaign trail.
We're sure that he's also heard the complaint that it's unreasonable to live on $7.25 per hour as a minimum wage, to which Mr. Trump has also changed his position. This and the tax blasphemy have some Republicans calling him a fake conservative for such Democratic positions, namely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whom Donald Trump labels a 'light-weight.' For people like Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), both on the program today, we understand the conundrum their in, as also with Mr. Ryan. Give up your principles and support the nominee or stick with them and disregard the voice of the electorate.
However, consider that for a moment. The Republican constituency likes Donald Trump because he 'tells it like it is,' and the establishment accuses him of non-conservative values and viewpoints. You see where we're going with this... Donald Trump - not a Republican establishment politician - is giving people his agenda of which some parts coincide with Democratic policy points, it illustrates how the Republican constituency has been voting against its best interest all along, and Mr. Trump is waking them up to that. The awakening is rude, and powerful.
Panel: Kellyanne Conway, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Matt Bai, Yahoo News
One More Thing...
Yes, short post this week, but if you read this column you get it, and there's only so much we can say that hasn't already been said about the way Donald J. Trump is changing U.S. politics. The Republican party is in trouble and if the establishment puts forward a third party candidate, the trouble will be worse. There simply are enough powerful establishment voices on the same page to effectively rally around another candidate not named Trump.
When asked in his interview if Speaker Ryan should be the chairman of the convention in July even if he didn't support him, Mr. Trump didn't answer the question but it was clearly implied that the answer was no. In the face of Republican establishment figures who are supporting Trump and simply say that he needs to be surrounded by good [read: establishment conservatives] people and he'll come back into the Republican fold, the panel was rightly skeptical because Mr. Trump, indeed, can not be changed or 'coached up,' as Eugene Robinson put it. The tiger will not be tamed.
Sticking with that analogy for a moment, the Republican establishment has been riding that tiger hard since the Tea Party election year of 2010 and now its clawing and biting at it. Raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy are not Republican orthodoxy but they're the positions that Donald Trump espouses according to what he said today. In his interview, he explained that his tax policy is really only a proposal that still has to be negotiated, which is really a more on the level answer than what you'd hear from any ideologue on either side. In said negotiations, Mr. Trump said that he was less concerned about the wealthy and more focused on the middle class, in accordance to what he's been hearing from constituents on the campaign trail.
We're sure that he's also heard the complaint that it's unreasonable to live on $7.25 per hour as a minimum wage, to which Mr. Trump has also changed his position. This and the tax blasphemy have some Republicans calling him a fake conservative for such Democratic positions, namely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whom Donald Trump labels a 'light-weight.' For people like Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), both on the program today, we understand the conundrum their in, as also with Mr. Ryan. Give up your principles and support the nominee or stick with them and disregard the voice of the electorate.
However, consider that for a moment. The Republican constituency likes Donald Trump because he 'tells it like it is,' and the establishment accuses him of non-conservative values and viewpoints. You see where we're going with this... Donald Trump - not a Republican establishment politician - is giving people his agenda of which some parts coincide with Democratic policy points, it illustrates how the Republican constituency has been voting against its best interest all along, and Mr. Trump is waking them up to that. The awakening is rude, and powerful.
Panel: Kellyanne Conway, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Matt Bai, Yahoo News
One More Thing...
Yes, short post this week, but if you read this column you get it, and there's only so much we can say that hasn't already been said about the way Donald J. Trump is changing U.S. politics. The Republican party is in trouble and if the establishment puts forward a third party candidate, the trouble will be worse. There simply are enough powerful establishment voices on the same page to effectively rally around another candidate not named Trump.
Sunday, May 01, 2016
5.1.16: A Gut Connection to Our New Political Reality
Republicans sewed this one good establishing a deep root that has now spawned the monster Venus Flytrap that is the Donald Trump candidacy, eating everything that comes close to it. The New York Times' Tom Friedman explained that voters are listening with their guts and not their ears and that they're making a gut connection with Donald Trump. Right... but for all the non-Trump supporters it's more of a gut-wrenching connection. However, after being complicit in so many promises broken and the zero-sum politics that has obstructed the passage of any meaningful legislation, what did the Republican establishment expect?
