This column is written with the intent of keeping 'tribal tendencies' out of the way and to simply take the information presented and comment accordingly. Who ever has the best idea for the most number of Americans gets support from this blog. But make no mistake, I am not in the 38% of Americans that support Donald Trump.
However, I do agree with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) that $20 trillion in debt is not a good thing for America. There's a debt ticker on the page, as a matter of fact! (We're not quite to $20 trillion.) The senator's ideology on how we erase that debt is simply unrealistic and though healthcare plays a large part in the spending, it's not everything. If Congress really wanted to reduce spending and healthcare costs, both parties would have to take the hit. You reduce benefits for people over time and you keep the taxes exactly where they are. That's compromise, which really is politics.
The reality: not bloody likely.
There is no ignoring the fact pointed out by both perspectives, more conservative George Will and more liberal Helene Cooper, that the millions - majorities in many states that Republicans control - of Americans rely of Medicaid, and as Mr. Will also pointed the problem is that 'you're going to take something away from them.'
Whether you agree with Senator Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) starker description that 'people will die' because of the Republican healthcare bill or not, there is little doubt that the millions of people now on Medicaid will be affected. The reason people have Medicaid in the first place is because they don't make enough to afford private health insurance. This new healthcare bill drives people to the private market where there are enough price controls or where the coverage isn't enough for the amount you can afford, hence people/ families will be priced out.
Senator Sanders also said that he would like to have Medicare for all, which when the Affordable Care Act was first debated, it was called the public option, which didn't go anywhere because conservatives blocked it. The real reason why it was blocked was because the fear was that everyone would sign up for the public option and the private market would take an irreparable hit.
In terms of the process, it's easy to understand why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to construct the bill in secret as to keep it as ideologically, as opposed to pragmatically, in tact as possible, which is to say reducing Medicaid and eventually eliminating it by eliminating government involvement in healthcare (how it's couched). As NBC's Haley Jackson noted, President Trump has been more hands-off the Senate bill and that's because it's how Mr. McConnell wants it - the president out of the way. There's no worry of Mr. Trump not signing the bill if presented to him. Democratic complaints about the process are a given, but there have been many complaints by Republicans as well who are going to have to take it on faith that their respective constituencies will like it.
Interestingly, Senator Johnson says he not a 'yes' yet because in his estimation the bill doesn't cut enough money, however, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) is not in favor of the bill because it cuts too much. The political reality for Senator Heller is that over 600,000 Nevadans out of a population of 2.8 million (20%) rely on Medicaid (source: https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/by-state/by-state.html). For the record, over 1 million people in Wisconsin rely on Medicaid out of a state population of 5.7 million (17%). Looking at the math, you can decide for yourself. The other reality at work is that Mr. Heller is up for reelected in 2018 whereas Mr. Johnson just won another 6-year term in 2016, so he can afford to be more ideological about the bill. To be fair to Mr. Johnson, he's always been this ideological so Wisconsinites know for what they voted.
As Mark Leibovich of The New York Times noted, Republicans are damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one. When a conservative like George Will says that the bill in a massive tax cut for the wealthy, that should make everyone stop and give pause at such an acknowledgement. But as it was also explained, Republicans politicians don't seem to be governing in today, but yesterday.
Panel: Haley Jackson, NBC News; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; George Will, syndicated columnist
One More Thing...
Worst analogy of the day: Senator Johnson saying that insuring a preexisting condition is like insuring a crashed car. So if you're born with a birth defect that requires extra medical attention, a preexisting condition, you're just a crashed car and should be insured. Wow.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
Sunday, June 11, 2017
6.11.17: Another Weird Political Week That Was
"Meet The Press" is preempted today for the French Open, but I thought I'd comment on the weird political week that was.
If you're reading this then this column presumes that you're familiar enough with fmr. FBI Director Comey's testimony this week and most probably the president's counter statements as well.
Here's what stood out, to give you some perspective.
First, you have to ask the big question, which is was Mr. Comey's testimony enough to warrant impeachment of Mr. Trump? No, because obstruction can not be proven because Mr. Comey gave his impressions of what Mr. Trump meant in a 'he said-he said' setting, which can easily be refuted.
With that said, my first takeaway is that Mr. Comey's testimony showed what kind of sleazy player Donald Trump is. Ordering everyone out of the room to 'discuss' killing the investigation into Michael Flynn, the aforementioned one on one dinner with the 'loyalty ask,' and the fact that the president never once wanted to discuss national security or the effective Russian cyber attacks have had on our democracy. For this last point, refer to this Washington Post opinion by Karen J. Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/09/president-trump-cares-more-about-himself-than-his-country/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f7e51d6f0ab2
Suffice to say that Mr. Trump puts his own self interests before the interests of the American people so judge that for yourself considering his position as President of the United States. And between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump who do I think is telling the truth and who is lying. Please, the track records speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Mr. Trump's statements or intentions, which is a sad for all of us.
The other troubling piece I took away was the revelations about the interactions between Mr. Comey and fmr. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That meeting on the tarmac between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton definitely wasn't as innocent as explained. Ms. Lynch had asked Mr. Comey to call the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails a 'matter' instead of an investigation. The only explanation I can think of for this is that there is the rule that the FBI should not inject itself into an election, like Mr. Comey had done so maybe terming it a 'matter' blunts that, but that's thin. Ms. Lynch and the Clintons seemed to have an 'agreement' that Ms. Lynch would be looking out for them. As torturous as these first months of the Trump Administration have been, Democrats need to move beyond the Clintons and this leaves little doubt that they should.
Speaking of Attorneys General, current AG Jeff Sessions needs to go, by firing or resignation he has to be out. He's either incompetent, senile, dishonest or most probably all three. Another undisclosed meeting with Russian officials? Really? Turns out that Mr. Sessions will be testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday. He has a lot to answer for, and then he should step down. He's already been deemed the worst AG in American history, which is impressive given that he's only been on the job for 5 months.
With the Comey testimony, Mr. Trump despite what he's said, is not completely vindicated and if anything this investigation is now just getting started.
