From an article entitled McCain's Risky Turn
Here are some excerpts:
Frank Keating, the former governor of Oklahoma and a McCain surrogate went on television this week and played the race card, saying Obama should own up to the fact that he was once a "guy of the street" who used cocaine...
Keating's comments were inexplicable, though the former governor has had a reputation for popping off. Whether he was freelancing or had been encouraged by the McCain campaign to raise Obama's drug use -- which the Illinois senator wrote about in his autobiography -- isn't known. Injecting this into the campaign now seems designed to add to the GOP portrait of Obama as a sinister figure who does not share the values of middle America...
Beside the former Governor playing the race card, despicable, the comments are, as Mr. Balz says "designed to add to the GOP portrait of Obama as a sinister figure who does not share the values of middle America," but what is ironic is that middle America thrives on meth labs (42 in Wasilla, Alaska by the way) so anyone in the crowd who has ever known anyone who has done drugs and is still a friend is essentially hypocritical.
The drug argument is tired and has no bearing. President Bush was a full blown alcoholic, in recovery. Bill Clinton, obviously, had a problem with sex, and Senator John McCain certainly has a problem when he gambles.
This do anything to win on the part of the GOP, if successful, will be a sad day for the United States and not because Senator Obama didn't win. What does it tell the people of this country, the children of this country? If you say enough bad things about a person, no matter how untrue, you'll always win. A sad message stemming from a supposed man of honor.
This campaign won't be over soon enough.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
9.30.08: From the New York Times
The article led off with the news that NBC is considering an ensemble of hosts for "Meet the Press," led by Chuck Todd:
[The network] is leaning toward an ensemble of hosts that would be led by Chuck Todd, NBC's political director, and include David Gregory, a correspondent and MSNBC anchor, according to a person who had been briefed on the proposal but was not authorized to comment, partly because the plans were not set. Like the turnover of anchors at all three network newscasts, the process of choosing a successor for Mr. Russert has been closely watched in media and political circles.
This column has been saying for months now that it would be Chuck Todd, Tim Russert's protege, that would take over the show. The only deficiency we see with the choice is that Mr. Todd has really ever interviewed on air, something in which Mr. Gregory has done a ton.
[The network] is leaning toward an ensemble of hosts that would be led by Chuck Todd, NBC's political director, and include David Gregory, a correspondent and MSNBC anchor, according to a person who had been briefed on the proposal but was not authorized to comment, partly because the plans were not set. Like the turnover of anchors at all three network newscasts, the process of choosing a successor for Mr. Russert has been closely watched in media and political circles.
This column has been saying for months now that it would be Chuck Todd, Tim Russert's protege, that would take over the show. The only deficiency we see with the choice is that Mr. Todd has really ever interviewed on air, something in which Mr. Gregory has done a ton.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
9.28.08: Who Can Claim Victory?
I am not sure why it is exactly, but lately on MTP they have been booking guests for 3 and sometimes 4 different segments in the hour. The guests have all been good but obviously the content of these interviews has suffered. Since Mr. Russert passed there have been subtle little changes like these and it is the opinion of this column that they are the result of Tom Brokaw being a poor moderator.
Again, credit goes to Betsy Fischer, the executive producer, of MTP for securing David Axelrod (chief strategist for Sen. Obama) and Steve Schmidt (chief strategist for Sen. McCain) for their first joint appearance. In a surrogate discussion such as this, the attacks come in hard and pointed, but it ends up being a zero-sum gain for both sides. "John McCain never said 'middle class' in the debate," from Mr. Axelrod. "Senator Obama never used the word 'victory' once," countered Mr. Schmidt. The two men went back and forth this way through out and Mr. Brokaw's contribution were as follows: Gen. Petraeus would use the word 'victory' to describe Iraq's end game. Also, he showed a poll that had Senator McCain leading in the 'who is more ready to be commander-in-chief."
First, Mr. Schmidt's own demeanor and presentation was eerily similar to that of Senator McCain's - stiff and defensive. With Mr. Schmidt as his top advisor, it is no wonder that Senator McCain's answers are detached and veer away from what the public actually knows the truth to be. This says a lot about the entire tone of their campaign. For the Republicans, it should be all about tone because given the current political climate (meltdowns in domestic AND foreign policy), substance is not something that the McCain campaign can claim as their own.
With regard to 'victory' in Iraq, this concept is a myth in terms how this conflict will end. What does victory mean? The Republican definition consists of our troops returning home, leaving behind a fledgling democracy in peace. But does this include a payment stoppage to the Sunnis in Anbar Province? Does this mean leaving a government that is elected by Iraqis or one the most suits the U.S. Administration? Then there is the essential point that this is no longer a war in Iraq, it's an occupation, and in all occupations there will be insurgent elements. Why not consider that if U.S. Troops were to re-deploy to the borders, insurgent elements may subside. Most cynically, victory could be defined, in like of our financial crisis, as to stop spending $10 Billion per month in a country half way around the world.
And speaking of victory being hazy, the first installment of the Senate Debate Series took place today between Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R) for the seat in Colorado. The predictable (not necessarily a bad thing) topic is the $700 Billion Bail. The general, correct consensus is that no one wants to do it, but it's absolutely necessary, which instantly switches the argument as to who is to blame. Simply, years and years of curtailing trading regulations eventually stripped all these institutions of real capital, beginning from the Reagan years. De-regulation has been a pillar of Republican financial philosophy since those days. However, even given this indefensible position, Mr. Schaffer won the debate by excusing himself from the last six years (he left Congress in 2002) and then blaming his opponent's party (in power for the last two years) for our current situation. Astounding... but what's more astounding is that I can sit here with my little blog and have a counter argument at the ready, and these politicians do not.
Case in point: Shouldn't Sarah Palin have known that she was going to be asked by Katie Couric about how Alaska being next to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. She should! But she was like a moose in the headlights and all she could do was spew gibberish.
By the way, in the past two years, the Democratically controlled Congress has had to hold an untold number of hearings to unravel all the unethical doings of the Republicans and their lobbyists while trying to implement new regulations.
Also, the question needs to be asked why did President Bush wait on this bail out plan when he had the proposal on his desk two months ago? The answer is simple: He didn't want to give congress any time to react and he foolishly thought that everyone would just OK $700 Billion to the Treasury Secretary without any oversight in place. 'Shrewd' is another adjective forever taken off the table when describing President Bush.
However, that word can most certainly be applied to the week's last guest - Bill Clinton, who choses his words very carefully. Mr. Brokaw, in another typical baiting question, asked President Clinton if he would give the same praise to Barack Obama that he gives to John McCain. Clinton is too savvy to fall into a pothole like that. They're two different men and President Clinton has the vocabulary and state of reason to give each man is distinct due. There are still people out there who feel that President Clinton will try to subtly derail Senator Obama's campaign so that Hillary Clinton can pick up four years from now where she recently left off. But just know that on all levels, you can surmise that Bill Clinton is a party guy and should be taken at his word that he is going to do everything asked of him by the Obama campaign.
