With the special election in Alabama coming up this Tuesday, it's safe to say that Alabama voters couldn't care less about what this blog has to say about it, which gives one the freedom to opine on the election. NBC's Hallie Jackson mentioned that there were other big Roy Moore stories before the very credible allegations of Mr. Moore molesting children.
Refusal to take down the Ten Commandments from the court house = unconstitutional.
Banning individuals of Muslim faith from serving in Congress = unconstitutional.
Making homosexuality illegal = unconstitutional.
Instructing lower court judges to not honor same sex marriages = unconstitutional.
One of the best time for families was during the period of slavery = despicable.
And then there's molesting children... And this guy was a judge?
Since Alabama voters don't care about this blog, I'll say that if they elect Roy Moore, it's evidence of the state's majority has little knowledge of or use for the Constitution and 'morally bankrupt' becomes an apt description for that majority.
If Mr. Moore wins the Senate will seat him and the chamber, controlled by Republicans, will ultimately do nothing. Even at this point, how does the GOP credibly claim that it's the party of family values? It no longer can not. That's not to say that Republicans writ large are despicable or deplorable or what ever adjective you want to use, but let's certainly dispense with the moral high ground. What we've also learned this week is that Democrats can not claim it either. With that in mind, tribal politics, which has been the order of the day thanks to Mr. Trump, is not the answer for the United States. For example, even if you disagree with Senator Tim Scott's (R-SC) policy positions, he's a senator that has earned and deserves respect.
But make no mistake, the election of Roy Moore to the Senate is a lose-lose for America. As David Brooks said, if he's elected the Republican party will be viewed as repulsive for a generation.
This brings us to the tax bill, which in sum is not good for 99 percent of the American people and here's why... First, under reconciliation, meaning the Republican-controlled Congress are enacting it as a budget deal which only needs a simple majority, punishes blue states by allowing for less tax deductions. However, the tax bill will eventually create 1.4 trillion dollars in nation debt (as has been calculated) so Republicans are proposing that since this is the case, cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will have to happen, which disproportionately adversely effects people in red states, as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) outlined. So every one loses except the top one percent. By the time the general public digests and understands all this, it will be too late to go back.
Lastly, there's the growing effort by conservative pundits, TV personalities and more and more Congress people to discredit the Mueller investigation. Of course Sean Hannity comes to mind first and foremost, but Mr. Hannity is solely interested in maintaining power, money and influence, not justice and the truth. The president would fire Mr. Mueller, a Republican appointed as FBI director by a Republican president, at his own political peril. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan said that there would be huge political backlash for such a move, but really would there be? Hmmm... Let Mr. Mueller, who thankfully is immune to the TV hacks, finish his work and the American people will judge. As Congressman Jim Himes (D-CT) described, there are too many 'funny' (my word) omissions, obfuscations and forgotten facts that it's extremely difficult to conclude that it's coincidence.
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; David Brooks, The New York Times; Cornell Belcher, NBC analyst
One More Thing...
Senator Al Franken and the other resignations (Conyers, Franks) this week... The bottom line is that whether you agreed with their politics or not, they all had to go.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Sunday, December 03, 2017
12.4.17: The Inner Cirle's Day of Reckoning Is Coming, Without A Doubt
One can not help thinking about the other shoe and the other foot... With indictments and now the guilty plea on Friday by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, if this were happening to a Democratic administration, the Republican-controlled Congress would be all over impeachment calls and criminal investigations. Remember that a Republican-controlled Congress spent more money on investigating the tragedy in Benghazi than on any other congressional investigation in the country's history. Sorry to say it, but many Republican politicians throughout this process have shown any principle. With that said, it's something that one should dwell on.
However, with Lt. General Michael Flynn pleading guilty on Friday for making false statements to the FBI - a minor charge comparatively to what he could have been charged with - the Trump Administration should be generally worried and certainly they are despite any outward appearances. And let's dispel of this little nugget right off the bat - an FBI sending an anti-Trump tweet and being dismissed for it in the summer doesn't change the fact in the slightest that Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty.
Looking at things objectively, there is evidence of obstruction, specifically from President Trump's tweet yesterday where he said that he fired Mr. Flynn because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence and because he lied to the FBI. Mr. Trump's lawyer said he sent that tweet and that's the only one that he's ever sent on behalf of the president. It's seriously doubtful that Mr. Trump's lawyer sent that statement (as we have to view Mr. Trump's twitter feed as official statements from the president), but even if a lawyer for the White House sent that, what was that person thinking? You just admitted that the president obstructed justice. Why hasn't that lawyer been fired for such a damning statement?
Senator Feinstein said that her 'enough is enough' moment came last month, but after so many of these moments, what finally set her off? Through the judiciary committee she must now know something, which she can not share, that has solidified some kind of impropriety on behalf of the president. What we do know is that Mr. Flynn did not act as a rogue agent and that members of the administration's inner circle knew what he was doing. Certainly, as confirmed, Jared Kushner knew what was going on as well as J.T. McFarland. (Interestingly, Ms. McFarland is now the ambassador to Singapore. They sure shipped her a long way away.) In a private email Ms. McFarland said the following: “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote.
Ouch!
Just a figure of speech? Not likely. If there was no collusion or quid pro quo then why write or say such a thing? As far as the inner circle during the transition is concerned, Mr. Pence was the head of the transition team so how does he not know what Mr. Flynn is doing. As the investigation progresses and more people are implicated, the shielding or walling off of Mr. Pence will come into clearer focus, most certainly.
Where we'll leave this is to answer the question of whether the president himself is under investigation and the answer is 'yes,' but not directly. By squeezing everyone else, the special counsel will find out what the president knew, and he knows quite a bit. For example, the meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians didn't escape Mr. Trump's attention. He knew about it. Let's face it, Donald Trump Jr. doesn't really strike anyone as some independent savvy thinker. And by extension, it's hard to believe that President Trump doesn't know everything that his son-in-law Jared Kushner knows.
Mr. Todd asked Senator Feinstein where we are in all this. Answer: With the guilty plea from Mr. Flynn on Friday morning, we're at the end of the beginning. There's a lot more to come out, for sure.
As for the tax legislation, Senator Collins said she voted for it because she got an "ironclad" promise that Medicare would not be touched. We'll see how long that lasts, but she also said that the tax cuts will pay for themselves with economic growth, which in reality is doubtful because the entire package relies on the theory of trickle down economics, which we know doesn't work. But with that said, the Republicans control Congress and through budget reconciliation, they passed their tax overhaul plan. By using this process they didn't need any Democrats in the Senate to vote for it. Fiscal constraint in terms of deficits and debt are lost on Republicans when they're in control, with the lone exception of Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), but lets see how the House members react and whether the Republican deficit hawks in the lower chamber vote against the Senate bill. Because of political expediency, it will pass. Republicans need a win that badly.
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton University
One more thing...
It's despicable that President Donald Trump would campaign for Roy Moore in the Alabama media market (via a rally in Pensacola, Fl - the Mobile media market). Hard stop.
And for Corey Lewandowski and Dave Bossie's book, Let Trump Be Trump... God help us, that's exactly what this country is trying to prevent.
However, with Lt. General Michael Flynn pleading guilty on Friday for making false statements to the FBI - a minor charge comparatively to what he could have been charged with - the Trump Administration should be generally worried and certainly they are despite any outward appearances. And let's dispel of this little nugget right off the bat - an FBI sending an anti-Trump tweet and being dismissed for it in the summer doesn't change the fact in the slightest that Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty.