This was clearly, sadly, reinforced on today's program during the interview with Ted Cruz who doesn't even understand (or he does and that makes it deplorable) that he's the problem. He's the poster-child for zero-sum politics, and he's the zero in the equation.
Kristen Welker succinctly pointed to the reason why Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) will never be the president of the United States, ever, and that is the 2013 government shutdown that he engineered. It accomplished nothing with the exception of actually going against Republican principles because it cost us money and accomplished nothing - governmental wasteful spending. On top of that, it gave the Republican party a deep-bruise black eye that they've worn since then all the way up to the moment of the Trump candidacy announcement. Not good.
The National Journal's Ron Fournier counted nine times that Senator Cruz did not answer the question of whether he would support Donald Trump of not if he were the nominee. Mr. Fournier threw in that if Cruz can't even answer that question what about the tougher ones that come with being president. (Go back to the last paragraph. Ever.) We get it, Senator Cruz can not concede anything as he stated but the fact is that just as he has done with his colleagues, he's done with the electorate - alienated too many of them with extreme positions delivered with a prickly demeanor. Look past John Boehner's Lucifer in the fresh comment to what he said after, describe Cruz as a miserable son of a bitch.
And now, whether Senator Cruz will admit it or not, Donald Trump has wrapped up the primary and is going to be the party's nominee. Mr. Trump is going to win in Indiana on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz's last stand state, and then the Texas senator is going to have to give serious thought to that question he couldn't answer today. He's going to have to come to grips with something that most Americans already knew. Ever. Coming out in the press - which by the way, cudos to Mr. Todd for defending against Mr. Cruz lousy charge that the media is comprised of liberal partisan Democrats, something that Fox News contend with - is that the Republican establishment doesn't have the stomach for a contested convention.
So given the eye-opening new reality upon us, we pray that Mr. Friedman is way off in his postulation that we're one large October/November terrorist attack away from a Trump presidency because as he continued to opine that he thinks this is the worst time to conduct foreign policy. Suffice to say that there is so much nuance required that a thorough understanding of foreign policy is a necessity.
It's not ISIS that is the greatest danger, but weak and failing governments as CIA Diretor John Brennan mentioned in his interview that create the environment for terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS exist and thrive. But on this fifth anniversary, to the day, of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the thought of him makes us think of Abu Musab al-Zarquawi who founded Al Qaeda in Iraq and whose methods are still earnestly believed in and practiced by the organization that it spawned, ISIS. Zarqawi has been dead for ten years so it is a phenomenon as Mr. Brennan pointed out, not confined to the territory in Iraq and Syria. ISIS, as we know, has a presence in Libya, Europe, Philippines, among others so keeping that in mind along with the Zarqawi dynamic, we agree that killing ISIS' present leader Al-Baghdadi is important, but only symbolically, not as much in the practical sense we're afraid.
With not only ISIS because all the other challenges the U.S. faces in the world, one teleprompter speech from Mr. Trump is not reassuring. It didn't take Thomas Friedman to tell us that Mr. Trump hasn't done his foreign policy homework to know that fact, though we're glad he said it.
The thought of Donald Trump making such careful decisions makes us a little queasy, to be honest.
Our advice, from here to November we'd advise to not eat too much because there are going to be a lot of gut-wrenching and gut-clenching moments coming up on this roller-coaster ride of a general election, and you'll want to keep it down.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Good panel today, serious discussion, in which we appreciate the contributions of context that Dr. Goodwin provides such as the "American First" rhetoric in Donald Trump's speech, and that it was first a movement in American politics in 1939 that became tinged by Charles Lindbergh's anti-Semitism, yes that Charles Lindbergh. However, is it us or does Dr. Goodwin just have an awful sense of comic-timing. All her attempts were awkward to say the least.
