The title of this week's post became a no-brainer when three-quarters of the way through the program Chuck Todd reminded viewers that the president also picked a fight with Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
That, the icing before the cake, along with the president's profoundly unwise bellicose statements on North Korea and his fecklessness shown from his no-statement on the violence in Charlottesville, VA have sealed off any doubt that Mr. Trump has drowned under the turbulent water that is the presidency and is woefully ill-suited to lead this country.
However, it's not surprising in the least, as much as it was inevitable to see. The president not specifically condemning white supremacists for the tragic violence in Charlottesville may finally be the straws that permanently pry open the eyes of Republicans in Congress.
What Mr. Trump never came around to comprehending was that as President of The United States of America, you have to be able to speak to all Americans, even the ones who didn't vote for you. His campaign whistled to and cultivated the support of the alt-right through its extreme immigration initiatives - words and deeds from Mr. Trump himself which are now obviously a big part of his presidency.
Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists fully armed in paramilitary gear (thanks National Rifle Association for pointless open carry laws) march on a town in Virginia to rally around a statue of Robert E. Lee, a general in the Confederacy. And the president doesn't specifically condemn that? President Abraham Lincoln referred to the Confederacy as rebels... traitors to the principles of the Constitution that all men are created equal and deserve equal justice under the law, hence traitors against their country because their cause was to uphold slavery. Couldn't agree more with that view. Americans have fought and died against the forces of Nazism and Racism, but Mr. Trump has nothing to say about it with the exception of a platitude that gives white supremacists a pass.
A failure to lead the country.
The fmr. Joint Chief of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen said that Mr. Trump's rhetoric takes away his maneuvering options, and North Korea knowing that the U.S. will not take military action without suffering the "unintentional consequences," as Adm. Mullen described them, called Mr. Trump's bluff making additional threats.
Only a political wing-nut would use words like "fire and fury" or "locked and loaded" referring to our military, not the president of the United States. Period, end of discussion. (The word "shrewd" never comes up when describing Mr. Trump.)
Mr. Trump's statements put two of our closest allies in more immediate peril, ramping up an international crisis that Adm. Mullen assessed could get out of control fast.
A failure to lead the world.
The National Review's Rich Lowry said that Mr. Trump need the Republican Congress and Mitch McConnell for "scandal control," which would be hysterical if it weren't so true. As Joy-Ann Reid reminded us, the Senate majority leader's wife is in Mr. Trump's cabinet - Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao. But so what, Senator McConnell couldn't get the votes on health care. He couldn't get a win for Trump which makes him a loser, as how our simplified political math is trending right now. The Republican party, especially House members, is all Mr. Trump has right now. He's been losing pieces one at a time in the Senate but forfeiting the most strategically important one is politically shortsighted to say the least. And the Senate clearly supports McConnell.
Failure to lead his party; a triple fail.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Amy Walter, the Cook Political Report; Helene Cooper, The New York Times
Other things... just to be sure...
Adm. Mullen said that Kim Jung Un is not a rational actor.
As Chuck Todd and the panel agreed, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Presidential Senior Advisor Steven Bannon can NOT work together. One is going to have to go, which will be the most telling choice the Administration makes. Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller and Sebastian Gorka have no place in The White House.
Helene Cooper is sick of hearing that taking down the statues of Robert E. Lee and such people might make anger some people, to which she replied, "Make them angry." Amen to that.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Sunday, August 06, 2017
8.6.17: The 'And' Versus The 'Or'
It wasn't so much of a special edition of "Meet The Press" this week as it was an enhanced or focused one, but nonetheless the discussion throughout dealt with the state of our broken politics in the United States.
Fittingly, the two guests - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) - are individuals who seek the middle ground in policy and political discourse, the middle meaning more civil in the case of the latter. The discourse is where it all starts, as president of DEMOS Heather McGhee put it. That's true, but despite the rest of the panel dismissing Andrea Mitchell's assessment that it's all about the money, she's correct.
The And vs. The Or
Chuck Todd commented that sometimes you have to compromise, but actually politics is the art of compromising all the time - where no one gets everything they want but walk away satisfied with what they did get. As said before in this column, think of the United States has a huge, fully equipped cruise ship that's always moving forward. To always be moving in a positive direct you sometimes have to tack to right and sometimes to the left. However, if you turn too hard and too fast in either direction, you tip the boat over and take all of us down. It's just the way it is and the checks and balances of the government pretty much ensure that.
That's the And.
As for the Or...
Dan Balz of The Washington Post explained that there is a full-time political industry; that fact alone - that there is an industry - was noted by the panel. However, it's designed to demonize the other side instead of presenting ideas or a vision for the future, as Governor Brown described, a vision that we now know the Republicans don't have and that Democrats still need to find. Senator Flake said it himself, that Republicans were too busy trying to make President Obama a one-term president and not enough time constructing a ideological and legislative agenda.
To prompt the 'End Game' segment, Mr. Todd teased that the panel would take the problem with real solutions, but the problem was that no one could really come up with one. Instantly, it's evident by any conservation of this type that everyone knows the problem and does have a constructive solution by the nature of the problem itself is so big with so much money involved that it seems beyond fixing.
Case in point...
Chuck Todd used the Texas second congressional district as an example of our divided politics and how it's swung in political direction from Democrat to Republican. But take a look at this district...
