Vice President Joe Biden made his statement yesterday in South Carolina emphatically with a 28 point gap between him and Bernie Sanders who finished second with 20 percent of the vote. It was the type of resounding victory that a candidate not named Bernie Sanders needed. Mr. Biden garnered 48 percent of the vote winning every county in the state. The question that the panel batted around was whether of not South Carolina was an outlier in the race given Senator Sanders' momentum so far.
As a matter of fact, South Carolina is indicative of where Democratic voters are, seeking a more moderate candidate to face Mr. Trump in the general election however, given what's on the horizon - Super Tuesday with Mike Bloomberg on the ballot - it's difficult to see Mr. Biden making it a two person race. For Joe Biden, he need to stay close to Sanders in the delegate count come the results of the primaries on Tuesday and then hope that other moderates (e.g. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar) withdrawal from the race. If that happens then Mr. Biden will make it a two person race and will be at advantage to take the nomination. The moderate vote is great than that of Mr. Sanders but it's being split, which is working to his advantage.
Kristen Welker summed up the Pete Buttigieg interview today saying that Mr. Buttigieg could not name one state in which he sees a victory. That should tell you everything you need to know about where Mr. Buttigieg's campaign is headed, as is Ms. Klobuchar's. As for Elizabeth Warren, she is another pretender for the nomination, and as we've said in the column previously, she would not make a good president.
Another aspect of the Democratic primary that flummoxed the panel was how Latino voters are going to Bernie Sanders and the African-American voters are supporting Joe Biden. Usually these two voting blocks are on the same page, but not this time around. However, it's explainable in as much as given that the Culinary Union in Nevada did not endorse a candidate, it gave the Latino voting block in the state no guidance. The Latino voting block has a familiarity with leftist politics in countries they've emigrated from so Bernie Sanders isn't such a wild idea. However, African-Americans are more pragmatic and conservative, perhaps thoughtful as well, about who they vote for.
Wednesday will supply plenty of clarity as to where we are in the Democratic primary, but as it is looking right now, it's Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. Even though, Mr. Biden has a better chance in against Mr. Trump in the general, there is little doubt that either Mr. Biden or Mr. Sanders would be handling the Coronavirus threat much better than the current administration, who didn't have its priorities straight when considering public health and safety. Prior to the crisis, the Trump administration had cut significant funding from the CDC and EPA, the very two agencies that are seeing their roles becoming more and more significant in terms of national security.
Having Vice President Mike Pence as the point man to combat the potential outbreak is only remotely comforting given the fact the president is certainly not up to the task. President Trump has created a situation in which he can not level with the American people on anything. Now, we're really seeing the danger in this. Mr. Trump has told so many falsehoods in his 3 1/2 years as president but has messaged that his administration has been 'perfect' that no one can count on what the president says. ]
Because of this lack of trust in the president's statements, you see things like the stock market lose 12 percent of its value in a week because of uncertainty, in part created by Mr. Trump. Friday night he told a rally crowd that the Coronavirus was a Democratic hoax, but gave his usual non-walk-back walk back, 'that's not what I said,' at a Saturday during a press conference and then tells the news media told speak responsibly.
And doesn't say a lot of the true character of Mr. Trump that he appointed his Vice President to head up the effort. During the interview, Mr. Pence repeatedly referenced the president's 'good judgement' when it came to early measures and adding that the administration would bring to bear the full resources of the federal government to combat this virus. The president now has his fall guy if things go south, but it's clear that Mr. Trump knows himself that he's not up to the task. His handling of it has not reassured the public or more importantly to the president the market. A Washington Post report explains that it went to the VP's office because of lack of leadership and structure at the White House.
The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan said that the president has been very lucky in terms of not having to had to face any real crises during his presidency. However, this one is certainly demonstrates a 'competency crisis' as Eddie Glaude Jr. described it. Well, the potential of a worldwide viral outbreak is a crisis so in terms of the United States, you have to go with the part of the administration that can actually administer instructions and resources and that is the Vice President's office... Because the White House doesn't have its shit together, to indulge Trumpian vernacular. Going back to the 'full federal resources,' the department that we need the most right now have been cut so heavily by this administration with other key positions unfilled, it's little consolation from the vice-president.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Robert Gibbs, fmr. White House Spokesperson in the Obama Administration; Eddie Glaude Jr., Princeton University
Sunday, March 01, 2020
Sunday, February 23, 2020
2.23.20: An Alternative History Story for the Democratic Establishment... Everyone's Getting Berned
Alternative History stories are quite popular these days, seems for good reason, so here is a stark revisionism for the Democratic Party establishment... Not coming to Netflix.
Let's go back to August 2013 when a proven state's attorney general is given a clean bill of health from his doctor and his oncologist and now has his sight set on running for governor in 2016, and in the state of Delaware the election would have been a lock. On the cusp of his 48th birthday, Joseph Robinette Biden III, known as Beau is elected the 74th governor of Delaware.
In the turbulent age of Trump, Governor Biden proves to have been the right choice running his state effectively, growing its income from what turns out in the eyes of all those incorporated there to be a minuscule tax increase. In the face of the president's flouting of the rule of law in this country, the fmr. JAG office speaks out.
Though he's only been a one-term governor, he demonstrates that rare leadership quality, a clear voice of reason that cuts through the fog and carrying himself wise beyond his years.
February 3, 2019
On his 50th birthday, speaking from the top of the round steps in front of Legislative Hall in the first state of the Union's capital of Dover, Beau Biden announces he's running for president of the United States of America.
Wall Street and business love him because it's Delaware after all, but as a solid Democrat with the Biden name moderates and labor knew exactly where they wanted to go. Because of his father's historically strong support of the African-American community, Beau had their full backing.
With all this support, he didn't let anyone down presenting himself as the obvious with the rhetorical chops to go with it. Despite the vicious attacks on his family, he successfully fought back and cut through it having clearing the moderate lane in the field with strong seasoned debate performances.
Bernie Sanders' movement has great momentum and support but it's not enough to overcome the cumulative support garnered by Governor Biden.
At the Democratic Convention in Milwaukee, Beau Biden accepts the party's nomination as their candidate for president with a soaring speech and gracious words for Senator Sanders who days later gives his full support.
And then...
Standing behind a podium with a BIDEN for PRESIDENT sign, in front of 12,000 people, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the 44th president of the United States of America President Barack Obama.
Game over.
But as it stands, Senator Sanders with a caucus win in Nevada is the clear front runner, and as Dan Pfeiffer explained, it's not too late for a moderate challenge but it's getting pretty close to too late. If Mr. Sanders has a strong showing on Super Tuesday then there's no chance.
However, Mr. Pfeiffer also said that in head-to-head polls Mr. Trump trails Mr. Sanders so if he can 'navigate his vulnerabilities' well he could win.
From the graph, one can see there's legitimate concern across the electorate. Those numbers aren't good, but they're not as bad as they could be.
When you have Hugh Hewitt and James Carville on the same page in terms of the nomination of Bernie Sanders as the general election candidate, there is definitely something wrong. Both feel that it will be a slam dunk reelection win for Trump. Being more refreshingly objective today, Mr. Hewitt thinks the Pete Buttigieg is the strongest to face Trump because he understands middle-small town America.
But it does ring hollow to celebrate second place as Nevada Independent's Jon Ralston explained. Mr. Sanders had a great head start and solidified base before this election cycle and he's running with it, doubling all the other candidates in Nevada.
Obviously, Mike Bloomberg crippled his campaign by rhetorically shooting himself in the foot on the debate stage - woefully prepared - and adding insult to injury he got the proverbial kick square in the nuts from Senator Elizabeth Warren. He has one opportunity coming up to right that.
