A political blog commenting on Sunday's "Meet The Press" on NBC and the state of the country in a broader sense.
Please Note: This blog is in no way affiliated with "Meet The Press" or NBC. It is purely an opinion piece about the television program that this blog considers the "TV Show of Record."
We find it incredible that a former First Lady of the United States, Senator from New York and Security of State becomes ill and no where in press coverage or in the Twitterverse do we see anyone showing any sympathy or well wishes. Instead we see stories about how she 'hid' her illness and that speaks to transparency issues or that her health jeopardizes her campaign, etc. Truly, if it were anyone else, the reaction would be completely different.
Whether you agree with Sec. Clinton's political positions or not, she has served and represented this country and all its citizens at the highest levels so let's show some common decency, shall we? On Friday, a doctor determined that Sec. Clinton has pneumonia and that she was dehydrated. Why would that be? From campaigning for 15 months straight and shaking thousands of hands in the process? Maybe Sec. Clinton needs a little R&R that she should take without the press's cynical speculations. We say, "Take a few days, rest up and be well." We would apply this to Mr. Trump as well if it were to happen to him, though we vehemently disagree with his candidacy in general. It's just the right thing to do.
Is Sec. Clinton supposed to call up all the press outlets and announce at full volume that a doctor just said that she had pneumonia? Really? Also on Friday, Sec. Clinton used the word 'deplorable.' Well, it applies here.
Wow, this campaign just sucks. There, we said it.
We didn't agree with George W. Bush on many of his policies, but he was OUR president and then nor now would we wish to see him ill. And that brings us to say this about a comment Mr. Trump made about Vladimir Putin being a better leader than OUR president Barack Obama. If in the face of the international community or in front of a clear adversary, if you don't have the back of the President of the United States, an office you seek to hold, then you don't have the back of the United States itself, and all its citizens. We don't support a man for President of the United States who thinks that Vladimir Putin presents a good leadership model. Period.
We need to think more instead of just being angry, which we all know is completely counter-productive.
***
It gives us no pleasure to admonish so many, but it's the 15th anniversary of 9.11, and we dishonor the memories of all the people who died and all the heroes (first responders) that were born that day by wishing the worst for fellow Americans. The glimmer of hope that horrible day brought us was that it showed us that we, as Americans, can come together as one. Let's honor the memories of 9.11 by showing that side of ourselves again.
I had been living and have since lived in New York when that tragic day arrived. These are the never before seen photos I took on September 12, 2001.
By the time we write our next column, there will be less than two months until the election day, or as Chuck Todd reminded us that today there are 65 days until the November 8th. Unless something utterly extraordinary happens during the debates (like Sec. Clinton breaking down and crying - Mr. Trump might), short of getting arrested, Hillary Clinton looks to be the next president of the United States.
Going to the last first, The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza broke down the race in the most American manner, a practical one. With both candidates historically unpopular, you're going to go with "the least worst choice." And as much as Alex Castellanos, who now appeared on today's program and is now advising Mr. Trump, would like to think the least worst is not Mr. Trump, it isn't. Wow, there are a lot of 'negatives' in that last sentence, which is indicative of this political season, for sure.
However, we'd like to keep the focus on the practical perspective, and that what you saw from Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in their respective interviews. Chuck Todd said that Mike Pence seemed to have made his peace with what it means to be Donald Trump's running mate. But so has Sen. Sanders made a peace... with the fact that Hillary Clinton is the nominee instead of him.
Chuck Todd explained that Gov. Pence would leave the explaining to Donald Trump's decisions to Mr. Trump, such as having advisors like Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon or the fact that the candidate's immigration position on 11 million undocumented people is still unclear. Conversely, Sen. Sanders in his interview said that it wasn't about the candidates but about the American people and moving the country in the direction more akin to his own vision, despite his previous argument that Sec. Clinton is too close to Wall Street and that she has incredible trustworthiness issues with the electorate due to an ever-evolving email scandal. As NBC's Kristen Welker said, it's not the content of the stories at this point, but the fact that the stories keep breaking. Yet, Sen. Sanders is heading out to campaign for Mrs. Clinton.