As for this week's post, I will leave you with this: It's not important who won the debate, even though most pundits give it to Obama. What is important is which candidate has the best 360 degree knowledge of the challenges that face this country and what they do with that knowledge. With that in mind, Senator McCain presented to the country on Friday that he is set in his ways and is going to carry out a pre-determined agenda in spite a potentially changing circumstances. The world moves and changes too quickly to be dogmatic. Senator McCain still prides himself on being a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Well, frankly, he's dead and all the army's guns blew up in their collective faces this week.
Again, credit goes to Betsy Fischer, the executive producer, of MTP for securing David Axelrod (chief strategist for Sen. Obama) and Steve Schmidt (chief strategist for Sen. McCain) for their first joint appearance. In a surrogate discussion such as this, the attacks come in hard and pointed, but it ends up being a zero-sum gain for both sides. "John McCain never said 'middle class' in the debate," from Mr. Axelrod. "Senator Obama never used the word 'victory' once," countered Mr. Schmidt. The two men went back and forth this way through out and Mr. Brokaw's contribution were as follows: Gen. Petraeus would use the word 'victory' to describe Iraq's end game. Also, he showed a poll that had Senator McCain leading in the 'who is more ready to be commander-in-chief."
First, Mr. Schmidt's own demeanor and presentation was eerily similar to that of Senator McCain's - stiff and defensive. With Mr. Schmidt as his top advisor, it is no wonder that Senator McCain's answers are detached and veer away from what the public actually knows the truth to be. This says a lot about the entire tone of their campaign. For the Republicans, it should be all about tone because given the current political climate (meltdowns in domestic AND foreign policy), substance is not something that the McCain campaign can claim as their own.
With regard to 'victory' in Iraq, this concept is a myth in terms how this conflict will end. What does victory mean? The Republican definition consists of our troops returning home, leaving behind a fledgling democracy in peace. But does this include a payment stoppage to the Sunnis in Anbar Province? Does this mean leaving a government that is elected by Iraqis or one the most suits the U.S. Administration? Then there is the essential point that this is no longer a war in Iraq, it's an occupation, and in all occupations there will be insurgent elements. Why not consider that if U.S. Troops were to re-deploy to the borders, insurgent elements may subside. Most cynically, victory could be defined, in like of our financial crisis, as to stop spending $10 Billion per month in a country half way around the world.
And speaking of victory being hazy, the first installment of the Senate Debate Series took place today between Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R) for the seat in Colorado. The predictable (not necessarily a bad thing) topic is the $700 Billion Bail. The general, correct consensus is that no one wants to do it, but it's absolutely necessary, which instantly switches the argument as to who is to blame. Simply, years and years of curtailing trading regulations eventually stripped all these institutions of real capital, beginning from the Reagan years. De-regulation has been a pillar of Republican financial philosophy since those days. However, even given this indefensible position, Mr. Schaffer won the debate by excusing himself from the last six years (he left Congress in 2002) and then blaming his opponent's party (in power for the last two years) for our current situation. Astounding... but what's more astounding is that I can sit here with my little blog and have a counter argument at the ready, and these politicians do not.
Case in point: Shouldn't Sarah Palin have known that she was going to be asked by Katie Couric about how Alaska being next to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. She should! But she was like a moose in the headlights and all she could do was spew gibberish.
By the way, in the past two years, the Democratically controlled Congress has had to hold an untold number of hearings to unravel all the unethical doings of the Republicans and their lobbyists while trying to implement new regulations.
Also, the question needs to be asked why did President Bush wait on this bail out plan when he had the proposal on his desk two months ago? The answer is simple: He didn't want to give congress any time to react and he foolishly thought that everyone would just OK $700 Billion to the Treasury Secretary without any oversight in place. 'Shrewd' is another adjective forever taken off the table when describing President Bush.
However, that word can most certainly be applied to the week's last guest - Bill Clinton, who choses his words very carefully. Mr. Brokaw, in another typical baiting question, asked President Clinton if he would give the same praise to Barack Obama that he gives to John McCain. Clinton is too savvy to fall into a pothole like that. They're two different men and President Clinton has the vocabulary and state of reason to give each man is distinct due. There are still people out there who feel that President Clinton will try to subtly derail Senator Obama's campaign so that Hillary Clinton can pick up four years from now where she recently left off. But just know that on all levels, you can surmise that Bill Clinton is a party guy and should be taken at his word that he is going to do everything asked of him by the Obama campaign.
As for this week's post, I will leave you with this: It's not important who won the debate, even though most pundits give it to Obama. What is important is which candidate has the best 360 degree knowledge of the challenges that face this country and what they do with that knowledge. With that in mind, Senator McCain presented to the country on Friday that he is set in his ways and is going to carry out a pre-determined agenda in spite a potentially changing circumstances. The world moves and changes too quickly to be dogmatic. Senator McCain still prides himself on being a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Well, frankly, he's dead and all the army's guns blew up in their collective faces this week.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
9.3.08: Turpentine, the Joe Biden Interview
Not surprisingly, Joe Biden was the first of the four candidates to appear on MTP post conventions. What was also not surprising is how Senator Biden schooled Tom Brokaw in the interview. As it has been made known, this column is not Mr. Brokaw's biggest fan. Mr. Brokaw's initial questions to Senator Biden were only a more dignified type of 'gotcha' questions, but 'gotcha' questions nonetheless. "Who did you call after Sarah Palin's speech?" What kind of question is that? "Is it tougher to debate Sarah Palin because she is a woman? Is it a problem for your campaign that women feel familiar with her and call her Sarah?" Talk about elitist positions... Meet the Press is a serious program to deal with serious issues and thankfully, Senator Joe Biden has more experience on the show than Mr. Brokaw.
The senator kept bringing it back to discussing issues and what Sarah Palin didn't say about so many things troubling the country - from healthcare to job losses to foreign policy. Topics, which this column frankly feels, are above her pay grade. Joe Biden washed the off-color paint that Mr. Brokaw was slinging... with turpentine.
With regard to the 'surge' in Iraq, it was perfectly clear that Senator Biden had a much better grasp of all the dynamics between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia respectively. In fact, Senator Biden continually corrected Mr. Brokaw. See below transcript.
MR. BROKAW: ...But it's a process, and it's beginning, and the surge made that possible, did it not?
SEN. BIDEN: No. The surge helped make that--what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control. They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, "We promise you, don't worry, you're not going to have any Shia in here. There's going to be no national forces in here. We're going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda." And that you--what you had was the awakening. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.
MR. BROKAW: Cooperating with the Shia.
