Much of the talk as this week of course focused on President Obama's first week and the various executive orders that he signed, and this week's Meet The Press was the encapsulation of the criticism that followed. The euphoria is over and now we're beginning to see the difficulty of turning rhetoric to reality, to quote (from today's MTP) Michelle Norris of NPR. As with all government documents, you have to read the fine print and even though there is now an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay Prison, it will take a year. (Which by the way, Tom Friedman on today's program surprisingly agreed with.) However, 'What do we do with the prisoners?' There is thta 'minor' detail and of course a pesky statistic like 61 of the former inmates freed are actively back on the battlefield of the Shadow War. More rhetoric... there will be no lobbyists working in an Obama administration... but we need this one exception for National Security.
[Michelle Norris did point out during the program that the Obama campaign backed off of that a little as time moved on from when he first made the prophetic statement in November of 2007. The big pronouncement had some finer print attached.]
And no more do we see a haze of finer print than with the economic stimulus plan, in which words are being added faster, by all players, Democrat and Republican, than dollars to the national debt. As evidenced by Mr. Gregory's interview with Dr. Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council, the answers do not come easy if at all because it is still perfectly clear that no one has the answers. Dr. Summers, saying the the Bush tax cuts needed to expire, was easily tripped up by the use of Mr. Gregory's use of the devil's advocate tactic. He commented that we could not afford the Bush tax cuts, but we could afford tax cuts for the middle class? His answer that we will afford what we can now simply was not enough.
Granted, Dr. Summers, is not as articulate as his boss, but he should be able to explain that the tax burden on Americans is disproportionate and that is one of the reasons why the Bush tax cuts need not be renewed. He did confirm that the President does now receive a daily economic briefing along with the daily national security briefing, but what does it say? There are politicians like today's guest John Boehner who believe the $825 billion is too much but there are also economists who say it's too little - by about a couple of trillion. And then there is Paul Krugman of Princeton University and The New York Times who says that every day we wait is another hole shot in the side of the boat. Is that what it says because that's all we hear. The one point that Dr. Summers was dead on correct was the irony of the situation - that the last Republican Administration who are all about free market brought us to this point in which the government has to bail out the financial industry.
This irony... well, take a look at my notes on the statements of Rep. Boehner:
[Government spending that won't work...
Can't borrow and spend to improve the economy..
Educational spending is not going to help the economy...
Size and spending of the stimulus - we (Republicans) don't think it's going to work
Banking Crisis - We need an exit strategy from tarp...
We (Republicans) need him to succeed - America needs him to succeed]
President Obama says big, profound stimulus by the Government, but Government spending will not work. We can not borrow and spend but that is exactly what we're doing due to the Bush Administration. Educational spending is going to help the economy, but we could recruit more teachers, build schools and make it affordable for people to afford college. People would be inclined to apply for loans, which the banks need to give to stimulate the economy. Mr. Boehner speaking on behalf of Republicans in Congress said that they will vote no because they see it as wasteful government spending. With all that said, Republicans still want him to succeed while playing obstructionist.
But the Republicans are so emasculated that they are what The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes referred to as one of the smaller boats who may be given some leverage in the overall discussion. The reality of that rhetoric is that they won't.
[Note on the Transcript: I waited to post because I wanted to check something from the transcript. On the last page, page 5, I noticed that between many of the guests answers, the moderator Mr. Gregory say 'right' repeatedly coming across quite disingenuous. To quote a friend, 'this isn't a good look.']
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
1.18.09: Three Days Out
Two thoughts come to mind from today's Meet The Press. One, the climate has changed for politicians in Washington and boy, are they desperate, especially the Republicans. The banality here, three days out, is that President-Elect Obama embodies change, however he has certainly kept everyone, the press and politicians alike, off balance by reaching out to all sides and that's significant in and of itself.
But a sense of desperation on so many levels is ever pervasive as evidenced alone by the President-Elect's appointments. In today's interview with Rahm Emmanuel, Mr. Obama's chief of staff, easily swatted away questions of Mr. Timothy Geithner's appointment to Treasury. The wake of ruin from the past eight years, Republicans are truly emasculated. Despite the nominee not paying his taxes completely, Republican politicians still heartily endorse him. Mr. Emmanuel said to David Gregory that it was a mistake, a flap, and that he is still the man for the job. The man to run the IRS didn't pay his taxes... Remember those days when nominees were tossed for having illegal immigrates under employment? Those days are over. The question was easily swatted away and because of the absence of any Republican dissent, why get combative? Mr. Gregory certainly did not.
