Wow.
What else could possibly happen with a month to go until the election?
Rudy Giuliani, the only living person who is still willing defend Donald Trump, is arguing that we need to get to the issues while accusing fmr. President Bill Clinton of being a rapist.
The issues? The issues are gone.
What issues? If you agree with only a fraction of how veteran Republican strategist Steve Schmidt described Donald Trump as a candidate, you would fully agree that the issues don't matter anymore. Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton knows policy better, if this election was ever about that, and the electorate writ large is not making its decision on it, if it ever was.
Giuliani's most entertaining defense, which Chuck Todd called him out on, was
that it was anything that mattered because he wasn't running for
president at the time.
From Steve Schmidt:
This, this candidacy, the magnitude of its disgrace to the country is
almost impossible, I think, to articulate. But it has exposed the
intellectual rot in the Republican Party. It has exposed at a massive
level the hypocrisy, the modern day money changers in the temple like
Jerry Falwell Jr. And so, this party, to go forward and to represent a
conservative vision for America, has great soul searching to do. And
what we've seen and the danger for all of these candidates is over the
course of the last year, these, these candidates who have repeatedly put
their party ahead of their country, denying what is so obviously clear
to anybody who's watching about his complete and total manifest
unfitness for this office.
Not only a dagger to the Republican candidate but also large swathes of the Republican party, not to mention a slap upside the head to Giuliani.
And with that said, as much as Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), guest today, would like Donald Trump to think about his legacy and step away now, it's not going to happen, and it can't happen. It's not going to happen because Donald Trump in his faux apology video also attacked Bill Clinton's dalliances and then in a later statement said there was no way he was quitting. However, he cannot be replaced because ballots have already gone out, early voting is already happening so it's too late. Though Senator Lee's calling is well intended and from the gut, the logic isn't thought through; "Republican Candidate on Ballot Quits Race" is not a headline the Republican party could withstand.
Where does that leave us?
Well, we appreciated the sensibleness of Heather McGhee's explanation that politicians run for office and we elect them. In other words, politicians are going to do what they're going to do (like tell half truths and withhold admissions) so we have to take that in totality and make a decision. Someone like Steve Schmidt can take heart in what Ms. Ghee also said, which was that in a political moment Mrs. Clinton will tack to the center. But instead of that making us all somewhat happy because we all get something, it makes everyone extremely disappointed (and that's putting it mildly).
However, take consolation in this: We're making history, bizarre and twisted, but we're making it.
And more is going to be made tonight as Mr. Trump faces a nation, of whom he objectified and grossly offended over half with his 'bus comments.' Ruth Marcus said that Mr. Trump would most likely start out contrite but then eventually melt down. We would add that the meltdown if it happens will be severe - the stress of what's happening in the press due to his statements and the lack of preparation - and hence embolden more Republicans to pull support, among other things.
For Sec. Clinton's part, she just needs to be her somewhat predictable self and an effective counter-puncher because inevitably that's what she's going to need to do. We suspect, however, not as much as everyone thinks because of the town hall, two moderator, format where the candidates are fielding questions for 'undecided' voters. As scripted as Sec. Clinton's critics say she is, she is more natural in address voters and showing empathy in a one on one situation. Not the best but definitely more natural than Mr. Trump. For him, this debate is all about saving some of his dignity, not the Republican party's but his. If he's not contrite at all or tries to brush his own comments aside, Mrs. Clinton will go on the offense, bait him, and succeed in setting him off then it's all over.
But maybe, just maybe Mr. Trump can make show business history, pull it all together, and deliver a performance that lifts the speeding train and puts it back squarely on the track. But if you believe that, you're thinking is really off the rails.
Panel: Steve SchmidtRuth Marcus, The Washington Post; Sara Fagen, fmr. White House Director - Bush Administration; Heather McGhee, progressive think tank SEMO, Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist
Sunday, October 09, 2016
Sunday, October 02, 2016
10.2.16: Suspending Belief Is Dangerous
It's difficult to listen to Rudy Giuliani talk.