The only statement you can trust uttered by Marc Short, Chief of Staff for VP Pence, is that the president is comfortable with the state of the Democratic Field.
Panel: Betsy Woodruff Swan, The Daily Beast; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Dan Pfeiffer, "Pod Saves America"; Kimberly Atkins, WBUR in Boston
Let's go back to August 2013 when a proven state's attorney general is given a clean bill of health from his doctor and his oncologist and now has his sight set on running for governor in 2016, and in the state of Delaware the election would have been a lock. On the cusp of his 48th birthday, Joseph Robinette Biden III, known as Beau is elected the 74th governor of Delaware.
In the turbulent age of Trump, Governor Biden proves to have been the right choice running his state effectively, growing its income from what turns out in the eyes of all those incorporated there to be a minuscule tax increase. In the face of the president's flouting of the rule of law in this country, the fmr. JAG office speaks out.
Though he's only been a one-term governor, he demonstrates that rare leadership quality, a clear voice of reason that cuts through the fog and carrying himself wise beyond his years.
February 3, 2019
On his 50th birthday, speaking from the top of the round steps in front of Legislative Hall in the first state of the Union's capital of Dover, Beau Biden announces he's running for president of the United States of America.
Wall Street and business love him because it's Delaware after all, but as a solid Democrat with the Biden name moderates and labor knew exactly where they wanted to go. Because of his father's historically strong support of the African-American community, Beau had their full backing.
With all this support, he didn't let anyone down presenting himself as the obvious with the rhetorical chops to go with it. Despite the vicious attacks on his family, he successfully fought back and cut through it having clearing the moderate lane in the field with strong seasoned debate performances.
Bernie Sanders' movement has great momentum and support but it's not enough to overcome the cumulative support garnered by Governor Biden.
At the Democratic Convention in Milwaukee, Beau Biden accepts the party's nomination as their candidate for president with a soaring speech and gracious words for Senator Sanders who days later gives his full support.
And then...
Standing behind a podium with a BIDEN for PRESIDENT sign, in front of 12,000 people, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the 44th president of the United States of America President Barack Obama.
Game over.
*****
But as it stands, Senator Sanders with a caucus win in Nevada is the clear front runner, and as Dan Pfeiffer explained, it's not too late for a moderate challenge but it's getting pretty close to too late. If Mr. Sanders has a strong showing on Super Tuesday then there's no chance.
However, Mr. Pfeiffer also said that in head-to-head polls Mr. Trump trails Mr. Sanders so if he can 'navigate his vulnerabilities' well he could win.
From the graph, one can see there's legitimate concern across the electorate. Those numbers aren't good, but they're not as bad as they could be.
When you have Hugh Hewitt and James Carville on the same page in terms of the nomination of Bernie Sanders as the general election candidate, there is definitely something wrong. Both feel that it will be a slam dunk reelection win for Trump. Being more refreshingly objective today, Mr. Hewitt thinks the Pete Buttigieg is the strongest to face Trump because he understands middle-small town America.
But it does ring hollow to celebrate second place as Nevada Independent's Jon Ralston explained. Mr. Sanders had a great head start and solidified base before this election cycle and he's running with it, doubling all the other candidates in Nevada.
Obviously, Mike Bloomberg crippled his campaign by rhetorically shooting himself in the foot on the debate stage - woefully prepared - and adding insult to injury he got the proverbial kick square in the nuts from Senator Elizabeth Warren. He has one opportunity coming up to right that.
The only statement you can trust uttered by Marc Short, Chief of Staff for VP Pence, is that the president is comfortable with the state of the Democratic Field.
Panel: Betsy Woodruff Swan, The Daily Beast; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network; Dan Pfeiffer, "Pod Saves America"; Kimberly Atkins, WBUR in Boston
Sunday, February 16, 2020
2.16.20: The Next Two Primary Contests are the Real Clarifiers for Democrats
Lots of good points and dead-on statements were made on today's "Meet The Press" for sure, starting with Vice President Biden's critique of Bernie Sanders. The fmr. VP explained that it's one thing to have ideas, but it's another to get things done. And truth be told, Senator Sanders hasn't gotten much done during his time in the Senate. That is not to say that Senator Sanders ideas are not good or that some version of them can not be passed, but the Vermont Senator hasn't presented them that way. Ideologues in America politics rarely if ever succeed on a national scale. This is just calling as it is seen.
Additionally, Mr. Biden touched an important point that is ever present in our politics where there seems to be no remedy at this point in time and that's the fecklessness on both sides. Mr. Sanders isn't responsible for the personal attacks that his supporters levied online toward the Nevada culinary union leaders, but he has to take some accountability, which he will not do. And then there is Lindsey Graham who is only concerned with maintaining his own position in the Senate, so much so that when the president attacked John McCain, his so-called friend Mr. Graham uttered not a word in his defense. Senator Graham on a consistent basis proves he is no leader and he never will be one. Like many elected officials in his party, the come-to-Jesus moment isn't arriving anytime soon, if at all.
With all that said, this column's opinion that Mr. Biden's window for winning the presidency has passed hasn't changed. To elaborate on that, it's not the attacks from the president on Mr. Biden and his son that the Democratic electorate feel have damaged Mr. Biden's candidacy, it's his lack of a forceful, full-throated response that has disappointed. Conversely, as NBC's Peter Alexander pointed out, despite the criticism of his record and money, Democrats liked the fact that Michael Bloomberg gave it right back to Mr. Trump when the president attacked him. It's not a matter of going low or high or where ever. It's a matter of having fighting back and not letting the president bully you.
Speaking of Mr. Bloomberg, Maria Teresa Kumar asked the pertinent question of which Mr. Bloomberg will show up. Will it be the philanthropist Michael Bloomberg or will it be the Mayor Bloomberg? The philanthropist, as Ms. Kumar outlined, who has given to women's and gun-control organizations is the preference of course. However, Mr. Bloomberg's goal is to meld both into the most positive message. There certainly are difficulties that Mr. Bloomberg will face with regard to his record - 'Stop and Frisk' being at the top of the list. However, as the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson explained, this election is going to be a knife fight certainly like one we've never seen so why shouldn't it the person with the biggest knife for the Democrats? No one on either side is going to match the monetary resources that Mr. Bloomberg brings, but there is a downside that Danielle Pletka pointed out, which is that extreme wealth has an isolating effect on a person. At some point, Mr. Bloomberg is going to have to step out beyond the advertising and choreographed speech appearances. To that end, it's why senator and presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) wants Mr. Bloomberg on the debate stage.
Senator Klobuchar also said that it's necessary for Mr. Bloomberg to appear on programs like "Meet The Press" to answer the difficult questions that he may face. As for Senator Klobuchar's campaign, does she have an encore, as Chuck Todd asked her. It's yet to be seen if she can build on her momentum from the New Hampshire primary, but if you look at all the candidates in the Democratic primary at present, she would be the most formidable challenger to Donald Trump. Maybe she's not on the president's radar for attacks yet, but she is the most difficult to attack and maybe that's why he hasn't done so. She's a Midwest senator will a solid legislative record who garners support from Democrats and moderate Republicans. She has solid bona fides on foreign policy having traveled abroad extensively with John McCain who took her under his wing. She doesn't have the baggage that the president's surrogates can attack, which unfortunately we've already seen from the likes of Rush Limbaugh (The least deserving of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in American history.) who has activated the homophobic dog whistles against Mayor Pete Buttegieg. However, as Ms. Klobuchar admitted, she doesn't have the name recognition that the other candidates do and when it comes to competing in primaries in the south east and west, it's a steep hill to climb.