SEN. BIDEN: Willing to fight. Cooperating with--no, they weren't cooperating with Shiite. They didn't cooperate with the Shiites.
MR. BROKAW: Once the awakening got under way.
SEN. BIDEN: No, no, no. No, they didn't cooperate with the Shiites. It's still--it's a big problem, Tom. You got--we're paying 300 bucks a month to each of those guys. Now the problem has been and the, and the promise was made by Maliki that they would be integrated into the overall military. That's a process that is beginning in fits and starts now, but it's far from over. Far from--look, the bottom line here is that it's--let's--the surge is over. Here's the real point. Whether or not the surge worked is almost irrelevant now. We're in a new deal. What is the administration doing? They're doing what Barack Obama has suggested over 14 months ago, turn responsibility over and draw down our troops.
And what is also clear is that Mr. Brokaw's rudimentary knowledge about the occupation in Iraq is also Senator McCain's view. Let's also not forget that the current administration is now signing an agreement to set a timetable for troop withdrawals as Senator Obama has already called for. It almost seemed like lecturing but Mr. Brokaw needed it. He misrepresented what Mr. Biden understood and had to be corrected.
Then, yet again, Mr. Brokaw disappointed with his questions about faith and actually saying that Senator Biden frequently talked about his faith. First, Senator Biden instantly corrected him, stating he rarely talked about his faith and with his answer to the abortion question, he outlined exactly how the American Government should function - as a separation of church and state. Being Catholic, Sen. Biden feels that life starts at conception, but that belief is based on his faith, to which he said he would not introduce and advocate legislation based on a religious belief. As he accurately stated, we are a pluralistic society.
And when there is real straight talk, it is more likely to come from Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, for that matter than John McCain.
In the second segment with Tom Friedman, NYTimes columnist and author, talked about his new book entitled "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America," With that, he is the most important quote by Mr. Friedman on today's program.
MR. FRIEDMAN: No, there's no question this has been a bipartisan effort to get us into this alley, dead end, that we're in right now, Tom. But when I hear, drill, drill, drill, or drill, baby, drill, I try to imagine--Tom, you were at the convention, I wasn't, what would happen if the Saudi, Venezuelan, Russian and Nigeria observers were up in a sky box in that Xcel Center listening to the crowd chant, "drill, drill, drill"? What would they be doing? They'd be up there leading the chant. They'd be saying this is great. America isn't sitting there saying, "Invent, invent, invent new, renewable energy," they're saying, "drill, drill, drill." And you know, for me, yes, we do need to exploit our domestic resource. I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus, because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the Internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what drill, drill, drill, is the equivalent of today.
And what Mr. Friedman advocates is that it is America who leads the E.T. (energy technology revolution as he calls it) in the world. From the above excerpt, it is clear that Mr. Friedman does not believe that this agenda is coming from the Republican party. And the American people know this! Even most Republicans...
Lastly, this week, [as a small tidbit that is worthy of knowing] Senator McCain's top campaign strategist said that this election is not going to be about issues, but about the personalities running for office. This type of cynicism is never beneficial to the American people, period.
The senator kept bringing it back to discussing issues and what Sarah Palin didn't say about so many things troubling the country - from healthcare to job losses to foreign policy. Topics, which this column frankly feels, are above her pay grade. Joe Biden washed the off-color paint that Mr. Brokaw was slinging... with turpentine.
With regard to the 'surge' in Iraq, it was perfectly clear that Senator Biden had a much better grasp of all the dynamics between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia respectively. In fact, Senator Biden continually corrected Mr. Brokaw. See below transcript.
MR. BROKAW: ...But it's a process, and it's beginning, and the surge made that possible, did it not?
SEN. BIDEN: No. The surge helped make that--what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control. They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, "We promise you, don't worry, you're not going to have any Shia in here. There's going to be no national forces in here. We're going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda." And that you--what you had was the awakening. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.
MR. BROKAW: Cooperating with the Shia.
SEN. BIDEN: Willing to fight. Cooperating with--no, they weren't cooperating with Shiite. They didn't cooperate with the Shiites.
MR. BROKAW: Once the awakening got under way.
SEN. BIDEN: No, no, no. No, they didn't cooperate with the Shiites. It's still--it's a big problem, Tom. You got--we're paying 300 bucks a month to each of those guys. Now the problem has been and the, and the promise was made by Maliki that they would be integrated into the overall military. That's a process that is beginning in fits and starts now, but it's far from over. Far from--look, the bottom line here is that it's--let's--the surge is over. Here's the real point. Whether or not the surge worked is almost irrelevant now. We're in a new deal. What is the administration doing? They're doing what Barack Obama has suggested over 14 months ago, turn responsibility over and draw down our troops.
And what is also clear is that Mr. Brokaw's rudimentary knowledge about the occupation in Iraq is also Senator McCain's view. Let's also not forget that the current administration is now signing an agreement to set a timetable for troop withdrawals as Senator Obama has already called for. It almost seemed like lecturing but Mr. Brokaw needed it. He misrepresented what Mr. Biden understood and had to be corrected.
Then, yet again, Mr. Brokaw disappointed with his questions about faith and actually saying that Senator Biden frequently talked about his faith. First, Senator Biden instantly corrected him, stating he rarely talked about his faith and with his answer to the abortion question, he outlined exactly how the American Government should function - as a separation of church and state. Being Catholic, Sen. Biden feels that life starts at conception, but that belief is based on his faith, to which he said he would not introduce and advocate legislation based on a religious belief. As he accurately stated, we are a pluralistic society.
And when there is real straight talk, it is more likely to come from Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, for that matter than John McCain.
In the second segment with Tom Friedman, NYTimes columnist and author, talked about his new book entitled "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America," With that, he is the most important quote by Mr. Friedman on today's program.
MR. FRIEDMAN: No, there's no question this has been a bipartisan effort to get us into this alley, dead end, that we're in right now, Tom. But when I hear, drill, drill, drill, or drill, baby, drill, I try to imagine--Tom, you were at the convention, I wasn't, what would happen if the Saudi, Venezuelan, Russian and Nigeria observers were up in a sky box in that Xcel Center listening to the crowd chant, "drill, drill, drill"? What would they be doing? They'd be up there leading the chant. They'd be saying this is great. America isn't sitting there saying, "Invent, invent, invent new, renewable energy," they're saying, "drill, drill, drill." And you know, for me, yes, we do need to exploit our domestic resource. I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus, because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the Internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what drill, drill, drill, is the equivalent of today.
And what Mr. Friedman advocates is that it is America who leads the E.T. (energy technology revolution as he calls it) in the world. From the above excerpt, it is clear that Mr. Friedman does not believe that this agenda is coming from the Republican party. And the American people know this! Even most Republicans...