The former District Attorney and Mayor of New York now sounds like a sleazy celebrity defense attorney in every answer he gives. You're talking about something offensive? Let me tell you something more offensive. Completely devoid of fact.
He's throwing stones at the Clintons for extramarital affairs then turns around and self-righteously condemns Chuck Todd for asking if he is qualified to level such a charge due to his own affairs.
In terms of Donald Trump and his taxes, or more accurately the lack of his payment of them, everyone is going to put his or her own spin on it. Whether you think he's smart because he legally avoided paying any taxes over an 18 year period or you think he should be disqualified because it shows that he's clearly not being honest about his finances, this much is clear:
He's running on his business acumen and he's a businessman that lost $916 million.
Why would I hire him to run my company? Or run my country? We don't equate the two because anyone who says that the federal government should be run like a business doesn't know enough about government. And point in fact is on foreign policy, to which Mr. Giuliani equally offensively said that Mr. Trump "displayed a better understanding of radical Islamic terrorism," with which wee would strongly object. Not only has Sec. Clinton shown a better understanding of terrorism in general, but the most comprehensive knowledge on all things that comprise international relations. Love her or hate her, you have to conclude that she's far superior in this field than her opponent. For Mr. Giuliani's part, he just doesn't understand that there is more to foreign policy than terrorism. We know he's made his living on it, but for him to even imply that Donald Trump would be better representing United States' foreign policy than Hillary Clinton is demented thinking.
Now having said that, we would concur with what Michael Moore and Glenn Beck agreed upon today that in middle America, voters are really angry with politicians and they feel that Donald Trump is their voice. One must point out that the anger comes from politicians promising things and not delivering, e.g. the repeal of Obamacare. But the irony is that Donald Trump represents the very Republican party that made these promises and didn't keep them.
Donald Trump is dangerous because he would have you suspend belief on all things and think that only he alone can fix what ails our country, like the tax code that he admits to expertly exploiting for his own enrichment, when we all know that's not how it works in the United States.
But all no matter, right?
Today's panel basically concluded that Trump's unhinged reconkulous (beyond 'ridiculous') 3AM Twitter rant or his completely unfounded accusations that Mrs. Clinton herself had an affair to the revelations about his incredible income tax facts (all just this week) will have no effect on how people will vote and that he still has a chance of being elected president of the United States. The scary and sad part for us is that we don't disagree.
They discussed how the party elites and the media no longer hold sway over the masses yet have only themselves to blame, which is mostly true. Think about it for half a second. On the conservative side, Fox News told their viewers that Mitt Romney was ahead and going to win - he didn't and about Obamacare repeals which never happened. On the liberal side of things, we would agree with Samantha Bee of Comedy Central that NBC has been an enabler of Trump's legitimacy as a candidate. Let's face it, those Jimmy Fallon interviews were like, "Wow, look at how my funny racist uncle can behave well on television."
With regard to the declining influence of newspaper's editorial boards, this column is fine in respecting what they have to say and thinking seriously about it. It's not our problem if other people have a problem with that. However, when a number of noted conservative newspapers (The Arizona Republic, New Hampshire Union Leader, The Dallas Morning News, and The Cincinnati Enquirer) are not endorsing the Republican candidate for president, in more than 100 years for a few, and in some instances endorsing the Democratic candidate who is Hillary Clinton then you listen. Gary Johnson, whose running mate Bill Weld said that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified to be president (not Gary Johnson), has more newspaper endorsements than Donald Trump.
If you suspend belief and disagree, fine, but unqualified Trump's on you.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Mark Halperin, Bloomberg News; Maria Teresa Kumar, President of Voto Latino; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One More Thing...
Glenn Beck has said many things that this column strongly disagrees with, opinions and what not - one that is unforgivable, which was calling President Obama a racist. However, today he did say that in a way we're losing our neighbors and family because we're not focused on reconciliation just winning, a seemingly clear shot at Donald Trump. Whatever his particular motivations are behind that don't matter for the sake of that on it's face, we agree with the sentiment.