It's still early and it's anyone's race, but there's no doubt that with Nevada (wish it was a primary instead of a caucus) and South Carolina right around the bend, the writing on the wall will be in permanent ink.
Panel: Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Peter Alexander, NBC; Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino
Additionally, Mr. Biden touched an important point that is ever present in our politics where there seems to be no remedy at this point in time and that's the fecklessness on both sides. Mr. Sanders isn't responsible for the personal attacks that his supporters levied online toward the Nevada culinary union leaders, but he has to take some accountability, which he will not do. And then there is Lindsey Graham who is only concerned with maintaining his own position in the Senate, so much so that when the president attacked John McCain, his so-called friend Mr. Graham uttered not a word in his defense. Senator Graham on a consistent basis proves he is no leader and he never will be one. Like many elected officials in his party, the come-to-Jesus moment isn't arriving anytime soon, if at all.
With all that said, this column's opinion that Mr. Biden's window for winning the presidency has passed hasn't changed. To elaborate on that, it's not the attacks from the president on Mr. Biden and his son that the Democratic electorate feel have damaged Mr. Biden's candidacy, it's his lack of a forceful, full-throated response that has disappointed. Conversely, as NBC's Peter Alexander pointed out, despite the criticism of his record and money, Democrats liked the fact that Michael Bloomberg gave it right back to Mr. Trump when the president attacked him. It's not a matter of going low or high or where ever. It's a matter of having fighting back and not letting the president bully you.
Speaking of Mr. Bloomberg, Maria Teresa Kumar asked the pertinent question of which Mr. Bloomberg will show up. Will it be the philanthropist Michael Bloomberg or will it be the Mayor Bloomberg? The philanthropist, as Ms. Kumar outlined, who has given to women's and gun-control organizations is the preference of course. However, Mr. Bloomberg's goal is to meld both into the most positive message. There certainly are difficulties that Mr. Bloomberg will face with regard to his record - 'Stop and Frisk' being at the top of the list. However, as the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson explained, this election is going to be a knife fight certainly like one we've never seen so why shouldn't it the person with the biggest knife for the Democrats? No one on either side is going to match the monetary resources that Mr. Bloomberg brings, but there is a downside that Danielle Pletka pointed out, which is that extreme wealth has an isolating effect on a person. At some point, Mr. Bloomberg is going to have to step out beyond the advertising and choreographed speech appearances. To that end, it's why senator and presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) wants Mr. Bloomberg on the debate stage.
Senator Klobuchar also said that it's necessary for Mr. Bloomberg to appear on programs like "Meet The Press" to answer the difficult questions that he may face. As for Senator Klobuchar's campaign, does she have an encore, as Chuck Todd asked her. It's yet to be seen if she can build on her momentum from the New Hampshire primary, but if you look at all the candidates in the Democratic primary at present, she would be the most formidable challenger to Donald Trump. Maybe she's not on the president's radar for attacks yet, but she is the most difficult to attack and maybe that's why he hasn't done so. She's a Midwest senator will a solid legislative record who garners support from Democrats and moderate Republicans. She has solid bona fides on foreign policy having traveled abroad extensively with John McCain who took her under his wing. She doesn't have the baggage that the president's surrogates can attack, which unfortunately we've already seen from the likes of Rush Limbaugh (The least deserving of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in American history.) who has activated the homophobic dog whistles against Mayor Pete Buttegieg. However, as Ms. Klobuchar admitted, she doesn't have the name recognition that the other candidates do and when it comes to competing in primaries in the south east and west, it's a steep hill to climb.
It's still early and it's anyone's race, but there's no doubt that with Nevada (wish it was a primary instead of a caucus) and South Carolina right around the bend, the writing on the wall will be in permanent ink.
Panel: Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Peter Alexander, NBC; Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino
Sunday, February 09, 2020
2.9.20: Still Too Early For Democratic Primary Predictions, However...
In the course of today's "Meet The Press" the issue of President Trump's acquittal in the Senate this week was only briefly touched on in comparison to the discussion of what is going in the Democratic primary.
We'll tackle this first as the question was asked, "What was the lesson that the president learned?" But the more significant question is "what we have learned?" Mr. Trump, as Kasie Hunt pointed out, feels that he can be vindictive as he wants and take any actions he thinks will benefit him, given the Republican-controlled Senate's vote. What have we learned? We've learned that this president is now free to operate above the law as it would apply to an ordinary citizen and that his behavior and methods will not change.
The political fallout in November is still too soon to predict, but one thing is certain and that is Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is continually getting played by this president and frankly when she suggests that she hopes Mr. Trump has learned a lesson from all this, she is being hopelessly naive and the streak of independence that she purports to have looks like a joke. At the end of the day, she'll go along with the crowd.
As for the Democrats, even with the Iowa debacle behind them and on the cusp of the New Hampshire primary it is still really too soon to tell who the nominee will be come the general, but right now, the two front runners are Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and fmr. South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg who Chuck Todd interviewed this morning.
Make no mistake, both would have a very difficult and perhaps improbable road to the White House if either was to become the nominee. Also, for the record, Mr. Todd challenged Mr. Sanders less than he did with Mayor Pete, as he is known.
Mr. Sanders is an ideologue for the left, which being as such, will make it problematic for him to win. Medicare-for-all and other proposals that Mr. Sanders is advocating for sound good, but practically speaking are unattainable. We're not trying to burst anyone's bubble, but looking at pragmatically, the votes will never come to pass such societal changes.
As for Mayor Pete, he takes a much more centrist approach; case in point would be with healthcare and creating a public option within the Affordable Care Act. However, with both of these two candidates, one word comes to mind when thinking of either of them in the general election.
Surrogates.
President Trump will denigrate socialism himself if going up against Mr. Sanders. He's done as much already, but his surrogates will pull out all of the statements he's made from the past 40 years and put Bernie on the defensive for every one of them. Mr. Sanders, corrected Mr. Todd when the moderator posed the notion that people are scared on the word "socialism," calling what he is for is "democratic socialism." It's not going to matter. Middle America doesn't want to be Europe, especially when they find out that they'll have to pay more in taxes to have Medicare-for-all.
During the interview with Pete Buttigieg, Mr. Todd played a clip showing an Iowa woman being told that Mr. Buttigieg is gay and then her saying that she wants to change her vote because of it. Mr. Buttigieg's answer was compassionate inasmuch as he said that he was saddened by the answer but that if he were the president, he would be working hard for her too. The majority of Americans do not take issue with Mr. Buttigieg's private life, but unfortunately, the president's surrogates will know no low when it comes to smearing the fmr. mayor's sexuality. It's this type of harsh reality that the country will have to prepare for, and again, frankly, they're not ready to be so open minded. Sad but true.
As for Joe Biden, he will likely finish fourth again in New Hampshire creating even stronger headwinds for his campaign. Mr. Biden will be in the race until at least super Tuesday, which will be the great determining factor in deciding the nominee. However, one can't help but think that Mr. Biden has missed his window. Objectively, he just hasn't been as sharp as he needs to be this time around to capture the nomination.