Every ten years, when the census is conducted, the party in control of the state has the opportunity to redraw the congressional map. Do you think this one was draw so that it only included politically like-minded constituents? Here's one of those solutions: If you want to make the discourse more civil and possible negate some of the monetary interests, make all the congressional districts as square as possible and this way politicians have to respond to a broader set of ideas from the people they represent. Never happen.
It was notable that Governor Brown said the demographics are trending in a non-Republican direction, and not saying in a Democratic one. The Democratic party casts a wider net in terms of being more inclusive of different ideas, it's fair to say. But this once great strength of the party has become its Achilles' heal. They can not seem to be able to coral it into a cohesive vision. "A Better Deal?" Please. How about starting with "We Have A Plan!" As for the Republicans, who traditionally have such discipline in message as one of their strengths of party, factions of thinking a congealing and calcifying into three camps, as the panel explained. There's the Ted Cruz wing - the hardcore right wing, the Marco Rubio more inclusive or moderate group, and then there's the cult of personality Trump Republican, who brings with it a monkey wrench.
That last part someone could say disrespects supports of the president, but the fact is that this administration outside of an appointment, executive orders, and a bill that was veto-proof hasn't gotten much done. Before going on vacation, President Trump held a campaign-style rally in West Virginia, what Andrea Mitchell called 'ground-zero' for his support and where the governor, given that political reality, notably switched from Democrat to Republican. Deference should be given to these people and it's important to understand how they feel, most certainly, but... With all due respect to West Virginia, it should not be seen as the guiding example on how to move the United States forward when California has over 39 million people and is the world's sixth largest economy.
This brings to mind that unfortunate reality of the president being unwilling to reach out to Americans who don't see eye to eye with him - to lead us all, a president's responsibility after all. The optimistic view is that this presidential leadership deficit provokes people in both parties to step up, like Senator Flake, and call for some bi-partisanship instead of zero-sum, the and vs. or.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, president of DEMOS; David French, The National Review; Dan Balz, The Washington Post
Fittingly, the two guests - Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) - are individuals who seek the middle ground in policy and political discourse, the middle meaning more civil in the case of the latter. The discourse is where it all starts, as president of DEMOS Heather McGhee put it. That's true, but despite the rest of the panel dismissing Andrea Mitchell's assessment that it's all about the money, she's correct.
The And vs. The Or
Chuck Todd commented that sometimes you have to compromise, but actually politics is the art of compromising all the time - where no one gets everything they want but walk away satisfied with what they did get. As said before in this column, think of the United States has a huge, fully equipped cruise ship that's always moving forward. To always be moving in a positive direct you sometimes have to tack to right and sometimes to the left. However, if you turn too hard and too fast in either direction, you tip the boat over and take all of us down. It's just the way it is and the checks and balances of the government pretty much ensure that.
That's the And.
As for the Or...
Dan Balz of The Washington Post explained that there is a full-time political industry; that fact alone - that there is an industry - was noted by the panel. However, it's designed to demonize the other side instead of presenting ideas or a vision for the future, as Governor Brown described, a vision that we now know the Republicans don't have and that Democrats still need to find. Senator Flake said it himself, that Republicans were too busy trying to make President Obama a one-term president and not enough time constructing a ideological and legislative agenda.
To prompt the 'End Game' segment, Mr. Todd teased that the panel would take the problem with real solutions, but the problem was that no one could really come up with one. Instantly, it's evident by any conservation of this type that everyone knows the problem and does have a constructive solution by the nature of the problem itself is so big with so much money involved that it seems beyond fixing.
Case in point...
Chuck Todd used the Texas second congressional district as an example of our divided politics and how it's swung in political direction from Democrat to Republican. But take a look at this district...
Every ten years, when the census is conducted, the party in control of the state has the opportunity to redraw the congressional map. Do you think this one was draw so that it only included politically like-minded constituents? Here's one of those solutions: If you want to make the discourse more civil and possible negate some of the monetary interests, make all the congressional districts as square as possible and this way politicians have to respond to a broader set of ideas from the people they represent. Never happen.
It was notable that Governor Brown said the demographics are trending in a non-Republican direction, and not saying in a Democratic one. The Democratic party casts a wider net in terms of being more inclusive of different ideas, it's fair to say. But this once great strength of the party has become its Achilles' heal. They can not seem to be able to coral it into a cohesive vision. "A Better Deal?" Please. How about starting with "We Have A Plan!" As for the Republicans, who traditionally have such discipline in message as one of their strengths of party, factions of thinking a congealing and calcifying into three camps, as the panel explained. There's the Ted Cruz wing - the hardcore right wing, the Marco Rubio more inclusive or moderate group, and then there's the cult of personality Trump Republican, who brings with it a monkey wrench.
That last part someone could say disrespects supports of the president, but the fact is that this administration outside of an appointment, executive orders, and a bill that was veto-proof hasn't gotten much done. Before going on vacation, President Trump held a campaign-style rally in West Virginia, what Andrea Mitchell called 'ground-zero' for his support and where the governor, given that political reality, notably switched from Democrat to Republican. Deference should be given to these people and it's important to understand how they feel, most certainly, but... With all due respect to West Virginia, it should not be seen as the guiding example on how to move the United States forward when California has over 39 million people and is the world's sixth largest economy.