Weird times...
The former District Attorney and Mayor of New York now sounds like a sleazy celebrity defense attorney in every answer he gives. You're talking about something offensive? Let me tell you something more offensive. Completely devoid of fact.
He's throwing stones at the Clintons for extramarital affairs then turns around and self-righteously condemns Chuck Todd for asking if he is qualified to level such a charge due to his own affairs.
In terms of Donald Trump and his taxes, or more accurately the lack of his payment of them, everyone is going to put his or her own spin on it. Whether you think he's smart because he legally avoided paying any taxes over an 18 year period or you think he should be disqualified because it shows that he's clearly not being honest about his finances, this much is clear:
He's running on his business acumen and he's a businessman that lost $916 million.
Why would I hire him to run my company? Or run my country? We don't equate the two because anyone who says that the federal government should be run like a business doesn't know enough about government. And point in fact is on foreign policy, to which Mr. Giuliani equally offensively said that Mr. Trump "displayed a better understanding of radical Islamic terrorism," with which wee would strongly object. Not only has Sec. Clinton shown a better understanding of terrorism in general, but the most comprehensive knowledge on all things that comprise international relations. Love her or hate her, you have to conclude that she's far superior in this field than her opponent. For Mr. Giuliani's part, he just doesn't understand that there is more to foreign policy than terrorism. We know he's made his living on it, but for him to even imply that Donald Trump would be better representing United States' foreign policy than Hillary Clinton is demented thinking.
Now having said that, we would concur with what Michael Moore and Glenn Beck agreed upon today that in middle America, voters are really angry with politicians and they feel that Donald Trump is their voice. One must point out that the anger comes from politicians promising things and not delivering, e.g. the repeal of Obamacare. But the irony is that Donald Trump represents the very Republican party that made these promises and didn't keep them.
Donald Trump is dangerous because he would have you suspend belief on all things and think that only he alone can fix what ails our country, like the tax code that he admits to expertly exploiting for his own enrichment, when we all know that's not how it works in the United States.
But all no matter, right?
Today's panel basically concluded that Trump's unhinged reconkulous (beyond 'ridiculous') 3AM Twitter rant or his completely unfounded accusations that Mrs. Clinton herself had an affair to the revelations about his incredible income tax facts (all just this week) will have no effect on how people will vote and that he still has a chance of being elected president of the United States. The scary and sad part for us is that we don't disagree.
They discussed how the party elites and the media no longer hold sway over the masses yet have only themselves to blame, which is mostly true. Think about it for half a second. On the conservative side, Fox News told their viewers that Mitt Romney was ahead and going to win - he didn't and about Obamacare repeals which never happened. On the liberal side of things, we would agree with Samantha Bee of Comedy Central that NBC has been an enabler of Trump's legitimacy as a candidate. Let's face it, those Jimmy Fallon interviews were like, "Wow, look at how my funny racist uncle can behave well on television."
With regard to the declining influence of newspaper's editorial boards, this column is fine in respecting what they have to say and thinking seriously about it. It's not our problem if other people have a problem with that. However, when a number of noted conservative newspapers (The Arizona Republic, New Hampshire Union Leader, The Dallas Morning News, and The Cincinnati Enquirer) are not endorsing the Republican candidate for president, in more than 100 years for a few, and in some instances endorsing the Democratic candidate who is Hillary Clinton then you listen. Gary Johnson, whose running mate Bill Weld said that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified to be president (not Gary Johnson), has more newspaper endorsements than Donald Trump.
If you suspend belief and disagree, fine, but unqualified Trump's on you.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Mark Halperin, Bloomberg News; Maria Teresa Kumar, President of Voto Latino; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One More Thing...
Glenn Beck has said many things that this column strongly disagrees with, opinions and what not - one that is unforgivable, which was calling President Obama a racist. However, today he did say that in a way we're losing our neighbors and family because we're not focused on reconciliation just winning, a seemingly clear shot at Donald Trump. Whatever his particular motivations are behind that don't matter for the sake of that on it's face, we agree with the sentiment.