And speaking of super Tuesday, with all the talk of the primaries, there is still the candidacy of billionaire and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg looming over the entire field. Mr. Bloomberg is putting all his resources into advertising leading up to that day. After super Tuesday, it will become very clear whether Mr. Bloomberg will continue or not. Regarding his resources, i.e. money, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent $273 million dollars on advertising, completely dwarfing the entire field.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has contested that someone should not be able to buy his way into the nomination. However, it's difficult for this column to condemn Mr. Bloomberg for the way he is conducting his campaign because given all the hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money that plays a role in political campaigns, we know that all the money that Mr. Bloomberg has spent is his own. Mr. Buttigieg explained that there is little substitute for retail politics - listening to the electorate and communicating with them face to face - and as Mr. Sanders stated today, campaigns are about more than just money, you still need the message and the votes.
It's too early to make any predictions with the exception that once the general is upon us, Mr. Trump will be sure to make it the ugliest campaign we've ever witnessed.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; John E. Sununu; Claire McCaskill, fmr. Senator of Missouri; Joshua Johnson, MSNBC
We'll tackle this first as the question was asked, "What was the lesson that the president learned?" But the more significant question is "what we have learned?" Mr. Trump, as Kasie Hunt pointed out, feels that he can be vindictive as he wants and take any actions he thinks will benefit him, given the Republican-controlled Senate's vote. What have we learned? We've learned that this president is now free to operate above the law as it would apply to an ordinary citizen and that his behavior and methods will not change.
The political fallout in November is still too soon to predict, but one thing is certain and that is Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is continually getting played by this president and frankly when she suggests that she hopes Mr. Trump has learned a lesson from all this, she is being hopelessly naive and the streak of independence that she purports to have looks like a joke. At the end of the day, she'll go along with the crowd.
As for the Democrats, even with the Iowa debacle behind them and on the cusp of the New Hampshire primary it is still really too soon to tell who the nominee will be come the general, but right now, the two front runners are Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and fmr. South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg who Chuck Todd interviewed this morning.
Make no mistake, both would have a very difficult and perhaps improbable road to the White House if either was to become the nominee. Also, for the record, Mr. Todd challenged Mr. Sanders less than he did with Mayor Pete, as he is known.
Mr. Sanders is an ideologue for the left, which being as such, will make it problematic for him to win. Medicare-for-all and other proposals that Mr. Sanders is advocating for sound good, but practically speaking are unattainable. We're not trying to burst anyone's bubble, but looking at pragmatically, the votes will never come to pass such societal changes.
As for Mayor Pete, he takes a much more centrist approach; case in point would be with healthcare and creating a public option within the Affordable Care Act. However, with both of these two candidates, one word comes to mind when thinking of either of them in the general election.
Surrogates.
President Trump will denigrate socialism himself if going up against Mr. Sanders. He's done as much already, but his surrogates will pull out all of the statements he's made from the past 40 years and put Bernie on the defensive for every one of them. Mr. Sanders, corrected Mr. Todd when the moderator posed the notion that people are scared on the word "socialism," calling what he is for is "democratic socialism." It's not going to matter. Middle America doesn't want to be Europe, especially when they find out that they'll have to pay more in taxes to have Medicare-for-all.
During the interview with Pete Buttigieg, Mr. Todd played a clip showing an Iowa woman being told that Mr. Buttigieg is gay and then her saying that she wants to change her vote because of it. Mr. Buttigieg's answer was compassionate inasmuch as he said that he was saddened by the answer but that if he were the president, he would be working hard for her too. The majority of Americans do not take issue with Mr. Buttigieg's private life, but unfortunately, the president's surrogates will know no low when it comes to smearing the fmr. mayor's sexuality. It's this type of harsh reality that the country will have to prepare for, and again, frankly, they're not ready to be so open minded. Sad but true.
As for Joe Biden, he will likely finish fourth again in New Hampshire creating even stronger headwinds for his campaign. Mr. Biden will be in the race until at least super Tuesday, which will be the great determining factor in deciding the nominee. However, one can't help but think that Mr. Biden has missed his window. Objectively, he just hasn't been as sharp as he needs to be this time around to capture the nomination.
And speaking of super Tuesday, with all the talk of the primaries, there is still the candidacy of billionaire and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg looming over the entire field. Mr. Bloomberg is putting all his resources into advertising leading up to that day. After super Tuesday, it will become very clear whether Mr. Bloomberg will continue or not. Regarding his resources, i.e. money, Mr. Bloomberg has already spent $273 million dollars on advertising, completely dwarfing the entire field.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has contested that someone should not be able to buy his way into the nomination. However, it's difficult for this column to condemn Mr. Bloomberg for the way he is conducting his campaign because given all the hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money that plays a role in political campaigns, we know that all the money that Mr. Bloomberg has spent is his own. Mr. Buttigieg explained that there is little substitute for retail politics - listening to the electorate and communicating with them face to face - and as Mr. Sanders stated today, campaigns are about more than just money, you still need the message and the votes.
It's too early to make any predictions with the exception that once the general is upon us, Mr. Trump will be sure to make it the ugliest campaign we've ever witnessed.
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; John E. Sununu; Claire McCaskill, fmr. Senator of Missouri; Joshua Johnson, MSNBC
Tuesday, February 04, 2020
2.4.20: The Presidential Infommerical... The State of the Union
For the Presidential infommercial... uhhhh... The State of the Union address, we took some notes and added a few reactions. I say it in the notes, but he only spoke to one side of the room. Raw steak anyone?
Walks into the chamber at 9:03.
It will be interesting to see how he will address impeachment, and he certainly will.
He's not smiling at all. He doesn't look happy.
At the rostrum...
The president didn't shake the House Speaker's hand.
Republicans are chanting "4 more years."
"Our country is highly respected again."
"The years of economic decay are over."
Lots of platitudes into "the state of our union is stronger than ever before."
He's only addressing one side of the room. He's not even looking at the other side.
The failed economic policies of the previous administration. Obama gave him this economy.
7M off food stamps and 10M off welfare, really?
16% wage increase for low income workers since his election.
Blue collar boom.
Kyrsten Sinema stood up for tax cuts.
Tony Rankins - veteran success story.
Regulation reduction campaign.
Mike Pence can't wait to stand up. The vice president has a man-crush on Donald Trump.
Unlike so many before me, I keep my promises. OMG.
China trade... and farmer bailouts.
Socialist Dictator of Venezuela... Maduro's grip will be on power will be coming to an end.
Juan Guaido in the house.
Socialism destroys nations - a shot at Bernie.
Allies are now paying their fair share.
The SPACE FORCE. I'm kind of in for the Space Force. Sounds like a cartoon, but whatever.
The only victories in Washington are the ones that delivery for the American people.
Put America first...
Failing government schools... The knock on public education.
School choice...
Opportunity scholarship, awarded by the president.
No child should be forced to send their child to a failing government school.
The Be Best initiative... Yeah, whatever happened to that? Does the first lady do anything?
Vocational and technical training in every single high school. But where would that training take place? In public high schools.
Healthcare is 60% less expensive and better since he came into office. Huh?
Shot at Medicare for all.
Ban free government healthcare for illegal aliens, but they don't get that now. "A very tall and powerful wall is being built."
There is no fact-checking this in real time, but there is no way he's being honest about any of this.
Rush Limbaugh shot out - diagnosed with stage four cancer. No one has done more to divide America. Don't wish anyone ill will, but...
And now the Presidential Medal of Freedom, please.
Oh brother. Thought this was the State of the Union address.
Asking Congress for the banning late-term abortions.
Paid family leave for government workers - He signed the bill but he didn't want to. He didn't want to give them the money.
We must also build America's infrastructure.
The heroic I.C.E. officers - 120,000+ criminal aliens.
Illegal aliens were responsible for over 2,000 murders?
Going after New York and California for their immigration policies...
My administration has ended catch and release. You will be promptly removed from our country, after your separated from your family.