This brings to mind that unfortunate reality of the president being unwilling to reach out to Americans who don't see eye to eye with him - to lead us all, a president's responsibility after all. The optimistic view is that this presidential leadership deficit provokes people in both parties to step up, like Senator Flake, and call for some bi-partisanship instead of zero-sum, the and vs. or.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, president of DEMOS; David French, The National Review; Dan Balz, The Washington Post
Sunday, July 30, 2017
7.30.17: Trump Is Trump and McCain is The Mav
The politics of this week leaves one only to wonder how it could become anymore bizarrely frenetic, to the detriment of us all, without digressing too much, and though not completely unpredictable, it was enough to prompt Mr. Todd among many others to describe the Republican Party as a circular firing squad while describing the presidency as chaotic. From this week's New York Post, a supportive publication for Mr. Trump for the most part, displayed this cover, comparing the White House to "Survivor."
But a reality game show, this is not - a perception that now White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly was brought in to fix, at the expense of the Scaramucci-castigated Reince Priebus. General Kelly gets sworn in tomorrow and the good news for him is that among the few people the president listens to it seems are generals; a short time will tell.
While all the infighting raged through the administration this week, major moments were taking shape in the Senate over Mitch McConnell's health care bill. To distract from a potential disaster of not fulfilling a campaign promise - repealing Obamacare - the Trump Administration, nay President Trump tweeted a new military policy banning all transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. The Pentagon directed questions about the policy back to the White House and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions back to the Pentagon. The administration's calculation was once again an example of poor political judgement. Not only did it not soften the blow of the health care vote going down in defeat in the eyes of Mr. Trump's base, but it was widely criticized by many Republican politicians, namely Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who said that transgender individuals didn't choose their sexuality but were born that way so why should we hold that against them.
But as stated at the top, the defeat of Mr. McConnell's health care bill was not entirely surprising. Before getting to that, it must be said that Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price only gives answers in pure ideological terms never with any specifics, as he once again did on today's program. It's almost as though you have to have the secretary on your program as a courtesy, but the fact is that no one is listening to his platitudes anymore. As the secretary in charge of healthcare, he needs to be specific, and he never is. So when he says that the president is "so passionate" and "serious" about health care, how are we to believe that.
President Trump said that he was "waiting with pen in hand" to sign a bill repealing Obamacare, and that was part of the problem right there - the president doesn't even realize. He was waiting. If you're so passionate and serious about health care reform, you're out there talking about it in a constructive way, not threatening the Secretary of Health and Human Services' job during a speech at the National Boy Scouts of America Jamboree.
And to make sure that the president and the Senate majority leader understand regular order and how it's done, in walks the maverick - Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) was always a no vote on McConnell's bill. The Trump Administration threatened to withhold approval on infrastructure projects in Alaska and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) punched right back at Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke by holding up hiring hearing in the Senate for his agency - pushing her to a no vote. But Senator McCain... Republican leadership and the Vice President thought they had a shot at him.
Senator McCain after having surgery and being diagnosed with brain cancer, flew back to Washington and gave a widely-praised speech on the Senate returning to regular order and working in a bipartisan way again then he cast a 'yes' vote on the motion for the Senate to proceed with debate on the ACA repeal bill. It was heartening to Mr. McConnell and Republican leadership.
But here's the rub, Mr. McConnell reversed all of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, eliminating big dark money in campaigns. It was the kind of signature piece of bipartisan legislation that Mr. McCain prided himself on. Also, for his part, Mr. Trump never apologized to the senator for his comments on not being a war hero because the then-airman was captured. Point being is that the senator felt no obligation to either man so he voted no because the bill didn't go through the standard process of the Senate; there was no adequate replacement bill; and too many people would lose coverage. When you consider all that, not so surprising.
And just on another quick note, Mr. Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski explained that new Chief of Staff Kelly will restore order to the staff so that the president's agenda can be carried out. He also warned that if the fmr. general tries to change Mr. Trump - not let Trump be Trump - then he will fail. But he went on to say that the three main agenda items for the president were the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, the building of a wall on our southern border and tax reform. The president is demanding the Senate take another vote but that's unlikely, one down. As for the border wall, among Mr. Trump's base there is enthusiasm for it, but not among anyone else, which simply just goes unsaid among conservatives. This leaves tax reform, which prompts a question of trust toward any ideas the administration would have on the law, simply for the fact that there is no real understanding on how a said idea would unfairly benefit the president due to him never releasing his tax returns. A huge sticking point.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Cornell Belcher, Democratic pollstar and author.
But a reality game show, this is not - a perception that now White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly was brought in to fix, at the expense of the Scaramucci-castigated Reince Priebus. General Kelly gets sworn in tomorrow and the good news for him is that among the few people the president listens to it seems are generals; a short time will tell.
While all the infighting raged through the administration this week, major moments were taking shape in the Senate over Mitch McConnell's health care bill. To distract from a potential disaster of not fulfilling a campaign promise - repealing Obamacare - the Trump Administration, nay President Trump tweeted a new military policy banning all transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. The Pentagon directed questions about the policy back to the White House and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred questions back to the Pentagon. The administration's calculation was once again an example of poor political judgement. Not only did it not soften the blow of the health care vote going down in defeat in the eyes of Mr. Trump's base, but it was widely criticized by many Republican politicians, namely Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who said that transgender individuals didn't choose their sexuality but were born that way so why should we hold that against them.