Lastly, this week, [as a small tidbit that is worthy of knowing] Senator McCain's top campaign strategist said that this election is not going to be about issues, but about the personalities running for office. This type of cynicism is never beneficial to the American people, period.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
8.10.08: On The Other Hand
Contradiction seems to be the operative word of the day for today’s Meet The Press. In Tom Brokaw’s interview with Secretary Paulson from Beijing, Mr. Paulson said that there is a need for better regulation of the U.S. financial system – he called it outdated. This comes from an administration that has championed deregulation and has let Wall Street run amok over the years.
The journalists in the second half refuted almost every point that Sec. Paulson made in the first half of the program. Mr. Paulson said that the economic stimulus checks are still kicking in and we haven’t seen the full benefit yet. In the second half, Paul Gigot declared this round of stimulus checks a failure at lifting up the economy.
Sec. Paulson stated that China would suffer political backlash for not taking a harder line with the Khartoum government in Sudan. China keeps that country’s government afloat with it’s refinement and purchase of Sudan’s oil. In turn, the government uses those monies to strengthen its torturous hand over the people of Darfur. However, as Erin Burnett pointed out, the U.S. is hamstrung to do anything to force China, or Russia for that matter, to change their behavior because of all the debt the United States owes to China. And President Bush’s misjudgment of Vladimir Putin came to complete fruition this week with Russia’s aggression/invasion in Georgia.
Lastly, Sec. Paulson, as evidenced by today’s interview, is not a good spokesperson when it comes to calming U.S. citizens about the economy – constantly stuttering through is answers after Mr. Brokaw’s softball questions and speaking in generalities providing no real substance at all. To this end, Mr. Brokaw mentioned that there has been talk of Mr. Paulson staying on as Treasury Secretary to provide stable transition to the next administration. Mr. Paulson said that he was looking forward to doing other things come the next year. This column’s retort to that answer – GOOD.
A few program notes: One, the dual hosts – Brokaw in China and David Gregory in the studio doesn’t measure up. This column still contends that if MTP is left to either Mr. Brokaw or Mr. Gregory as host, the clout of the program will most certainly be diminished (farther than it has already). If Mr. Gregory is, in fact, going to take the desk, lots of polish is needed. (At the end of the program, he thanked ‘everyone at the table.’ Everyone at the table? That’s not acceptable.)
Also, we never mention commercials but between the first and second half, there was a GE commercial. The main point of the commercial was that through wind power, GE is helping to power Beijing during the Olympics. Can they make that boast here in the United States? That they are using wind to power... .anything? No, and given the energy crisis that we face, it left a slightly bad taste in the mouth.
Lastly, a couple of tidbits [read: Politicians of the 90’s] to cover. It seems that Bill Clinton doesn’t think that Barack Obama can win the election – the Clintons remain the insidious factor in this race. This column believes that the Clintons will play a decisive role in who wins in November and that they will not necessarily tip the scale to the Democrats. Suffice for now that it is a dark cloud looming. The other little bit is the John Edwards news story. This column was aware of this rumor some 5 months ago, but refused to give credence to it – that’s not the function of this column. But what we will say is that we completely agree with David Broder (congrats! On the the 400th appear) that it just deepens the cynicism that the American public has for its politicians. For such as high-profile political figure to deceive and blatantly lie, without any tact, is an extreme disappointment – to understate it. The affair and love-child is incidental. It’s the subsequent deception and flouting of public trust that can not be excused. But… we’ve unfortunately seen this too many times before.
The journalists in the second half refuted almost every point that Sec. Paulson made in the first half of the program. Mr. Paulson said that the economic stimulus checks are still kicking in and we haven’t seen the full benefit yet. In the second half, Paul Gigot declared this round of stimulus checks a failure at lifting up the economy.
Sec. Paulson stated that China would suffer political backlash for not taking a harder line with the Khartoum government in Sudan. China keeps that country’s government afloat with it’s refinement and purchase of Sudan’s oil. In turn, the government uses those monies to strengthen its torturous hand over the people of Darfur. However, as Erin Burnett pointed out, the U.S. is hamstrung to do anything to force China, or Russia for that matter, to change their behavior because of all the debt the United States owes to China. And President Bush’s misjudgment of Vladimir Putin came to complete fruition this week with Russia’s aggression/invasion in Georgia.
Lastly, Sec. Paulson, as evidenced by today’s interview, is not a good spokesperson when it comes to calming U.S. citizens about the economy – constantly stuttering through is answers after Mr. Brokaw’s softball questions and speaking in generalities providing no real substance at all. To this end, Mr. Brokaw mentioned that there has been talk of Mr. Paulson staying on as Treasury Secretary to provide stable transition to the next administration. Mr. Paulson said that he was looking forward to doing other things come the next year. This column’s retort to that answer – GOOD.
A few program notes: One, the dual hosts – Brokaw in China and David Gregory in the studio doesn’t measure up. This column still contends that if MTP is left to either Mr. Brokaw or Mr. Gregory as host, the clout of the program will most certainly be diminished (farther than it has already). If Mr. Gregory is, in fact, going to take the desk, lots of polish is needed. (At the end of the program, he thanked ‘everyone at the table.’ Everyone at the table? That’s not acceptable.)
Also, we never mention commercials but between the first and second half, there was a GE commercial. The main point of the commercial was that through wind power, GE is helping to power Beijing during the Olympics. Can they make that boast here in the United States? That they are using wind to power... .anything? No, and given the energy crisis that we face, it left a slightly bad taste in the mouth.
Lastly, a couple of tidbits [read: Politicians of the 90’s] to cover. It seems that Bill Clinton doesn’t think that Barack Obama can win the election – the Clintons remain the insidious factor in this race. This column believes that the Clintons will play a decisive role in who wins in November and that they will not necessarily tip the scale to the Democrats. Suffice for now that it is a dark cloud looming. The other little bit is the John Edwards news story. This column was aware of this rumor some 5 months ago, but refused to give credence to it – that’s not the function of this column. But what we will say is that we completely agree with David Broder (congrats! On the the 400th appear) that it just deepens the cynicism that the American public has for its politicians. For such as high-profile political figure to deceive and blatantly lie, without any tact, is an extreme disappointment – to understate it. The affair and love-child is incidental. It’s the subsequent deception and flouting of public trust that can not be excused. But… we’ve unfortunately seen this too many times before.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
8.3.08: Talking Out of Your Depth
Senator Joe Lieberman is a tool. That may seem like a shallow low blow, but let's take a moment to think about. A 'tool' in this case is a person who is acting stupid because of stubbornness and who in fact have lost his usefulness. This is an accurate description of Sen. Lieberman's behavior based around his endorsement of John McCain for President and his reason for that endorsement - that John McCain is more ready to lead this country based on experience. Let's face it, Lieberman is an establishment Senator who would not benefit from a change in the status quo of how business is done in Washington. An Obama Presidency leaves Sen. Lieberman on a desert island of politics - without power. As shown from the Connecticut Senate Race, holding onto power and self-preservation are what Mr. Lieberman is most concerned about. And Sen. Lieberman is spreading inaccurate facts about Sen. Obama's Iraq position in that there wouldn't be any consideration of conditions on the ground, but that's not Senator Obama's position.