Looking at things objectively, there is evidence of obstruction, specifically from President Trump's tweet yesterday where he said that he fired Mr. Flynn because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence and because he lied to the FBI. Mr. Trump's lawyer said he sent that tweet and that's the only one that he's ever sent on behalf of the president. It's seriously doubtful that Mr. Trump's lawyer sent that statement (as we have to view Mr. Trump's twitter feed as official statements from the president), but even if a lawyer for the White House sent that, what was that person thinking? You just admitted that the president obstructed justice. Why hasn't that lawyer been fired for such a damning statement?
Senator Feinstein said that her 'enough is enough' moment came last month, but after so many of these moments, what finally set her off? Through the judiciary committee she must now know something, which she can not share, that has solidified some kind of impropriety on behalf of the president. What we do know is that Mr. Flynn did not act as a rogue agent and that members of the administration's inner circle knew what he was doing. Certainly, as confirmed, Jared Kushner knew what was going on as well as J.T. McFarland. (Interestingly, Ms. McFarland is now the ambassador to Singapore. They sure shipped her a long way away.) In a private email Ms. McFarland said the following: “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him,” she wrote.
Ouch!
Just a figure of speech? Not likely. If there was no collusion or quid pro quo then why write or say such a thing? As far as the inner circle during the transition is concerned, Mr. Pence was the head of the transition team so how does he not know what Mr. Flynn is doing. As the investigation progresses and more people are implicated, the shielding or walling off of Mr. Pence will come into clearer focus, most certainly.
Where we'll leave this is to answer the question of whether the president himself is under investigation and the answer is 'yes,' but not directly. By squeezing everyone else, the special counsel will find out what the president knew, and he knows quite a bit. For example, the meeting in Trump Tower with the Russians didn't escape Mr. Trump's attention. He knew about it. Let's face it, Donald Trump Jr. doesn't really strike anyone as some independent savvy thinker. And by extension, it's hard to believe that President Trump doesn't know everything that his son-in-law Jared Kushner knows.
Mr. Todd asked Senator Feinstein where we are in all this. Answer: With the guilty plea from Mr. Flynn on Friday morning, we're at the end of the beginning. There's a lot more to come out, for sure.
As for the tax legislation, Senator Collins said she voted for it because she got an "ironclad" promise that Medicare would not be touched. We'll see how long that lasts, but she also said that the tax cuts will pay for themselves with economic growth, which in reality is doubtful because the entire package relies on the theory of trickle down economics, which we know doesn't work. But with that said, the Republicans control Congress and through budget reconciliation, they passed their tax overhaul plan. By using this process they didn't need any Democrats in the Senate to vote for it. Fiscal constraint in terms of deficits and debt are lost on Republicans when they're in control, with the lone exception of Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), but lets see how the House members react and whether the Republican deficit hawks in the lower chamber vote against the Senate bill. Because of political expediency, it will pass. Republicans need a win that badly.
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton University
One more thing...
It's despicable that President Donald Trump would campaign for Roy Moore in the Alabama media market (via a rally in Pensacola, Fl - the Mobile media market). Hard stop.
And for Corey Lewandowski and Dave Bossie's book, Let Trump Be Trump... God help us, that's exactly what this country is trying to prevent.
Sunday, November 26, 2017
11.26.17: Women Are Simply Fed Up
If you agree with the notion that the election of Donald J. Trump as president evoked a massive response from America's women, it's because they are rightly fed up with powerful entitled men ruining the country on all levels. Making the response two-fold, look what happened in the recent election in Virginia, and around the country for that matter, a number of women took office for the first time. In terms of sexual harassment, men in powerful positions, abusing that power, are being called out, and it's about time.
Maybe it has to start in high profile industries first like Hollywood, the media and in Washington to have the shock effect so that the culture does change. But it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of the problem... It never is. Katy Tur vented that the first two in the aforementioned list cleaned house quickly and decisively - Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey an Mark Halperin (from NBC) and Charlie Rose (from CBS) respectively. However, in politics, there's this 'hold on a moment' attitude, let me check to see if I like this person first (based on their politics). Anita Hill, an American hero, flatly and correctly stated that Washington can not lead on this issue. And we know it, from just what minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during her interview today. Congress is going to institute mandatory anti-harassment and anti-discrimination classes. Welcome to the 21st century. Large and small companies alike and many school districts around the country have been giving such classes for years. Great that Congress can finally catch up.
Ms. Pelosi was correct in saying that Al Franken was a very different case than Roy Moore, but both need to be addressed, not ignored. And in both cases, there's no doubt that the women's complaints are credible. Ultimately, if charges aren't being brought up then with regard to these public officials voters will have their say. For Mr. Franken, he should be subject to an ethics investigation and see where that goes first, but at the end of his term, perhaps it should be the end of the run.
Roy Moore, on the other hand, is an alleged (probable) child molester who cloaks himself behind a wall of piety, but is a corrupted soul. President Trump's defense and de facto endorsement of Judge Moore comes from a place of self-preservation more than from anywhere else. Mr. Trump has no credibility on sexual harassment because of the infamous awful words that came from his own mouth and the many complaints against him. So when he defends Roy Moore by saying "He totally denied it," so it's not true, it's like he's saying that about himself. Mr. Trump's extended argument that it's better to have Roy Moore, Republican yet child molester, in office than a Democrat. Another one of the death by a thousand cuts Mr. Trump is inflicting on the American societal body. One has to think how sad it is that our children should be able to look up to the President of the United States as our moral center - a notion that has been completely vanquished.
Ms. Pelosi wasn't completely coherent on all this, stumbling and parsing her answers - what to do about Bill Clinton in retrospect and sitting Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), the minority leader on the judiciary committee. Of the latter she said that he deserved due process despite some very 'uncomfortable' circumstances in this particular situation. She talked a circle. With regard to President Clinton, saying that we should 'move forward' was an effective punt. With the prospect that taxpayer funds may have been used in the settlement, from a pool of money set up by Congress for just such a purpose, makes it even more imperative that this be looked into. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) to his credit, called for transparency on these settlements. Transparency should come, like tomorrow.
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson described the different circumstances as tribal morality - if you're in my party, I believe you. But maybe not even that... The governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, said that she believed the women but in the senatorial election she is going to vote Republican, meaning she's going to vote for Roy Moore. Really? Talk about assinine and cowardly. It's one thing to be lead, and another to be lead by the nose. If this is the official leadership and the mouthpiece for the people of Alabama, then how can one not be worried about the fact that Alabamians are going to determine where the moral bar for this country is set?
At this point, I should be admonished for not talking about taxes as rightly Ms. Pelosi did to Chuck Todd. There's no excuse for Mr. Todd to solely focus on the salacious, and not real policy that is going to determine the financial fates of so many on "Meet The Press." This column's excuse... Well, we're not "Meet The Press."
Panel: Heather McGhee, President, Demos; Katy Tur, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network and NBC; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
One More Thing... Michael Flynn
Mr. Flynn's lawyers have stopped communicating with the White House lawyers. Hugh Hewitt said that he thinks it nothing more than Mr. Flynn's foreign agent registration violations (which is a big deal) that are the sole cause of his trouble. However, one can't help but think it's more than that. Breaking with Mr. Hewitt's opinion, it's definitely more than that and it's clear at this point that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Robert Mueller's investigation. The intrigue continues to mount.
Maybe it has to start in high profile industries first like Hollywood, the media and in Washington to have the shock effect so that the culture does change. But it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of the problem... It never is. Katy Tur vented that the first two in the aforementioned list cleaned house quickly and decisively - Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey an Mark Halperin (from NBC) and Charlie Rose (from CBS) respectively. However, in politics, there's this 'hold on a moment' attitude, let me check to see if I like this person first (based on their politics). Anita Hill, an American hero, flatly and correctly stated that Washington can not lead on this issue. And we know it, from just what minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said during her interview today. Congress is going to institute mandatory anti-harassment and anti-discrimination classes. Welcome to the 21st century. Large and small companies alike and many school districts around the country have been giving such classes for years. Great that Congress can finally catch up.