But as stated at the top, the defeat of Mr. McConnell's health care bill was not entirely surprising. Before getting to that, it must be said that Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price only gives answers in pure ideological terms never with any specifics, as he once again did on today's program. It's almost as though you have to have the secretary on your program as a courtesy, but the fact is that no one is listening to his platitudes anymore. As the secretary in charge of healthcare, he needs to be specific, and he never is. So when he says that the president is "so passionate" and "serious" about health care, how are we to believe that.
President Trump said that he was "waiting with pen in hand" to sign a bill repealing Obamacare, and that was part of the problem right there - the president doesn't even realize. He was waiting. If you're so passionate and serious about health care reform, you're out there talking about it in a constructive way, not threatening the Secretary of Health and Human Services' job during a speech at the National Boy Scouts of America Jamboree.
And to make sure that the president and the Senate majority leader understand regular order and how it's done, in walks the maverick - Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) was always a no vote on McConnell's bill. The Trump Administration threatened to withhold approval on infrastructure projects in Alaska and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) punched right back at Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke by holding up hiring hearing in the Senate for his agency - pushing her to a no vote. But Senator McCain... Republican leadership and the Vice President thought they had a shot at him.
Senator McCain after having surgery and being diagnosed with brain cancer, flew back to Washington and gave a widely-praised speech on the Senate returning to regular order and working in a bipartisan way again then he cast a 'yes' vote on the motion for the Senate to proceed with debate on the ACA repeal bill. It was heartening to Mr. McConnell and Republican leadership.
But here's the rub, Mr. McConnell reversed all of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, eliminating big dark money in campaigns. It was the kind of signature piece of bipartisan legislation that Mr. McCain prided himself on. Also, for his part, Mr. Trump never apologized to the senator for his comments on not being a war hero because the then-airman was captured. Point being is that the senator felt no obligation to either man so he voted no because the bill didn't go through the standard process of the Senate; there was no adequate replacement bill; and too many people would lose coverage. When you consider all that, not so surprising.
And just on another quick note, Mr. Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski explained that new Chief of Staff Kelly will restore order to the staff so that the president's agenda can be carried out. He also warned that if the fmr. general tries to change Mr. Trump - not let Trump be Trump - then he will fail. But he went on to say that the three main agenda items for the president were the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, the building of a wall on our southern border and tax reform. The president is demanding the Senate take another vote but that's unlikely, one down. As for the border wall, among Mr. Trump's base there is enthusiasm for it, but not among anyone else, which simply just goes unsaid among conservatives. This leaves tax reform, which prompts a question of trust toward any ideas the administration would have on the law, simply for the fact that there is no real understanding on how a said idea would unfairly benefit the president due to him never releasing his tax returns. A huge sticking point.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Cornell Belcher, Democratic pollstar and author.
Sunday, July 23, 2017
7.23.17: A Backward Win (Perspective On A Glimmer of Hope)
Today's "Meet The Press" was preempted by the broadcast of the British Open. It's a 'free' day, a Sunday during which "Meet The Press" doesn't air, so it carte blanche on topics to discuss.
Certainly the trouble is deepening for the Trump Administration with regard to Russia because of its campaign activity. A last ditch effort by the Administration in hiring Anthony Scaramucci as the new White House Communications Director, ousting Sean Spicer, is an attempt to stem the onslaught.
As said before in this column, it's really all about the money when it comes to Mr. Trump's connection to Russia. If you follow the money, which Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team are doing, we'll find that the Trump Organization is heavily leveraged by Russian oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin. It seems reasonable to conclude that this may be one of the reasons Mr. Trump never released his tax returns. Now, doing business with Russian oligarchs offers a minefield of illegalities, but it isn't illegal. As president, it's a different story all together. From Attorney General Jeff Sessions lack of recollection of meetings with the Russian ambassador, about policy and the campaign no less, when asked by Congress to Jared Kushner's, senior advisor to the president, constant revisions of his disclosure forms for a security clearance - undisclosed money and contacts - to campaign manager, Paul Manafort, having to register as a foreign agent to Donald Jr. taking meetings with Russian officials to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, it all raises serious questions. And now that all of these people have been obviously less than forthcoming, the American people have more questions. They must be answered.
That the last two individuals on the above list have cut a deal with Congress not to testify in public this week, but instead in a closed-door sessions. Probably for the best because Congress needs real answers and frankly, we don't need the show of a public hearing, in which these two people decline to answer questions while Congresspeople pontificate.
That's just a microcosm of what's going on and that's enough for one to say, enough already.
Then there is the series of fall-downs on the part of the Republicans with regard to healthcare and their repeal and replace plan. First, the Senate couldn't pass the replacement bill because of grievances from moderates (going too far on cutting Medicaid) and conservatives (not fully repealing Obamacare) alike. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) floated the introduction of a straight repeal and that didn't fly either.
This you know, but here's why the Republicans got stuck.
At the beginning of the Senate process, which really wasn't a process as much as it was Mitch McConnell locking himself in a room and coming up with a healthcare bill, the Senate leader indicated that he didn't want the Administration involved in the process, a hands off approach. Why? Because Mr. McConnell knows that the president, who would usually be out on the stump shouting about the new healthcare bill, in this case doesn't know the first thing about healthcare, has no desire to learn it, and could inadvertently undercut the Senate plan by contradicting it on the stump. In other words, Mr. McConnell thinks the president is unreliable. The president, for his part, had no interest in discussing the details of healthcare and just sat back, with 'pen in hand,' which is not leadership.