Weird times...
Sunday, September 25, 2016
9.25.16: On the Eve of The First Presidential Debate, Don't Forget About Policy
Hugh Hewlitt said that he admires Ted Cruz for endorsing Donald Trump, after Senator Cruz is on the record calling Mr. Trump a bully, a sniveling coward and a narcissist among other things. Surprise, surprise; it turns out that Ted Cruz gave up his principles and is just another politician. That's almost forgivable compared to Hewlitt saying he admired him for it.
It's just another example of why we have no respect for anything he in particular says. He's a complete cynical, political opportunist who referenced the very fact that he worked for Richard Nixon, which goes to show that when it comes to political courage he'll duck, run, and save his own skin. Is this the kind of commentary he gives his listeners, really?
Conversely, Republican strategist Mike Murphy is sitting across the table exemplifying what it is to be a principled Republican, who accurately rebutted Hewlitt's entire Supreme Court argument because the very premise relies on trusting Donald Trump.
Our trust deficit with Donald Trump doesn't necessarily have to do as much with Supreme Court choices as it has to do with everything else - foreign policy, immigration, security, the economy on down the line - all of which are a probable conflicts of interest for Trump unless it can be verified to the contrary with the release of his tax returns.
Let's be clear, neither candidate can take the high road when it comes to transparency, but Mr. Trump not releasing his tax returns is particularly problematic, especially since he's based his entire campaign on being a successful businessman. If voters are judging him on the simple fact that he has a lot of money therefore he must be successful, but having no interest in knowing how he makes that money and the amount of taxes he probably doesn't pay seems at the very least negligent in your responsibility as a voter.
Publicly undisclosed personal financial motivations, in this context, could dictate Trump's decisions on policy, policy that may not be in the best interest of The United States.
And that's what tomorrow night's debate is going to come down to - little talked about policy. Today's "Meet The Press" basically served as the kick-off of pre-game political festivities for the debate, and with all the talk about gamesmanship and attacks and temperament, detailed policy prescriptions and how the candidates command them will be the most telling for us.
We would presume in this column to give advice to candidates on what they should or shouldn't say/do during the debate, nor will we speculate what will happen. However, what we will say is that in a 90-minute debate, knowledge of policy is going to dictate which candidate gets the upper hand, which one attacks more effectively, and which one passes the commander in chief test.
Given that, we also agree with Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter when she explained that the candidates need to put forth something positive, especially in an election such as this with a celebrity candidate who incidentally is quite negative. It's a crucial point that gets overlooked in political discussions because it's not as entertaining, frankly, but during the debate it's what viewers really respond to the most, and remember.
In the run-up to the World Series of politics that are these debates, with game one tomorrow night, there was one point that Republican strategist Steve Schmidt made with regard to gamesmanship that we thought was quite telling. On the news that the Clinton campaign was going to invite Mark Cuban to the debate, the Trump campaign, Mr. Trump himself, responded that Gennifer Flowers would be invited. Mr. Schmidt explained that the Clinton campaign tried to bait Mr. Trump and he went for it, it worked. Easily, we might add.Will Sec. Clinton be able to do the same to Mr. Trump, in the moment? Can Mr. Trump in response to an attack from Sec. Clinton not come off sounding sexist? We're excited to find out!
We'll be commenting.
Panel: Doris Kearns Godwin, presidential historian; Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network
One More Thing...
In reference to the panel, we want to firmly state that Gwen Ifill should be moderating one of the debates. With all due respect to the other moderators, Ms. Ifill is head and shoulders above the rest. Not to mention the fact that the 'P' in PBS stands for public. PBS should be hosting one of the debates.
It's just another example of why we have no respect for anything he in particular says. He's a complete cynical, political opportunist who referenced the very fact that he worked for Richard Nixon, which goes to show that when it comes to political courage he'll duck, run, and save his own skin. Is this the kind of commentary he gives his listeners, really?