As I've said all along, it comes down to money with President Trump. He has no interest in the Russian hacking into our election because he wants to keep hidden the embarrassing fact that Russians make up a huge part of his financial dealings. Not that that would be illegal in and of itself but would definitive be seen as a completely unacceptable conflict of interest that wouldn't go over well with the American people. That's why we haven't seen his tax returns. Special Counsel Robert Mueller will change all that - stay tuned.
If you're reading this then this column presumes that you're familiar enough with fmr. FBI Director Comey's testimony this week and most probably the president's counter statements as well.
Here's what stood out, to give you some perspective.
First, you have to ask the big question, which is was Mr. Comey's testimony enough to warrant impeachment of Mr. Trump? No, because obstruction can not be proven because Mr. Comey gave his impressions of what Mr. Trump meant in a 'he said-he said' setting, which can easily be refuted.
With that said, my first takeaway is that Mr. Comey's testimony showed what kind of sleazy player Donald Trump is. Ordering everyone out of the room to 'discuss' killing the investigation into Michael Flynn, the aforementioned one on one dinner with the 'loyalty ask,' and the fact that the president never once wanted to discuss national security or the effective Russian cyber attacks have had on our democracy. For this last point, refer to this Washington Post opinion by Karen J. Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/09/president-trump-cares-more-about-himself-than-his-country/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f7e51d6f0ab2
Suffice to say that Mr. Trump puts his own self interests before the interests of the American people so judge that for yourself considering his position as President of the United States. And between Mr. Comey and Mr. Trump who do I think is telling the truth and who is lying. Please, the track records speak for themselves. There is no truth to the Mr. Trump's statements or intentions, which is a sad for all of us.
The other troubling piece I took away was the revelations about the interactions between Mr. Comey and fmr. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. That meeting on the tarmac between Ms. Lynch and Mr. Clinton definitely wasn't as innocent as explained. Ms. Lynch had asked Mr. Comey to call the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's emails a 'matter' instead of an investigation. The only explanation I can think of for this is that there is the rule that the FBI should not inject itself into an election, like Mr. Comey had done so maybe terming it a 'matter' blunts that, but that's thin. Ms. Lynch and the Clintons seemed to have an 'agreement' that Ms. Lynch would be looking out for them. As torturous as these first months of the Trump Administration have been, Democrats need to move beyond the Clintons and this leaves little doubt that they should.
Speaking of Attorneys General, current AG Jeff Sessions needs to go, by firing or resignation he has to be out. He's either incompetent, senile, dishonest or most probably all three. Another undisclosed meeting with Russian officials? Really? Turns out that Mr. Sessions will be testifying before a Senate committee on Tuesday. He has a lot to answer for, and then he should step down. He's already been deemed the worst AG in American history, which is impressive given that he's only been on the job for 5 months.
With the Comey testimony, Mr. Trump despite what he's said, is not completely vindicated and if anything this investigation is now just getting started.
As I've said all along, it comes down to money with President Trump. He has no interest in the Russian hacking into our election because he wants to keep hidden the embarrassing fact that Russians make up a huge part of his financial dealings. Not that that would be illegal in and of itself but would definitive be seen as a completely unacceptable conflict of interest that wouldn't go over well with the American people. That's why we haven't seen his tax returns. Special Counsel Robert Mueller will change all that - stay tuned.
6.4.17: The President's Behavior Toward London/ The Paris Agreement and Scott Pruitt Interview
NBC National Security Analyst Michael Leiter explained that because of demographic factors in the United States, we're less susceptible to attacks like that of Europe where an emigrant becomes radicalized and commits an act of terror. Geography also has something to do with it. But, people become more easily assimilated into American culture than they do in Europe.
When asked about British Prime Minister Theresa May's comment that "there has been too much tolerance of extremism," fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry gave the correct response emblematic of his last job by saying that the British has to make that determination about their own country. But also think of it as an answer from someone who understands facing a test of collective resolve in the midst of personal tragedy.
So why does our president have to politicize this terrorist attack. As the "leader of the free world" you could offer a show of strength, support and unity with Britain, but instead he sent a critical tweet, which was completely contextually incorrectly it must be added, that the London mayor said not to be alarmed by the attacks. This isn't what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said, but instead explained that there is going to be an escalation of police presence on the streets of London for the next few days and that people should not be alarmed by the increased police presence. Our president went political and petty.
He also politicized it further by mentioning his travel ban executive order, in yet another tweet. There is simply no way at this point to explain why our president's first inclination toward any kind of sympathy.
The Paris Agreement and the Scott Pruitt Interview
First, it must be said that Mr. Pruitt was not appointed the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect that agency. He's there to oversee the repeal of as many environmental regulations as possible and then slashing the staff and funding to the extent that it renders the department unable to enforce the regulations that are left.
Director Pruitt stated the at Paris Agreement was a bad deal for The United States, and that it put us at an economic disadvantage. Because we're ahead of everyone else in cutting emissions already, why should we cut more, which in turn slows down our economy? The way he put it is that the cost to the United States has been front-loaded. And because of the economic drag, American ingenuity and innovation was being hampered.
With regard to Paris, we must again first say here that President Trump didn't make his decision based on the environment, but one based on politics. It's the president's prerogative to make decisions based on what ever he wants, but you need to understand that first.
But on that point, if it was a political call, the president got it wrong. The provisions in the Paris Agreement are voluntary and each country sets its own goals, with self-enforcement. Exiting the agreement that was signed by 195 countries cedes U.S. leadership and influence in the world. It makes the U.S. an outlier in the world. Even if you believe in President Trump's mantra of "America First," withdrawing from such an agreement is isolationist, not putting America first.
In the case of Director Pruitt's thinking, it is now in fact that ingenuity and innovation is being hampered in the United States. Our need for more and more efficient energy is ever growing and in terms of global business, the clean energy sector is the fastest growing area in need of constant innovation. The point is that Director Pruitt's reasoning is simply short sighted. The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in energy technology, which will move forward with or without us, but instead Mr. Pruitt touted more jobs in the coal industry.
Also, by repealing regulations, Mr. Pruitt also puts one of our other most precious resources in jeopardy - clean water. By relaxing regulations on waste dumping, for example, puts water supplies at risk. Protecting our clean water sources is part of the president's stated duty to protect Americans, no?