In boxing out the president, though understandable, Mr. McConnell couldn't utilize that megaphone, and since the rest of the Senate wasn't involved in the process, thus not knowing what was in the bill, they couldn't champion it either. Thus, with no one to sell it to the American people and with no other information to go on with the exception of an unfavorable CBO, it had no chance.
With all that said, here are the takeaways as to why there is a glimpse of hope from these adverse circumstances (and the point of this column).
Because of the Republicans' legislative failure on healthcare, Mr. McConnell also said that the Congress should work to sure up the markets by doing some fixes on the Affordable Care Act. Everyone agrees that the ACA, aka Obamacare, that it needs fixes and the only way to make those fixes is in a bipartisan manner. Hmmm...
Interesting, there is a bill traveling rapidly through the Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support on toughening sanctions on Russia, which also includes the caveat that the sanctions can not be rolled back by the president without Congress's consent. This could present a very problematic situation for President Trump, who opposes the bill. He may veto a Russian sanctions bill that has widespread bipartisan support. Hmmm... again.
Is it possible that this rudderless, troubled and divisive administration is bringing Republicans and Democrats together on the major issues facing our country - healthcare and Russian cyber attacks?
If so, it's a win for the American people, a backward one, but a win nonetheless. We'll take it.
Certainly the trouble is deepening for the Trump Administration with regard to Russia because of its campaign activity. A last ditch effort by the Administration in hiring Anthony Scaramucci as the new White House Communications Director, ousting Sean Spicer, is an attempt to stem the onslaught.
As said before in this column, it's really all about the money when it comes to Mr. Trump's connection to Russia. If you follow the money, which Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team are doing, we'll find that the Trump Organization is heavily leveraged by Russian oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin. It seems reasonable to conclude that this may be one of the reasons Mr. Trump never released his tax returns. Now, doing business with Russian oligarchs offers a minefield of illegalities, but it isn't illegal. As president, it's a different story all together. From Attorney General Jeff Sessions lack of recollection of meetings with the Russian ambassador, about policy and the campaign no less, when asked by Congress to Jared Kushner's, senior advisor to the president, constant revisions of his disclosure forms for a security clearance - undisclosed money and contacts - to campaign manager, Paul Manafort, having to register as a foreign agent to Donald Jr. taking meetings with Russian officials to get dirt on Hillary Clinton, it all raises serious questions. And now that all of these people have been obviously less than forthcoming, the American people have more questions. They must be answered.
That the last two individuals on the above list have cut a deal with Congress not to testify in public this week, but instead in a closed-door sessions. Probably for the best because Congress needs real answers and frankly, we don't need the show of a public hearing, in which these two people decline to answer questions while Congresspeople pontificate.
That's just a microcosm of what's going on and that's enough for one to say, enough already.
Then there is the series of fall-downs on the part of the Republicans with regard to healthcare and their repeal and replace plan. First, the Senate couldn't pass the replacement bill because of grievances from moderates (going too far on cutting Medicaid) and conservatives (not fully repealing Obamacare) alike. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) floated the introduction of a straight repeal and that didn't fly either.
This you know, but here's why the Republicans got stuck.
At the beginning of the Senate process, which really wasn't a process as much as it was Mitch McConnell locking himself in a room and coming up with a healthcare bill, the Senate leader indicated that he didn't want the Administration involved in the process, a hands off approach. Why? Because Mr. McConnell knows that the president, who would usually be out on the stump shouting about the new healthcare bill, in this case doesn't know the first thing about healthcare, has no desire to learn it, and could inadvertently undercut the Senate plan by contradicting it on the stump. In other words, Mr. McConnell thinks the president is unreliable. The president, for his part, had no interest in discussing the details of healthcare and just sat back, with 'pen in hand,' which is not leadership.
In boxing out the president, though understandable, Mr. McConnell couldn't utilize that megaphone, and since the rest of the Senate wasn't involved in the process, thus not knowing what was in the bill, they couldn't champion it either. Thus, with no one to sell it to the American people and with no other information to go on with the exception of an unfavorable CBO, it had no chance.
With all that said, here are the takeaways as to why there is a glimpse of hope from these adverse circumstances (and the point of this column).
Because of the Republicans' legislative failure on healthcare, Mr. McConnell also said that the Congress should work to sure up the markets by doing some fixes on the Affordable Care Act. Everyone agrees that the ACA, aka Obamacare, that it needs fixes and the only way to make those fixes is in a bipartisan manner. Hmmm...
Interesting, there is a bill traveling rapidly through the Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support on toughening sanctions on Russia, which also includes the caveat that the sanctions can not be rolled back by the president without Congress's consent. This could present a very problematic situation for President Trump, who opposes the bill. He may veto a Russian sanctions bill that has widespread bipartisan support. Hmmm... again.
Is it possible that this rudderless, troubled and divisive administration is bringing Republicans and Democrats together on the major issues facing our country - healthcare and Russian cyber attacks?
If so, it's a win for the American people, a backward one, but a win nonetheless. We'll take it.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
7.16.17: A Building Political Riptide for the Trump Administration
This is the week in which the tides have permanently turned on the Trump Administration and they're facing a head wind into rough seas the rest of the way. When trusted conservative voices en mass, exemplified on today's program, start calling out the administration, using the word 'lies,' then you know you have problems. And here is the American populace standing on the beach watching the mother of all riptides.