Ms. Pelosi was correct in saying that Al Franken was a very different case than Roy Moore, but both need to be addressed, not ignored. And in both cases, there's no doubt that the women's complaints are credible. Ultimately, if charges aren't being brought up then with regard to these public officials voters will have their say. For Mr. Franken, he should be subject to an ethics investigation and see where that goes first, but at the end of his term, perhaps it should be the end of the run.
Roy Moore, on the other hand, is an alleged (probable) child molester who cloaks himself behind a wall of piety, but is a corrupted soul. President Trump's defense and de facto endorsement of Judge Moore comes from a place of self-preservation more than from anywhere else. Mr. Trump has no credibility on sexual harassment because of the infamous awful words that came from his own mouth and the many complaints against him. So when he defends Roy Moore by saying "He totally denied it," so it's not true, it's like he's saying that about himself. Mr. Trump's extended argument that it's better to have Roy Moore, Republican yet child molester, in office than a Democrat. Another one of the death by a thousand cuts Mr. Trump is inflicting on the American societal body. One has to think how sad it is that our children should be able to look up to the President of the United States as our moral center - a notion that has been completely vanquished.
Ms. Pelosi wasn't completely coherent on all this, stumbling and parsing her answers - what to do about Bill Clinton in retrospect and sitting Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), the minority leader on the judiciary committee. Of the latter she said that he deserved due process despite some very 'uncomfortable' circumstances in this particular situation. She talked a circle. With regard to President Clinton, saying that we should 'move forward' was an effective punt. With the prospect that taxpayer funds may have been used in the settlement, from a pool of money set up by Congress for just such a purpose, makes it even more imperative that this be looked into. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) to his credit, called for transparency on these settlements. Transparency should come, like tomorrow.
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson described the different circumstances as tribal morality - if you're in my party, I believe you. But maybe not even that... The governor of Alabama, Kay Ivey, said that she believed the women but in the senatorial election she is going to vote Republican, meaning she's going to vote for Roy Moore. Really? Talk about assinine and cowardly. It's one thing to be lead, and another to be lead by the nose. If this is the official leadership and the mouthpiece for the people of Alabama, then how can one not be worried about the fact that Alabamians are going to determine where the moral bar for this country is set?
At this point, I should be admonished for not talking about taxes as rightly Ms. Pelosi did to Chuck Todd. There's no excuse for Mr. Todd to solely focus on the salacious, and not real policy that is going to determine the financial fates of so many on "Meet The Press." This column's excuse... Well, we're not "Meet The Press."
Panel: Heather McGhee, President, Demos; Katy Tur, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network and NBC; Michael Gerson, The Washington Post
One More Thing... Michael Flynn
Mr. Flynn's lawyers have stopped communicating with the White House lawyers. Hugh Hewitt said that he thinks it nothing more than Mr. Flynn's foreign agent registration violations (which is a big deal) that are the sole cause of his trouble. However, one can't help but think it's more than that. Breaking with Mr. Hewitt's opinion, it's definitely more than that and it's clear at this point that Mr. Flynn is cooperating with Robert Mueller's investigation. The intrigue continues to mount.
Sunday, November 19, 2017
11.19.17: Degrees, Responses and the Sliminess of Mick Mulvaney
The White House Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, is slimy; at least he proved as much during his interview with Andrea Mitchell, sitting in for Chuck Todd, this morning.
Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Mulvaney about the fact that in the bill corporate tax cuts are permanent and individual middle class tax cuts are temporary, the budget director explained that because of certain rules and to make the bill a budget one so that 51-vote reconciliation can be enacted instead of the 60-vote Senate requirement for legislation, Republicans have to game the system with expiration dates.
But why not the other way around? Why not make the individual middle class tax cut permanent and make the corporate tax cut temporary? Because that is who Mr. Mulvaney is, never having that inclination. He and other Republicans for that matter would never want to disappoint the people that matter most, the donors.
[And that clip of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) getting upset at the suggestion that the bill is one for the rich... Please, he gets no quarter of sympathy from this space. He's advocating for trickle-down economic theory and we know that it doesn't work. The latest operative example is how Governor Sam Brownback decimated the economics in his state of Kansas, from which they're still far behind neighboring states.]
Mr. Mulvaney also explained that the $1.5 trillion dollars that would be added to the debt according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assessment doesn't account for the [presumably positive] impact on the economy that these tax cuts will have. Despite evidence that growth will only recoup about a third of the $1.5 trillion coupled with lack of corporate reinvestment of the money they get back, Mr. Mulvaney wants you to believe the exact opposite.
The consolation of all this is at least we're discussing policy, even in the face of a politically cynical tax bill that just passed through the House. It's a Republican bill and trickle down theory is their dogma and we can debate the merits of that with supporters of that like The National Review's Rich Lowry and Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), respective guests today, without being disagreeable toward the person, personally.
I don't mean for this column to be a hit job on a particular individual, but Mr. Mulvaney said, with a straight face, that he's 'gaming the system,' blatantly admitting that the goal is giving some people advantages at the expense of others.
And then there's his recitation of the Republican talking point as it pertains to the sexual harassment discourse in terms of comparing Roy Moore with Senator Al Franken (D-MN): Mr. Franken has admitted guilt - he's guilty - and Judge Moore denies it. Note: the care in not saying he's not guilty.
But with exceptional addition to that, Mr. Mulvaney first said that he's the budget director and he's not focused on all that much on the details of the accusations against Judge Moore, but then went on to impugn Andrea Mitchell for predisposed political biased on what she and NBC believe, on which Ms. Mitchell clearly pushed back - it's one of the many reasons why you gotta love Andrea Mitchell. The rhetorical sum total of the equation for Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans is that it's up to the people of Alabama to decide who they want in the Senate. (That's called punting.)
Speaking of which, President Trump who 'couldn't resist' taking a shot at Senator Franken, according to Robert Costa, has nothing to say about Roy Moore who is defiant and refusing to step down. Why is that? Because Mr. Trump is accused of the same behavior, but worse. And he's admitted as much on tape. Mr. Costa also explained that this is going to get sticky for Republicans because they're going to have to answer for this implied, but blatant double (triple) standard set because of the president's alleged behavior.
But make no mistake, the talking point is that we're not saying who's worse but Al Franken admitted guilt and Judge Moore denies it. As Andrea Mitchell mentioned, it's about 'degrees and responses.'
Panel: Joy Reid, NBC; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A Couple More Things...
Yes, there should be an ethics investigation of Mr. Franken's behavior to verify that there aren't more instances of this behavior in his past and particularly during his time in the Senate. One difference between Mr. Moore and Mr. Franken is that Mr. Franken agrees with such action.
In citing The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, she explains that it's Alabama women who are going to ultimately make this election call.
Joy Reid made a notable assessment as to the nature of Democrats (as a party): self-immolation and torturing themselves... Priceless, actually.
And Congresswoman Barbara Comstock's apparently repeated mention of a current member of who showed up at his front door in a towel or robe or whatever is certainly speeding up the timeline as to when we'll find out who that is.
Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Mulvaney about the fact that in the bill corporate tax cuts are permanent and individual middle class tax cuts are temporary, the budget director explained that because of certain rules and to make the bill a budget one so that 51-vote reconciliation can be enacted instead of the 60-vote Senate requirement for legislation, Republicans have to game the system with expiration dates.
But why not the other way around? Why not make the individual middle class tax cut permanent and make the corporate tax cut temporary? Because that is who Mr. Mulvaney is, never having that inclination. He and other Republicans for that matter would never want to disappoint the people that matter most, the donors.