There should be no more allowance for Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats in Senate.
This column has pointed out the many deficiencies in Senator McCain's reasoning on several points, but we will revisit two. First, with regard to off-shore drilling, as it was a topic of today's program, and whether we should do it. Senator Kerry, as Sen. Obama's surrogate, makes a correct point that if we started drilling today, we wouldn't see the results until after 2020. However, Senator Kerry's problem on today's program as was also his problem when he was a Presidential candidate, is even when he makes a points that's correct, he sounds as if he is wrong. It's uncanny how he does this. Now, we're forgetting one huge fact with regard to this particular oil gleaned from our coastline. Everyone's saying it will be America's oil, but it won't be! It will become the ExxonMobil's oil and it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll sell it all to American citizens. The oil companies are making more profit then ever before and they are exporting more oil to countries, that aren't the United States, than ever before. This will not change by drilling off the United States coast.
However, with that said, Sen. Obama did say that he would consider, not prefer, some off-shore drilling as part of a compromise. The senator should stand on his initial opinion and NOT soften. That sends a signal that when pressure comes from the other side, you'll bend to the point where you don't quite break but it almost looks that way. Again, this column does not endorse off-shore drilling in anyway.
The second, as also addressed on today's program, was the surge. Again with the surge. Yes, the argument can be made that it worked, but is it really a surge. No, it's an escalation. A surge implies an flow and eventual ebb. The escalation has worked because in saving soldiers because there are more guys to watch each others backs. When are we going to get out of there? And lastly - the Anbar Awakening - all that means is we started paying Sunnis not to shoot at us.
And a note on the panelists, every time, we make the argument for Chuck Todd as the next host, the water starts dripping from behind his ears. He is truly a numbers/polls wonk but today he showed the green tint of his skin. He was correct when discussing Hillary Clinton voters going over to Obama. He said that lifetime polls show that they're already there and that 10% cross the aisle anyway. However, when discussing potential VP picks, referenced the 1988 election - Bush/Quayle vs. Dukakis/Benson. He made the point that the candidates picked two extremes of experience and this plays in the choice. However, he was out of his depth on this. He wasn't even of voting age at the time and he's sitting with people who were all personally there. They collectively blew his point out of the water, noting the Benson kicked the snot out of Quayle in the debate, highlighted by Benson's famous Kennedy line, but that it eventually didn't move the needle in the end. Ah Chuck... know when to quit while you're ahead.
Lastly, another observation about Mr. Mike Murphy. He is certainly not the Republican version of Bob Shrum. The difference between these two men is that Bob Shrum was on the losing side of elections due to his ineptness and poor decision-making and not the candidate's. Mr. Murphy, on the other, was also on the losing side but for that exact opposite reason. His judgement was sound, but not his candidate's.
There should be no more allowance for Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats in Senate.
This column has pointed out the many deficiencies in Senator McCain's reasoning on several points, but we will revisit two. First, with regard to off-shore drilling, as it was a topic of today's program, and whether we should do it. Senator Kerry, as Sen. Obama's surrogate, makes a correct point that if we started drilling today, we wouldn't see the results until after 2020. However, Senator Kerry's problem on today's program as was also his problem when he was a Presidential candidate, is even when he makes a points that's correct, he sounds as if he is wrong. It's uncanny how he does this. Now, we're forgetting one huge fact with regard to this particular oil gleaned from our coastline. Everyone's saying it will be America's oil, but it won't be! It will become the ExxonMobil's oil and it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll sell it all to American citizens. The oil companies are making more profit then ever before and they are exporting more oil to countries, that aren't the United States, than ever before. This will not change by drilling off the United States coast.
However, with that said, Sen. Obama did say that he would consider, not prefer, some off-shore drilling as part of a compromise. The senator should stand on his initial opinion and NOT soften. That sends a signal that when pressure comes from the other side, you'll bend to the point where you don't quite break but it almost looks that way. Again, this column does not endorse off-shore drilling in anyway.
The second, as also addressed on today's program, was the surge. Again with the surge. Yes, the argument can be made that it worked, but is it really a surge. No, it's an escalation. A surge implies an flow and eventual ebb. The escalation has worked because in saving soldiers because there are more guys to watch each others backs. When are we going to get out of there? And lastly - the Anbar Awakening - all that means is we started paying Sunnis not to shoot at us.
And a note on the panelists, every time, we make the argument for Chuck Todd as the next host, the water starts dripping from behind his ears. He is truly a numbers/polls wonk but today he showed the green tint of his skin. He was correct when discussing Hillary Clinton voters going over to Obama. He said that lifetime polls show that they're already there and that 10% cross the aisle anyway. However, when discussing potential VP picks, referenced the 1988 election - Bush/Quayle vs. Dukakis/Benson. He made the point that the candidates picked two extremes of experience and this plays in the choice. However, he was out of his depth on this. He wasn't even of voting age at the time and he's sitting with people who were all personally there. They collectively blew his point out of the water, noting the Benson kicked the snot out of Quayle in the debate, highlighted by Benson's famous Kennedy line, but that it eventually didn't move the needle in the end. Ah Chuck... know when to quit while you're ahead.
Lastly, another observation about Mr. Mike Murphy. He is certainly not the Republican version of Bob Shrum. The difference between these two men is that Bob Shrum was on the losing side of elections due to his ineptness and poor decision-making and not the candidate's. Mr. Murphy, on the other, was also on the losing side but for that exact opposite reason. His judgement was sound, but not his candidate's.
Monday, July 28, 2008
7.28.08: Mark Whitaker (from Huff Post)
Mark Whitaker will replace Tim Russert as Washington Bureau chief. We're thinking that it won't be for MTP as well.
Mark Whitaker Named NBC News Washington Bureau Chief
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust
Huffington Post | July 28, 2008 02:18 PM
Mark Whitaker, currently Senior Vice President at NBC News, has been named chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau, a spot that has remained vacant since Tim Russert died on June 13.
Last month, the New York Observer's Felix Gillette wrote that insiders were speculating that Whitaker — who formerly held the top job at Newsweek — would succeed Russert as the head of NBC's D.C. bureau:
Over the past year, according to NBC News sources, Mr. Whitaker has become a popular and well-respected presence at 30 Rockefeller Center. Fellow executives are said to value his judgment, and he is often called in to help out with touchy editorial conflicts--a fairly common occurrence these days as executives have wrestled to merge the just-the-facts culture of NBC News with the more freewheeling sensibilities of MSNBC. Along the way, Mr. Whitaker has earned a reputation as a conscientious manager with a deft touch for diplomacy.