As always, if you're reading this column, we don't have to go into the particulars of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian 'operatives' - you know it happened and you know now that he lied about the participants in the meeting. With that said, it's inexplicable, and not Trump-like, that Donald Trump Jr. would release the email chain, even if The New York Times was going to publish the exchange.
In today's interview, Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the difference between collusion and collaboration, to which Sen. Warner demurred and didn't want to go into nuanced definitions.
But speaking of those conservative voices, if you want an argument for collusion, refer to Mr. Krauthammer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.9baf0fe1e13d
For Collaboration, see McClatchy DC Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html
In the second example, the McClatchey story notes that there is an investigation in the Trump campaign digital operation lead by the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and whether he had a hand in guiding a sophisticated Russian cyber campaign to target key congressional district with misinformation.
Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said that she doesn't know if there was collusion or cooperation, but that she does know that the Trump Administration are liars. Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union, explained that the meeting couldn't have happened in a void, from the Russia perspective. "The don't freelance," he said. A meeting like that had a structure and an approval process, he went on.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) really wanted no part of answering questions about Russia, though he has a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, except to say that he thought it was incorrect to personalize [read: point directly at the Trump Administration] the target of the Senate committee's investigation; it's about Russia. As health care votes loom in the Senate, the deflections away from the president are rhetorically subtle. On the part of the president's legal team, not so much. Jay Sekulow made it clear, as he likes to say, that he doesn't represent Donald Trump Jr. or the Trump Campaign, only the president, Donald Trump. And you have to give him credit in as much as he does his job well, at least representing him during interviews, in walling off the president from all the revelations about Russian interactions with advisors and family members.
But what keeps coming to mind is how all throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump and his surrogates touted how close his family is about everything so it makes one wonder if the president did know about this meeting. Surely, someone in the FBI or in Mr. Mueller's office is looking into whether that is the case. In a way, Mr. Sekulow's job has been made easier now that Donald Trump Jr. is embroiled in a deep mess because it diminishes public scrutiny in the potential of the president's direct involvement. In other words, Junior is taking some of the heat for his father, and from that more familial perspective, you get why he did it.
All of this leads to the overarching theme of today's show, which was that there is a serious void in leadership of the United States, to an unacceptable level. Today's great panel stayed on this theme for our benefit. Tom Brokaw repeatedly mentioned the serious situation the U.S. with North Korea and how the administration is putting it off. He said that the Chinese leadership doesn't even know who to talk to on our side of the aisle about it.
Mr. Cardenas explained that the last five to six votes are the toughest and that the president hasn't given any speeches on healthcare in states and districts where senators are on the fence with regard to support for the legislation. He hasn't championed the legislation at all, in part because he's so preoccupied with the Russian investigation.
Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin also observed that President Trump said that he would be very upset if they (meaning the Senate) didn't pass a health care bill, but she noted that the 'they' includes the president. That it's actually a 'we,' but clearly the Mr. Trump doesn't understand that.
And it's that leadership role that's costing us all time, and the tide is rising.
Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
As always, if you're reading this column, we don't have to go into the particulars of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with Russian 'operatives' - you know it happened and you know now that he lied about the participants in the meeting. With that said, it's inexplicable, and not Trump-like, that Donald Trump Jr. would release the email chain, even if The New York Times was going to publish the exchange.
In today's interview, Chuck Todd asked Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) of the Senate Intelligence Committee about the difference between collusion and collaboration, to which Sen. Warner demurred and didn't want to go into nuanced definitions.
But speaking of those conservative voices, if you want an argument for collusion, refer to Mr. Krauthammer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bungled-collusion-is-still-collusion/2017/07/13/68c7f72a-67f3-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.9baf0fe1e13d
For Collaboration, see McClatchy DC Bureau: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html
In the second example, the McClatchey story notes that there is an investigation in the Trump campaign digital operation lead by the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and whether he had a hand in guiding a sophisticated Russian cyber campaign to target key congressional district with misinformation.
Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said that she doesn't know if there was collusion or cooperation, but that she does know that the Trump Administration are liars. Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union, explained that the meeting couldn't have happened in a void, from the Russia perspective. "The don't freelance," he said. A meeting like that had a structure and an approval process, he went on.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) really wanted no part of answering questions about Russia, though he has a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, except to say that he thought it was incorrect to personalize [read: point directly at the Trump Administration] the target of the Senate committee's investigation; it's about Russia. As health care votes loom in the Senate, the deflections away from the president are rhetorically subtle. On the part of the president's legal team, not so much. Jay Sekulow made it clear, as he likes to say, that he doesn't represent Donald Trump Jr. or the Trump Campaign, only the president, Donald Trump. And you have to give him credit in as much as he does his job well, at least representing him during interviews, in walling off the president from all the revelations about Russian interactions with advisors and family members.
But what keeps coming to mind is how all throughout the campaign, Mr. Trump and his surrogates touted how close his family is about everything so it makes one wonder if the president did know about this meeting. Surely, someone in the FBI or in Mr. Mueller's office is looking into whether that is the case. In a way, Mr. Sekulow's job has been made easier now that Donald Trump Jr. is embroiled in a deep mess because it diminishes public scrutiny in the potential of the president's direct involvement. In other words, Junior is taking some of the heat for his father, and from that more familial perspective, you get why he did it.