Conversely, Republican strategist Mike Murphy is sitting across the table exemplifying what it is to be a principled Republican, who accurately rebutted Hewlitt's entire Supreme Court argument because the very premise relies on trusting Donald Trump.
Our trust deficit with Donald Trump doesn't necessarily have to do as much with Supreme Court choices as it has to do with everything else - foreign policy, immigration, security, the economy on down the line - all of which are a probable conflicts of interest for Trump unless it can be verified to the contrary with the release of his tax returns.
Let's be clear, neither candidate can take the high road when it comes to transparency, but Mr. Trump not releasing his tax returns is particularly problematic, especially since he's based his entire campaign on being a successful businessman. If voters are judging him on the simple fact that he has a lot of money therefore he must be successful, but having no interest in knowing how he makes that money and the amount of taxes he probably doesn't pay seems at the very least negligent in your responsibility as a voter.
Publicly undisclosed personal financial motivations, in this context, could dictate Trump's decisions on policy, policy that may not be in the best interest of The United States.
And that's what tomorrow night's debate is going to come down to - little talked about policy. Today's "Meet The Press" basically served as the kick-off of pre-game political festivities for the debate, and with all the talk about gamesmanship and attacks and temperament, detailed policy prescriptions and how the candidates command them will be the most telling for us.
We would presume in this column to give advice to candidates on what they should or shouldn't say/do during the debate, nor will we speculate what will happen. However, what we will say is that in a 90-minute debate, knowledge of policy is going to dictate which candidate gets the upper hand, which one attacks more effectively, and which one passes the commander in chief test.
Given that, we also agree with Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter when she explained that the candidates need to put forth something positive, especially in an election such as this with a celebrity candidate who incidentally is quite negative. It's a crucial point that gets overlooked in political discussions because it's not as entertaining, frankly, but during the debate it's what viewers really respond to the most, and remember.
In the run-up to the World Series of politics that are these debates, with game one tomorrow night, there was one point that Republican strategist Steve Schmidt made with regard to gamesmanship that we thought was quite telling. On the news that the Clinton campaign was going to invite Mark Cuban to the debate, the Trump campaign, Mr. Trump himself, responded that Gennifer Flowers would be invited. Mr. Schmidt explained that the Clinton campaign tried to bait Mr. Trump and he went for it, it worked. Easily, we might add.Will Sec. Clinton be able to do the same to Mr. Trump, in the moment? Can Mr. Trump in response to an attack from Sec. Clinton not come off sounding sexist? We're excited to find out!
We'll be commenting.
Panel: Doris Kearns Godwin, presidential historian; Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network
One More Thing...
In reference to the panel, we want to firmly state that Gwen Ifill should be moderating one of the debates. With all due respect to the other moderators, Ms. Ifill is head and shoulders above the rest. Not to mention the fact that the 'P' in PBS stands for public. PBS should be hosting one of the debates.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
9.22.16: Why Do The Police Shoot People?
Why do the police shoot people?
Seems like a pretty simple question, but through this perhaps naive query comes a myriad of answers, we guess.
However, we keep thinking that the base reason as to why police shoot people is because they are afraid of being shot themselves. Doesn't that make too much sense?
As we've said before in this column, we as an American society have been completely irresponsible with gun ownership. The senseless gun violence of individual on individual and of course police on civilian, especially African-American males is out of control. It is certainly not what we would consider advanced citizenry.
America is in complete gun denial. Instead of doing anything to stem the tide, we have forty-five states that allow open carrying of handguns. For what purpose is this necessary? Protection? Seems like when you shoot someone with a handgun, you're either going to jail or you'll be shot and killed yourself. Some protection.
The can be no dialogue when shots are being fired so saying that we need to have a dialogue is a sadly futile exercise.
Some would say that it is their God-given right to own a gun. To that we would remind that killing another person is a mortal sin; we read that somewhere. If that is the case then why would God put in your hand the instrument to commit that mortal sin?