While we're on appointments, the hearings for Mrs. Clinton (State Dept.) and Mr. Holder (Justice Dept.), to the chagrin of the press, did not produce the fireworks most thought were coming. Democratic politicians, as everyone knows, have a reputation of when being in a position of power on an issue, usually cower and let the other side get it's way. Are the Republicans the new Democrats? They could have used all that pent up hatred of all things Clinton (recall impeachment) and hammered these two nominees. Nothing close came to fruition.
As with all political discussions these days, Mr. Gregory outlined the 2008 bailout numbers (see below) and with the Obama stimulus package included, our last year's tab in $2 trillion.
Eight Hundred, twenty-five billion dollars of which is being proposed by the Obama Administration (It's officially too early to use this phrase, but so what - we're three days out) and most economists on both sides of the aisle agree that it is necessary as Mr. Emmanuel pointed. However, it's not enough. Mr. Emmanuel stated that it would create 3 million jobs, but that's not enough either. What we societally haven't yet to comprehend is the dynamic of derivatives and how they have created a black hole of debt. Solvency is going to cost a lot more than $2 trillion. As much as we need change, we're doing everything to keep things the same.
And what tepid objection has been put forth by Rep. John Boehner of Ohio with regard to the stimulus was appropriately addressed by Mr. Emmanuel when he said to David Gregory that "I find it ironic, since one of the questions and the criticism about the deficit spending is coming from people who actually in a period of time in the last eight years were responsible for policies that left America farther behind in, in, in the sense of deep, deep red."
With that said, the today's panel (NBC's Tom Brokaw, The New York Times' David Brooks, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, PBS's Tavis Smiley and NBC's Chuck Todd) agreed that what we're facing is unprecedented and as Mr. Brooks said, Mr. Obama is 'guessing' but he has to, the best that he can. In fact, David Brooks made a few good points today, maybe because he seemed quite humbled by the dinner he had with the President-Elect earlier in the week.
Mr. Brooks said that through Mr. Obama, we're seeing an independence from ideology. Eloquent in its brevity, but the truth is that this independence is simply a byproduct of the wilderness that we've been thrust into as a country. The Emancipation Proclamation placed this country at the edge of the Wilderness - looking through it, past it. We are at the edge of the Wilderness again, be it for much less noble reasons this time, but the comparisons between Lincoln and Obama are more than appropriate. They both have a way of capturing the moment, using their 'emotional intelligence' as Ms. Goodwin put it to see past the trees.
Well, we're at the frontier so pack up only what you can carry as the start of the journey is just three days out.
But a sense of desperation on so many levels is ever pervasive as evidenced alone by the President-Elect's appointments. In today's interview with Rahm Emmanuel, Mr. Obama's chief of staff, easily swatted away questions of Mr. Timothy Geithner's appointment to Treasury. The wake of ruin from the past eight years, Republicans are truly emasculated. Despite the nominee not paying his taxes completely, Republican politicians still heartily endorse him. Mr. Emmanuel said to David Gregory that it was a mistake, a flap, and that he is still the man for the job. The man to run the IRS didn't pay his taxes... Remember those days when nominees were tossed for having illegal immigrates under employment? Those days are over. The question was easily swatted away and because of the absence of any Republican dissent, why get combative? Mr. Gregory certainly did not.
While we're on appointments, the hearings for Mrs. Clinton (State Dept.) and Mr. Holder (Justice Dept.), to the chagrin of the press, did not produce the fireworks most thought were coming. Democratic politicians, as everyone knows, have a reputation of when being in a position of power on an issue, usually cower and let the other side get it's way. Are the Republicans the new Democrats? They could have used all that pent up hatred of all things Clinton (recall impeachment) and hammered these two nominees. Nothing close came to fruition.
As with all political discussions these days, Mr. Gregory outlined the 2008 bailout numbers (see below) and with the Obama stimulus package included, our last year's tab in $2 trillion.
Eight Hundred, twenty-five billion dollars of which is being proposed by the Obama Administration (It's officially too early to use this phrase, but so what - we're three days out) and most economists on both sides of the aisle agree that it is necessary as Mr. Emmanuel pointed. However, it's not enough. Mr. Emmanuel stated that it would create 3 million jobs, but that's not enough either. What we societally haven't yet to comprehend is the dynamic of derivatives and how they have created a black hole of debt. Solvency is going to cost a lot more than $2 trillion. As much as we need change, we're doing everything to keep things the same.
And what tepid objection has been put forth by Rep. John Boehner of Ohio with regard to the stimulus was appropriately addressed by Mr. Emmanuel when he said to David Gregory that "I find it ironic, since one of the questions and the criticism about the deficit spending is coming from people who actually in a period of time in the last eight years were responsible for policies that left America farther behind in, in, in the sense of deep, deep red."