In the practical sense, it's easy for these two public officials to be at peace with their stance because if your like Mike Pence, you think that Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest politician Richard Nixon, a sentiment that he stated twice. But if you're like Bernie Sanders then Mr. Trump is the most xenophobic and unqualified candidate in our lifetime.
So which is it?
We keep thinking that a potential Trump presidency is like standing at the edge of the rocks above a reservoir before you jump. You look down and you wonder if the jump is too high, is the water where I'm going to land deep enough, are there rocks just below the surface that I don't know about or is my body going to smack the water and break my back? And when it comes right down to it, a potential Clinton presidency by comparison is deciding that you don't have to jump at all. Don't be fooled though because not making the leap has its own drawbacks as well because it means your headed back down the road from which you came.
The above question still needs an answer.
Chris Cillizza said that this past Wednesday where Mr. Trump traveled to Mexico to meet with its president showing that he had statesman-like capability then traveling to Phoenix where he was supposed to give an immigration policy speech that turned into a xenophobic, alt-right rallying cry as a microcosm of his campaign.
We call that an unpredictable nightmare of a presidency. That one day gave us a clear window into what it would be like if Mr. Trump were president. On the international stage he says one thing and then comes back and says completely the opposite. At the end of this particular day, Mr. Trump decided to just tell people what they wanted to hear and not how things really are. Another way to term it is 'empty rhetoric.' We know that a day like Wednesday - a complete embarrassment if that was a U.S. president - wouldn't happen if it were Sec. Clinton in that situation. Being honest here.
In the fight for the least worst, Sec. Clinton wins because we know a lot more about Hillary Clinton's emails than we do about Donald Trump's finances and until he releases his tax returns, Chuck Todd is correct that Mr. Trump can not claim any moral high ground on transparency.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Maria Teresa Kumar, MSNBC contributor; Alex Castellanos, Trump Campaign Advisor; Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
You could glean from Chuck Todd's emphatic "If it's Sunday..." that he didn't like it one bit that Sunday's edition of "Meet The Press" had been preempted twice during the Olympics, but this is what happens when the Sunday political 'Program of Record' has a weekday edition. And it was a crucial week to be back given the recent political commentary, one that we have rarely if ever witnessed.
There is no doubt that this year's campaign season reeks a God-awful stench brought on by name calling, charges of racism, mental and physical health prognostications, and the absence of any meaningful discussion of policy. Policy, what's that? On today's very show, former senior advisor to President Obama, David Plouffe, called Donald Trump a 'psychopath.' There's a label for you.
The only policy that we can think of on the docket was immigration so if we're going to put labels on someone, like Donald Trump for instance, we would say 'schizo,' because he's changed or nuanced his stance on immigration so many times in one week that we really have no idea where he stands on this issue. Hugh Hewlitt said it didn't matter as long as Mr. Trump didn't give up on what Hewlitt called his 'north star' of immigration policy proposals, which is building the wall. A bad analogy from Mr. Hewlitt to say the least. Mr. Trump is due to give a 'major' speech on immigration on Wednesday to clarify his position, which in and of itself illustrates that he's in fact changed at least some of his positions, hence the need for clarification.
But here's the rub: The North Star is real, look up and you'll see it. The wall that Mr. Trump wants to build is pure fiction. It will not happen. Will not.
And as nonsensical or offensive you think Mr. Trump is, can or could be, he's not the most infuriating person in politics. That distinction belongs to today's interview guest RNC Chair Reince Priebus, who squarely gives you answers he knows are intellectually and sensibly dishonest. He knows better. However, we understand why he defends Mr. Trump... Because he's been the architect of him getting the Republican nomination. For that fact alone, he should go because he's been a disaster lacking leadership of that political party.
Mr. Priebus agreed that the immigration issue is not a simple question and that Mr. Trump is reflecting on it. But he also assured that Mr. Trump's policy would be tough, fair and humane. Tough like in rounding people up out of their homes? Fair, as in breaking with the Constitution and giving people a religious test to stay in this country? Humane, as in breaking families apart?
And if Mr. Trump's position reflects anything close to what the 'gang of 8' in the Senate proposed with even a path to legal status, his core will blow a gasket. When asked about birth right citizenship, Mr. Priebus didn't really give a definitive answer in the context of the immigration discussion. And he doesn't know where Mr. Trump is on the issue.