With regard to Second Amendment, the phrase that rings out is "well-regulated militia." We've allowed our society to become militarized, hence we are the militia, but we are certainly not well-regulated. It has to change or it will only get worse, which you can take as fact.
Lastly, well-regulated doesn't necessarily mean denying people ownership, and we're not for that. But what it should mean is that you have to jump through hoops to get one just like there are certain requirements to own a car.
But who are we kidding? Sensible and fair gun laws in this country are just a fantasy just like it's fantasy that individuals and police will stop shooting.
This one base answer is right in front of our faces, so big that we can't even see it.
Seems like a pretty simple question, but through this perhaps naive query comes a myriad of answers, we guess.
However, we keep thinking that the base reason as to why police shoot people is because they are afraid of being shot themselves. Doesn't that make too much sense?
As we've said before in this column, we as an American society have been completely irresponsible with gun ownership. The senseless gun violence of individual on individual and of course police on civilian, especially African-American males is out of control. It is certainly not what we would consider advanced citizenry.
America is in complete gun denial. Instead of doing anything to stem the tide, we have forty-five states that allow open carrying of handguns. For what purpose is this necessary? Protection? Seems like when you shoot someone with a handgun, you're either going to jail or you'll be shot and killed yourself. Some protection.
The can be no dialogue when shots are being fired so saying that we need to have a dialogue is a sadly futile exercise.
Some would say that it is their God-given right to own a gun. To that we would remind that killing another person is a mortal sin; we read that somewhere. If that is the case then why would God put in your hand the instrument to commit that mortal sin?
With regard to Second Amendment, the phrase that rings out is "well-regulated militia." We've allowed our society to become militarized, hence we are the militia, but we are certainly not well-regulated. It has to change or it will only get worse, which you can take as fact.
Lastly, well-regulated doesn't necessarily mean denying people ownership, and we're not for that. But what it should mean is that you have to jump through hoops to get one just like there are certain requirements to own a car.
But who are we kidding? Sensible and fair gun laws in this country are just a fantasy just like it's fantasy that individuals and police will stop shooting.
This one base answer is right in front of our faces, so big that we can't even see it.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
9.18.16: Trump Winning Strategy - Manipulate TV Media (And They're Letting Him Do It.)
We say without any 'chest pumping' that the explosion in Manhattan with not bring fear or alter New York life, and it is in these instances where the public has complete trust in the NYPD and its terrorism task force to bring justice to this latest high profile act of terror.
The other acts of terror should be noted in St. Cloud, MN and in Seaside Park, NJ because if there is any connection we see if as a coordinated call for random acts on that day that, thankfully, didn't go as planned.
More to come...
As it relates to the presidential candidates, both answered true to their nature with Hillary Clinton taking the more cautious approach - wait and see - holding for more information whereas Donald Trump declared it a bomb before NYC officials identified it as such. In this instance Donald Trump could say he was right, but this isn't about being right. More it shows that Mr. Trump is quickly to draw a conclusion and vocalize it without all the facts. It's not a presidential approach.
Chuck Todd asked VP candidate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) why the race is so close, bringing up the trust and transparency issues dogging Sec. Clinton. Sen. Kaine cited a divided country and acknowledged that their campaign always thought the race would be close. A weak answer so we'd like to expand on it a bit. It is true that we are a divided country, in which for the exception of a large and significant soft middle [read: swing/independent voters] a respective 40 percent on either side will not vote for the other, but this year is different with Mr. Trump as a candidate. First establishment Republicans are quiet but ultimately will not vote for Donald Trump. Secondly, millennials and Bernie Sanders supporters overall right now are not enthusiastic for Hillary Clinton.
The general loathing of both candidates has been exacerbated by the major media outlets that is completely confused as to its role. Major media's, including Fox News - yes, general consensus is that Hillary Clinton is the more qualified and better person to be president, despite deep distrust between the two parities. But at the same time, they can't take their camera'ed eyes off of Trump and in turn his message gets amplified, like at Friday's 'birther' announcement that completely TV media for a bunch of chumps.