That said, his specific responsibilities at NBC News remain opaque to outsiders and insiders alike. "He sits in on a lot of meetings," said one staffer. "But no one seems to know quite what it is he does."
"He knows how to run a news-gathering operation," one former NBC News senior staffer added. "But he's basically a vice president without a portfolio. He's kind of been floating around."
Assigning him to oversee the Washington bureau, goes the theory, would pin down Mr. Whitaker's talents to a specific challenge. Moreover, it wouldn't cost the news division any additional money at a time when NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker has been clamping down on costs across the board.
Interestingly, when Russert was appointed Washington bureau chief in 1988, he was also the New York-based #2 executive at NBC News with no television experience — just like Whitaker.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said NBC News President Steve Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
"I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all," Whitaker said. "And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
As Washington bureau chief, Whitaker will oversee both the network's political content — namely "Meet the Press" and NBC News' entire network election and political coverage — and the day-to-day operations of the Washington bureau, where he will oversee management and administration. He will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
Full press release below:
MARK WHITAKER NAMED NBC NEWS D.C. BUREAU CHIEF
Position Includes Executive Oversight of "Meet the Press" and Network Election and Political Coverage
NEW YORK - July 28, 2008 - NBC News announced today that Mark Whitaker has been named Chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau. His appointment fills a vacancy left by the untimely death of Tim Russert in June. Whitaker, a veteran, award-winning journalist who is currently a Senior Vice President at NBC News, will assume his duties immediately. The announcement was made by NBC News President Steve Capus, to whom Whitaker will report.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
Story continues below
advertisement
Whitaker will continue in his role as SVP at NBC News. His day-to-day responsibilities will include executive oversight of "Meet the Press," as well as of all of NBC News' network election and political coverage. As D.C. Bureau Chief, he will oversee all bureau management and administration, as well as work closely with NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, and Deputy Bureau Chiefs Wendy Wilkinson and Brady Daniels. Whitaker will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
"I am looking forward to keeping our coverage of politics and government the best in the business," said Whitaker. "I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all. And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
Prior to joining NBC News, Whitaker served as Editor of Newsweek from 1998-2006. During his tenure with the magazine, the newsweekly published its best-selling issues of all time and had years of record profitability. It also received more editorial awards than at any other time in its history. Among these were the National Magazine Award for General Excellence, the industry's highest prize, in 2002 for coverage of 9/11, and in 2004 for coverage of the Iraq war.
Whitaker also oversaw the growth of Newsweek's web site, which is affiliated with NBC News' MSNBC.com. Its awards included Editor & Publisher's "EPpy" award for best newsmagazine web site and the MIN "Best of the Web Award" for Best National Magazine-Affiliated Web Site.
From 2006 until 2007, Whitaker served as Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of New Ventures at Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, creating new online ventures and multimedia for Newsweek's parent, The Washington Post Company.
Widely respected in the journalism community, Whitaker served as President of the American Society of Magazine Editors from 2004 - 2006. He is a current board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists
Before becoming top editor, Whitaker served as a reporter, writer and editor for Newsweek for two decades. He started his career reporting for Newsweek as a summer intern and stringer in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, London and Paris while in college and graduate school. He became business editor in 1987. As an assistant managing editor and then managing editor from 1991 to 1998, Whitaker helped oversee coverage that included the first Gulf War and the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996.
Whitaker graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1979 and studied international relations at Oxford University's Balliol College as a Marshall Scholar. He is married to Alexis Gelber, Newsweek's director of special projects. They have two children.
Mark Whitaker Named NBC News Washington Bureau Chief
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust
Huffington Post | July 28, 2008 02:18 PM
Mark Whitaker, currently Senior Vice President at NBC News, has been named chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau, a spot that has remained vacant since Tim Russert died on June 13.
Last month, the New York Observer's Felix Gillette wrote that insiders were speculating that Whitaker — who formerly held the top job at Newsweek — would succeed Russert as the head of NBC's D.C. bureau:
Over the past year, according to NBC News sources, Mr. Whitaker has become a popular and well-respected presence at 30 Rockefeller Center. Fellow executives are said to value his judgment, and he is often called in to help out with touchy editorial conflicts--a fairly common occurrence these days as executives have wrestled to merge the just-the-facts culture of NBC News with the more freewheeling sensibilities of MSNBC. Along the way, Mr. Whitaker has earned a reputation as a conscientious manager with a deft touch for diplomacy.
That said, his specific responsibilities at NBC News remain opaque to outsiders and insiders alike. "He sits in on a lot of meetings," said one staffer. "But no one seems to know quite what it is he does."
"He knows how to run a news-gathering operation," one former NBC News senior staffer added. "But he's basically a vice president without a portfolio. He's kind of been floating around."
Assigning him to oversee the Washington bureau, goes the theory, would pin down Mr. Whitaker's talents to a specific challenge. Moreover, it wouldn't cost the news division any additional money at a time when NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker has been clamping down on costs across the board.
Interestingly, when Russert was appointed Washington bureau chief in 1988, he was also the New York-based #2 executive at NBC News with no television experience — just like Whitaker.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said NBC News President Steve Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
"I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all," Whitaker said. "And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
As Washington bureau chief, Whitaker will oversee both the network's political content — namely "Meet the Press" and NBC News' entire network election and political coverage — and the day-to-day operations of the Washington bureau, where he will oversee management and administration. He will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
Full press release below:
MARK WHITAKER NAMED NBC NEWS D.C. BUREAU CHIEF
Position Includes Executive Oversight of "Meet the Press" and Network Election and Political Coverage
NEW YORK - July 28, 2008 - NBC News announced today that Mark Whitaker has been named Chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau. His appointment fills a vacancy left by the untimely death of Tim Russert in June. Whitaker, a veteran, award-winning journalist who is currently a Senior Vice President at NBC News, will assume his duties immediately. The announcement was made by NBC News President Steve Capus, to whom Whitaker will report.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
Story continues below
advertisement
Whitaker will continue in his role as SVP at NBC News. His day-to-day responsibilities will include executive oversight of "Meet the Press," as well as of all of NBC News' network election and political coverage. As D.C. Bureau Chief, he will oversee all bureau management and administration, as well as work closely with NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, and Deputy Bureau Chiefs Wendy Wilkinson and Brady Daniels. Whitaker will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
"I am looking forward to keeping our coverage of politics and government the best in the business," said Whitaker. "I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all. And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
Prior to joining NBC News, Whitaker served as Editor of Newsweek from 1998-2006. During his tenure with the magazine, the newsweekly published its best-selling issues of all time and had years of record profitability. It also received more editorial awards than at any other time in its history. Among these were the National Magazine Award for General Excellence, the industry's highest prize, in 2002 for coverage of 9/11, and in 2004 for coverage of the Iraq war.