All of this leads to the overarching theme of today's show, which was that there is a serious void in leadership of the United States, to an unacceptable level. Today's great panel stayed on this theme for our benefit. Tom Brokaw repeatedly mentioned the serious situation the U.S. with North Korea and how the administration is putting it off. He said that the Chinese leadership doesn't even know who to talk to on our side of the aisle about it.
Mr. Cardenas explained that the last five to six votes are the toughest and that the president hasn't given any speeches on healthcare in states and districts where senators are on the fence with regard to support for the legislation. He hasn't championed the legislation at all, in part because he's so preoccupied with the Russian investigation.
Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin also observed that President Trump said that he would be very upset if they (meaning the Senate) didn't pass a health care bill, but she noted that the 'they' includes the president. That it's actually a 'we,' but clearly the Mr. Trump doesn't understand that.
And it's that leadership role that's costing us all time, and the tide is rising.
Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Al Cardenas, fmr. chair of the American Conservatives Union; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
Sunday, July 09, 2017
7.9.17: The Trump Administration's Isolationism Going As Planned
The Executive Branch of government is the lead branch and where it goes the rest follow, and it's pretty clear that a big part of the Trump Administration's idea of America first is America solo. If the Administration wants to go it alone then everything is going as planned.
"It's an honor to be with you."
That statement that President Trump said to Russian President Vladimir Putin alone is sticking in the gut of everyone in Washington while fueling united criticism from pols Republican and Democratic alike. In the context of what has been determining by the U.S. intelligence community about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, fmr. CIA Director John Brennan called it a dishonorable statement in his interview. No one's calling him out on it.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the president's views on Russia are "undermining his entire presidency," and that he doesn't know anyone else in Washington who believes the Russians didn't meddle in the election. "I'm dumbfounded and disappointed," he said. Senator Graham explained that he agreed with the president's actions on several confrontational fronts from Afghanistan to North Korea, but called his stance on Russia a blind spot. Yes, indeed a blind spot; one brought into sharp focus by the in-over-his-head Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who explained that the U.S. president after speaking with the Russian president isn't going to relitigate the past. So basically, you attacked our democracy and denied it so we're all good now?
Also, something of note here: fmr. Director Brennan in response to an anonymous administration source being quoted that he felt like the [Obama] Administration choked, he flatly rebutted that statement explaining that he confronted his Russian counterpart. President Obama confronted Pution personally in September 2016, which Brennan said altered their behavior some.
As for the president, during his overseas trip while in Poland, he said that he wasn't sure if it was just Russia alone who meddled in the election, which projects that the president doesn't have confidence in his own intelligence agencies, but then again Mr. Trump doesn't seem to know the clear responsibilities and jurisdictions of each as evidence by his errant tweet about the CIA being authorized to operate domestically. They are not.
During the G20 meetings in Hamburg, Germany the big take away is how the other 19 countries involved isolated the United States on climate discussions, and by extension the economic opportunities that come out of those talks. On trade, the European Union cut a trade deal with Japan completely boxing out the United States. All this on top of the fact that the leaders of France and Germany among many other countries don't have the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for Russia that President Trump does.
Then the Trump Administration issues a statement of its intention to work with Russia on a joint cyber security plan. What? Senator Graham said it wasn't the dumbest idea he's ever heard, but it's pretty close. The column respectfully disagrees, that is the dumbest idea ever presented by an Administration.
Or there's Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) tweet:
On the home front, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has told the president and his staff to stay out of the way of the Senate's tax cut... uh, health care legislation. Just kidding as that is in all fairness yet to be seen though Republicans have signaled that tax reform would include a massive tax cut from the savings on the Medicaid rollback. But the president is out of the loop, out on limb fighting disputes of his own making. Whether it be with the press or his own intelligence services, he's alone in doing it. Americans know that picking petty fights with others isn't effective leadership, we know this. What we're not used to is looking away from the president, the presidency, because it not longer feels like the moral (leadership) center.
It's like the administration is constantly complaining about the criticism on how they're steering the ship, while at the same time not hearing everyone screaming back at them that the rudder's broken.
Weird.
When the president is isolated like this, the whole United States feels this, thus a further retreating to the corners, as it were.
Prime example: The two party chairs, Ronna McDaniel (RNC) and Tom Perez (DNC), appearing in their first joint interview. They just met and ended up talking over one another by the end of it (as Mr. Todd noted). Many would watch that interview and assess those individuals are part of the problem, but the problem is that if you cede one inch of ground on issue or statement, you'll feel the job ending scorn of your base. And because we know Mr. Perez better, he needs to be called here about saying that Republicans don't give **** about Democrats. Maybe true, but an individual in his position shouldn't say that. Also, when he likes a phrase, he definitely annoys you with it - We believe health care is right, not a privilege for a few - three times in three minutes. We're watching "Meet The Press" on a Sunday morning, we heard it the first time, we're not stupid, you don't have to repeat it, and we knew it before you said it.
Asking Democrats to participate in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is like Democrats asking Republicans to raise taxes on the richest Americans to pre-Reagan era levels. It's unthinkable so to suggest that the opposing party would participate in such a thing is a little disingenuous at least.