The Constitutional right to pray in public schools... on if you're a Christian. Keep religion out of the schools.
Second Amendment applause line... Yada yada yada.
It's just weird that reality is so much different than how President Trump describes it.
It's nice that the brought the soldier back, but it's cheap politics. What about the rest of the troops not getting preferential treatment.
America is a land of heroes... Weird sense of history. Reminiscing about America is very Trump.
He didn't even touch impeachment or anything close to it... Well, that's a relief.
Nancy Pelosi torn up the speech before he even left.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) gives the Democratic response.
Walks into the chamber at 9:03.
It will be interesting to see how he will address impeachment, and he certainly will.
He's not smiling at all. He doesn't look happy.
At the rostrum...
The president didn't shake the House Speaker's hand.
Republicans are chanting "4 more years."
"Our country is highly respected again."
"The years of economic decay are over."
Lots of platitudes into "the state of our union is stronger than ever before."
He's only addressing one side of the room. He's not even looking at the other side.
The failed economic policies of the previous administration. Obama gave him this economy.
7M off food stamps and 10M off welfare, really?
16% wage increase for low income workers since his election.
Blue collar boom.
Kyrsten Sinema stood up for tax cuts.
Tony Rankins - veteran success story.
Regulation reduction campaign.
Mike Pence can't wait to stand up. The vice president has a man-crush on Donald Trump.
Unlike so many before me, I keep my promises. OMG.
China trade... and farmer bailouts.
Socialist Dictator of Venezuela... Maduro's grip will be on power will be coming to an end.
Juan Guaido in the house.
Socialism destroys nations - a shot at Bernie.
Allies are now paying their fair share.
The SPACE FORCE. I'm kind of in for the Space Force. Sounds like a cartoon, but whatever.
The only victories in Washington are the ones that delivery for the American people.
Put America first...
Failing government schools... The knock on public education.
School choice...
Opportunity scholarship, awarded by the president.
No child should be forced to send their child to a failing government school.
The Be Best initiative... Yeah, whatever happened to that? Does the first lady do anything?
Vocational and technical training in every single high school. But where would that training take place? In public high schools.
Healthcare is 60% less expensive and better since he came into office. Huh?
Shot at Medicare for all.
Ban free government healthcare for illegal aliens, but they don't get that now. "A very tall and powerful wall is being built."
There is no fact-checking this in real time, but there is no way he's being honest about any of this.
Rush Limbaugh shot out - diagnosed with stage four cancer. No one has done more to divide America. Don't wish anyone ill will, but...
And now the Presidential Medal of Freedom, please.
Oh brother. Thought this was the State of the Union address.
Asking Congress for the banning late-term abortions.
Paid family leave for government workers - He signed the bill but he didn't want to. He didn't want to give them the money.
We must also build America's infrastructure.
The heroic I.C.E. officers - 120,000+ criminal aliens.
Illegal aliens were responsible for over 2,000 murders?
Going after New York and California for their immigration policies...
My administration has ended catch and release. You will be promptly removed from our country, after your separated from your family.
The Constitutional right to pray in public schools... on if you're a Christian. Keep religion out of the schools.
Second Amendment applause line... Yada yada yada.
It's just weird that reality is so much different than how President Trump describes it.
It's nice that the brought the soldier back, but it's cheap politics. What about the rest of the troops not getting preferential treatment.
America is a land of heroes... Weird sense of history. Reminiscing about America is very Trump.
He didn't even touch impeachment or anything close to it... Well, that's a relief.
Nancy Pelosi torn up the speech before he even left.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) gives the Democratic response.
Sunday, February 02, 2020
2.2.20: Instructive Iowa Caucuses Against the Backdrop of an Impotent Impeachment
Well, no one said it wouldn't be interesting. First interviews after the Senate's vote to not call for witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial, the Iowa Caucus tomorrow, State of the Union on Tuesday and the final vote in the Senate on Wednesday all mean that it's time to buckle up.
For a change of pace as this column has been wont not to comment on primary politics thus far, for all the noise that has been out there and we've taken the patience to see how things would shake out a bit before weighing in.
For all the complaints about the Iowa Caucuses, for Democrats they will be very instructive this election cycle.
Some argue that Iowa isn't diverse enough to be first and it's not a secret ballot, which as Tom Brokaw explained can cause some people to stay home. However, he also said that Iowans take their citizenship seriously and come out for these, as we all know. The Iowa Caucuses are the last rally for the candidates. They just happen to be all on the same night and they count this time. As today's panel agreed, the Democratic primary is so fluid because of all the factors at work for each candidate, serious citizens in public will provide some good guidance for the rest of the electorate, geography and the Bloomberg factor taken into consideration.
Democratic Strategist Cornell Belcher said with no clear front runner, Biden could finish anywhere from first to fourth. The elephant in the room of course is which candidate has sound proposes but more importantly beat Trump. Of the candidates at the top in Iowa - Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar - only three of the five survive the second test against Trump.
The National Review's Rich Lowry described Bernie Sanders as radioactive in terms of the attacks he'll face from conservatives, and he's right. Elizabeth Warren will get crushed in a general election, which leaves us with Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. In Iowa however, Sanders energy may carry the day. This is a scenario where Iowa will be less beneficial as a first stop because if Biden is still in for Super Tuesday, he and Bloomberg will be fighting it out. Anna Palmer from Politico explained that if Biden doesn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire that could be it for him, with Mr. Lowry adding that Mr. Biden suffers from low enthusiasm. In a general election, enthusiasm ground can be made up with Biden's pick for vice-president, 'steady hand at the top bolstered by high energy.'
With all that said, we can only tell you that Elizabeth Warren will have the most disappointing night of all the previous mentioned.
It turns out that Senator Lamar Alexander's (R-TN) word on impeachment was the really the final one. He explained that there was no need for witnesses and documents because the Democratic House Managers clearly proved that President Trump pressured Ukraine for an investigation of the Bidens by withholding military aid. However, this action doesn't warrant the removal of the president from office with an election about to start. Mr. Alexander went on to say that the public should be the ones to decide.
Senator Alexander's reasoned explanation is understandable, but as Mr. Belcher pointed out it ignores the moral obligation to the Constitution and the rule of law, which is where we should all land. The president broke the law and he knew he was doing it. At one point Mr. Alexander said that maybe Mr. Trump didn't know not to do what he did, which is inexcusable to use as an excuse, especially at this point given the entire Russia investigation and the fact that Mr. Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president the day after Robert Mueller testified. What we will come to learn is that information will come out that confirms why the president could not be removed. EU Ambassador Gordan Sondland's statement "that everyone was in the loop" will prove correct.
But there you have it. The acquittal will be on Wednesday. The Tennessee senator recommended that during the State of the Union, the president shouldn't mention it at all, but something tells us that Mr. Trump won't be able to hold back in front of a national audience.
Mr. Lowry questioned why if impeachment is such a moral obligation then why haven't Iowa voters been talking about it, to which O. Kay Henderson, Iowa Radio News Director, responded that because of the foregone conclusion of what the Senate would do, there wasn't the need. Everyone knows where the Democratic candidates stand on it. Despite Mr. Lowry sophomoric observation, the impeachment vote and the Republican rollover will be a factor come the general election in November.
If many Republican senators feel the same as Mr. Alexander, maybe a censure of the president is called for - the proverbial slap on the wrist. Censure would be a win for Democrats. Not only could they say that the trial was a sham because Republicans didn't fulfill their obligation, but then they can also say that Republicans admit what the president did was wrong because of censure. That would have the president sniping at Republican Senators who are in enough trouble trying to hold onto their seats, just as Ms. Henderson said of Senator Joni Ernst in Iowa.