With that said, the today's panel (NBC's Tom Brokaw, The New York Times' David Brooks, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, PBS's Tavis Smiley and NBC's Chuck Todd) agreed that what we're facing is unprecedented and as Mr. Brooks said, Mr. Obama is 'guessing' but he has to, the best that he can. In fact, David Brooks made a few good points today, maybe because he seemed quite humbled by the dinner he had with the President-Elect earlier in the week.
Mr. Brooks said that through Mr. Obama, we're seeing an independence from ideology. Eloquent in its brevity, but the truth is that this independence is simply a byproduct of the wilderness that we've been thrust into as a country. The Emancipation Proclamation placed this country at the edge of the Wilderness - looking through it, past it. We are at the edge of the Wilderness again, be it for much less noble reasons this time, but the comparisons between Lincoln and Obama are more than appropriate. They both have a way of capturing the moment, using their 'emotional intelligence' as Ms. Goodwin put it to see past the trees.
Well, we're at the frontier so pack up only what you can carry as the start of the journey is just three days out.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
1.4.09: Fine, the New Year...
We don't want to be a total downer in our first post of 2009 but we can only write 'fine' in reference to the new year and this MTP week for all the obvious reasons - the economy, 2 wars, and a fresh Israeli assault on the Palestinians in Gaza - not quite the best circumstances for holiday cheer. Unfortunately, we can not say that today's exclusive with Senate Majority Harry Reid of Nevada was any sort of Alka-Seltzer for our political hangover. Make no mistake, if we haven't been perfectly clear in prior posts, let's make it crystal here now. This column does not endorse Senator Reid as majority leader of the Democratic Party in Senate one iota. Today's interview is exhibit A for this new prosecution.
First, credit should be given to Mr. Gregory for justifiably hammering Mr. Reid on a number of things starting with the appointment of Roland Burris by the embattled Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich. Just listening to Senator Reid, you get the sense of an absence of sound judgement or power of persuasion. Now granted, the Governor, who is not yet under indictment, can still appointment someone to fill the seat, but that the national Democratic caucus, of which Senator Reid is a key power broker, has not used it's full leverage to curtail these shenanigans by this rogue governor, speaks directly to the impotency of the Democratic Party when it comes to getting tough. Isn't that what we want - tough but fair?
Mr. Reid cited a law that goes back 'generations' that the congress can reject a member, they can 'do whatever we want,' he said. We, the public, don't need a law citation to know that Congress will do whatever it wants. They have pretty much established that for some time.
Throughout the entire interview, Senator did not give one firm definitive answer, instead choosing the 'nuanced,' dance-around-like retorts that Americans have come to loathe. It is this kind of bullshit, frankly, that needs to be eliminated. Senator Reid had said that in his estimation the war [in Iraq] is lost and the surge has done nothing. When pressed on this by Mr. Gregrory, he said that General Petraeus said that the war can not be won militarily. Senator Reid went on to say that he and General Petraeus said the same thing in different ways. That is absolutely not what Senator Reid meant at the time and for him to back pedal and parry is that exact quality that we do not need in our leaders. If he had just said that, at the time, that was the outlook of the war and now, thank God, that's not the case, wouldn't you respect him more? Great leaders can admit they were mistaken as long as they show that they have learned from those mistakes and don't repeat them.
Simply put, Senator Reid is exasperating as a Majority Leader. With regard to the Illinois political mess, he summed it up saying that there is always room for negotiating. Yes, that's true, but negotiating is one thing, continually bending over is another.
At the top of the program, Mr. Gregory spoke to Richard Engel, NBC's chief foreign correspondent, from Israel about the situation on the ground there and that's where the panel discussion picked up with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, BBC World News America's Katty Kay, Al-Arabiya's Hisham Melhem, NBC's Andrea Mitchell and The New York Times' David Sanger.
One of the key points from the panel, made by Katty Kay specifically, is that at the center of it all is Iran and it's goal of being the definitive power in the region. Hamas, like Hezbollah, is empowered by Iran, but since there is no government who has effective leverage over Iran, what is done instead are the attempts to cut off the terrorist tentacles. No one wants to deal with Iran directly, but that is exactly what must be done in conjunction with stopping instigating rocket assaults into Israel by Hamas. Indirect talks and bellicose statements with Iran no longer suffice.
Another key point is that Israel, the United States, and their allies must take advantage of the fact the moderate Arab governments are simply tired of Hamas and their actions. This must be propagated to the Arab public, and this is what will truly change the dynamic. With constant protests across Arab streets, nothing will change the status quo.
Also, going back to Senator Reid for a moment, in reference to Israeli ground assault, he used the hypothetical that if Canada were firing missiles from Vancouver into Seattle, the United States would do everything to stop it. This column's reaction is this: stop with the hypotheticals, especially one like this that is ridiculous. Say what you mean... Do you support what Israel is doing or not? If so, say so... period.