[And that clip of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) getting upset at the suggestion that the bill is one for the rich... Please, he gets no quarter of sympathy from this space. He's advocating for trickle-down economic theory and we know that it doesn't work. The latest operative example is how Governor Sam Brownback decimated the economics in his state of Kansas, from which they're still far behind neighboring states.]
Mr. Mulvaney also explained that the $1.5 trillion dollars that would be added to the debt according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assessment doesn't account for the [presumably positive] impact on the economy that these tax cuts will have. Despite evidence that growth will only recoup about a third of the $1.5 trillion coupled with lack of corporate reinvestment of the money they get back, Mr. Mulvaney wants you to believe the exact opposite.
The consolation of all this is at least we're discussing policy, even in the face of a politically cynical tax bill that just passed through the House. It's a Republican bill and trickle down theory is their dogma and we can debate the merits of that with supporters of that like The National Review's Rich Lowry and Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), respective guests today, without being disagreeable toward the person, personally.
I don't mean for this column to be a hit job on a particular individual, but Mr. Mulvaney said, with a straight face, that he's 'gaming the system,' blatantly admitting that the goal is giving some people advantages at the expense of others.
And then there's his recitation of the Republican talking point as it pertains to the sexual harassment discourse in terms of comparing Roy Moore with Senator Al Franken (D-MN): Mr. Franken has admitted guilt - he's guilty - and Judge Moore denies it. Note: the care in not saying he's not guilty.
But with exceptional addition to that, Mr. Mulvaney first said that he's the budget director and he's not focused on all that much on the details of the accusations against Judge Moore, but then went on to impugn Andrea Mitchell for predisposed political biased on what she and NBC believe, on which Ms. Mitchell clearly pushed back - it's one of the many reasons why you gotta love Andrea Mitchell. The rhetorical sum total of the equation for Mr. Mulvaney and Republicans is that it's up to the people of Alabama to decide who they want in the Senate. (That's called punting.)
Speaking of which, President Trump who 'couldn't resist' taking a shot at Senator Franken, according to Robert Costa, has nothing to say about Roy Moore who is defiant and refusing to step down. Why is that? Because Mr. Trump is accused of the same behavior, but worse. And he's admitted as much on tape. Mr. Costa also explained that this is going to get sticky for Republicans because they're going to have to answer for this implied, but blatant double (triple) standard set because of the president's alleged behavior.
But make no mistake, the talking point is that we're not saying who's worse but Al Franken admitted guilt and Judge Moore denies it. As Andrea Mitchell mentioned, it's about 'degrees and responses.'
Panel: Joy Reid, NBC; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Robert Costa, The Washington Post
A Couple More Things...
Yes, there should be an ethics investigation of Mr. Franken's behavior to verify that there aren't more instances of this behavior in his past and particularly during his time in the Senate. One difference between Mr. Moore and Mr. Franken is that Mr. Franken agrees with such action.
In citing The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, she explains that it's Alabama women who are going to ultimately make this election call.
Joy Reid made a notable assessment as to the nature of Democrats (as a party): self-immolation and torturing themselves... Priceless, actually.
And Congresswoman Barbara Comstock's apparently repeated mention of a current member of who showed up at his front door in a towel or robe or whatever is certainly speeding up the timeline as to when we'll find out who that is.
Sunday, November 05, 2017
11.5.17:The Special Counsel Is Real and Tightening the Screws
There's little doubt that Mr. Trump is worried about the Russia investigation, but not so much his administration, with the exception Attorney General Jeff Sessions who clearly mislead Congress about his contacts with and knowledge of communication with Russian officials, because most of the individuals working for Mr. Trump have been replaced since the start of his administration. Mr. Sessions, for his part, either perjured himself with false testimony to Congress or his memory is so bad to the point of approaching senility that he should step down, unable to do his job. For the record, I do not believe that Mr. Sessions is senile.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigative team are in the process of establishing who were the compromised individuals in the Trump campaign, and it looks as though there are quite a few, at least financially. And that makes Mr. Trump rather nervous because there are rumblings that the Special Counsel's current focus is the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose finances must be known to the president. The indictments and especially the revelation of George Papadopoulos's arrest and subsequent cooperation with the Special Counsel after which 'everyone's memory got better,' as Mr. Todd nicely quipped today, have the president rattled. On camera, Mr. Trump offered a flat denial, "There was no collusion!" And then he lamented about his frustrated inability to personally direct the Justice Dept. to investigate his defeated political opponents - Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
A bit of a tangent here: Senator James Lankford (R-OK) dismissed the president's comments as coming from someone who doesn't know better. Giving the president... The President of the United States a pass on this is inexcusable in and of itself. There's no quarter for 'not knowing better.' Someone in the administration should have explained this to him before he starts delegitimizing his office. We are neither The Philippines nor Venezuela. With that said, Mr. Lankford's comments on his committee's work and the Special Counsel's were quite commendable. (It makes it into the news that Republican lawmakers don't see any special protections for Mr. Mueller and his team as necessary, but that's because they don't see it in any jeopardy.) Mr. Lankford squarely stated that the Special Counsel should be allowed to do its work. He also confirmed what Senator Warner would not confirm and that was whether the Senate committee has spoken with Michael Flynn and or his son. The quote, "You'll have to ask the committee chairs whether Mr. Flynn and his son have been cooperative witnesses."
Mr. Trump said that it was a disgrace that the Special Counsel continues the investigation, but the real disgrace is that he trying to influence the Justice Dept., calling for it to end. Here is a list of names so far that have legal problems with regard to Russia's meddling in our election: Paul Manafort, J.D. Gordan, Richard Gates, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn Jr., Donald Trump Jr. Jared Kushner, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. This list includes are high-ranking campaign and administration officials respectively and what's sad is if this were a Democratic administration, Republicans would be impeaching the president as we speak - it's just a fact. And because many Republican legislators are not holding Mr. Trump accountable to the Constitution of the United States, they are in effective not upholding their oaths of office, which is just sad. They're sad enablers.
What's not sad is what is going on with Democratic party. Forget about the Republicans for a minute because the Democrats really need to get their act together. Everyone is running wild about Donna Brazile's new book about the 2016 election. It's causing a lot of disharmony in the party, but it's necessary for the time being. Ms. Brazile's tact could always be better; as Tom Brokaw noted Ms. Brazile has a tendency to fire first and aim later. But Democrats whether they like it or not, have to get passed Barack Obama, but especially the Clinton-era of being the standard bearers of the party. That's what Ms. Brazile's book will probably end up doing, but not before Republicans start manufacturing more non-controversies.
As for moving forward, the gubernatorial race in Virginia is a huge test for Tom Perez's leadership of the DNC. By the way, I've always said that the Party chair shouldn't be in public office, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz because then you get some one like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, clearly in way over her head, running the party. Focus on your Congressional job... Democrats should win in Virginia but if they don't, their chances of taking back the House or Senate will decline precipitously.
Lastly, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) is absolutely correct when he says that we need a cyber-doctrine - some sort of policy to address insidious action via social media and the internet. Actually, I like what Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said (a first) - that we should retaliate against Russia in some way, the more covert the better. But here's the rub with that, The damn president doesn't think Russia did anything to meddle in the election; it's all a hoax, to use his word. He's not going to retaliate against Russia because of something he refuses to believe.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One More Thing...