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem News Network; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama campaign manager; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
When asked about British Prime Minister Theresa May's comment that "there has been too much tolerance of extremism," fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry gave the correct response emblematic of his last job by saying that the British has to make that determination about their own country. But also think of it as an answer from someone who understands facing a test of collective resolve in the midst of personal tragedy.
So why does our president have to politicize this terrorist attack. As the "leader of the free world" you could offer a show of strength, support and unity with Britain, but instead he sent a critical tweet, which was completely contextually incorrectly it must be added, that the London mayor said not to be alarmed by the attacks. This isn't what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said, but instead explained that there is going to be an escalation of police presence on the streets of London for the next few days and that people should not be alarmed by the increased police presence. Our president went political and petty.
He also politicized it further by mentioning his travel ban executive order, in yet another tweet. There is simply no way at this point to explain why our president's first inclination toward any kind of sympathy.
The Paris Agreement and the Scott Pruitt Interview
First, it must be said that Mr. Pruitt was not appointed the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect that agency. He's there to oversee the repeal of as many environmental regulations as possible and then slashing the staff and funding to the extent that it renders the department unable to enforce the regulations that are left.
Director Pruitt stated the at Paris Agreement was a bad deal for The United States, and that it put us at an economic disadvantage. Because we're ahead of everyone else in cutting emissions already, why should we cut more, which in turn slows down our economy? The way he put it is that the cost to the United States has been front-loaded. And because of the economic drag, American ingenuity and innovation was being hampered.
With regard to Paris, we must again first say here that President Trump didn't make his decision based on the environment, but one based on politics. It's the president's prerogative to make decisions based on what ever he wants, but you need to understand that first.
But on that point, if it was a political call, the president got it wrong. The provisions in the Paris Agreement are voluntary and each country sets its own goals, with self-enforcement. Exiting the agreement that was signed by 195 countries cedes U.S. leadership and influence in the world. It makes the U.S. an outlier in the world. Even if you believe in President Trump's mantra of "America First," withdrawing from such an agreement is isolationist, not putting America first.
In the case of Director Pruitt's thinking, it is now in fact that ingenuity and innovation is being hampered in the United States. Our need for more and more efficient energy is ever growing and in terms of global business, the clean energy sector is the fastest growing area in need of constant innovation. The point is that Director Pruitt's reasoning is simply short sighted. The United States has the opportunity to lead the world in energy technology, which will move forward with or without us, but instead Mr. Pruitt touted more jobs in the coal industry.
Also, by repealing regulations, Mr. Pruitt also puts one of our other most precious resources in jeopardy - clean water. By relaxing regulations on waste dumping, for example, puts water supplies at risk. Protecting our clean water sources is part of the president's stated duty to protect Americans, no?
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem News Network; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Obama campaign manager; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
Sunday, May 28, 2017
5.28.17: Republicans' Summer Agenda in Jeopardy/ Memorial Day Comment
There is smoke, lots of smoke but the only smoke we should be talking about today comes off the barbecue and while we thinking of all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Yet, here we are discussing the president's son-in-saw Jared Kushner and his suspicious communications with Russia.
Mr. Kushner, it was leaked to The Washington Post, is not a target of the Russia investigation but is "under scrutiny." Let's face it, if you're "under scrutiny" by the FBI then you're being investigated. And no matter the outcome, this is going to hang over the administration and this presidency until its resolved, nothing will get done. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) explained that no everything on the slate - health care, tax reform, a budget, debt ceiling - will get done. With the exception of preventing the United States from defaulting on its debt payments, it's difficult to see anything getting done. It was reassuring to hear Senator Corker say that the sanctions on Russia would continue as they should, but they should actually be harsher as a consequence of interfering with the past election.
The problem with completing any of the aforementioned policy agenda items is that Republicans who control all of Congress are fractured on how to proceed. The House passed a healthcare that will be completely rewritten in the Senate and be unacceptable to the hard right. Compromise within the Republican party itself seems difficult. Not to mention that any of the few times policy is discussed, there is never any mention of Democratic participation. And according to Senator John McCain (R-AZ), there is no plan in place for getting anything done.
The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel cited an example of Barack Obama representatives setting up a back channel is similar to what Jared Kushner was doing, and feels that all this is essentially much to do about nothing. However, when former Director of National Security James Clapper says that his "dashboard light was on" (without confirming anything) about the Trump transition team contacts that's troubling. There seems to be more there than just the meetings between Mr. Kushner and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Summer is upon us and the heat gets to people; it can be a crazy time. Most of the problems the Trump Administration have faced are self-inflicted, but what happens if there is a real crisis? That would surely knock the administration and by extension the Congress further off its already shaky moorings.
Whatever the outcome all these Russia investigations, the damage the Trump Administration is already thoroughly done, with only itself to blame.
***
Memorial Day Comment
First and foremost, on this particular holiday this column would like to give a grateful shout-out to the soldiers and vets at the Intrepid Spirit Center at Ft. Belvoir in Virginia. Thank you for being the people you are.
One thing to know about this column is its strong sense of what America should be and how it should act and lead in the world. Because of that, our soldiers' sacrifices are never taken lightly and respect is seriously paid.
With that said, it's also important to keep in mind the allies/friends that help us when we put troops in harm's way. Since the establishment of NATO in 1948, every president - Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lindon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama - has confirmed the NATO commitment to Article 5, which states that if one member is attacked, we're all attacked. It has been invoked once by us, The United States, after 9/11.
President Donald Trump did not make this commitment; did not state this confirmation at the meeting of NATO nations in Brussels earlier this week. What does that say about our leadership in the world? It was a conspicuous decision by President Trump not to say so, and it was disgraceful.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Kimberley Strassell, The Wall Street Journal; Charlie Sykes, NBC News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report
Mr. Kushner, it was leaked to The Washington Post, is not a target of the Russia investigation but is "under scrutiny." Let's face it, if you're "under scrutiny" by the FBI then you're being investigated. And no matter the outcome, this is going to hang over the administration and this presidency until its resolved, nothing will get done. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) explained that no everything on the slate - health care, tax reform, a budget, debt ceiling - will get done. With the exception of preventing the United States from defaulting on its debt payments, it's difficult to see anything getting done. It was reassuring to hear Senator Corker say that the sanctions on Russia would continue as they should, but they should actually be harsher as a consequence of interfering with the past election.
