7.17.16: Hottest July on Record

Terrorist attacks in Instanbul (June 28) Dhaka, Medina,  (tragic) Nice and (devastating) Baghdad, the last of which killed over 300 people, along with a near military coupe in Turkey, and Syria's civil war still full-on would be enough. No, not enough... Let's couple all that with police unjustly killing more African-American men in Baton Rouge and Minnesota, the protests that have followed across the country, despicably lethal revenge against the police in Dallas and back to Baton Rouge on this very day. For good measure throw on the most divisive and frankly weird presidential campaign ever in our collective memories and there you have it - the hottest ever July on record. And it's literally killing us.

We disagree with Glenn Beck in his throwing around of the word 'corrupt' so cavalierly in his interview today, but we completely understand his frustration though a bit hyperbolic and slightly misguided. His underlying point, as well as the panel's, is that the federal government and the campaigns are not acknowledging what's going on in this country, a tone-deafness, and we agree but with a significant caveat. And it applies to the fact that Mr. Trump's rhetoric during this campaign has been divisive to the point of breaking open the fault line of this country singling out people's races and religions. By being so rhetorically flammable, Mr. Trump is effectively breaking down the rule of law, one of the very things he said he would uphold.

Where we agree with Mr. Beck is in his assessment of Reince Preibus and his place and statements in all this, as the ultimate Trump enabler. With regard to Mr. Trump evolving into a more mainstream candidate, Mr. Priebus said that the candidate has "come around a lot since a few months ago." He called it a 'fantasy land' idea for Republicans to vote for anyone but Mr. Trump. It can only make one shake his or her head, but Mr. Beck also said that Mr. Priebus surely knows better and doesn't really believe what he's saying. On this point, we not so sure.

Chuck Todd brought up the Republican 'autopsy' from the last campaign and confronted Mr. Priebus about the fact the no action was taken on it, to which the RNC chairman did the customary bob and weaver around the questions.  The Republicans' current platform doesn't consider that 'autopsy,' which called for more outreach to minorities and women among other things. You know who didn't care about or read the 'autopsy?' The candidate, Donald Trump, that's who so we might as well just stop asking about it.

Tom Brokaw said that it's not the Republican party, it's the DonaldTrump.com Party.

As for the 'black swan' of an event as Hugh Hewlitt described the upcoming Republican convention, moderates and party onlookers can only hope for a 'it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be' type of assessment at the end of it. With this sort of expectation from conservative commentators like Hugh Hewlitt going in, it's hard to see how Mr. Trump's campaign gets the customary bump in the polls post convention. The reason for this is the fact that Mr. Trump's campaign in fact offers no positive message for the country. The candidate himself offers no positive message, which inexplicably is infrequently discussed by the pundits. "Make America Great Again" isn't a message, it's a slogan.

And if you evidence on how inspiring Mr. Trump can be, below is a tweet Mr. Trump wrote during the course of writing this blog.

This is what the Republican nominee thinks about the country he apparently aspires to lead.

...

You know what? It's too hot to get worked up any more because after seeing that tweet it was like a new layer of icing was smeared over our stale loathing cake.

Here's to hoping we all cool down for a moment, in our hearts and in our heads.


Panel: Sara Fagen, CNBC Contributor; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Tom Brokaw, NBC News

We'll get the all the foreign policy craziness later.

7.10.16: Where Not To Direct Our Anger

Getting a thoughtful column together is simply daunting when your only thoughts are "where to start" and "where does this all end?"

In the face of this uniquely American tragedy, we're stuck on this: Philando Castile, the Minneapolis man, was shot to death by a white police officer due in part from his fear that Mr. Castile had a legal firearm in his car. Mark Hughes, in Dallas, was falsely accused of being a suspect in the Dallas police shooting because he was legally and openly carrying his AR-15 during a protest. In both cases, these men were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, but because they were black the first inclination on the part of police was to label them either 'dangerous (or criminal)' and 'suspect.' 

(Never mind that this column is pretty firm in its belief that our modern, civil American society has no use for a law that allows its citizens to carry loaded military style weapons in public streets.)

This implicit racial bias as Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) described is all too real, and we say that because there are many that do not believe it exists. And then there are those, like Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who know it exists but refuse to acknowledge and discuss it. Her argument was that the economic conditions play more of a role in this kind of violence than race does. But that's an argument that sees only what it wants to see and denies so much reality. Colloquially, it doesn't even explain the example we outlined above.

Did she not hear the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson say at the very top of the program that "tensions are high?" The man who heads the agency sworn to protect all of us is afraid for his son's life in terms of police encounters, admitting to Chuck Todd that they've had 'the talk.'

On the other hand we have to applaud Michael Gerson, a voice of conservative reason in the time of Trump, for, we feel, thoughtfully misspeaking when he said that both sides (whites and blacks) should show empathy toward one another. It should actually be 'sympathy' because 'empathy' suggests equal understanding but clearly whites in the U.S. do not fully understand what it's like to be black in America; whites should sympathize. But 'empathy' is appropriate because his emphasis is on the 'equal' part of the definition.

In terms of Black Lives Matter, that movement is an effect of causation. The movement exists because too many African-Americans, men in particular, are being killed unjustly by police (the cause), compounded by the fact that guilty officers haven't faced appropriate legal charges and punishments. If this killing didn't happen with such alarming frequency then perhaps the movement wouldn't need to exist. Demonizing Black Lives Matter as Rudy Giuliani does, and despicably how the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations William Johnson did, is an attempt to deny the reason for its very existence, but clearly there is a need for its being.

There is also a need for the reformation of the criminal justice system, the 'war on drugs' as Senator Booker explained that disproportionately affects the poor and minorities, police training as fmr. police commissioner Charles Ramsey described and frankly gun laws.

With all that said, imagine being a police officer and having to always presume that the person you're encountering is armed with a gun. Think about the 98% of police men and women who do their jobs cautiously, competently, professionally and honorably living with that certain possibility. If there were less guns in public, there would be less violent incidents with police, it’s simply math.

The comments of Texas Lt. Governor weren't discussed on the program but we're compelled to make this mention because in them among other things, he said that the Black Lives Matter demonstrators were hypocrites because they denounce the police, but ran to them for protection when the shooting started. What a sad and narrow-minded comment. Would the Lt. Governor rather the Black Lives Matter supporters fought the police? During a peaceful protest, in which police were there to insure the safety of the marchers and taking photos with them, shooting started and the marchers had the inherent trust in the police to protect by instructing them what to do and where to go in a time of crisis. If anything, it illustrates overall respect for the institution of the police while demanding change in the face of tragic errors. That's not hypocritical, just American.

Lastly, on the political end of things, particular cudos go to Senator Cory Booker on essentially calling B.S. on the very segment he was asked to participate in, which posed the question of how can either two of these so divisive candidates bring Americans together [racially]? The New Jersey senator accurately said that on the matters of race and religion, Hillary Clinton is not divisive at all. Politically,  one can argue she is divisive, but on these matters, no. We agree. She has not called for banning Muslims from coming into the United States or rounding people up and deporting them while calling them rapists and drug dealers, unlike Donald Trump who advocates for both. Whomever you agree with is a matter of prerogative but the fact remains is that we all know Mr. Trump repeatedly says these things and they are divisive and offensive to American common sensibilities: words matter.

Panel:  Michael Gerson, The Washington Post; Mary Matalin, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Michael Eric Dyson, author and Georgetown University professor

6.26.16: Brexit = Stupid, and What Is America Might Be Thinking

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.

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.)

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.

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

5.29.16: Memorial Day, Always Remember

2,852,901
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

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.