Lastly, if a tenable situation can be created, in which and Hamas would be forced to create a job, an infrastructure development, a medical facility for its people as the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank wants to start accomplishing, then desired results would come. If Hamas fails at this, as this column suspects, then the Arab public themselves will make a change. Hamas hasn't proven in the slightest that they, as an elected entity, can provide the basic needs for its citizenry. They can blame embargos, but if they had the needs of their people truly put first, they would do what they can to get them lifted.
First, credit should be given to Mr. Gregory for justifiably hammering Mr. Reid on a number of things starting with the appointment of Roland Burris by the embattled Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich. Just listening to Senator Reid, you get the sense of an absence of sound judgement or power of persuasion. Now granted, the Governor, who is not yet under indictment, can still appointment someone to fill the seat, but that the national Democratic caucus, of which Senator Reid is a key power broker, has not used it's full leverage to curtail these shenanigans by this rogue governor, speaks directly to the impotency of the Democratic Party when it comes to getting tough. Isn't that what we want - tough but fair?
Mr. Reid cited a law that goes back 'generations' that the congress can reject a member, they can 'do whatever we want,' he said. We, the public, don't need a law citation to know that Congress will do whatever it wants. They have pretty much established that for some time.
Throughout the entire interview, Senator did not give one firm definitive answer, instead choosing the 'nuanced,' dance-around-like retorts that Americans have come to loathe. It is this kind of bullshit, frankly, that needs to be eliminated. Senator Reid had said that in his estimation the war [in Iraq] is lost and the surge has done nothing. When pressed on this by Mr. Gregrory, he said that General Petraeus said that the war can not be won militarily. Senator Reid went on to say that he and General Petraeus said the same thing in different ways. That is absolutely not what Senator Reid meant at the time and for him to back pedal and parry is that exact quality that we do not need in our leaders. If he had just said that, at the time, that was the outlook of the war and now, thank God, that's not the case, wouldn't you respect him more? Great leaders can admit they were mistaken as long as they show that they have learned from those mistakes and don't repeat them.
Simply put, Senator Reid is exasperating as a Majority Leader. With regard to the Illinois political mess, he summed it up saying that there is always room for negotiating. Yes, that's true, but negotiating is one thing, continually bending over is another.
At the top of the program, Mr. Gregory spoke to Richard Engel, NBC's chief foreign correspondent, from Israel about the situation on the ground there and that's where the panel discussion picked up with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, BBC World News America's Katty Kay, Al-Arabiya's Hisham Melhem, NBC's Andrea Mitchell and The New York Times' David Sanger.
One of the key points from the panel, made by Katty Kay specifically, is that at the center of it all is Iran and it's goal of being the definitive power in the region. Hamas, like Hezbollah, is empowered by Iran, but since there is no government who has effective leverage over Iran, what is done instead are the attempts to cut off the terrorist tentacles. No one wants to deal with Iran directly, but that is exactly what must be done in conjunction with stopping instigating rocket assaults into Israel by Hamas. Indirect talks and bellicose statements with Iran no longer suffice.
Another key point is that Israel, the United States, and their allies must take advantage of the fact the moderate Arab governments are simply tired of Hamas and their actions. This must be propagated to the Arab public, and this is what will truly change the dynamic. With constant protests across Arab streets, nothing will change the status quo.
Also, going back to Senator Reid for a moment, in reference to Israeli ground assault, he used the hypothetical that if Canada were firing missiles from Vancouver into Seattle, the United States would do everything to stop it. This column's reaction is this: stop with the hypotheticals, especially one like this that is ridiculous. Say what you mean... Do you support what Israel is doing or not? If so, say so... period.
Lastly, if a tenable situation can be created, in which and Hamas would be forced to create a job, an infrastructure development, a medical facility for its people as the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank wants to start accomplishing, then desired results would come. If Hamas fails at this, as this column suspects, then the Arab public themselves will make a change. Hamas hasn't proven in the slightest that they, as an elected entity, can provide the basic needs for its citizenry. They can blame embargos, but if they had the needs of their people truly put first, they would do what they can to get them lifted.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
12.14.08: A New Era
First thing today, we would like to congratulate David Gregory on becoming the moderator of MTP and we wish him long success, thus a new era begins for the program.
However, it's going to be the same old story for a while - economic gloom and all the talk to fix it. For good measure, political scandal takes politicians' eyes off the ball and that's where today's program began. Mr. Gregory spoke with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) and Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) about Embroiled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The new moderator asked the attorney general with regard to her statements if there was some political motivation on her part. It's one of those questions that carries no merit but has to be asked, it's like the new standard in network interviewing.