Whitaker also oversaw the growth of Newsweek's web site, which is affiliated with NBC News' MSNBC.com. Its awards included Editor & Publisher's "EPpy" award for best newsmagazine web site and the MIN "Best of the Web Award" for Best National Magazine-Affiliated Web Site.
From 2006 until 2007, Whitaker served as Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of New Ventures at Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, creating new online ventures and multimedia for Newsweek's parent, The Washington Post Company.
Widely respected in the journalism community, Whitaker served as President of the American Society of Magazine Editors from 2004 - 2006. He is a current board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists
Before becoming top editor, Whitaker served as a reporter, writer and editor for Newsweek for two decades. He started his career reporting for Newsweek as a summer intern and stringer in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, London and Paris while in college and graduate school. He became business editor in 1987. As an assistant managing editor and then managing editor from 1991 to 1998, Whitaker helped oversee coverage that included the first Gulf War and the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996.
Whitaker graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1979 and studied international relations at Oxford University's Balliol College as a Marshall Scholar. He is married to Alexis Gelber, Newsweek's director of special projects. They have two children.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
7.26.08: Barack Obama in London
Let's first start with an overarching point: This interview was conducted at the tail end of a trip, in which Senator Obama was in a different country everyday having multiples meetings with various political leaders. Off the plane to the Middle East continuing on to the heart of Europe, the man didn't stop. Throw in a speech in front of 200,000 Germans and all that would wear on anyone. However, what I noticed about this interview was that Senator Obama didn't make one gaffe or misstatement where he confused facts.
The above statement IS a poorly veiled anecdote about age and whether or not John McCain is too old to be President. It is the feeling of this column that age should not be an issue in a Presidential race. However, John McCain himself has made it an issue with his various misstatements, i.e. "Czechoslovakia" and the "Iraq/Pakistan border." Too many confused statements should be worrisome.
Conceding the fact that Senator Obama was sharp in the interview despite the fatigue, what sort of interview was it? As previously stated, our confidence in Tom Brokaw as moderator is not great by any means. This interview was as hard as you'll receive from Mr. Brokaw. His questions with regard to foreign policy and diplomacy all took the tact of looking through the lens of the opposition, giving Senator Obama the opportunity to rebut.
The questions are passive aggressive, which is Mr. Brokaw's style, along with a waits-to-talk sensibility as he sometimes finishes answers for the guest. Despite this, the discussion hit a solid array of topics, with the exception of the VP questions, which we know Sen. Obama was not going to answer (but that's television).
One such example during the program was the issue of the 'surge' and Senator Obama's opposition to it, despite that the consensus is it's working. The USA Today (put up on the screen) stated that by not acknowledging that, Mr. Obama was being stubborn and what does that say about how he would lead the country. Solely judging on what was presenting on MTP, this opinion resides in a bubble of ignorance. Stubbornness has been continually defined and redefined the past seven and half years.
But the senator correctly stated that hindsight is what it is, but that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. To phrase it conservatively, it goes back to that moment of conception. The day the war and ensuing occupation was launched. Should it have been launched? Or should the Bush Administration kept its collective dick in its pants?
Over a trillion dollar bill coming and over four thousand deaths.
Also, Mr. Brokaw and Sen. Obama discussed some polls, namely who the riskier choice was between McCain and Obama, but remember, polls means very little at this point. However, in addressing that one specifically, that particular poll sees Obama as the riskier choice. He's not, it's just that he's black and people can not get beyond that. What's hopeful is that people who have gotten beyond it are growing in majority.
And then there was the speech in Berlin this week, for which Obama received some backlash from the usual suspects - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and David Brooks from the NYTimes. This column has clearly stated its disdain for Mr. Brooks opinions and this is another example of why. It comes off as the spoiled kid who picks something apart because he didn't get his way. He compared what Kennedy and Reagan had done with what Obama had done and that the speech was also presumptive. It's an unfair comparison as both those men were President at the time and could speak to specific policy, which Mr. Obama is at a stage in which he can not employ it. What they do have in common is that the three all spoke in Berlin at a moment of critical importance for the United States and the rest of the world.
It's presumptuous if you invite 200,000 people and then turn and say - Can you believe all these people? It's another thing if they just all show up. We, the people of this country, should take a lesson.
Side Note:
Here's an article from the New York Observer Online this week. Talks about David Gregory and his prospects for his own show. Backs up what we were saying earlier this month.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/david-gregory-nbc-s-lame-duck
David Gregory: NBC's Lame-Duck?
BY FELIX GILLETTE | JULY 22, 2008 | TAGS: MEDIADAVID GREGORYNBC NEWS
The above statement IS a poorly veiled anecdote about age and whether or not John McCain is too old to be President. It is the feeling of this column that age should not be an issue in a Presidential race. However, John McCain himself has made it an issue with his various misstatements, i.e. "Czechoslovakia" and the "Iraq/Pakistan border." Too many confused statements should be worrisome.
Conceding the fact that Senator Obama was sharp in the interview despite the fatigue, what sort of interview was it? As previously stated, our confidence in Tom Brokaw as moderator is not great by any means. This interview was as hard as you'll receive from Mr. Brokaw. His questions with regard to foreign policy and diplomacy all took the tact of looking through the lens of the opposition, giving Senator Obama the opportunity to rebut.
The questions are passive aggressive, which is Mr. Brokaw's style, along with a waits-to-talk sensibility as he sometimes finishes answers for the guest. Despite this, the discussion hit a solid array of topics, with the exception of the VP questions, which we know Sen. Obama was not going to answer (but that's television).
One such example during the program was the issue of the 'surge' and Senator Obama's opposition to it, despite that the consensus is it's working. The USA Today (put up on the screen) stated that by not acknowledging that, Mr. Obama was being stubborn and what does that say about how he would lead the country. Solely judging on what was presenting on MTP, this opinion resides in a bubble of ignorance. Stubbornness has been continually defined and redefined the past seven and half years.
But the senator correctly stated that hindsight is what it is, but that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. To phrase it conservatively, it goes back to that moment of conception. The day the war and ensuing occupation was launched. Should it have been launched? Or should the Bush Administration kept its collective dick in its pants?
Over a trillion dollar bill coming and over four thousand deaths.
Also, Mr. Brokaw and Sen. Obama discussed some polls, namely who the riskier choice was between McCain and Obama, but remember, polls means very little at this point. However, in addressing that one specifically, that particular poll sees Obama as the riskier choice. He's not, it's just that he's black and people can not get beyond that. What's hopeful is that people who have gotten beyond it are growing in majority.