Perfectly staged, Mr. Trump showcased and promoted his new Washington DC hotel, which he'll have to sell to honestly establish a blind trust for his business interests. Included in the presentation were statements of endorsement from high-ranking veterans to claim the high ground like Kellyanne Conway did in today's interview. He capped off the 30-minute infomercial with the 5-year series conclusion, "Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."
Disgraceful on so many levels only made even worse by saying that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign started the conspiracy theory of 'birtherism,' which we agree with Cornell Belcher as described as a 'soft place for racism,' that Mr. Trump took comfort for 5 years. Despite all Ms. Conway's effective deflecting of the question, there is no excuse or adequate answer she can give. Obviously Mr. Trump will not give an apology to the president, or anyone for that matter, but what about to 60 percent of his supporters who incorrectly believe that the president was not born in this country? What does he say to them? "I lied to your face, but it's no big deal, right? Believe me." And his supporters seem to simply reply, "OK."
Oh, brother.
Not to mention that Alex Castellanos said that there is an 'otherness' to Barack Obama's presidency, which just reinforces these racist dog whistles. Mr. Castellanos talks smoothly but what comes out is garbage.
All this despite Mr. Trump changing his position on the following issues that Mr. Todd correctly outlined.
But Upper West Side supporters (a liberal area of Manhattan), as Mr. Todd noted, are freaking out, and for good reason because as election day gets closer, Republicans are becoming more fired up and Sec. Clinton's candidacy hasn't inspired the same. They're freaking out so much that Maureen Dowd, no Clinton lover by any stretch, described how they'd like Trump censored and Mrs. Clinton's message promoted. She also explained that the resume argument doesn't always mean that the individual will make the right decision, a la Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and Clinton's hasn't excited the base. Where her campaign is really relying on that experience is at the 'vote moment,' where an individual is at the ballot box and has a moment of pause. It's mostly applicable to prospective Gary Johnson/ third party supporters. But it's not anything you can count on. It's an uphill climb for Clinton's message to inspire when your opponent is handed the media megaphone more often.
Throughout the Republican primary and now in the general, Mr. Trump has effectively controlled and played the media like no other candidate in modern history, and it's this kind of manipulation that's attractive to people like Steve Bannon from Breitbart.
The saving grace for Sec. Clinton could be the debates, but only if she soundly wins the first one. Right now for her, it's the key to the whole race.
Panel: Katy Tur, NBC News; Maureen Dowd, The New York Times; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Cornell Belcher, President of Brilliant Corners
The other acts of terror should be noted in St. Cloud, MN and in Seaside Park, NJ because if there is any connection we see if as a coordinated call for random acts on that day that, thankfully, didn't go as planned.
More to come...
As it relates to the presidential candidates, both answered true to their nature with Hillary Clinton taking the more cautious approach - wait and see - holding for more information whereas Donald Trump declared it a bomb before NYC officials identified it as such. In this instance Donald Trump could say he was right, but this isn't about being right. More it shows that Mr. Trump is quickly to draw a conclusion and vocalize it without all the facts. It's not a presidential approach.
Chuck Todd asked VP candidate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) why the race is so close, bringing up the trust and transparency issues dogging Sec. Clinton. Sen. Kaine cited a divided country and acknowledged that their campaign always thought the race would be close. A weak answer so we'd like to expand on it a bit. It is true that we are a divided country, in which for the exception of a large and significant soft middle [read: swing/independent voters] a respective 40 percent on either side will not vote for the other, but this year is different with Mr. Trump as a candidate. First establishment Republicans are quiet but ultimately will not vote for Donald Trump. Secondly, millennials and Bernie Sanders supporters overall right now are not enthusiastic for Hillary Clinton.
The general loathing of both candidates has been exacerbated by the major media outlets that is completely confused as to its role. Major media's, including Fox News - yes, general consensus is that Hillary Clinton is the more qualified and better person to be president, despite deep distrust between the two parities. But at the same time, they can't take their camera'ed eyes off of Trump and in turn his message gets amplified, like at Friday's 'birther' announcement that completely TV media for a bunch of chumps.