With all the talk from the two guests mentioned above and then NBC's Political Director, Chuck Todd, and Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell after them, there's a simple bottom line to this entire drama. Governor Blagojevich is unable to see through his prime directive of the office he still holds, which is to serve the people of his statement. At this point, whether he is indicted or exonerated, he will remain unable to fulfill this duty. Therefore, step down immediately and if he can not see to himself to do that, remove him. Period.
Given the ensuing roundtable discussion with regard to the automotive bailout and the general economy, the above is (and here's a gross understatement) counterproductive is every way.
The aforementioned roundtable consisted of Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Fmr. Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Wal-Mart President & CEO Lee Scott, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. With the exception of Carly Fiorina, it was an interesting mix of opinions and perspectives. And make no mistake, the reason that we single out Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, is because she slashed thousands of jobs and left the company is tremendous debt then collected the proverbial golden parachute... She said that because states have different, or more attractive as the case may be, business taxes that companies located simply based on that. To a small extent, that's true, but it sure helps in Alabama, for example, when Senator Richard Shelby manages $800 million+ in financial incentives for foreign auto to locate in his state. And now he is putting their interest ahead of America's interest. Her insights prove shallow.
Of course Gov. Granholm is going to defend the assistance to the auto industry - she's the governor of Michigan for Christ's sake, but her reasoning like everyone else's is steeped in common sense. In this economic state, we can not let the American auto industry go down. Her point that the tax burden would be far more costly to the American people than the bailout. The unemployment filing alone would be inside body shot. Too many job loses and the ripple effect... Well, let's just say that the ripples would be big enough to surf. Now here's the exchange between Governor Romney, former Presidential candidate, and Mr. Gregory:
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I, I am glad to see that the proposal that was made by the chief executives of the Big Three didn't get accepted. They basically came to Washington saying, "Give us, give us a check so we can continue to fund business as usual." Look...
MR. GREGORY: Fourteen billion dollars is what they were, what they were...
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, and originally they wanted a lot more than that.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. ROMNEY: And I'm glad to see there was some progress made over the, the ensuing weeks. But, frankly, I think all Americans agree that we want a domestic automobile manufacturing sector. We don't want to see this go away.
There is a contradict in what he said, he is glad they didn't get the money, but doesn't want to see the auto industry go away... hmmm. Or should we sharply parse words and interpret "All Americans" does not include him? Mr. Romney's economic perspective comes from extraordinary long-term wealth, which has long seen him separated from the economic mainstream. Does he truly understand the struggle out there?
Maybe it's quite a populace post we written today, at least one more overt than usual, but the focus is all too obvious. It's painful for us to write BECAUSE it's so obvious. Why do we need to write it. But speaking of populace, two valuable perspective manifested themselves through two CEOs - Lee Scott of Wal-Mart and Eric Schmidt of Google. These two companies are modern American touchstones for business, Wal-mart as the pre-eminent retailer and Google proving itself essential to the web.
However, Wal-Mart is our economic existential dilemma. Generally, Americans dislike the business practices that Wal-Mart instills, from worker healthcare benefits and wages to trying to influence how their employees should vote. But Americans also like the low prices that Wal-Mart offers and that's why they go there. What was most impressive was the research Mr. Scott mentioned. For example, he discussed "Wal-Mart Moms" family eating habits, knowing how much they consume, but also the amount of leftovers they're eating. And you worry about someone knowing your social security number? Wal-mart's staked out in your refrigerator! (Please indulge our small bit of humor.)
But let's leave this week's column with this quote from Mr. Eric Schmidt. Fittingly, it is the CEO of Google who would state that, "This is not a time to be self-serving and that America can innovate its way out of anything." It's time to stop just talking...
However, it's going to be the same old story for a while - economic gloom and all the talk to fix it. For good measure, political scandal takes politicians' eyes off the ball and that's where today's program began. Mr. Gregory spoke with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) and Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) about Embroiled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The new moderator asked the attorney general with regard to her statements if there was some political motivation on her part. It's one of those questions that carries no merit but has to be asked, it's like the new standard in network interviewing.
With all the talk from the two guests mentioned above and then NBC's Political Director, Chuck Todd, and Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell after them, there's a simple bottom line to this entire drama. Governor Blagojevich is unable to see through his prime directive of the office he still holds, which is to serve the people of his statement. At this point, whether he is indicted or exonerated, he will remain unable to fulfill this duty. Therefore, step down immediately and if he can not see to himself to do that, remove him. Period.
Given the ensuing roundtable discussion with regard to the automotive bailout and the general economy, the above is (and here's a gross understatement) counterproductive is every way.