As the panel gamely discussed, Senator McConnell threatened his caucus with having to possibly work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to fix the Affordable Care Act to stabilize the markets if they all couldn't get on the same page in terms of voting for the bill, moderates and hardliners alike.
What a detestable thought that the parties would work together, but instead they retreat into their respective corners with the Administration ushering the way.
Panel: Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Kudos to Robert Costa for the slight disgusting you could hear in his voice when he referred to the Republican party becoming the grievance party and that the base probably doesn't care if the health care bill passes out not. Interpret as you will, but either way kudos still apply.
Solid Panel today, actually starting to think that the fact of the Trump presidency has tempered Rich Lowry's rhetorical arguments a bit.
"It's an honor to be with you."
That statement that President Trump said to Russian President Vladimir Putin alone is sticking in the gut of everyone in Washington while fueling united criticism from pols Republican and Democratic alike. In the context of what has been determining by the U.S. intelligence community about Russian meddling in the 2016 election, fmr. CIA Director John Brennan called it a dishonorable statement in his interview. No one's calling him out on it.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the president's views on Russia are "undermining his entire presidency," and that he doesn't know anyone else in Washington who believes the Russians didn't meddle in the election. "I'm dumbfounded and disappointed," he said. Senator Graham explained that he agreed with the president's actions on several confrontational fronts from Afghanistan to North Korea, but called his stance on Russia a blind spot. Yes, indeed a blind spot; one brought into sharp focus by the in-over-his-head Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who explained that the U.S. president after speaking with the Russian president isn't going to relitigate the past. So basically, you attacked our democracy and denied it so we're all good now?
Also, something of note here: fmr. Director Brennan in response to an anonymous administration source being quoted that he felt like the [Obama] Administration choked, he flatly rebutted that statement explaining that he confronted his Russian counterpart. President Obama confronted Pution personally in September 2016, which Brennan said altered their behavior some.
As for the president, during his overseas trip while in Poland, he said that he wasn't sure if it was just Russia alone who meddled in the election, which projects that the president doesn't have confidence in his own intelligence agencies, but then again Mr. Trump doesn't seem to know the clear responsibilities and jurisdictions of each as evidence by his errant tweet about the CIA being authorized to operate domestically. They are not.
During the G20 meetings in Hamburg, Germany the big take away is how the other 19 countries involved isolated the United States on climate discussions, and by extension the economic opportunities that come out of those talks. On trade, the European Union cut a trade deal with Japan completely boxing out the United States. All this on top of the fact that the leaders of France and Germany among many other countries don't have the same kind of warm and fuzzy feelings for Russia that President Trump does.
Then the Trump Administration issues a statement of its intention to work with Russia on a joint cyber security plan. What? Senator Graham said it wasn't the dumbest idea he's ever heard, but it's pretty close. The column respectfully disagrees, that is the dumbest idea ever presented by an Administration.
Or there's Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) tweet:
On the home front, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has told the president and his staff to stay out of the way of the Senate's tax cut... uh, health care legislation. Just kidding as that is in all fairness yet to be seen though Republicans have signaled that tax reform would include a massive tax cut from the savings on the Medicaid rollback. But the president is out of the loop, out on limb fighting disputes of his own making. Whether it be with the press or his own intelligence services, he's alone in doing it. Americans know that picking petty fights with others isn't effective leadership, we know this. What we're not used to is looking away from the president, the presidency, because it not longer feels like the moral (leadership) center.
It's like the administration is constantly complaining about the criticism on how they're steering the ship, while at the same time not hearing everyone screaming back at them that the rudder's broken.
Weird.
When the president is isolated like this, the whole United States feels this, thus a further retreating to the corners, as it were.
Prime example: The two party chairs, Ronna McDaniel (RNC) and Tom Perez (DNC), appearing in their first joint interview. They just met and ended up talking over one another by the end of it (as Mr. Todd noted). Many would watch that interview and assess those individuals are part of the problem, but the problem is that if you cede one inch of ground on issue or statement, you'll feel the job ending scorn of your base. And because we know Mr. Perez better, he needs to be called here about saying that Republicans don't give **** about Democrats. Maybe true, but an individual in his position shouldn't say that. Also, when he likes a phrase, he definitely annoys you with it - We believe health care is right, not a privilege for a few - three times in three minutes. We're watching "Meet The Press" on a Sunday morning, we heard it the first time, we're not stupid, you don't have to repeat it, and we knew it before you said it.
Asking Democrats to participate in the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is like Democrats asking Republicans to raise taxes on the richest Americans to pre-Reagan era levels. It's unthinkable so to suggest that the opposing party would participate in such a thing is a little disingenuous at least.
As the panel gamely discussed, Senator McConnell threatened his caucus with having to possibly work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner to fix the Affordable Care Act to stabilize the markets if they all couldn't get on the same page in terms of voting for the bill, moderates and hardliners alike.
What a detestable thought that the parties would work together, but instead they retreat into their respective corners with the Administration ushering the way.
Panel: Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Kudos to Robert Costa for the slight disgusting you could hear in his voice when he referred to the Republican party becoming the grievance party and that the base probably doesn't care if the health care bill passes out not. Interpret as you will, but either way kudos still apply.
Solid Panel today, actually starting to think that the fact of the Trump presidency has tempered Rich Lowry's rhetorical arguments a bit.
Sunday, June 25, 2017
6.25.17: Governing in 'Today,' Not 'Yesterday'
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.
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)