The problem with completing any of the aforementioned policy agenda items is that Republicans who control all of Congress are fractured on how to proceed. The House passed a healthcare that will be completely rewritten in the Senate and be unacceptable to the hard right. Compromise within the Republican party itself seems difficult. Not to mention that any of the few times policy is discussed, there is never any mention of Democratic participation. And according to Senator John McCain (R-AZ), there is no plan in place for getting anything done.
The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel cited an example of Barack Obama representatives setting up a back channel is similar to what Jared Kushner was doing, and feels that all this is essentially much to do about nothing. However, when former Director of National Security James Clapper says that his "dashboard light was on" (without confirming anything) about the Trump transition team contacts that's troubling. There seems to be more there than just the meetings between Mr. Kushner and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Summer is upon us and the heat gets to people; it can be a crazy time. Most of the problems the Trump Administration have faced are self-inflicted, but what happens if there is a real crisis? That would surely knock the administration and by extension the Congress further off its already shaky moorings.
Whatever the outcome all these Russia investigations, the damage the Trump Administration is already thoroughly done, with only itself to blame.
***
Memorial Day Comment
First and foremost, on this particular holiday this column would like to give a grateful shout-out to the soldiers and vets at the Intrepid Spirit Center at Ft. Belvoir in Virginia. Thank you for being the people you are.
One thing to know about this column is its strong sense of what America should be and how it should act and lead in the world. Because of that, our soldiers' sacrifices are never taken lightly and respect is seriously paid.
With that said, it's also important to keep in mind the allies/friends that help us when we put troops in harm's way. Since the establishment of NATO in 1948, every president - Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lindon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama - has confirmed the NATO commitment to Article 5, which states that if one member is attacked, we're all attacked. It has been invoked once by us, The United States, after 9/11.
President Donald Trump did not make this commitment; did not state this confirmation at the meeting of NATO nations in Brussels earlier this week. What does that say about our leadership in the world? It was a conspicuous decision by President Trump not to say so, and it was disgraceful.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Kimberley Strassell, The Wall Street Journal; Charlie Sykes, NBC News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report
Sunday, May 14, 2017
5.14.17: What's Thin And Then Not So Much... The Fall-Out of the President's Decisions
This week's firing of FBI Director James Comey is just another mess in an ever-growing line of messes for President Trump and his administration. Unlike other self-manufactured controversies, this one in particular could, and really should, be used as evidence of obstruction of justice. By the president's own admission to NBC's Lester Holt, Mr. Trump said that "this Russia thing" factored into his decision to fire Mr. Comey, who was leading the investigation into Russian involvement in our election and to the larger extent our democratic processes. Then there was the completely awkward ill-timed, frankly bizarre, meeting with Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak where no U.S. media were allowed but Russian media was.
The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson commented that it was impossible to predict the timing of the things the president does, but I would content that it's not that difficult - just imagine the worst possible time in which to do something and that's when Mr. Trump will act.
But there is a big "if," which Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) outlined in his interview, which is that right now the investigation is a counter-intelligence investigation and not a criminal one, meaning that at this time appointing a special prosecutor would be premature. This argument treads thin due to the presidents statements, which included his mention of recordings of White House conversations with then-director Comey on January 27, 2017 at a private dinner between the two. What's not thin is the president's threat of "tapes." No "thinly-veiled," it was simply a threat. The president should take Senator Graham's advice to cease tweeting or commenting about the investigation.
Senator Schumer, for his part, is in wait-and-see mode for the president's choice to replace Mr. Comey as FBI director, which will then dictate the decision on whether there should be a united democratic call for a special prosecutor.
If you disagree with the charge of obstruction of justice, what is obvious is that the president is using all legal means, politically ugly or not, to impede the FBI investigation. As the BBC's Katty Kay pointed out - we haven't gotten the full, real story so conspiracy theories will reign. One is left only to speculate, but best guess from my perspective is that it has to do with his businesses being put under a legal microscope. Congress' investigation is more focused on Russia's interference with our election where the FBI seems more targeted at individuals within the Trump campaign, which could lead to an investigation of the president. It's all more personal in nature and that would seem to be more of a concern to Mr. Trump.
Paraphrasing Axios' founder Jim Vandehei, you can't be thinking small while trying to accomplish big things. It just won't work. That's where we all are with Donald Trump's presidency.
To directly quote Matthew Continetti of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, "He is the crisis." The boiling point comes when a larger enough portion of the Republican party disapprove and it's moving in that direction.
On the personal front, President is not helping himself certainly, but Secretary of State Rex Tillerson isn't helping the administration's credibility cause of U.S. foreign policy either. At the outset of this administration I had hope that Mr. Tillerson would be the pleasant surprise in an administration consisting of many political novices, but that hope ceased early on and today's interview confirmed any doubt that Mr. Tillerson simply doesn't have what it takes to represent the United States as its head diplomat.
Senator Graham said that he was 1,000 percent sure that Russia interfered in our election and Sec. Tillerson doesn't bring it up in his meetings with Putin on his Kremlin visit, saying it was "part of that broader landscape of conversation." With all due respect to the Secretary, what the hell does that mean? Another country meddling in the U.S. election is an attack on our democracy and indeed our sovereignty. Fine, it's part of broader conversations, but it's the first conversation.
Mr. Vandehei was a last minute addition to the panel to break the news that the Trump Administration is going to have a major shake up and names like Bannon, Priebus, Spicer, and McGahn are potential pink slip recipients. So much for Mr. Trump's hiring prowess and 'getting the best people.' No matter what side of the political aisle you favor or none at all, we would all agree that all this needs to be promptly resolved. In this instance Donald Trump is the only one who can fix all this, and indeed we need the full, real story because Americans' patience is running really thin with this unpredictable president and chaotic presidency.
Panel: Katty Kay, BBC News; Haley Jackson, NBC News; Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson commented that it was impossible to predict the timing of the things the president does, but I would content that it's not that difficult - just imagine the worst possible time in which to do something and that's when Mr. Trump will act.