Perfectly staged, Mr. Trump showcased and promoted his new Washington DC hotel, which he'll have to sell to honestly establish a blind trust for his business interests. Included in the presentation were statements of endorsement from high-ranking veterans to claim the high ground like Kellyanne Conway did in today's interview. He capped off the 30-minute infomercial with the 5-year series conclusion, "Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."
Disgraceful on so many levels only made even worse by saying that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign started the conspiracy theory of 'birtherism,' which we agree with Cornell Belcher as described as a 'soft place for racism,' that Mr. Trump took comfort for 5 years. Despite all Ms. Conway's effective deflecting of the question, there is no excuse or adequate answer she can give. Obviously Mr. Trump will not give an apology to the president, or anyone for that matter, but what about to 60 percent of his supporters who incorrectly believe that the president was not born in this country? What does he say to them? "I lied to your face, but it's no big deal, right? Believe me." And his supporters seem to simply reply, "OK."
Oh, brother.
Not to mention that Alex Castellanos said that there is an 'otherness' to Barack Obama's presidency, which just reinforces these racist dog whistles. Mr. Castellanos talks smoothly but what comes out is garbage.
All this despite Mr. Trump changing his position on the following issues that Mr. Todd correctly outlined.
But Upper West Side supporters (a liberal area of Manhattan), as Mr. Todd noted, are freaking out, and for good reason because as election day gets closer, Republicans are becoming more fired up and Sec. Clinton's candidacy hasn't inspired the same. They're freaking out so much that Maureen Dowd, no Clinton lover by any stretch, described how they'd like Trump censored and Mrs. Clinton's message promoted. She also explained that the resume argument doesn't always mean that the individual will make the right decision, a la Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and Clinton's hasn't excited the base. Where her campaign is really relying on that experience is at the 'vote moment,' where an individual is at the ballot box and has a moment of pause. It's mostly applicable to prospective Gary Johnson/ third party supporters. But it's not anything you can count on. It's an uphill climb for Clinton's message to inspire when your opponent is handed the media megaphone more often.
Throughout the Republican primary and now in the general, Mr. Trump has effectively controlled and played the media like no other candidate in modern history, and it's this kind of manipulation that's attractive to people like Steve Bannon from Breitbart.
The saving grace for Sec. Clinton could be the debates, but only if she soundly wins the first one. Right now for her, it's the key to the whole race.
Panel: Katy Tur, NBC News; Maureen Dowd, The New York Times; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Cornell Belcher, President of Brilliant Corners
Monday, September 12, 2016
9.12.16: Thank You Mr. Trump, Sincerely
"I hope she gets well soon... I hope she gets well, gets back on trail and we'll see her at the debate."
Analysts would say that Mr. Trump showed discipline and just got out of the way of the story, but when he said the above on "Fox and Friends" in the manner in which he said it; sincere or not so much you decide, he was the only one to wish Sec. Clinton well.
He repeated it and expanded on this during the course of the day, probably because Mr. Trump took note of the positive reaction in the press from the positive gesture. And maybe perhaps because of that it become more sincere.
What evs... He's the highest profile politician to say so.
Deplorables aside, thank you Mr. Trump.
Analysts would say that Mr. Trump showed discipline and just got out of the way of the story, but when he said the above on "Fox and Friends" in the manner in which he said it; sincere or not so much you decide, he was the only one to wish Sec. Clinton well.
He repeated it and expanded on this during the course of the day, probably because Mr. Trump took note of the positive reaction in the press from the positive gesture. And maybe perhaps because of that it become more sincere.
What evs... He's the highest profile politician to say so.
Deplorables aside, thank you Mr. Trump.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
9.11.16: Where Is Our Decency? / 9/11 Anniversary
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.
Sunday, September 04, 2016
9.4.16: The Least Worst of the Candidates
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
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
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
8.28.16: How Low Can We Go? The Political, Presidential Limbo
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)