On November 6, 1947, Martha Rountree began... Yes, for 70 years! The insightful genius to make "Meet The Press" the first television program. It's why I call it the (political) program of record... It's earned the title. Congratulations... and thank you.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigative team are in the process of establishing who were the compromised individuals in the Trump campaign, and it looks as though there are quite a few, at least financially. And that makes Mr. Trump rather nervous because there are rumblings that the Special Counsel's current focus is the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose finances must be known to the president. The indictments and especially the revelation of George Papadopoulos's arrest and subsequent cooperation with the Special Counsel after which 'everyone's memory got better,' as Mr. Todd nicely quipped today, have the president rattled. On camera, Mr. Trump offered a flat denial, "There was no collusion!" And then he lamented about his frustrated inability to personally direct the Justice Dept. to investigate his defeated political opponents - Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
A bit of a tangent here: Senator James Lankford (R-OK) dismissed the president's comments as coming from someone who doesn't know better. Giving the president... The President of the United States a pass on this is inexcusable in and of itself. There's no quarter for 'not knowing better.' Someone in the administration should have explained this to him before he starts delegitimizing his office. We are neither The Philippines nor Venezuela. With that said, Mr. Lankford's comments on his committee's work and the Special Counsel's were quite commendable. (It makes it into the news that Republican lawmakers don't see any special protections for Mr. Mueller and his team as necessary, but that's because they don't see it in any jeopardy.) Mr. Lankford squarely stated that the Special Counsel should be allowed to do its work. He also confirmed what Senator Warner would not confirm and that was whether the Senate committee has spoken with Michael Flynn and or his son. The quote, "You'll have to ask the committee chairs whether Mr. Flynn and his son have been cooperative witnesses."
Mr. Trump said that it was a disgrace that the Special Counsel continues the investigation, but the real disgrace is that he trying to influence the Justice Dept., calling for it to end. Here is a list of names so far that have legal problems with regard to Russia's meddling in our election: Paul Manafort, J.D. Gordan, Richard Gates, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn Jr., Donald Trump Jr. Jared Kushner, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. This list includes are high-ranking campaign and administration officials respectively and what's sad is if this were a Democratic administration, Republicans would be impeaching the president as we speak - it's just a fact. And because many Republican legislators are not holding Mr. Trump accountable to the Constitution of the United States, they are in effective not upholding their oaths of office, which is just sad. They're sad enablers.
What's not sad is what is going on with Democratic party. Forget about the Republicans for a minute because the Democrats really need to get their act together. Everyone is running wild about Donna Brazile's new book about the 2016 election. It's causing a lot of disharmony in the party, but it's necessary for the time being. Ms. Brazile's tact could always be better; as Tom Brokaw noted Ms. Brazile has a tendency to fire first and aim later. But Democrats whether they like it or not, have to get passed Barack Obama, but especially the Clinton-era of being the standard bearers of the party. That's what Ms. Brazile's book will probably end up doing, but not before Republicans start manufacturing more non-controversies.
As for moving forward, the gubernatorial race in Virginia is a huge test for Tom Perez's leadership of the DNC. By the way, I've always said that the Party chair shouldn't be in public office, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz because then you get some one like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, clearly in way over her head, running the party. Focus on your Congressional job... Democrats should win in Virginia but if they don't, their chances of taking back the House or Senate will decline precipitously.
Lastly, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) is absolutely correct when he says that we need a cyber-doctrine - some sort of policy to address insidious action via social media and the internet. Actually, I like what Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said (a first) - that we should retaliate against Russia in some way, the more covert the better. But here's the rub with that, The damn president doesn't think Russia did anything to meddle in the election; it's all a hoax, to use his word. He's not going to retaliate against Russia because of something he refuses to believe.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
One More Thing...
On November 6, 1947, Martha Rountree began... Yes, for 70 years! The insightful genius to make "Meet The Press" the first television program. It's why I call it the (political) program of record... It's earned the title. Congratulations... and thank you.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
10.19.17: Who's To FIx The Political Mess We're In
Thank you for bearing with me; a much-needed break was warranted.
At a certain point, time is going to run out on blaming past administrations for foreign policy mistakes, mismanagement domestically and a slow-growing economy, but are those things going to matter? Starting tomorrow, probably not as Special Counsel Robert Mueller takes into custody the subject of his first grand jury indictment into to the Russia campaign-meddling investigation.
The state of U.S. political affairs right now are like a Jenga puzzle that's fallen apart and there's no one left to put it back together. You a man with authoritarian inclinations in the White House who profits off the presidency, a Republican fmr. chief strategist to Mr. Trump declaring war on the Republican establishment, against which the Republican Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now openly fighting. Democrats have their own credibility problems and no juice to fix them. Excluded completely from the legislative process, Democrats' voices have been drowned out, with their only hope that the Republican party goes so far off the extremist deep end that they'll be the only alternative. It's likely. Senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) telling Republican colleagues to "shut up and do your jobs," in the face of a bully president while you have senators like Rob Portman (R-OH) barely able to speak in trying to fly below the radar of the Bannon-Trump attack machine because moderates are getting squeezed.
Senator Portman said that party in-fighting is nothing new for either side, but emphasized that if the president succeeds, the country succeeds, but it's difficult to see that when the president has a 38% approval rating. Neither Mr. Portman nor anyone else has any idea what the definition of success in the mind of President Trump. For Mr. Portman, does that mean sitting by complacently silent, while someone else defines your principles, consistently violating them. A meek performance today. That's not to say that Senator Portman isn't better for the country then any Bannon-backed candidate, he definitely is, but the blind fury of the base hasn't abated.
Fmr. Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Al Cardenas described the current state of the Republican party in terms of everyone being expected to take a knee to the president. Mr. Portman did his best.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), for her part, refreshingly talks substance and details of tax reform, but it falls on deaf ears because Republicans have no inclination to listen. Describing herself as a moderate, she said that she is willing to work across the aisle, either that or obstruction, but she concluded that it will be a party-line vote, but she didn't give you the other part of the equation, which is Republicans don't want to work with her, or any Democrat for that matter.
Once the indictment comes tomorrow, we'll be facing a whole new set of problems, none of which will do anything to close the voter enthusiasm gap that Amy Walter kept coming back to. The big question is it enough for Democrats? Double digits, she and Chris Matthews both agreed. Dems. aren't going to get it. Fox commentators, such as Sean Hannity, are already ramping up the attacks on the integrity of the special counsel, picking up the slack for a president tempering his responses, for legally jeopardizing reasons most probably. (The president 'tempering' his comments is relative, of course.)
Republicans will soon has to choose sides, depending on what this first, and surely not the last, indictment brings, and the rule-of-law and the faith in our institutions are without a doubt going to be put to the test. Huntington, West Virginia Fire Chief Jan Radar said that it has been years since a day went by in her county that there wasn't at least one overdose call - every fourth call is for an overdose. The president's declaration of a public health crisis designates no compulsory funding to counter the problem, only a national emergency would do that, a health care budget provision that Republicans want to scrub.
President Donald Trump is ultimately going to be held responsible for the aforementioned mess. When you're the president, it is inevitable. He's broken it, most certainly, and smashing everything into tinier pieces, but is special counsel Robert Mueller the one to fix it? Even if you wish that were likely, it's not.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Al Cardenas, fmr. chairman of the American Conservative Union; Chris Matthews, NBC News
At a certain point, time is going to run out on blaming past administrations for foreign policy mistakes, mismanagement domestically and a slow-growing economy, but are those things going to matter? Starting tomorrow, probably not as Special Counsel Robert Mueller takes into custody the subject of his first grand jury indictment into to the Russia campaign-meddling investigation.
The state of U.S. political affairs right now are like a Jenga puzzle that's fallen apart and there's no one left to put it back together. You a man with authoritarian inclinations in the White House who profits off the presidency, a Republican fmr. chief strategist to Mr. Trump declaring war on the Republican establishment, against which the Republican Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now openly fighting. Democrats have their own credibility problems and no juice to fix them. Excluded completely from the legislative process, Democrats' voices have been drowned out, with their only hope that the Republican party goes so far off the extremist deep end that they'll be the only alternative. It's likely. Senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) telling Republican colleagues to "shut up and do your jobs," in the face of a bully president while you have senators like Rob Portman (R-OH) barely able to speak in trying to fly below the radar of the Bannon-Trump attack machine because moderates are getting squeezed.