But there is a big "if," which Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) outlined in his interview, which is that right now the investigation is a counter-intelligence investigation and not a criminal one, meaning that at this time appointing a special prosecutor would be premature. This argument treads thin due to the presidents statements, which included his mention of recordings of White House conversations with then-director Comey on January 27, 2017 at a private dinner between the two. What's not thin is the president's threat of "tapes." No "thinly-veiled," it was simply a threat. The president should take Senator Graham's advice to cease tweeting or commenting about the investigation.
Senator Schumer, for his part, is in wait-and-see mode for the president's choice to replace Mr. Comey as FBI director, which will then dictate the decision on whether there should be a united democratic call for a special prosecutor.
If you disagree with the charge of obstruction of justice, what is obvious is that the president is using all legal means, politically ugly or not, to impede the FBI investigation. As the BBC's Katty Kay pointed out - we haven't gotten the full, real story so conspiracy theories will reign. One is left only to speculate, but best guess from my perspective is that it has to do with his businesses being put under a legal microscope. Congress' investigation is more focused on Russia's interference with our election where the FBI seems more targeted at individuals within the Trump campaign, which could lead to an investigation of the president. It's all more personal in nature and that would seem to be more of a concern to Mr. Trump.
Paraphrasing Axios' founder Jim Vandehei, you can't be thinking small while trying to accomplish big things. It just won't work. That's where we all are with Donald Trump's presidency.
To directly quote Matthew Continetti of the conservative Washington Free Beacon, "He is the crisis." The boiling point comes when a larger enough portion of the Republican party disapprove and it's moving in that direction.
On the personal front, President is not helping himself certainly, but Secretary of State Rex Tillerson isn't helping the administration's credibility cause of U.S. foreign policy either. At the outset of this administration I had hope that Mr. Tillerson would be the pleasant surprise in an administration consisting of many political novices, but that hope ceased early on and today's interview confirmed any doubt that Mr. Tillerson simply doesn't have what it takes to represent the United States as its head diplomat.
Senator Graham said that he was 1,000 percent sure that Russia interfered in our election and Sec. Tillerson doesn't bring it up in his meetings with Putin on his Kremlin visit, saying it was "part of that broader landscape of conversation." With all due respect to the Secretary, what the hell does that mean? Another country meddling in the U.S. election is an attack on our democracy and indeed our sovereignty. Fine, it's part of broader conversations, but it's the first conversation.
Mr. Vandehei was a last minute addition to the panel to break the news that the Trump Administration is going to have a major shake up and names like Bannon, Priebus, Spicer, and McGahn are potential pink slip recipients. So much for Mr. Trump's hiring prowess and 'getting the best people.' No matter what side of the political aisle you favor or none at all, we would all agree that all this needs to be promptly resolved. In this instance Donald Trump is the only one who can fix all this, and indeed we need the full, real story because Americans' patience is running really thin with this unpredictable president and chaotic presidency.
Panel: Katty Kay, BBC News; Haley Jackson, NBC News; Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
Sunday, May 07, 2017
5.7.17: Healthcare and the Russia Question No One in Congress Answers
Andrea Mitchell in for Chuck Todd
Since the Republican-controlled House [read: Republicans only] passed their Healthcare Bill there have been a lot of people in the media making football analogies - today's "Spiking the Football, It's only the first quarter, this is a first down not a touchdown," et al. While apt, because the politics of it are certainly being playing like a game, the outcomes will most definitely not be.
The Rose Garden beer party the House Republicans had after the vote was asinine and juvenile, pure cynically political legislation prematurely and inappropriately celebrated by a group of men, who frankly were as diverse as a white bread American cheese sandwich, with mayo. Bad optics?
In that vane, bad optics and bad policy is the Senate committee consists of 13 white guys crafting their version of the bill. No women, pointed out by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) while also noting that women are over 50 percent of the population. They don't have a seat at the table?
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price neither talks about health nor sounds human. He answered every question with some form of we're going to give individuals, families and doctors more control and choice over the health care that they want to have. What he left out was that the insurance companies are taking back control of health care distribution and what they can charge. The Medicaid Expansion will be the responsibility of the individual states which will not be given enough funding to continue then eventually be cut altogether.
After scrolling 22 organizations across the screen, which included the AARP, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, and the March of Dimes, among others Secretary Price said all of those organizations "don't see that there is a better way." Really? Interpret as you will but that's a little suspect to me.
By the same token, however, the taunting the Democrats did singing, "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" on the floor of the House was bush-league and also inappropriate, even if you get the 'why' of it. Most everyone would agree - that Republicans are repealing a major social program, something we've never done Yahoo's Matt Bai noted, and the political outlook for doing so will cost Republicans seats in Congress. But that's no excuse.
The take away is this: the Medicaid expansion will eventually be phased out by giving the responsibility to the individual states and people will lose coverage not being able to afford private insurance. The money that the federal government will save with go into a tax cut coming in the near future.
As for widely known as fact Russian meddling in the American election and other in Europe (appropriate today given France's election today), here's the question for Congress:
What's the recourse?
Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) called it "unfortunate." OK... (?)
What are the consequences for these actions, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States? I guess we have to wait until all the investigations are concluded to get those, timetable not-soon-enough. It's just beyond comprehension the passivity on the part of members of Congress when the speak on this topic. Odd. However, Senator Feinstein also pointed out that when the Obama Administration expelled 35 Russian government employees, the Kremlin didn't react, inferring the connection between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Between Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort all of whom are the focus of the FBI, there are some bad actors.
During the Republican Party convention in Cleveland, they changed the platform position on its support of Ukraine in terms of support and armaments to stand up to Russia. Paul Manafort is seen as the driving force behind that effort so we're he and Flynn working in coordination or independently?
And the twists just keep on coming...
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
Since the Republican-controlled House [read: Republicans only] passed their Healthcare Bill there have been a lot of people in the media making football analogies - today's "Spiking the Football, It's only the first quarter, this is a first down not a touchdown," et al. While apt, because the politics of it are certainly being playing like a game, the outcomes will most definitely not be.
The Rose Garden beer party the House Republicans had after the vote was asinine and juvenile, pure cynically political legislation prematurely and inappropriately celebrated by a group of men, who frankly were as diverse as a white bread American cheese sandwich, with mayo. Bad optics?