The aforementioned roundtable consisted of Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Fmr. Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Wal-Mart President & CEO Lee Scott, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. With the exception of Carly Fiorina, it was an interesting mix of opinions and perspectives. And make no mistake, the reason that we single out Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, is because she slashed thousands of jobs and left the company is tremendous debt then collected the proverbial golden parachute... She said that because states have different, or more attractive as the case may be, business taxes that companies located simply based on that. To a small extent, that's true, but it sure helps in Alabama, for example, when Senator Richard Shelby manages $800 million+ in financial incentives for foreign auto to locate in his state. And now he is putting their interest ahead of America's interest. Her insights prove shallow.
Of course Gov. Granholm is going to defend the assistance to the auto industry - she's the governor of Michigan for Christ's sake, but her reasoning like everyone else's is steeped in common sense. In this economic state, we can not let the American auto industry go down. Her point that the tax burden would be far more costly to the American people than the bailout. The unemployment filing alone would be inside body shot. Too many job loses and the ripple effect... Well, let's just say that the ripples would be big enough to surf. Now here's the exchange between Governor Romney, former Presidential candidate, and Mr. Gregory:
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I, I am glad to see that the proposal that was made by the chief executives of the Big Three didn't get accepted. They basically came to Washington saying, "Give us, give us a check so we can continue to fund business as usual." Look...
MR. GREGORY: Fourteen billion dollars is what they were, what they were...
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, and originally they wanted a lot more than that.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. ROMNEY: And I'm glad to see there was some progress made over the, the ensuing weeks. But, frankly, I think all Americans agree that we want a domestic automobile manufacturing sector. We don't want to see this go away.
There is a contradict in what he said, he is glad they didn't get the money, but doesn't want to see the auto industry go away... hmmm. Or should we sharply parse words and interpret "All Americans" does not include him? Mr. Romney's economic perspective comes from extraordinary long-term wealth, which has long seen him separated from the economic mainstream. Does he truly understand the struggle out there?
Maybe it's quite a populace post we written today, at least one more overt than usual, but the focus is all too obvious. It's painful for us to write BECAUSE it's so obvious. Why do we need to write it. But speaking of populace, two valuable perspective manifested themselves through two CEOs - Lee Scott of Wal-Mart and Eric Schmidt of Google. These two companies are modern American touchstones for business, Wal-mart as the pre-eminent retailer and Google proving itself essential to the web.
However, Wal-Mart is our economic existential dilemma. Generally, Americans dislike the business practices that Wal-Mart instills, from worker healthcare benefits and wages to trying to influence how their employees should vote. But Americans also like the low prices that Wal-Mart offers and that's why they go there. What was most impressive was the research Mr. Scott mentioned. For example, he discussed "Wal-Mart Moms" family eating habits, knowing how much they consume, but also the amount of leftovers they're eating. And you worry about someone knowing your social security number? Wal-mart's staked out in your refrigerator! (Please indulge our small bit of humor.)
But let's leave this week's column with this quote from Mr. Eric Schmidt. Fittingly, it is the CEO of Google who would state that, "This is not a time to be self-serving and that America can innovate its way out of anything." It's time to stop just talking...
Monday, December 08, 2008
12.8.08: New York Times Article on David Gregory
Just in case your interested....
Big Shoes that can't be filled, but Mr. Gregory is tasked with keeping up the ratings lead. And one more comment with regard to yesterday's post - The reason this column did prefer Mr. Todd was that he is more inviting a personality to the average viewer, but ratings numbers demand that the executives go with a more solid interviewer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/media/08talk.html?scp=3&sq=Meet%20The%20Press&st=cse
‘Meet the Press’ Changes, and Hopes Its Rank Won’t
By BILL CARTER
NBC News used the occasion of an appearance by President-elect Barack Obama on “Meet the Press” on Sunday to make official its appointment of David Gregory as the next permanent moderator of that venerable political discussion program.
The news of Mr. Gregory’s selection had leaked out in reports last week. On Sunday, Tom Brokaw, who became interim host in June after the sudden death of Tim Russert, said that he would step down. Mr. Gregory’s first program will be next week.
Mr. Russert had lifted “Meet the Press” to a long period of dominance among the Sunday morning shows, establishing himself in the process as perhaps the most formidable interviewer on television.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Gregory, who is 38, acknowledged that the task before him was challenging. “I’m honored,” he said. “I feel humbled and very excited. I’m not nervous or apprehensive about it, but it is daunting.”
The change comes as the Washington power-broker lineup is about to be recast with the arrival of the Obama administration. Calling this “a critically important time for the country,” Mr. Brokaw said on Sunday’s program that “more people are paying attention” to the weekly network Sunday programs than at any time since 1968.
That combination of factors has NBC’s competitors anticipating an opportunity to alter the dynamics of Sunday morning talk.
George Stephanopoulos, the face of ABC’s program “This Week,” said he saw genuine opportunity in the changeover, though he said, “There’s no question that ‘Meet the Press’ is a powerful brand.”