It's clear that Mr. Trump has left the entire Republican party twisting in the wind and Reince Priebus let it happen. It's difficult to listen to because we can not believe that he believes what he says. He said that he's really proud of what the party was doing in Mr. Priebus's home state of Wisconsin and that Mr. Trump was very in tune with what is going on in the state. Mr. Trump has no idea what's going on in Wisconsin and Priebus knows it. So he's reduced to making false accusations about Sec. Clinton giving away state secrets, and that's his argument.
But in politics, and here is where Mr. Trump gets it wrong, is that it's not just about the argument, it's about the positive messaged solution that you deliver. And his immigration speech will not be that. What kind of message is "what do you have to lose" when reaching out to the African-American community? That kind of message is hopeless and in effect turns more people away than it would ever convert.
You go around the panel and the discussion is how innuendo has been mainstreamed, that it's a resentment election (maybe), and the banality of how 'provocateurs are entrepreneurs.' Joy-Ann Reid described the week as one long continuous 'Sarah Palin rally' (just punch us in the gut). The governor of Maine, Paul LePage, went off the rails with expletives in a voicemail to a state representative, who called him a racist. On the other side of the coin (kinda), Illinois Senator Mark Kirk (R) called the president, our president, a drug dealer. Andrea Mitchell, who's seen it all, is herself astonished to use words coarse and vulgar to describe the presidential race, but that's where we are.
We've been doing the limbo underneath the lowest common denominator successfully for some time now, but now this is ridiculous.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
While "Meet The Press" is still being preempted by Olympics coverage and the fact that we're in the midst of a steamy August, we thought we'd weight with a short post on the state of the candidates and the race. And the prognosis is negative. Sec. Clinton's email troubles are just getting worse with judges ordering written answers, the FBI impartiality under attack, politically sophomoric comparisons to Colin Powell, and the Republicans gearing up for another 'juicy' hearing. Not to mention the political debacle that is now the Clinton Foundation providing more smoke surrounding the notion of the 'pay for play' politics that Mr. Trump is barking about. And where there's smoke, there's a Republican hoping for fire.
Worsening troubles in the worst kind of problem because it involves email and servers. With already all the hacking we know about, this kind of political (at the least) vulnerability leaves you open to an embarrassing information drop at any moment by an agent you can not chase. But we'll also say this, in their typical short-sighted approach, Republicans think the hacking of the DNC is a political win, not ever collectively stopping and thinking that this is an attack on all of us. The sad thing is that establishment Republicans do understand this, but the conservative constituency doesn't want to hear about it.
Compounding this will be the inevitable multi-committee hearings by a Republican-controlled House thus straggling the effort to get any meaningful legislation passed in a would-be first term of a Clinton presidency.
However, within the political world we currently reside, any reasonable person will also excuse all of this (do you believe?) because her opponent is Donald Trump. Simply stated, The Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves for nominating Mr. Trump. The candidate has demonstrated in his rhetoric that he embraces the worst of our American values. With Mr. Trump, we're disgusted with what we know (what he's said) and we're also disgusted with what he hasn't said. And we're talking about his businesses.
Mr. Trump needs to disclose his tax returns because with his businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to the Bank of China, the resignation of his campaign manager Paul Manafort over his ties to Russian oligarchs and other foreign dictators, and Mr. Trump's own alleged business ties to Russian. Only his tax returns will shed light on any doubt of Donald Trump acting as president not in the best interest of the country but his business first.
Between what he's said and what we know he willfully doesn't choose to tell us or disclose and on top of the fact that we know he knows nothing about foreign policy, we feel that Mrs. Clinton can change (hopefully, has changed) the way she uses her email. In other words, we'd rather deal with the hearings.
The big "but."
It's the big "but" that keeps collective rationality in a constant state of anxiety.
Hillary Clinton leads in the polls by 8 or 9 points depending on which one you read because of her obvious superiority in knowledge and the ever more important, temperament. But, she's behind Donald Trump - a candidate, it had been calculated, tells a lie approximately every five minutes in his public speeches - in polls focused on "trustworthiness and straightforwardness."
To reinforce this notion, Sec. Clinton, herself, gave an inexplicable answer to Fox News's Chris Wallace when she said, " My answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people..." Simply, not true. Sec. Clinton was not truthful with the American people, and it became a situation that required the FBI to come in and get the truth. So was Mrs. Clinton truthful with them. Director Comey has said as much.