And then there was the speech in Berlin this week, for which Obama received some backlash from the usual suspects - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and David Brooks from the NYTimes. This column has clearly stated its disdain for Mr. Brooks opinions and this is another example of why. It comes off as the spoiled kid who picks something apart because he didn't get his way. He compared what Kennedy and Reagan had done with what Obama had done and that the speech was also presumptive. It's an unfair comparison as both those men were President at the time and could speak to specific policy, which Mr. Obama is at a stage in which he can not employ it. What they do have in common is that the three all spoke in Berlin at a moment of critical importance for the United States and the rest of the world.
It's presumptuous if you invite 200,000 people and then turn and say - Can you believe all these people? It's another thing if they just all show up. We, the people of this country, should take a lesson.
Side Note:
Here's an article from the New York Observer Online this week. Talks about David Gregory and his prospects for his own show. Backs up what we were saying earlier this month.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/david-gregory-nbc-s-lame-duck
David Gregory: NBC's Lame-Duck?
BY FELIX GILLETTE | JULY 22, 2008 | TAGS: MEDIADAVID GREGORYNBC NEWS
Sunday, July 20, 2008
7.20.08: Al Gore's Time Has Passed
He's still a bit pompous, but he's still right when it comes to energy and the environment. Mr. Gore can rattle off frightening statement after another and they simply get brushed aside for a reason that David Gregory and Chuck Todd both agreed with, which was that since Vice President Gore is still such a polarizing figure to the right, that his barking shouldn't be taken seriously. 'Look how much energy this man personally uses...' But when you know that for every degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes become ten times as likely, and when you know that the northern polar ice cap is shrinking at an alarming rate and could be 75% gone in five years, then aren't you inclined to speak at the top of your lungs?
Al Gore, on spearheading the discussion of our energy future and global warming, is the right man at the right time. We need a person of his stature on this issue to create real change. Talking to Mr. Gore about being Vice President again or in a top cabinet post would be putting him in the wrong place. There are so many who are keen on this notion, but it is misguided. The time has passed for an Al Gore Presidency, we can not go back, nor should we. Our politics need to move from the names of Gore, Bush, and Clinton because when those names are mentioned, think about it, one's opinion is cemented toward a certain way. It's time to move on.
But there is life after politics and Al Gore has found it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has not, but needs to desperately. Right now even Democrats are mad at President Clinton. Al Gore has moved on so Democrats (Americans) need to as well.
Additionally, when Mr. Gore said that politics today requires a tolerance for triviality, and that his tolerance for this is in short supply, Mr. Brokaw disappoints as host with a moralizing question about how this could discourage young people from getting into politics. Tack like this does not belong on Meet The Press. Mr. Brokaw is a legendary news man, but that doesn't mean he's doing a good job here. Not to mention that you could tell that the Al Gore interview was edited (and not well), which defeats the urgency that MTP brings to the political discourse - throwing people into the spotlight.
Which brings us to the roundtable segment featuring David Gregory and Chuck Todd, one of these two men will be the next host. Chuck Todd is a political wonk - a geek of sorts - whose facts always trump everyone else's, but he has to speak with more authority. On the other hand, Mr. Gregory does this quite well but let's you know that he does it well. If Chuck Todd grows a pair, then he'll have the desk.
And lastly, again the conversation veered to speculating VP picks by the candidates, but as Mr. Todd pointed out - Senator Obama's pick is coming in the next two weeks, which is significant. Also, this column finds it interesting that after so much Democratic hoping for an Obama-Clinton ticket (a mending of the fence if you will), it is certainly not going to happen. Where this is going to happen is on the Republican side with McCain and Romney. These two men will come together to form what they think is a winning ticket. It will not win - simply. Political discourse is constantly filling itself with nuance, but it doesn't have to. Again, a McCain-Romney ticket will not win. McCain has trust issues as it is. The only person coming out of the primary season with more is Mr. Romney.
With Senator Obama, it is a trickier call, but there are some compelling reasons why Senator Chuck Hagel could be the pick. He's not running for the Senate again (disenchanted we would suspect after these last 7+ years), a war hero who arrived in the war as a grunt not a senator or admiral's son, foreign policy credibility, and he's from Nebraska - the heartland where Obama needs the votes.
It's a long summer for Meet The Press. We're just trying to keep it interesting. Looking forward to Senator Obama next week.
Al Gore, on spearheading the discussion of our energy future and global warming, is the right man at the right time. We need a person of his stature on this issue to create real change. Talking to Mr. Gore about being Vice President again or in a top cabinet post would be putting him in the wrong place. There are so many who are keen on this notion, but it is misguided. The time has passed for an Al Gore Presidency, we can not go back, nor should we. Our politics need to move from the names of Gore, Bush, and Clinton because when those names are mentioned, think about it, one's opinion is cemented toward a certain way. It's time to move on.
But there is life after politics and Al Gore has found it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has not, but needs to desperately. Right now even Democrats are mad at President Clinton. Al Gore has moved on so Democrats (Americans) need to as well.
Additionally, when Mr. Gore said that politics today requires a tolerance for triviality, and that his tolerance for this is in short supply, Mr. Brokaw disappoints as host with a moralizing question about how this could discourage young people from getting into politics. Tack like this does not belong on Meet The Press. Mr. Brokaw is a legendary news man, but that doesn't mean he's doing a good job here. Not to mention that you could tell that the Al Gore interview was edited (and not well), which defeats the urgency that MTP brings to the political discourse - throwing people into the spotlight.
Which brings us to the roundtable segment featuring David Gregory and Chuck Todd, one of these two men will be the next host. Chuck Todd is a political wonk - a geek of sorts - whose facts always trump everyone else's, but he has to speak with more authority. On the other hand, Mr. Gregory does this quite well but let's you know that he does it well. If Chuck Todd grows a pair, then he'll have the desk.
And lastly, again the conversation veered to speculating VP picks by the candidates, but as Mr. Todd pointed out - Senator Obama's pick is coming in the next two weeks, which is significant. Also, this column finds it interesting that after so much Democratic hoping for an Obama-Clinton ticket (a mending of the fence if you will), it is certainly not going to happen. Where this is going to happen is on the Republican side with McCain and Romney. These two men will come together to form what they think is a winning ticket. It will not win - simply. Political discourse is constantly filling itself with nuance, but it doesn't have to. Again, a McCain-Romney ticket will not win. McCain has trust issues as it is. The only person coming out of the primary season with more is Mr. Romney.
With Senator Obama, it is a trickier call, but there are some compelling reasons why Senator Chuck Hagel could be the pick. He's not running for the Senate again (disenchanted we would suspect after these last 7+ years), a war hero who arrived in the war as a grunt not a senator or admiral's son, foreign policy credibility, and he's from Nebraska - the heartland where Obama needs the votes.
It's a long summer for Meet The Press. We're just trying to keep it interesting. Looking forward to Senator Obama next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)