It is the oldest program on television, and like other programs started by NBC in the medium’s early days — “Today” and “The Tonight Show” — “Meet the Press” is a television institution. Still, it is hardly invulnerable. In the 1980s, ABC’s “This Week” dominated for a decade.
Mr. Russert reversed that, first by persuading NBC to expand “Meet the Press” to an hour to match “This Week,” then by ratcheting up the intensity of the interviews. But now NBC’s competitors see an opening.
“I think the post-Russert era begins now,” said Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday.”
This year, NBC has averaged about 4.5 million viewers on its Sunday morning show, “This Week” about 3.4 million, and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” hosted by Bob Schieffer, about 3.1 million.
“Fox News Sunday” on the Fox network has about 1.6 million viewers, but that number jumps to about 3 million when the program is repeated in the evening on the Fox News Channel. The other cable entrant in the competition, CNN, is also about to make a change, with John King set to take over its “Late Edition” Sunday morning program soon from its host, Wolf Blitzer.
Maintaining the dominant position Mr. Russert established is clearly an important consideration. Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, said that he was most interested in the program sustaining a reputation for “tough but fair” interviews.
Mr. Gregory said that he felt “the great sense of purpose in the program.”
Under his new contract, he will continue to have a presence on “Today,” serving as the regular substitute host for Matt Lauer. But he will give up his interview program on NBC’s all-news cable channel, MSNBC.
NBC also extended the contract of Betsy Fischer, the executive producer of “Meet the Press,” who attended American University in Washington at the same time as Mr. Gregory.
None of the programs have ambitious plans to shake up the format. Ms. Fischer said any changes under Mr. Gregory would be “gradual and seamless.”
There isn’t much you can do differently with a program based on a face-to-face interview. The competition is generally not over how the programs are put together but who the guests are.
Some competitors suggest that Mr. Stephanopoulos may have an advantage because he worked in a Democratic administration populated by many names that are making a comeback.
“George obviously does have close relationships with people from the Clinton White House,” Mr. Wallace said. Mr. Stephanopoulos said, “I’m going to draw on every relationship I have.”
Mr. Schieffer, host of “Face the Nation,” recalled that Mr. Russert considered himself “the curator of a national treasure” and added that he had always been impressed with Mr. Gregory’s talents. “Tim is irreplaceable,” Mr. Schieffer said, “but somebody has to do it.”
Mr. Gregory, the new curator, will be under considerable pressure — and scrutiny. Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out that “Brokaw is handing David about a one-million-viewer lead.”
Mr. Schieffer said, “It’s going to be tough competition. I wish David the best — and I’m going to try to beat his brains out.”
Big Shoes that can't be filled, but Mr. Gregory is tasked with keeping up the ratings lead. And one more comment with regard to yesterday's post - The reason this column did prefer Mr. Todd was that he is more inviting a personality to the average viewer, but ratings numbers demand that the executives go with a more solid interviewer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/media/08talk.html?scp=3&sq=Meet%20The%20Press&st=cse
‘Meet the Press’ Changes, and Hopes Its Rank Won’t
By BILL CARTER
NBC News used the occasion of an appearance by President-elect Barack Obama on “Meet the Press” on Sunday to make official its appointment of David Gregory as the next permanent moderator of that venerable political discussion program.
The news of Mr. Gregory’s selection had leaked out in reports last week. On Sunday, Tom Brokaw, who became interim host in June after the sudden death of Tim Russert, said that he would step down. Mr. Gregory’s first program will be next week.
Mr. Russert had lifted “Meet the Press” to a long period of dominance among the Sunday morning shows, establishing himself in the process as perhaps the most formidable interviewer on television.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Gregory, who is 38, acknowledged that the task before him was challenging. “I’m honored,” he said. “I feel humbled and very excited. I’m not nervous or apprehensive about it, but it is daunting.”
The change comes as the Washington power-broker lineup is about to be recast with the arrival of the Obama administration. Calling this “a critically important time for the country,” Mr. Brokaw said on Sunday’s program that “more people are paying attention” to the weekly network Sunday programs than at any time since 1968.
That combination of factors has NBC’s competitors anticipating an opportunity to alter the dynamics of Sunday morning talk.
George Stephanopoulos, the face of ABC’s program “This Week,” said he saw genuine opportunity in the changeover, though he said, “There’s no question that ‘Meet the Press’ is a powerful brand.”
It is the oldest program on television, and like other programs started by NBC in the medium’s early days — “Today” and “The Tonight Show” — “Meet the Press” is a television institution. Still, it is hardly invulnerable. In the 1980s, ABC’s “This Week” dominated for a decade.
Mr. Russert reversed that, first by persuading NBC to expand “Meet the Press” to an hour to match “This Week,” then by ratcheting up the intensity of the interviews. But now NBC’s competitors see an opening.