Essentially, Mrs. Clinton wasn't truthful with the public not because of something technically illegal or unprecedented but because she fully well knew that it would be politically damaging and also play into a well established negative narrative about her and her family.
It begs the valid question of if something like this will happen when she's in office, and for all Republicans it's not a matter of if but when - a valid concern.
However, there's another "but [a huge one]," and that is Donald Trump who in our estimation is no better than Sec. Clinton on this front. And all things being equal on this, heading into the presidency, we have more faith in the fact that if a President Clinton was found to do something illegal, was impeached, and hence driven from office that she would leave the scene. We have no faith in Donald Trump accepting the penalty of an impeachable offense. How twisted is that?
Admittedly, that's a bit of hyperbole, but there is some truth in it. What is really happening - slowly and frustratingly - is that the American electorate is still wrapping its collective head around the fact that this is how our politicians are, right now [this election]. As difficult as it is to look beyond it, you see the other factors of knowledge and temperament acting as the deciding ones, in which again Sec. Clinton handily leads.
A telling reflection of this is that Republicans are clearly in an "every man/woman for him/herself" mode when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump's presidential candidacy, especially if you're up for reelection in the fall. Late week, Donald Trump formally endorsed House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), but the problem is that it was completely unconvincing given Mr. Trump's initial vindictive refusal of withholding these very endorsements at the beginning of the week. And what a disastrous week it was for Trump.
Even in the hard-hitting politics game, The Trump campaign has consistently been blowing it. Sec. Clinton in response to a poor answer to Chris Wallace followed it by using phrases like "I short-circuited" and "I need to clarify better," in response to her email troubles, which is inexcusable a year after all this scrutiny began as noted by Yamiche Alcindor of The New York Times. To know all of Donald Trump's idiotic self-inflicted wounding statements of this without having to list them is clearly a blown opportunity to turn the press's attention squarely toward your opponent. At best, Mr. Trump could possible concede a draw, but in reality he lost the week, one in which he should have won but instead turned it into a week that probably lost him the election. We tend to agree more with Joy Reid that over the 'Olympic break' these awful, but accurate, perceptions of Mr. Trump will further become 'baked in.' Conversely, Hugh Hewlitt's nicely amusing assessment that Mr. Trump has to begin 'season two' of his campaign after Labor Day; however, the certainty of that happening is highly doubtful.
With all of Mr. Trump's bi-polarity in what he says - saying one thing now and another later - it's enough to fear putting the nuclear launch codes in his hands, and issue that should never be when discussing presidential candidates, but here we are.
It's not surprising to hear Republicans yell, "Runaway, runaway!"
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News, Yamiche Alcindor, The New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative radio show host; Mark Halperin, Bloomberg Politics
A Couple More Things...
We really didn't touch on the interviews of the day and we'd be remiss and negligent if we didn't make a few comments.
With regard to Senator Tim Kaine, the entire point that he's on the ticket is to fill the trustworthy void for Sec. Clinton. In the colloquial sense, he's a "true boy scout." He gave a cogent answer on his TPP stance, one that the Clinton campaign should stick to which was that he was for it, only if the labor and environmental protections could be and would be enforced. They were fixed so he no longer supports it - delivered reasonably.
Counter that with Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn who if you listened carefully argued for something very dangerous, which was the none disclosure of what America is doing militarily - numbers of troop deployments, target cities, etc. However, with troop numbers, in particular the American public has the right to know because it's being done in our name. Lt. Gen. Flynn supported Mr. Trump's argument that NATO members have to pay their bills, but only a more tepid stance in affirming that the United States would stand by its collective commitments to the treaty [i.e. having another country's back if it's attacked]. It was not reassuring given Mr. Trump's insinuations that the United States wouldn't honor those commitments.
And as for Governor Rick Scott (R) of Florida - inadequately handling the Zika crisis and running a pro-Donald SuperPAC - what else is new?
Rick Scott in charge on the front lines of this nation's collective health protection against a virus we haven't stopped - scary to say the least.