In that vane, bad optics and bad policy is the Senate committee consists of 13 white guys crafting their version of the bill. No women, pointed out by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) while also noting that women are over 50 percent of the population. They don't have a seat at the table?
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price neither talks about health nor sounds human. He answered every question with some form of we're going to give individuals, families and doctors more control and choice over the health care that they want to have. What he left out was that the insurance companies are taking back control of health care distribution and what they can charge. The Medicaid Expansion will be the responsibility of the individual states which will not be given enough funding to continue then eventually be cut altogether.
After scrolling 22 organizations across the screen, which included the AARP, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, and the March of Dimes, among others Secretary Price said all of those organizations "don't see that there is a better way." Really? Interpret as you will but that's a little suspect to me.
By the same token, however, the taunting the Democrats did singing, "Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey Goodbye" on the floor of the House was bush-league and also inappropriate, even if you get the 'why' of it. Most everyone would agree - that Republicans are repealing a major social program, something we've never done Yahoo's Matt Bai noted, and the political outlook for doing so will cost Republicans seats in Congress. But that's no excuse.
The take away is this: the Medicaid expansion will eventually be phased out by giving the responsibility to the individual states and people will lose coverage not being able to afford private insurance. The money that the federal government will save with go into a tax cut coming in the near future.
As for widely known as fact Russian meddling in the American election and other in Europe (appropriate today given France's election today), here's the question for Congress:
What's the recourse?
Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) called it "unfortunate." OK... (?)
What are the consequences for these actions, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States? I guess we have to wait until all the investigations are concluded to get those, timetable not-soon-enough. It's just beyond comprehension the passivity on the part of members of Congress when the speak on this topic. Odd. However, Senator Feinstein also pointed out that when the Obama Administration expelled 35 Russian government employees, the Kremlin didn't react, inferring the connection between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador. Between Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort all of whom are the focus of the FBI, there are some bad actors.
During the Republican Party convention in Cleveland, they changed the platform position on its support of Ukraine in terms of support and armaments to stand up to Russia. Paul Manafort is seen as the driving force behind that effort so we're he and Flynn working in coordination or independently?
And the twists just keep on coming...
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
Sunday, April 30, 2017
4.30.17: President Trump's 100-Day "Feel Good"
Maine senator Angus King (I) said that he was disappointed in the president speech last night in Harrisburg, PA because it showed that Mr. Trump was still in "campaign mode," not reaching out to Americans that haven't supported him and spouting charred red meat rhetoric to his loyal supporters. Chris Matthews said it was the smart move. For the president it was, but the outreach, despite what Vice President Mike Pence would tell you, has been nonexistent.
That's not a surprise and faux outrage is a waste of energy. President Trump at the 100-day mark is not going to go the White House correspondents' dinner to be roasted. He needed a "feel good" because these first days, frankly, have been brutal for the president.
In this respect, I read Donald Trump as a "wake-up call" kind of person. Unfortunately, his attitude has shown that it will take some sort of tragic event that effects people all across the political spectrum for him to realize that we're all in this together. (I say this with reservation.)
Before getting into that, it must first be said that enough's enough with Mr. Pence speaking in such a patronizing/ condescending tone in interviews like he has some other insight into the American people that they themselves don't know about. The subtle mimicry of Reaganesque inflections has got to stop.
"This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier," the president said to the Associated Press. The problem is that it's only going to get more difficult from here on out. The president's less-than-calculated alienating statements have everyone on their heals, which only means that he will become even more isolated. A Republican-controlled Congress rejected the billion dollar down payment for the border wall. There's little enthusiasm for for his legislative agenda, as thin as it is.
In terms of tax policy, a one page outline simply isn't going to make the grade. In fact, no tax reform [read: tax cutting] should happen before the president, who is still fully invested in his businesses, releases his returns. The American people have the right to know how changing the tax code might disproportionately benefit the president.
In terms of foreign policy, specifically South Korea which was discussed today, again the vice-president deflected away conflicting statements coming from the administration. President Trump is making tough statements with regard to North Korea, while at the same time telling Seoul that they need to pay for the air defense system, which Defense Secretary Mattis then reversed in direct talks with the South Koreans.
No way to conduct foreign policy, obviously.
You would observe that the Trump Administration needs to get on the same page, but perhaps they should begin with reading the same book first. This task (getting everyone on the "same page") is expressly the job of the White House chief of staff, in this case Reince Priebus. Granted he does have the near impossible task of keeping the president on message, but it's on him. Again, Vice-President Pence tries to put a more diplomatic spin on it, saying things like, "we're asking our allies to do more," etc; when the president is saying, "you should pay for it."
Maybe they could run this through the filter before we're made to drink it in.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Nicole Wallace, NBC News; Chris Matthews, NBC News
One More Thing...
Ms. Cooper explained that Democrats right now are in the wilderness. Mr. Matthews said that they needed to get more aggressive, break the rules and take control of the floor for a vote. I'm not sure where I fall on that right at the moment, but they better be coming up with a plan if and a message if they want to take control of either chamber of Congress.
That's not a surprise and faux outrage is a waste of energy. President Trump at the 100-day mark is not going to go the White House correspondents' dinner to be roasted. He needed a "feel good" because these first days, frankly, have been brutal for the president.
In this respect, I read Donald Trump as a "wake-up call" kind of person. Unfortunately, his attitude has shown that it will take some sort of tragic event that effects people all across the political spectrum for him to realize that we're all in this together. (I say this with reservation.)
Before getting into that, it must first be said that enough's enough with Mr. Pence speaking in such a patronizing/ condescending tone in interviews like he has some other insight into the American people that they themselves don't know about. The subtle mimicry of Reaganesque inflections has got to stop.
"This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier," the president said to the Associated Press. The problem is that it's only going to get more difficult from here on out. The president's less-than-calculated alienating statements have everyone on their heals, which only means that he will become even more isolated. A Republican-controlled Congress rejected the billion dollar down payment for the border wall. There's little enthusiasm for for his legislative agenda, as thin as it is.
In terms of tax policy, a one page outline simply isn't going to make the grade. In fact, no tax reform [read: tax cutting] should happen before the president, who is still fully invested in his businesses, releases his returns. The American people have the right to know how changing the tax code might disproportionately benefit the president.