Panel: O. Kay Henderson, News Director Radio Iowa; Anna Palmer, Politico; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist
One more thing...
Can't forget about the Super Bowl - Andy Reid gets the championship, Chiefs all the way!
For a change of pace as this column has been wont not to comment on primary politics thus far, for all the noise that has been out there and we've taken the patience to see how things would shake out a bit before weighing in.
For all the complaints about the Iowa Caucuses, for Democrats they will be very instructive this election cycle.
Some argue that Iowa isn't diverse enough to be first and it's not a secret ballot, which as Tom Brokaw explained can cause some people to stay home. However, he also said that Iowans take their citizenship seriously and come out for these, as we all know. The Iowa Caucuses are the last rally for the candidates. They just happen to be all on the same night and they count this time. As today's panel agreed, the Democratic primary is so fluid because of all the factors at work for each candidate, serious citizens in public will provide some good guidance for the rest of the electorate, geography and the Bloomberg factor taken into consideration.
Democratic Strategist Cornell Belcher said with no clear front runner, Biden could finish anywhere from first to fourth. The elephant in the room of course is which candidate has sound proposes but more importantly beat Trump. Of the candidates at the top in Iowa - Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar - only three of the five survive the second test against Trump.
The National Review's Rich Lowry described Bernie Sanders as radioactive in terms of the attacks he'll face from conservatives, and he's right. Elizabeth Warren will get crushed in a general election, which leaves us with Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. In Iowa however, Sanders energy may carry the day. This is a scenario where Iowa will be less beneficial as a first stop because if Biden is still in for Super Tuesday, he and Bloomberg will be fighting it out. Anna Palmer from Politico explained that if Biden doesn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire that could be it for him, with Mr. Lowry adding that Mr. Biden suffers from low enthusiasm. In a general election, enthusiasm ground can be made up with Biden's pick for vice-president, 'steady hand at the top bolstered by high energy.'
With all that said, we can only tell you that Elizabeth Warren will have the most disappointing night of all the previous mentioned.
*****
It turns out that Senator Lamar Alexander's (R-TN) word on impeachment was the really the final one. He explained that there was no need for witnesses and documents because the Democratic House Managers clearly proved that President Trump pressured Ukraine for an investigation of the Bidens by withholding military aid. However, this action doesn't warrant the removal of the president from office with an election about to start. Mr. Alexander went on to say that the public should be the ones to decide.
Senator Alexander's reasoned explanation is understandable, but as Mr. Belcher pointed out it ignores the moral obligation to the Constitution and the rule of law, which is where we should all land. The president broke the law and he knew he was doing it. At one point Mr. Alexander said that maybe Mr. Trump didn't know not to do what he did, which is inexcusable to use as an excuse, especially at this point given the entire Russia investigation and the fact that Mr. Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president the day after Robert Mueller testified. What we will come to learn is that information will come out that confirms why the president could not be removed. EU Ambassador Gordan Sondland's statement "that everyone was in the loop" will prove correct.
But there you have it. The acquittal will be on Wednesday. The Tennessee senator recommended that during the State of the Union, the president shouldn't mention it at all, but something tells us that Mr. Trump won't be able to hold back in front of a national audience.
Mr. Lowry questioned why if impeachment is such a moral obligation then why haven't Iowa voters been talking about it, to which O. Kay Henderson, Iowa Radio News Director, responded that because of the foregone conclusion of what the Senate would do, there wasn't the need. Everyone knows where the Democratic candidates stand on it. Despite Mr. Lowry sophomoric observation, the impeachment vote and the Republican rollover will be a factor come the general election in November.
If many Republican senators feel the same as Mr. Alexander, maybe a censure of the president is called for - the proverbial slap on the wrist. Censure would be a win for Democrats. Not only could they say that the trial was a sham because Republicans didn't fulfill their obligation, but then they can also say that Republicans admit what the president did was wrong because of censure. That would have the president sniping at Republican Senators who are in enough trouble trying to hold onto their seats, just as Ms. Henderson said of Senator Joni Ernst in Iowa.
Panel: O. Kay Henderson, News Director Radio Iowa; Anna Palmer, Politico; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Strategist
One more thing...
Can't forget about the Super Bowl - Andy Reid gets the championship, Chiefs all the way!
Sunday, January 26, 2020
1.26.19: False Hope for a Fair Impeachment Trial
Despite senators getting into a bit of tizzy about House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff's comment about having their heads put on a spike (figuratively) by this president if they stand up to him, it's still surprising that as NBC's Kristen Welker explained, there aren't 4 votes at this time from the Republican side of the aisle to call witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle are quite attuned to the stances that keep them in the good graces of their constituents at home but at the moment it is most evident that Senate Republicans are trying to figure out how to best save their political skins.
Republican senators such as Mitt Romney (UT), Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) are all sending mixed messages so as to avoid any direct heat one way or the other because at least 70 percent of the American people according to polling want to see witnesses called by Senators. The aforementioned Senators and others are concerned with the polls, though it's quite clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not. Mr. McConnell has never been one to care about the American people's opinion writ large and this time will be no different.
Why haven't any senators come forward, Romney tepidly, to call for witnesses. As the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter explained, there is no upside for moderate Republicans. It's a lose-lose for someone like Susan Collins in Maine. If Senator Collins softens on witnesses, she upset her base and Democrats in her state will say, 'good for you,' but still won't vote her. Ms. Collins only has a principled stand, in which to make a statement. However, what we've seen in the past, she'll twist those principles for political survivor. The same case can be made for Senator Corey Gardner (R) in Colorado and Joni Ernst in Iowa. There's no motivation to alienate the base if you're not going to pull moderates or Democrats over.
Even if there were 4 votes in favor of calling witnesses, a fair trial is simply not going to happen if Mr. McConnell has anything to say about it, and he does; he sets all the rules - from length of testimony to how many to what time they testify to admissible evidence, all of it.
Adam Schiff once again made his case today on having a fair trial and the American people knowing the whole truth, which includes calling witnesses and handing over documents. Neither have been forthcoming from the administration throughout the process. But no matter what, fairness will remain elusive in the midst of continuing complains because the outcome has already been decided.
Mr. Schiff reminded us that the president's counsel has not made the argument against the facts of what Mr. Trump did and orchestrated, but the process by which the House arrived to the point. He also made the case for removal on the factual basis that this isn't the first time the president has welcomed foreign interference in the election and will be free to continue this behavior.
This brings us to Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) who said that he thinks that the president will learn from this episode and not repeat this kind of behavior. Me thinks Mr. Braun a bit naive. He did sound quite reasonable in explaining this and for anyone else living in the normal world, it would be a teaching moment, but we're talking about Donald Trump, for whom the rules do not apply apparently. Mr. Braun said that a Senator's view about calling witnesses is very much dependent on constituents' views, which means that he'll be looking at the polls in his state, but safe to say that it would be to everyone's astonishment if Mr. Braun voted for them.
However, as Senator and candidate for president Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said, we may be surprised about who and how many will vote to call witnesses. A strong candidate with weak poll numbers, but let's hope springs eternal for improvement for both.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Lanhee Chen, Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine
One more thing...
Chuck Todd mentioned the Lev Parnas recording of the president saying get rid of her [then Ukraine Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch) to which he asked if it would be better to get all this out in the open by calling witnesses, instead of finding all this out later. It's all about the short game for Republicans as Mr. Leibovich mentioned and also said that acquittal for the president may not be as great as everyone on his side would think. He didn't elaborate but after the president is acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate, drips and draps of information are going to be hitting throughout election season right up until the end in November.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle are quite attuned to the stances that keep them in the good graces of their constituents at home but at the moment it is most evident that Senate Republicans are trying to figure out how to best save their political skins.