Let's get it out of the way right at the top, the Democrats won the conventions, hands down. What compounds the victory for Republicans is that the Democrats stole the Republican message, well documented on conservative blogs and twitter feeds. Generals and Reagan Republicans coming out against Donald Trump has given masses of moderate Republicans pause, leaving them lamenting that the Democratic convention should have been their convention.
Hillary Clinton, with a less than inspiring but base-covering appeal of a speech, went right after a key constituency not even ten miles away from the Wells Fargo Center in South Philadelphia, and that is the Main Line Matriarch. The Main Line are those old-money (and when we say old talking old corporate and colonial: Moran [Johnson & Johnson], Du Pont, Arco, Biddle), conservative women who run in those wealthy, not rich, circles. There's the influence, and given the two final choices, after Sec. Clinton's speech, you can easily surmise which way they're leaning heavily right now.
And to solidify that constituency, in the wake of Mr. Khizr Khan's convention statements, Donald Trump called out the fact that Mrs. Khan didn't speak while on stage. This callous observation of a grief-stricken gold star mother in the context of Mr. Khan's emotional statement does not go unnoticed by the aforementioned group and moderate conservative women in general.
Paul Manafort explained that Mr. Trump's criticism is not the issue, but the fact that we need to protect the homeland from would-be radicalized immigrants from countries that have been compromised by terrorism. In Mr. Manafort's rebuttal, as Mr. Trump's, he gave lip-service to the Khan's family sacrifice for this country and his larger argument of banning Muslims from coming into the United States subverts the values of America. However, on a larger point, whether you agree with Mr. Manafort's argument or not, the fact that Mr. Trump does not, or more accurately is unable to, articulate that argument in a manner that doesn't insult someone clearly shows that his does not have the qualities necessary to lead this country.
David Brookes was 'nauseated' by Mr. Trump's and then hence forth Mr. Manafort's answers; that's the decent reaction. People like Mr. Manafort, and for that matter panelist today Mr. Alex Castellanos who runs a Trump Super PAC, will continue to deflect Mr. Trump's nauseating statements, but at which point will these statements no longer continue or stand from the candidate?
A program note here: Though the three other panelists provided views of Mr. Trump that Mr. Castellanos had to defend, he shouldn't be appearing on the program as a panelist given that he runs a pro-Trump Super PAC without having an equivalent foil from the Democratic side. As an interview subject, fine, but not as a panelist.
And speaking of foils, Chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign Robby Mook didn't provide any assurances about DNC emails, and was unmemorable in his answers. To this point and in reference to the interview with Julian Assange, there is little doubt that there outside [foreign] forces trying influence the U.S. election. Mr. Assange for his part did not answer the question as to whether foreign governments had provided him with the hacked emails. In his defense he said that if a U.S. intelligence officer gave him information, he would protect that source. Yes, we understand that, but that's still an individual, NOT a government.
And Mr. Manafort's answer that Mr. Trump was just being sarcastic about encouraging Russia to conduct a cyber-espionage attack to find the rest of Sec. Clinton's emails is unacceptable. Whether being sarcastic or not, the appeal was at the least inappropriate, treasonous in intent at most. In other words, the whole thing is nauseating.
Panel: Doris Kearns-Godwin, presidential historian; Hally Jackson, NBC News; David Brooks, The New York Times; Alex Castellanos, Republican strategist
One More Thing...
Paul Manafort completely lied about the fact that the Trump campaign, specifically him, influenced the party platform on its stance on Ukraine. Republicans, because of Mr. Manafort and his lobbying ties to fmr. Ukraine president and Putin stooge, Viktor Yanukovych. The motives are clear and coupled with the suspected Russia hacking, it stinks.
It's half-time of the political party convention game, and the second half belongs to the Democrats. Appropriately aiding in this transition, Chuck Todd interviewed first Donald Trump on the heels of his convention and Bernie Sanders leading into the Democratic get-together in Philadelphia this week, the site of this week's program. (And yes, we agree with Mr. Todd that Philadelphia is a beautiful city.)
Mr. Trump characterized his speech as an optimistic one overall. He said that he explained the problems and followed with solutions, but "I, alone," is not a solution Saying that we're going to just 'win' is not a solution. Fmr. RNC Chair Michael Steele said that the Republican based (the convention) is in fact hungry for a strong man, to which we would simply ask, "What are these people thinking?!" The concept of compromise has been demonized to such an extent in our body politic that one of our major parties has nominated an individual that has rhetorically relied on threats as a way of getting things done.