In terms of foreign policy, specifically South Korea which was discussed today, again the vice-president deflected away conflicting statements coming from the administration. President Trump is making tough statements with regard to North Korea, while at the same time telling Seoul that they need to pay for the air defense system, which Defense Secretary Mattis then reversed in direct talks with the South Koreans.
No way to conduct foreign policy, obviously.
You would observe that the Trump Administration needs to get on the same page, but perhaps they should begin with reading the same book first. This task (getting everyone on the "same page") is expressly the job of the White House chief of staff, in this case Reince Priebus. Granted he does have the near impossible task of keeping the president on message, but it's on him. Again, Vice-President Pence tries to put a more diplomatic spin on it, saying things like, "we're asking our allies to do more," etc; when the president is saying, "you should pay for it."
Maybe they could run this through the filter before we're made to drink it in.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Nicole Wallace, NBC News; Chris Matthews, NBC News
One More Thing...
Ms. Cooper explained that Democrats right now are in the wilderness. Mr. Matthews said that they needed to get more aggressive, break the rules and take control of the floor for a vote. I'm not sure where I fall on that right at the moment, but they better be coming up with a plan if and a message if they want to take control of either chamber of Congress.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
4.16.17: President Trump's Tactics vs. Strategy
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) put it best when he described what President Trump is doing with regard to foreign policy, at least, are tactics, not a strategy. To that he said that he would give the president some time but not much because he hasn't seen any sort of strategy as of yet.
The Trump Administration doesn't really have a foreign policy strategy, now. but it did previously - one crafted by chief strategist Steven Bannon. That strategy was to stay out of Syria, get tough on China economically and align with Russia militarily. Then the realities of being president set in versus being on the campaign trail.
Domestically, the president found himself on the losing end of some major battles then met with the King of Jordan and the president of China. He probably figured that it might be advantageous to listen to someone else, anyone else who been involved with these issues. As Andrea Mitchell reminded us, the president likes winning.
But speaking of domestic policy, that is where Trump does have a strategy, rudimentary as it is, and it's being carried out - less regulations, notably environmental, and on immigration. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly of course didn't use the term 'deportation force' but he did say that they are hiring more people to combat illegal immigration.
On environmental policy, plain and simple - if the United States pulls out of the Paris Climate Agreement to which 190 nations have signed on, we are essentially abdicating our leadership role into the future. And for what? So that a few can profit immensely in the short term. That's what Republican orthodoxy is all about when it comes to environmental policy.
On domestic policy, President Trump has a strategy but seems to be more closed-minded, unwilling to listen to opposing voices, while on foreign policy where he has no experience he's open-minded to what people [read: foreign leaders] have to say.
At this point it's futile to delineate between the president's tactics and on what issues he actually has a strategy because as Mitch McConnell said this week, Mr. Trump is still learning the job. We're coming up on 100 hundred days so right now we'll just have to wait and see. What we do know for certain is that Mr. Trump hasn't been a good student so far.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos Action; John E. Sununu, fmr. Republican Senator from New Hampshire; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times
Happy Passover and Happy Easter!
One more thing...
The tax day marches... They matter and Donald Trump releasing his tax returns matters, despite what Mr. Sununu said about it not effecting policy. Between this nondisclosure and now not releasing White House visitor logs, Mr. Trump's presidency is rapidly stripping away transparency norms that forgets one big basic premise: He works for the American people and transparency is required.
The Trump Administration doesn't really have a foreign policy strategy, now. but it did previously - one crafted by chief strategist Steven Bannon. That strategy was to stay out of Syria, get tough on China economically and align with Russia militarily. Then the realities of being president set in versus being on the campaign trail.
Domestically, the president found himself on the losing end of some major battles then met with the King of Jordan and the president of China. He probably figured that it might be advantageous to listen to someone else, anyone else who been involved with these issues. As Andrea Mitchell reminded us, the president likes winning.
But speaking of domestic policy, that is where Trump does have a strategy, rudimentary as it is, and it's being carried out - less regulations, notably environmental, and on immigration. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly of course didn't use the term 'deportation force' but he did say that they are hiring more people to combat illegal immigration.
On environmental policy, plain and simple - if the United States pulls out of the Paris Climate Agreement to which 190 nations have signed on, we are essentially abdicating our leadership role into the future. And for what? So that a few can profit immensely in the short term. That's what Republican orthodoxy is all about when it comes to environmental policy.
On domestic policy, President Trump has a strategy but seems to be more closed-minded, unwilling to listen to opposing voices, while on foreign policy where he has no experience he's open-minded to what people [read: foreign leaders] have to say.
At this point it's futile to delineate between the president's tactics and on what issues he actually has a strategy because as Mitch McConnell said this week, Mr. Trump is still learning the job. We're coming up on 100 hundred days so right now we'll just have to wait and see. What we do know for certain is that Mr. Trump hasn't been a good student so far.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos Action; John E. Sununu, fmr. Republican Senator from New Hampshire; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times
Happy Passover and Happy Easter!
One more thing...
The tax day marches... They matter and Donald Trump releasing his tax returns matters, despite what Mr. Sununu said about it not effecting policy. Between this nondisclosure and now not releasing White House visitor logs, Mr. Trump's presidency is rapidly stripping away transparency norms that forgets one big basic premise: He works for the American people and transparency is required.
Sunday, April 02, 2017
4.2.17: Sunday Morning Kabuki Theater about the Supreme Court Nominee, and Other Tales of Political Infighting
For a change we can at least slight veer away from talking about the president this week and focus on other things, namely the Supreme Court and the president's (really special conservative interests') nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Today you had the leaders of both parties in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and to listen to them speak is simply bad kabuki theater. They both know how this nomination is going to turn out. Democrats in the Senate aren't going to give Mr. Gorsuch the 60 vote consent that is the norm in the chamber and Republicans will certain invoke the nuclear option to confirm him, as The New York Times Robert Draper explained during the program.
So the two men have to say things that are most politically satisfying to their respective bases.