Senator Portman said that party in-fighting is nothing new for either side, but emphasized that if the president succeeds, the country succeeds, but it's difficult to see that when the president has a 38% approval rating. Neither Mr. Portman nor anyone else has any idea what the definition of success in the mind of President Trump. For Mr. Portman, does that mean sitting by complacently silent, while someone else defines your principles, consistently violating them. A meek performance today. That's not to say that Senator Portman isn't better for the country then any Bannon-backed candidate, he definitely is, but the blind fury of the base hasn't abated.
Fmr. Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Al Cardenas described the current state of the Republican party in terms of everyone being expected to take a knee to the president. Mr. Portman did his best.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), for her part, refreshingly talks substance and details of tax reform, but it falls on deaf ears because Republicans have no inclination to listen. Describing herself as a moderate, she said that she is willing to work across the aisle, either that or obstruction, but she concluded that it will be a party-line vote, but she didn't give you the other part of the equation, which is Republicans don't want to work with her, or any Democrat for that matter.
Once the indictment comes tomorrow, we'll be facing a whole new set of problems, none of which will do anything to close the voter enthusiasm gap that Amy Walter kept coming back to. The big question is it enough for Democrats? Double digits, she and Chris Matthews both agreed. Dems. aren't going to get it. Fox commentators, such as Sean Hannity, are already ramping up the attacks on the integrity of the special counsel, picking up the slack for a president tempering his responses, for legally jeopardizing reasons most probably. (The president 'tempering' his comments is relative, of course.)
Republicans will soon has to choose sides, depending on what this first, and surely not the last, indictment brings, and the rule-of-law and the faith in our institutions are without a doubt going to be put to the test. Huntington, West Virginia Fire Chief Jan Radar said that it has been years since a day went by in her county that there wasn't at least one overdose call - every fourth call is for an overdose. The president's declaration of a public health crisis designates no compulsory funding to counter the problem, only a national emergency would do that, a health care budget provision that Republicans want to scrub.
President Donald Trump is ultimately going to be held responsible for the aforementioned mess. When you're the president, it is inevitable. He's broken it, most certainly, and smashing everything into tinier pieces, but is special counsel Robert Mueller the one to fix it? Even if you wish that were likely, it's not.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Al Cardenas, fmr. chairman of the American Conservative Union; Chris Matthews, NBC News
Sunday, October 08, 2017
10.8.17: Flooded America
There's no doubt that America is flooded - beaten and battered and flooded by hurricanes, awash in guns, engulfed by political chaos and a lack of leadership, drowning in debt and left irreparably moldy by the undercurrent of an opiod addiction.
On that happy note, in the wake of the most horrific mass shooting in modern American history in Las Vegas where 58 people lost their lives and over 500 were injured, all that comes about is a debate about having the debate, about guns, which Mr. Todd lead with on today's program.
Exhibit A is the two explanations from Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) respectively on whether bump stocks should be made illegal, and you can imagine where each one falls on this. I agree with Mr. Scalise that most people didn't even know what a bump stock was a week ago. I certainly didn't. He went on to say that he needed all the facts before he could make a decision on such a ban. However, Ms. Feinstein explained that automatic machine guns are illegal and bump stocks turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns, hence they should be illegal. What more do you need to know? In essence.
However, Mr. Scalise's interpretation of history and the second amendment is a bit warped. Individual guns rights coming before the Constitution is speculative at best. The second amendment does specifically mention 'a well-regulated militia,' which don't exist anymore. If you watch Ken Burn's The Civil War documentary you learn that each state had its own militia all the way up through the end of the war. After the war, a standing national army replaced militias. Some historians have said that after the Civil War, the United States were really formed. Before then it was separate states together on a continent. And that's when the notion of the second amendment and individual guns ownership rights took root. That's not a bad thing, per se.
If we're not going to amend the amendment then a 'militia' has to be taken into account. Military style weapons are unnecessary in society. If you cannot feel comfortable defending your home with a 15-shot clip in a handgun, frankly, then an assault rifle won't do you any more good because you are unqualified to handle one in the first place, probably. Mr. Scalise, shot and almost killed on a baseball field, is still adamant about no restrictions. Wait and see on the bump stock.
You really can't argue with the Senator when she says that mass shooting occur everywhere in this country; it's a literal truth - movie theaters, country music festivals, night clubs, churches, colleges, high schools, office buildings, elementary schools... elementary schools.
NBC News' Kristen Welker is right when she said the gun legislation debate was settled after Newtown. If no legislative was taken then after the senseless murder of twenty children and six adults then nothing will be done. Ugh, a gut punch. Representing the conservative viewpoint on the panel, Hugh Hewitt stated that gun regulations are no unconstitutional or that you should be able to identify unusual heavy purchasing in a short time, i.e. raise a red flag. Does Mr. Hewitt understand that he's way to the left of where the practical whole of the Republican party is on this?
And the White House won't lead on guns... Let's face it, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the president is a "f**king moron." In his press conference earlier this week, Sec. Tillerson didn't give it the 'dignity' of a response. Eesh. To be fair, expectations that the president would pick up the issue in a serious way is to betray his base on such a root level that it makes a health care deal with Democrats almost forgivable.
Even as this is being written, the president and retiring Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) are battling it out on social media. Senator Corker said that Rex Tillerson (Sec. of State), John Kelly (Chief of Staff) and John Mattis (Sec. of Def.) are the only once standing in the way of chaos, referring to Mr. Trump's leadership. Predictably the president responded the Mr. Corker had no guts for not running for reelection. Mr. Corker: It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Serious discussions or legislation on guns? Not likely.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Carol Lee, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Mick Mulvaney is despicable as a budget director. As a congressman all he did was rail against any kind of spending. Even on today's program he defended denying funding for the Hurricane Sandy rebuild in New Jersey and New York. He then, today, had the gall to say that the government is going to run deficits to facilitate growth. If things go as planned this further deficit spending will be incurred because of a huge tax cut. Meanwhile, if you're Puerto Rico you're not getting any help if Mr. Mulvaney has his say. There's a man of principle for you.
Harvey Weinstein? Why should we be surprised? In every power-center industry there is always a percentage of sleaze - in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley. To be fair, it's heavily outweighed by good people on the left and the right. Good for Hugh Hewitt to say that even though he absolutely disagrees with Ron Howard or Rob Reiner politically, for example, he states that they are fine people. That's everywhere. In this instance as always go with Eugene Robinson for the most common sense - Growing up in a certain age defense? In any 'age' when was this ever appropriate? Exactly... The conspiracy of silence is probably going to play out ugly...
Oh, and for Rex Tillerson, he'll be out at the turn of the year. After the president's China trip is complete, he'll wind down his profile (unless there is a diplomatic emergency) while rumors will elevate until...
On that happy note, in the wake of the most horrific mass shooting in modern American history in Las Vegas where 58 people lost their lives and over 500 were injured, all that comes about is a debate about having the debate, about guns, which Mr. Todd lead with on today's program.
Exhibit A is the two explanations from Congressman Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) respectively on whether bump stocks should be made illegal, and you can imagine where each one falls on this. I agree with Mr. Scalise that most people didn't even know what a bump stock was a week ago. I certainly didn't. He went on to say that he needed all the facts before he could make a decision on such a ban. However, Ms. Feinstein explained that automatic machine guns are illegal and bump stocks turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns, hence they should be illegal. What more do you need to know? In essence.