Mr. Trump said that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is "100% wrong" on NATO. The Republican nominee reiterated his position that the United States will not back a member country if it hasn't paid it's fair share. In that context, Andrea Mitchell's point that anyone in Poland hearing that is not happy is valid, and downright scary for the Poles. This certainly opens the door for aggressive Russian advances toward Poland (e.g. military exercises on the boarder; 'creating' a military incident for justification) during a Trump administration with no repercussions to be felt from the United States. Mr. Trump's obtuse endorsement of Mr. Putin and his actions is deeply troubling.
Even of immigration, Mr. Trump said that he would suspend immigration from any country compromised by terrorism and that includes France, another member of NATO by the way. Not only has Mr. Trump taken an adversarial stance toward China and Mexico, and with statements like from today's interview, he's alienating some of our most steadfast, long-time allies. Meet The Press as well as countless other programs have pointed out that Mr. Trump like to create controversy and a bit of chaos to bolster his image, and you can imagine what we'll say next. You guess it: This is in no uncertain terms the way in which to run the most powerful nation in the world.
The last bit about Mr. Trump from today's interview is that he said he would probably be setting up SuperPACs to attack Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Governor John Kasich (R-OH) for their outspokenness in opposition of the nominee. Why? Mr. Trump has already won, beaten both of those individuals in the election so to go back after the victory to drive them down further does show the vindictiveness of a strong man, but a cowardly one let's face it. And again, vindictiveness is not a quality that should motivate the President of the United States.
Mr. Trump is really relying on the "I, alone" because he's attacking everyone, and to make sure no one is left out, we transition to the Democrats, in which Mr. Trump's attack on the newly-named Democratic VP pick, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) will focus his receiving of gifts as governor of Virginia, his closeness with the banks, and his support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
"His politics are not my politics," Bernie Sanders said of Senator Kaine on the eve of the Democratic convention. This, coupled with Wikileaks leak of DNC emails showing that it favored Mrs. Clinton do not bode well for a smooth start to the proceedings, especially with Senator Sanders speaking on the first night.
Whether you like Mrs. Clinton's choice or not, we respect the candidate who picks someone that he/she feels most comfortable working with. With all the external battles that an administration has to fight during its term, it doesn't make any sense to wantonly fight battles internally. And for that reason, Mrs. Clinton picked a center-left Democrat instead of a firebrand progressive like Elizabeth Warren, as Senator Sanders stated he would have liked.
Conversely, Mr. Trump's pick of Governor Mike Pence is of convenient conservatism, an individual it's rumored that Mr. Trump wasn't all in. So far, Gov. Pence has been trying is best to represent his conservative credentials, but given that he was in for a tough gubernatorial reelection fight, he's been simply glad to be along for the ride. And really, Mr. Trump seems to feel that his best partner is himself. "I, alone."
About the DNC e-mails: First, as we said way back at the beginning, it was a mistake to make a Congressperson the chair of the party, and Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has done a terrible job in that capacity. Simple example: Today, Chris Matthews called the debate schedule 'absurd,' and one that heavily favored Mrs. Clinton. There's the notion out there that Russia who hacked the DNC server gave the emails to Wikileaks to influence the election in favor of Mr. Trump who has shown deference to Mr. Putin. Either way, it's no coincidence that they were leaked just before the convention.
Ultimately, the emails only give fuel to Senator Sanders' supporters, adding to the amount of leverage that he holds to either bring the Democrats together or in attempting the rip the whole thing down. However, in this particular email instance, Mrs. Clinton is not to blame and won't be too badly hurt.
But make no mistake, Senator Sanders holds a lot of the keys in making the Democratic convention one that moves the party forward or backward. A lot will be made of what Senator Sanders doesn't say, like how many times he says Mrs. Clinton's name, etc.
There's also no doubt that Mr. Sanders will not have a Ted Cruz moment because of his feeling that there has been a no more dangerous candidate for president in his lifetime than Donald Trump. And there hasn't.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews, NBC News; Michael Steele, fmr. RNC Chair
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.
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