The battle for the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of cynical partisan politics as both men showed. Democrats are right to keep bringing up the fact that Republicans didn't allow for hearings on President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland. Mr. McConnell lead the obstruction and even to this day will not give a straight answer as to why they didn't bring the nomination to a Senate vote; that it was 'in the middle' of a presidential campaign is simply bullsh*t. However, they got what they wanted and that was this pick, nothing changes that.
So here we are, and the vote on Mr. Gorsuch is this week. The Democrats would be smarter to vote no, but not filibuster. The reasoning here, as the panel discussed, is that there is the possibility of another nomination coming during this president's term, and that's when the Democrats will really need to exercise the force of that. There are some Democratic senators who are going to vote for Mr. Gorsuch, namely Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitcamp (D-ND), because politically they have to for their more conservative constituents as a state-wide representative. If you're a Democratic supporter, you may not like that, but that's politics. Don't make that big a deal out of it because those two votes wouldn't change the outcome and you still need both of them to win reelection. Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed but not with 60 votes and he shouldn't get 60 because he's to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas, which is just what the country doesn't need.
This brings us to another topic of discussion today, the infighting going on within the Republican party, which is no doubt a mess. You have the right, the hard right and the off-the-chain Freedom caucus, none of whom can get together. We always kind of knew this was the case, but a shoddy, rush health care bill exacerbated and put a bright spotlight on the differences. On top of that you have a deal-making president who can't make the deal. Why? Because for the Freedom Caucus (Tea Party), their ideology is more important than money so you can not expect the president whose ideology is money to understand their position.
Greta Van Susteren rhetorically asked that who knew the Republicans were the 'big tent' and the Democrats had more cohesion. Let's be clear, she is misusing the term 'big tent,' which refers to diverse ideologies coming together in compromise, not infighting amongst a group with the same ideology, some more extreme than the other.
Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report point out that all of this is donor driven, which brought vocal agreement from everyone at the table, like why didn't someone say the obvious sooner. That's not a slight as it is natural conversation to be given a specific and drill down on it but once you get to the why you arrive at the more root causes, and in this case - donors.
You take all this inter-party and intra-party fighting and it makes what fmr. FBI agent Clint Watts, who testified before Congress last week, said which was that our adversaries see it as well, particularly the Russians who are now actively using it against us. He explained that the Kremlin's goal is to sew discord here so that when we're imploding we have little influence of matters happening around the globe, diminishing the United States' geopolitical power and influence. When you look at it from that perspective it makes our hyper-partisanship seem ill-focused and sad.
If we really want to have less partisanship and more compromise in this country along with less big-money influence, you'd have to take some big steps. One way to start us back on the road of internal reconciliation would be to make every Congressional district in this country square, and eliminate gerrymandering. There would still be conservative and liberal pockets but there would a lot more politicians answering to a more diverse constituency, in turn forcing representatives to be more tempered in their votes, if they in fact want to be reelected. Just a thought...
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Greta Van Susteren, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Robert Draper, The New York Times
Today you had the leaders of both parties in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and to listen to them speak is simply bad kabuki theater. They both know how this nomination is going to turn out. Democrats in the Senate aren't going to give Mr. Gorsuch the 60 vote consent that is the norm in the chamber and Republicans will certain invoke the nuclear option to confirm him, as The New York Times Robert Draper explained during the program.
So the two men have to say things that are most politically satisfying to their respective bases.
The battle for the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of cynical partisan politics as both men showed. Democrats are right to keep bringing up the fact that Republicans didn't allow for hearings on President Obama's nominee of Merrick Garland. Mr. McConnell lead the obstruction and even to this day will not give a straight answer as to why they didn't bring the nomination to a Senate vote; that it was 'in the middle' of a presidential campaign is simply bullsh*t. However, they got what they wanted and that was this pick, nothing changes that.
So here we are, and the vote on Mr. Gorsuch is this week. The Democrats would be smarter to vote no, but not filibuster. The reasoning here, as the panel discussed, is that there is the possibility of another nomination coming during this president's term, and that's when the Democrats will really need to exercise the force of that. There are some Democratic senators who are going to vote for Mr. Gorsuch, namely Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitcamp (D-ND), because politically they have to for their more conservative constituents as a state-wide representative. If you're a Democratic supporter, you may not like that, but that's politics. Don't make that big a deal out of it because those two votes wouldn't change the outcome and you still need both of them to win reelection. Neil Gorsuch will be confirmed but not with 60 votes and he shouldn't get 60 because he's to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas, which is just what the country doesn't need.
This brings us to another topic of discussion today, the infighting going on within the Republican party, which is no doubt a mess. You have the right, the hard right and the off-the-chain Freedom caucus, none of whom can get together. We always kind of knew this was the case, but a shoddy, rush health care bill exacerbated and put a bright spotlight on the differences. On top of that you have a deal-making president who can't make the deal. Why? Because for the Freedom Caucus (Tea Party), their ideology is more important than money so you can not expect the president whose ideology is money to understand their position.
Greta Van Susteren rhetorically asked that who knew the Republicans were the 'big tent' and the Democrats had more cohesion. Let's be clear, she is misusing the term 'big tent,' which refers to diverse ideologies coming together in compromise, not infighting amongst a group with the same ideology, some more extreme than the other.
Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report point out that all of this is donor driven, which brought vocal agreement from everyone at the table, like why didn't someone say the obvious sooner. That's not a slight as it is natural conversation to be given a specific and drill down on it but once you get to the why you arrive at the more root causes, and in this case - donors.
You take all this inter-party and intra-party fighting and it makes what fmr. FBI agent Clint Watts, who testified before Congress last week, said which was that our adversaries see it as well, particularly the Russians who are now actively using it against us. He explained that the Kremlin's goal is to sew discord here so that when we're imploding we have little influence of matters happening around the globe, diminishing the United States' geopolitical power and influence. When you look at it from that perspective it makes our hyper-partisanship seem ill-focused and sad.
If we really want to have less partisanship and more compromise in this country along with less big-money influence, you'd have to take some big steps. One way to start us back on the road of internal reconciliation would be to make every Congressional district in this country square, and eliminate gerrymandering. There would still be conservative and liberal pockets but there would a lot more politicians answering to a more diverse constituency, in turn forcing representatives to be more tempered in their votes, if they in fact want to be reelected. Just a thought...
Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Greta Van Susteren, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Robert Draper, The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)