This was clearly, sadly, reinforced on today's program during the interview with Ted Cruz who doesn't even understand (or he does and that makes it deplorable) that he's the problem. He's the poster-child for zero-sum politics, and he's the zero in the equation.
Kristen Welker succinctly pointed to the reason why Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) will never be the president of the United States, ever, and that is the 2013 government shutdown that he engineered. It accomplished nothing with the exception of actually going against Republican principles because it cost us money and accomplished nothing - governmental wasteful spending. On top of that, it gave the Republican party a deep-bruise black eye that they've worn since then all the way up to the moment of the Trump candidacy announcement. Not good.
The National Journal's Ron Fournier counted nine times that Senator Cruz did not answer the question of whether he would support Donald Trump of not if he were the nominee. Mr. Fournier threw in that if Cruz can't even answer that question what about the tougher ones that come with being president. (Go back to the last paragraph. Ever.) We get it, Senator Cruz can not concede anything as he stated but the fact is that just as he has done with his colleagues, he's done with the electorate - alienated too many of them with extreme positions delivered with a prickly demeanor. Look past John Boehner's Lucifer in the fresh comment to what he said after, describe Cruz as a miserable son of a bitch.
And now, whether Senator Cruz will admit it or not, Donald Trump has wrapped up the primary and is going to be the party's nominee. Mr. Trump is going to win in Indiana on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz's last stand state, and then the Texas senator is going to have to give serious thought to that question he couldn't answer today. He's going to have to come to grips with something that most Americans already knew. Ever. Coming out in the press - which by the way, cudos to Mr. Todd for defending against Mr. Cruz lousy charge that the media is comprised of liberal partisan Democrats, something that Fox News contend with - is that the Republican establishment doesn't have the stomach for a contested convention.
So given the eye-opening new reality upon us, we pray that Mr. Friedman is way off in his postulation that we're one large October/November terrorist attack away from a Trump presidency because as he continued to opine that he thinks this is the worst time to conduct foreign policy. Suffice to say that there is so much nuance required that a thorough understanding of foreign policy is a necessity.
It's not ISIS that is the greatest danger, but weak and failing governments as CIA Diretor John Brennan mentioned in his interview that create the environment for terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS exist and thrive. But on this fifth anniversary, to the day, of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the thought of him makes us think of Abu Musab al-Zarquawi who founded Al Qaeda in Iraq and whose methods are still earnestly believed in and practiced by the organization that it spawned, ISIS. Zarqawi has been dead for ten years so it is a phenomenon as Mr. Brennan pointed out, not confined to the territory in Iraq and Syria. ISIS, as we know, has a presence in Libya, Europe, Philippines, among others so keeping that in mind along with the Zarqawi dynamic, we agree that killing ISIS' present leader Al-Baghdadi is important, but only symbolically, not as much in the practical sense we're afraid.
With not only ISIS because all the other challenges the U.S. faces in the world, one teleprompter speech from Mr. Trump is not reassuring. It didn't take Thomas Friedman to tell us that Mr. Trump hasn't done his foreign policy homework to know that fact, though we're glad he said it.
The thought of Donald Trump making such careful decisions makes us a little queasy, to be honest.
Our advice, from here to November we'd advise to not eat too much because there are going to be a lot of gut-wrenching and gut-clenching moments coming up on this roller-coaster ride of a general election, and you'll want to keep it down.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Good panel today, serious discussion, in which we appreciate the contributions of context that Dr. Goodwin provides such as the "American First" rhetoric in Donald Trump's speech, and that it was first a movement in American politics in 1939 that became tinged by Charles Lindbergh's anti-Semitism, yes that Charles Lindbergh. However, is it us or does Dr. Goodwin just have an awful sense of comic-timing. All her attempts were awkward to say the least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)