Republican senators such as Mitt Romney (UT), Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) are all sending mixed messages so as to avoid any direct heat one way or the other because at least 70 percent of the American people according to polling want to see witnesses called by Senators. The aforementioned Senators and others are concerned with the polls, though it's quite clear that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is not. Mr. McConnell has never been one to care about the American people's opinion writ large and this time will be no different.
Why haven't any senators come forward, Romney tepidly, to call for witnesses. As the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter explained, there is no upside for moderate Republicans. It's a lose-lose for someone like Susan Collins in Maine. If Senator Collins softens on witnesses, she upset her base and Democrats in her state will say, 'good for you,' but still won't vote her. Ms. Collins only has a principled stand, in which to make a statement. However, what we've seen in the past, she'll twist those principles for political survivor. The same case can be made for Senator Corey Gardner (R) in Colorado and Joni Ernst in Iowa. There's no motivation to alienate the base if you're not going to pull moderates or Democrats over.
Even if there were 4 votes in favor of calling witnesses, a fair trial is simply not going to happen if Mr. McConnell has anything to say about it, and he does; he sets all the rules - from length of testimony to how many to what time they testify to admissible evidence, all of it.
Adam Schiff once again made his case today on having a fair trial and the American people knowing the whole truth, which includes calling witnesses and handing over documents. Neither have been forthcoming from the administration throughout the process. But no matter what, fairness will remain elusive in the midst of continuing complains because the outcome has already been decided.
Mr. Schiff reminded us that the president's counsel has not made the argument against the facts of what Mr. Trump did and orchestrated, but the process by which the House arrived to the point. He also made the case for removal on the factual basis that this isn't the first time the president has welcomed foreign interference in the election and will be free to continue this behavior.
This brings us to Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) who said that he thinks that the president will learn from this episode and not repeat this kind of behavior. Me thinks Mr. Braun a bit naive. He did sound quite reasonable in explaining this and for anyone else living in the normal world, it would be a teaching moment, but we're talking about Donald Trump, for whom the rules do not apply apparently. Mr. Braun said that a Senator's view about calling witnesses is very much dependent on constituents' views, which means that he'll be looking at the polls in his state, but safe to say that it would be to everyone's astonishment if Mr. Braun voted for them.
However, as Senator and candidate for president Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said, we may be surprised about who and how many will vote to call witnesses. A strong candidate with weak poll numbers, but let's hope springs eternal for improvement for both.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Lanhee Chen, Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine
One more thing...
Chuck Todd mentioned the Lev Parnas recording of the president saying get rid of her [then Ukraine Ambassador Maria Yovanovitch) to which he asked if it would be better to get all this out in the open by calling witnesses, instead of finding all this out later. It's all about the short game for Republicans as Mr. Leibovich mentioned and also said that acquittal for the president may not be as great as everyone on his side would think. He didn't elaborate but after the president is acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate, drips and draps of information are going to be hitting throughout election season right up until the end in November.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
1.12.20: A Reckless or Bold Decision?
The question that framed the interviews and the panel discussion was whether the president's decision to kill Iranian Maj. General Qassem Soleimani was reckless or bold. From what we know, it was really both. It was bold because of the options that were presented to the president, he chose the boldest move. However, it was also reckless because he didn't have a strategy or forethought as to what would happen after it.
And then there are the shifting explanations for the administration's timing of the strike and the fact that senior congressional officials were not notified prior to the operation, which speaks to the point that Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO) made that the president and his administration hold both the American people and Congress in contempt. The administration seems to feel that they do not owe any explanation for their actions to anyone. As an American, you demand an honest accounting of actions such as this done in your name. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) pointed out the inconsistency of saying that the threat was imminent but they couldn't identify when or where exactly.
In last week's column, we stated indicated reticence regarding the cynical motivation that by executing this strike against Soleimani that it would distract from impeachment. However, there was a point touched on that raises the proverbial eyebrow when it was pointed out that the president said that fmr. National Security Advisor John Bolton can not testify before the Senate because he was involved with administration discussions on Iran.
Speaking of the National Security Advisor, during the interview with the current NSA Robert O'Brien, he stated, twice, that the intelligence on threats to embassies was 'exquisite.' Using a term such as that immediately raises a red flag given that it connotes that there was 100% certainty in the information. Using Senator Paul's phrase, it's hard to square that circle. First, never is there 100% certainty in intelligence, hardly enough to make it exquisite. Secondly, the president has repeatedly said that the U.S. intelligence community is the 'deep state' and is not to be trusted so the American people need to trust that he trusts now? NPR's Steve Inskeep explained that when the president says he believes there was an imminent threat to American embassies, you can not fact check a belief. Extrapolating that out, it means that if you do not believe what the president does, you're labeled by the president as crooked or even treasonous.
With that said, Time magazine columnist and founder of 'The Dispatch' David French (notably no longer with the National Review) explained that all of these vague explanations were unnecessary. Mr. French explained that Soleimani was an enemy combatant in a theater of war and was therefore fair game and a lawful target. He explained that the administration could have united the country but instead just decided on an 'own the libs' strategy. One shouldn't be surprised if the administration now throws that explanation into the stew. Unfortunately, the president has never once in his three years in office decided to try to be the president for all Americans.
All of this speaks to two larger points. The first of which is war powers debate and Congress taking back it's authority to grant the administration use of military force, as Senator Paul was talking about. You would have to agree that it is a wise idea and it wouldn't be that controversial for bipartisan support. However, given the state of our politics, the House's vote this week on such a measure didn't garner any bipartisan support. It's become a reflexive notion to not support anything other side of the aisle is for, at least in the House. On top of this, Congress has ceded war powers to the executive branch for so long through Democratic and Republican administrations alike that it will take an extraordinary circumstance for them to regain control of this issue.
Then there is the administration's overall foreign policy strategy and the fact that, sadly, there doesn't really seem to be one. Regarding Iran, it's clear that the administration didn't have an answer for the what if, had the regime decided for direct military confrontation, e.g. war. One of the end results of these recent actions is that NATO allies have no faith in what the United States is doing. And whether it be North Korea, a one-sided love affair gone bad; or a resurgent Russia and its de facto cyberwar; or China and the economic cold war there don't seem to be many tangible results beneficial to Americans.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC; David French, Time Columnist; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour;
Steve Inskeep, NPR
And then there are the shifting explanations for the administration's timing of the strike and the fact that senior congressional officials were not notified prior to the operation, which speaks to the point that Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO) made that the president and his administration hold both the American people and Congress in contempt. The administration seems to feel that they do not owe any explanation for their actions to anyone. As an American, you demand an honest accounting of actions such as this done in your name. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) pointed out the inconsistency of saying that the threat was imminent but they couldn't identify when or where exactly.
In last week's column, we stated indicated reticence regarding the cynical motivation that by executing this strike against Soleimani that it would distract from impeachment. However, there was a point touched on that raises the proverbial eyebrow when it was pointed out that the president said that fmr. National Security Advisor John Bolton can not testify before the Senate because he was involved with administration discussions on Iran.