However, Mr. Scalise's interpretation of history and the second amendment is a bit warped. Individual guns rights coming before the Constitution is speculative at best. The second amendment does specifically mention 'a well-regulated militia,' which don't exist anymore. If you watch Ken Burn's The Civil War documentary you learn that each state had its own militia all the way up through the end of the war. After the war, a standing national army replaced militias. Some historians have said that after the Civil War, the United States were really formed. Before then it was separate states together on a continent. And that's when the notion of the second amendment and individual guns ownership rights took root. That's not a bad thing, per se.
If we're not going to amend the amendment then a 'militia' has to be taken into account. Military style weapons are unnecessary in society. If you cannot feel comfortable defending your home with a 15-shot clip in a handgun, frankly, then an assault rifle won't do you any more good because you are unqualified to handle one in the first place, probably. Mr. Scalise, shot and almost killed on a baseball field, is still adamant about no restrictions. Wait and see on the bump stock.
You really can't argue with the Senator when she says that mass shooting occur everywhere in this country; it's a literal truth - movie theaters, country music festivals, night clubs, churches, colleges, high schools, office buildings, elementary schools... elementary schools.
NBC News' Kristen Welker is right when she said the gun legislation debate was settled after Newtown. If no legislative was taken then after the senseless murder of twenty children and six adults then nothing will be done. Ugh, a gut punch. Representing the conservative viewpoint on the panel, Hugh Hewitt stated that gun regulations are no unconstitutional or that you should be able to identify unusual heavy purchasing in a short time, i.e. raise a red flag. Does Mr. Hewitt understand that he's way to the left of where the practical whole of the Republican party is on this?
And the White House won't lead on guns... Let's face it, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the president is a "f**king moron." In his press conference earlier this week, Sec. Tillerson didn't give it the 'dignity' of a response. Eesh. To be fair, expectations that the president would pick up the issue in a serious way is to betray his base on such a root level that it makes a health care deal with Democrats almost forgivable.
Even as this is being written, the president and retiring Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) are battling it out on social media. Senator Corker said that Rex Tillerson (Sec. of State), John Kelly (Chief of Staff) and John Mattis (Sec. of Def.) are the only once standing in the way of chaos, referring to Mr. Trump's leadership. Predictably the president responded the Mr. Corker had no guts for not running for reelection. Mr. Corker: It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center.
Serious discussions or legislation on guns? Not likely.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Carol Lee, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post
A couple more things...
Mick Mulvaney is despicable as a budget director. As a congressman all he did was rail against any kind of spending. Even on today's program he defended denying funding for the Hurricane Sandy rebuild in New Jersey and New York. He then, today, had the gall to say that the government is going to run deficits to facilitate growth. If things go as planned this further deficit spending will be incurred because of a huge tax cut. Meanwhile, if you're Puerto Rico you're not getting any help if Mr. Mulvaney has his say. There's a man of principle for you.
Harvey Weinstein? Why should we be surprised? In every power-center industry there is always a percentage of sleaze - in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley. To be fair, it's heavily outweighed by good people on the left and the right. Good for Hugh Hewitt to say that even though he absolutely disagrees with Ron Howard or Rob Reiner politically, for example, he states that they are fine people. That's everywhere. In this instance as always go with Eugene Robinson for the most common sense - Growing up in a certain age defense? In any 'age' when was this ever appropriate? Exactly... The conspiracy of silence is probably going to play out ugly...
Oh, and for Rex Tillerson, he'll be out at the turn of the year. After the president's China trip is complete, he'll wind down his profile (unless there is a diplomatic emergency) while rumors will elevate until...
Sunday, September 17, 2017
9.17.17: It's Put Up or Shut Up Time, No One's Exempt This Week
In being non-ideological and narcissistic as many would describe, President Trump this week has left Democrats and Republicans alike to doubt his position on anything. But when you're goal is to simply get 'wins' and be liked, you're not going to commit to any position. The unfortunate but predictable result of that is nothing gets done, which is what you've seen for the first eight months of his presidency.
Ann Coulter's rhetorical question of "who doesn't want Trump impeached?" is the firebrand's way of asking, "what is this president for?" After this week, everyone is left to wonder. By impulse is no way to run the United States of America and it seems that President Trump hasn't internalized that concept. As far as other conservative commentators are concerned (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al), NBC's Katy Tur who just wrote a book about her experience on the Trump campaign said that the Trump supporter (apparently a new political party according to Chuck Todd, not really) don't even listen to those people. At least they have that going for them.
But the Trump supporter is to the right of the right, the "if I don't like the game, I'm taking the ball and going home" crowd if you will, and what the president showed glimpses of is that he may not be their guy. Mr. Trump plays to the crowd he's in front of, and now conservative commentators are realizing that he really was just playing. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin gave the most succinct insight that only a presidential historian could, which was that Mr. Trump has "lost his mojo."
What is simply inexplicable is how Christian conservatives, white evangelicals can give the president a pass on the president's behavior, statements (past and present) and personal transgressions. David Brody from the Christian Broadcasting Network, who has his finger on the pulse of these things, explained that white evangelicals feel that Mr. Trump is their cultural warrior. Really? The perception is that Mr. Trump is playing to an unconscious (or maybe conscious) xenophobia. If that's a too 'loaded' explanation, that's only one of two possibilities; the other being in opposition to abortion. If the president ever waffles on that, he's lose all that support - the ultimate deal breaker.
And speaking of Christians, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) didn't have much Christian charity to show toward the DREAMers, some of whom have served in the military. I guess he didn't ask about that either in his time in the service, just like he punted on the issue of transgender individuals being allowed to serve. As has been mentioned in this column previously, DACA recipients are Americans, for all intent and purpose, and Mr. Cotton is certainly indifferent to the human element of the issue. The Arkansas senator threw out the phrase "unlimited chain migration," which pushes all the right wing buttons creating another 'immigration boogie' suggesting that this is what is going on now; it's unlimited and endless.
And not to leave out any chastising for the other side, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he would run as a Democrat or Independent. He also punted, on this question, and the problem is that if you want to tell the Democratic party what to do and sometimes, frankly, lecture them on how they should do things, then he should get invested and join the party. Because giving yourself the easy out when you have to backtrack on something or even nuance it by saying, "Oh, well I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent," is sorry to say a little chickenshit. Mr. Sanders, what's it going to be. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Mr. Sanders that Medicare for all is a good plan and you could incrementally integrate it by lowering the requirement age over a series of time periods to absorb cost adjustments. However, what Mr. Sanders wants to do, essentially, is take the profit motive out of health care. And that's not necessarily bad per se, just incredibly difficult.
In the time being, Congress should be working on prescription drug prices down because its behavior on this issue has been disgraceful. Congress enables the pharmaceutical companies to get millions upon millions of Americans on one medication or another, also addictive and deadly (opiates), and then gauge those same Americans on the price. Now that I think of it, that's actually drug dealing, and through campaign contributions, politicians get a cut of that. Too much to think about.
The program also covered North Korea and Chuck Todd's trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands, the latter of which you should go online and watch again, however I wanted to keep the column to the president's actions over the week and the interviews with the respective senators, but no one is exempt this week. On all sides, Americans of all stripes are saying the same thing, "Put up or shut up."
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Katy Tur, NBC News; Alex Cardenas, fmr. president of the American Conservatives Union; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
Ann Coulter's rhetorical question of "who doesn't want Trump impeached?" is the firebrand's way of asking, "what is this president for?" After this week, everyone is left to wonder. By impulse is no way to run the United States of America and it seems that President Trump hasn't internalized that concept. As far as other conservative commentators are concerned (Limbaugh, Hannity, et al), NBC's Katy Tur who just wrote a book about her experience on the Trump campaign said that the Trump supporter (apparently a new political party according to Chuck Todd, not really) don't even listen to those people. At least they have that going for them.
But the Trump supporter is to the right of the right, the "if I don't like the game, I'm taking the ball and going home" crowd if you will, and what the president showed glimpses of is that he may not be their guy. Mr. Trump plays to the crowd he's in front of, and now conservative commentators are realizing that he really was just playing. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin gave the most succinct insight that only a presidential historian could, which was that Mr. Trump has "lost his mojo."
What is simply inexplicable is how Christian conservatives, white evangelicals can give the president a pass on the president's behavior, statements (past and present) and personal transgressions. David Brody from the Christian Broadcasting Network, who has his finger on the pulse of these things, explained that white evangelicals feel that Mr. Trump is their cultural warrior. Really? The perception is that Mr. Trump is playing to an unconscious (or maybe conscious) xenophobia. If that's a too 'loaded' explanation, that's only one of two possibilities; the other being in opposition to abortion. If the president ever waffles on that, he's lose all that support - the ultimate deal breaker.
And speaking of Christians, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) didn't have much Christian charity to show toward the DREAMers, some of whom have served in the military. I guess he didn't ask about that either in his time in the service, just like he punted on the issue of transgender individuals being allowed to serve. As has been mentioned in this column previously, DACA recipients are Americans, for all intent and purpose, and Mr. Cotton is certainly indifferent to the human element of the issue. The Arkansas senator threw out the phrase "unlimited chain migration," which pushes all the right wing buttons creating another 'immigration boogie' suggesting that this is what is going on now; it's unlimited and endless.
And not to leave out any chastising for the other side, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he would run as a Democrat or Independent. He also punted, on this question, and the problem is that if you want to tell the Democratic party what to do and sometimes, frankly, lecture them on how they should do things, then he should get invested and join the party. Because giving yourself the easy out when you have to backtrack on something or even nuance it by saying, "Oh, well I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent," is sorry to say a little chickenshit. Mr. Sanders, what's it going to be. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Mr. Sanders that Medicare for all is a good plan and you could incrementally integrate it by lowering the requirement age over a series of time periods to absorb cost adjustments. However, what Mr. Sanders wants to do, essentially, is take the profit motive out of health care. And that's not necessarily bad per se, just incredibly difficult.
In the time being, Congress should be working on prescription drug prices down because its behavior on this issue has been disgraceful. Congress enables the pharmaceutical companies to get millions upon millions of Americans on one medication or another, also addictive and deadly (opiates), and then gauge those same Americans on the price. Now that I think of it, that's actually drug dealing, and through campaign contributions, politicians get a cut of that. Too much to think about.
***
The program also covered North Korea and Chuck Todd's trip to the U.S. Virgin Islands, the latter of which you should go online and watch again, however I wanted to keep the column to the president's actions over the week and the interviews with the respective senators, but no one is exempt this week. On all sides, Americans of all stripes are saying the same thing, "Put up or shut up."
Panel: Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Katy Tur, NBC News; Alex Cardenas, fmr. president of the American Conservatives Union; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
Sunday, September 10, 2017
9.10.17: Irma Preempts Everything, Covers Everyone
"Meet The Press" has been preempted today due to wall-to-wall coverage of Hurricane Irma, for which we'll say that we hope everyone in the path of the storm comes out the other side of it safely, of course. As it has been said many times, in the midst of a natural disaster there is no politics, no red nor blue, just United States and Americans helping one another.
With that said, such comprehensive storm coverage gives cover to many things, namely special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and the fact that he's seeking to interview six White House staffers, current and former. Normally, this would be huge news but fortunately for Mr. Mueller, the general news media is preoccupied. The most high profile current staffer is interim White House Communications Director Hope Hicks. Former W.H. Press Secretary Sean Spicer and fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus are also on Mr. Mueller's list of interviewees.
The special counsel's interest in these individuals centers around Donald Trump Jr.'s June 2016 meeting with Russian representatives but more specifically who was privy to the discussion about Mr. Trump Jr.'s official statement, crafted by the White House staff on board Air Force One on the way back from the G20 Summit. Just the factual description of the above scenario invites so many obvious questions with potentially damaging answers. For example, did you know about the meeting? Did the president know about this meeting? Why did the White House craft the statement and who was involved in its drafting? Not good stuff, like that... Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said that bungled collusion is still collusion, so are the actions on board Air Force One obstruction?
Of said individuals, the one the administration has to worry about the most, this column believes, is fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Ms. Hicks has been with the president too long, years before he even decided to run, loyal and as close to being family without actually being family. But Mr. Priebus is a different story...
For every situation in question, he was present and who knows at this point how Mr. Priebus is feeling about the president and the administration, which in other words is to question his degree of loyalty to the president at this point in time. As fmr. Chairman of the RNC, Mr. Priebus is a party guy and he knows full well what actions cross the line and which ones do not. But also being a party guy means that ultimately that's where he'll put his faith. Let's face it, he got the hard boot from the White House so the loyalty wasn't reciprocated and he won't end up needing a pardon from the president.
A bit of conjecture there, for sure but the point is that this is a serious development in this investigation, and its not getting crazy coverage, which all told is a good thing.
The other thing that we need to touch on, and yes we have to go there, is the fact of atmospheric change which is causing climate occurrences like droughts and hurricanes, etc. to be much more intense. Even if you don't believe that man's activities are having an effective on the climate changing (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence), we can all agree that these extreme weather events happen and are occurring with more frequency so can't we at least get together on climate event prevention and build and zone cities to accommodate the facts of devastation on the ground?
With that said, such comprehensive storm coverage gives cover to many things, namely special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and the fact that he's seeking to interview six White House staffers, current and former. Normally, this would be huge news but fortunately for Mr. Mueller, the general news media is preoccupied. The most high profile current staffer is interim White House Communications Director Hope Hicks. Former W.H. Press Secretary Sean Spicer and fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus are also on Mr. Mueller's list of interviewees.
The special counsel's interest in these individuals centers around Donald Trump Jr.'s June 2016 meeting with Russian representatives but more specifically who was privy to the discussion about Mr. Trump Jr.'s official statement, crafted by the White House staff on board Air Force One on the way back from the G20 Summit. Just the factual description of the above scenario invites so many obvious questions with potentially damaging answers. For example, did you know about the meeting? Did the president know about this meeting? Why did the White House craft the statement and who was involved in its drafting? Not good stuff, like that... Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said that bungled collusion is still collusion, so are the actions on board Air Force One obstruction?
Of said individuals, the one the administration has to worry about the most, this column believes, is fmr. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Ms. Hicks has been with the president too long, years before he even decided to run, loyal and as close to being family without actually being family. But Mr. Priebus is a different story...
For every situation in question, he was present and who knows at this point how Mr. Priebus is feeling about the president and the administration, which in other words is to question his degree of loyalty to the president at this point in time. As fmr. Chairman of the RNC, Mr. Priebus is a party guy and he knows full well what actions cross the line and which ones do not. But also being a party guy means that ultimately that's where he'll put his faith. Let's face it, he got the hard boot from the White House so the loyalty wasn't reciprocated and he won't end up needing a pardon from the president.
A bit of conjecture there, for sure but the point is that this is a serious development in this investigation, and its not getting crazy coverage, which all told is a good thing.
The other thing that we need to touch on, and yes we have to go there, is the fact of atmospheric change which is causing climate occurrences like droughts and hurricanes, etc. to be much more intense. Even if you don't believe that man's activities are having an effective on the climate changing (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence), we can all agree that these extreme weather events happen and are occurring with more frequency so can't we at least get together on climate event prevention and build and zone cities to accommodate the facts of devastation on the ground?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)