Speaking of the National Security Advisor, during the interview with the current NSA Robert O'Brien, he stated, twice, that the intelligence on threats to embassies was 'exquisite.' Using a term such as that immediately raises a red flag given that it connotes that there was 100% certainty in the information. Using Senator Paul's phrase, it's hard to square that circle. First, never is there 100% certainty in intelligence, hardly enough to make it exquisite. Secondly, the president has repeatedly said that the U.S. intelligence community is the 'deep state' and is not to be trusted so the American people need to trust that he trusts now? NPR's Steve Inskeep explained that when the president says he believes there was an imminent threat to American embassies, you can not fact check a belief. Extrapolating that out, it means that if you do not believe what the president does, you're labeled by the president as crooked or even treasonous.
With that said, Time magazine columnist and founder of 'The Dispatch' David French (notably no longer with the National Review) explained that all of these vague explanations were unnecessary. Mr. French explained that Soleimani was an enemy combatant in a theater of war and was therefore fair game and a lawful target. He explained that the administration could have united the country but instead just decided on an 'own the libs' strategy. One shouldn't be surprised if the administration now throws that explanation into the stew. Unfortunately, the president has never once in his three years in office decided to try to be the president for all Americans.
All of this speaks to two larger points. The first of which is war powers debate and Congress taking back it's authority to grant the administration use of military force, as Senator Paul was talking about. You would have to agree that it is a wise idea and it wouldn't be that controversial for bipartisan support. However, given the state of our politics, the House's vote this week on such a measure didn't garner any bipartisan support. It's become a reflexive notion to not support anything other side of the aisle is for, at least in the House. On top of this, Congress has ceded war powers to the executive branch for so long through Democratic and Republican administrations alike that it will take an extraordinary circumstance for them to regain control of this issue.
Then there is the administration's overall foreign policy strategy and the fact that, sadly, there doesn't really seem to be one. Regarding Iran, it's clear that the administration didn't have an answer for the what if, had the regime decided for direct military confrontation, e.g. war. One of the end results of these recent actions is that NATO allies have no faith in what the United States is doing. And whether it be North Korea, a one-sided love affair gone bad; or a resurgent Russia and its de facto cyberwar; or China and the economic cold war there don't seem to be many tangible results beneficial to Americans.
Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC; David French, Time Columnist; Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour;
Steve Inskeep, NPR
Sunday, January 05, 2020
1.5.20: Is The United States Safer Today?
This is the core question: Is America and Americans abroad safer that now that Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani has been killed by a U.S. military drone strike?
Before we get to that answer, it's important to consider what individuals on today's program said. First, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and presidential candidate suggested that the president engaged in a 'wag the dog' scenario - escalating military action to distract from impeachment - which is incredibly cynical. It's not an unthinkable notion for Donald Trump to go in the direction but for the moment, we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt... For the moment. That aside, Betsy Woodruff-Swan explained that Ms. Warren's statements in the past week are trying to placate both edges of the Democratic party. She called Soleimani a terrorist and then said his killing was an assassination, which carries legal ramifications in the United States. It's this type of modulating that ultimately makes Ms. Warren a potentially disastrous president. Domestically, it was first Medicare-for-all and now it's a transition.
One the other end of the spectrum there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told Chuck Todd the the United States is 'absolutely' safer as a result of this escalation with Iran. That statement on its face is troubling because nothing is absolute especially when you're dealing with an adversary such as Iran that is vowing 'harsh revenge.' Secretary Pompeo explained that Soleimani is a terrorist and that the cost of doing nothing was greater than acting now, tamping down the suggestion that this attack was a political distraction. This along with the fact that Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security said that his former department just issued a warning that Iran can conduct cyber attacks against the United States and that Hezbollah is able to attack the American homeland. How are we 'absolutely' safer?
Even though Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was briefed after the military action, he said that he believed there was a real threat. That's not a statement to be taken lightly, but he also explained that he needed have more information to determine if it was imminent. What's problematic in all cases with this administration is more information is never forthcoming. Going back to Mr. Pompeo for a moment, he said something that certainly raised an eyebrow. He stated that Mr. Todd was focusing on the moment, but that President Trump was concerned about Iran in terms of the 'long haul.' If we look at the administration's track record so far, a long-term strategy on anything hasn't been in the offering.
As of this writing the Iraqi prime minister is recommending that U.S. troops leave the country, which will only give Shiite militias aligned with Iran more room to operate. NBC's Richard Engel reported at the top of the program that the push back and protests against too much Iranian control in Lebanon have ebbed and that in Iran itself protests against the government have now changed into denouncing the actions of the United States. Mr. Engel reported that the Iranian government was on the ropes but the actions of the Trump Administration has had the opposite effect as the country's citizens are now rallying behind the government. He also assessed that if an attack were to come, it would most likely be an asymmetrical one, coming from Iran's proxies in the region.
So to revisit the question of whether or not America is safer, it's difficult to conclude that it is when there is such a strong possibility of armed conflict. The harsh revenge that the Iranian regime promises it will only prompt the United States to reciprocate in a bigger fashion.
Panel: Betsy Woodruff-Swan, The Daily Beast; Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security; Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Pat McCrory, fmr. governor of North Carolina
Before we get to that answer, it's important to consider what individuals on today's program said. First, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and presidential candidate suggested that the president engaged in a 'wag the dog' scenario - escalating military action to distract from impeachment - which is incredibly cynical. It's not an unthinkable notion for Donald Trump to go in the direction but for the moment, we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt... For the moment. That aside, Betsy Woodruff-Swan explained that Ms. Warren's statements in the past week are trying to placate both edges of the Democratic party. She called Soleimani a terrorist and then said his killing was an assassination, which carries legal ramifications in the United States. It's this type of modulating that ultimately makes Ms. Warren a potentially disastrous president. Domestically, it was first Medicare-for-all and now it's a transition.
One the other end of the spectrum there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who told Chuck Todd the the United States is 'absolutely' safer as a result of this escalation with Iran. That statement on its face is troubling because nothing is absolute especially when you're dealing with an adversary such as Iran that is vowing 'harsh revenge.' Secretary Pompeo explained that Soleimani is a terrorist and that the cost of doing nothing was greater than acting now, tamping down the suggestion that this attack was a political distraction. This along with the fact that Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security said that his former department just issued a warning that Iran can conduct cyber attacks against the United States and that Hezbollah is able to attack the American homeland. How are we 'absolutely' safer?
Even though Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) was briefed after the military action, he said that he believed there was a real threat. That's not a statement to be taken lightly, but he also explained that he needed have more information to determine if it was imminent. What's problematic in all cases with this administration is more information is never forthcoming. Going back to Mr. Pompeo for a moment, he said something that certainly raised an eyebrow. He stated that Mr. Todd was focusing on the moment, but that President Trump was concerned about Iran in terms of the 'long haul.' If we look at the administration's track record so far, a long-term strategy on anything hasn't been in the offering.
As of this writing the Iraqi prime minister is recommending that U.S. troops leave the country, which will only give Shiite militias aligned with Iran more room to operate. NBC's Richard Engel reported at the top of the program that the push back and protests against too much Iranian control in Lebanon have ebbed and that in Iran itself protests against the government have now changed into denouncing the actions of the United States. Mr. Engel reported that the Iranian government was on the ropes but the actions of the Trump Administration has had the opposite effect as the country's citizens are now rallying behind the government. He also assessed that if an attack were to come, it would most likely be an asymmetrical one, coming from Iran's proxies in the region.
So to revisit the question of whether or not America is safer, it's difficult to conclude that it is when there is such a strong possibility of armed conflict. The harsh revenge that the Iranian regime promises it will only prompt the United States to reciprocate in a bigger fashion.
Panel: Betsy Woodruff-Swan, The Daily Beast; Jeh Johnson, fmr. secretary of Homeland Security; Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Pat McCrory, fmr. governor of North Carolina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)