“I think the post-Russert era begins now,” said Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday.”
This year, NBC has averaged about 4.5 million viewers on its Sunday morning show, “This Week” about 3.4 million, and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” hosted by Bob Schieffer, about 3.1 million.
“Fox News Sunday” on the Fox network has about 1.6 million viewers, but that number jumps to about 3 million when the program is repeated in the evening on the Fox News Channel. The other cable entrant in the competition, CNN, is also about to make a change, with John King set to take over its “Late Edition” Sunday morning program soon from its host, Wolf Blitzer.
Maintaining the dominant position Mr. Russert established is clearly an important consideration. Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, said that he was most interested in the program sustaining a reputation for “tough but fair” interviews.
Mr. Gregory said that he felt “the great sense of purpose in the program.”
Under his new contract, he will continue to have a presence on “Today,” serving as the regular substitute host for Matt Lauer. But he will give up his interview program on NBC’s all-news cable channel, MSNBC.
NBC also extended the contract of Betsy Fischer, the executive producer of “Meet the Press,” who attended American University in Washington at the same time as Mr. Gregory.
None of the programs have ambitious plans to shake up the format. Ms. Fischer said any changes under Mr. Gregory would be “gradual and seamless.”
There isn’t much you can do differently with a program based on a face-to-face interview. The competition is generally not over how the programs are put together but who the guests are.
Some competitors suggest that Mr. Stephanopoulos may have an advantage because he worked in a Democratic administration populated by many names that are making a comeback.
“George obviously does have close relationships with people from the Clinton White House,” Mr. Wallace said. Mr. Stephanopoulos said, “I’m going to draw on every relationship I have.”
Mr. Schieffer, host of “Face the Nation,” recalled that Mr. Russert considered himself “the curator of a national treasure” and added that he had always been impressed with Mr. Gregory’s talents. “Tim is irreplaceable,” Mr. Schieffer said, “but somebody has to do it.”
Mr. Gregory, the new curator, will be under considerable pressure — and scrutiny. Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out that “Brokaw is handing David about a one-million-viewer lead.”
Mr. Schieffer said, “It’s going to be tough competition. I wish David the best — and I’m going to try to beat his brains out.”
Sunday, December 07, 2008
12.7.08: The Future - The President-Elect and The Program
It is a new phenomenon to listen to the person in charge and actually want to hear what they have to say instead of anticipating dread, which has been the case for the last eight years. Today's much publicized guest - President-Elect Barack Obama. Let's face it, for the average American, it's panic time - we're officially in a recession, we've been shown the worst job loss statistics in the last 24 years, and we're going to see an American institution - the U.S. auto industry - is on its deathbed... And as anyone would remind you - that's just on the home front.
But as the President-Elect stated, that is his No. 1 priority, an economic recovery plan. This column watches and reads a lot of interviews and we've never witnessed a definitive answer to any of the problems we're facing. With that said, it is slightly comforting to know that the next President has a firm grasp of the nuances and the problems but there is no quick fix, ready solution, easy answer, or word of encouragement right now.
Mr. Obama has increasingly said that even though a short term is essential, we have to focus on the long term so that we don't have a repeat these systemic problems. He stated that again today and there has been much talk of Infrastructure projects to put people back to work. It's about time. This sounds like a 'new' New Deal and this is what is needed. What we first must understand is that even though we may not be collectively in a place as bad as when we were in the Great Depression, today's potential for things being much worse is right at our doorstep. The financial industry is a much more complicated working beast than it was in the 1930's so the pitfalls are much more dangerous.
Also, with respect to this 'new' New Deal comparison, it must be said that America needs a collective change of attitude and we hope that the President-Elect will bring this to the country. Waiting this long to address infrastructure is typically American. Instead of practicing preventive medicine in the form of steady infrastructure maintenance, we've handled it like our own personal health - let it go until its way too late and then radical surgery is required. Instead of a daily dose of fitness, we forego it and eventually rely on cosmetic surgery. Now we're at that point where not even a plastic surgeon can help.
Mr. Obama frequently talks about resetting and it is exactly what we have to do. It seems counter-intuitive to spend through a recession but that's exactly what needs to be done and the government is the only one who has the money right now so rightly, the President-Elect stated that we can not worry about the deficit in the short term.
With this said, the President-Elect has been measured in his statements about the auto industry. He's said they've made mistakes but they are the backbone of American manufacturing. Eventually, he gets to a statement resembling - we want them to succeed but we don't want them coming back in six months with hats in hand, but it's one of the few things he doesn't on which he does not have a sound of conviction. We constantly hear about GM, Ford, and Chrysler as one - the big three as if they have always been a collective. This is simply not the case and they should be treated as individuals. When things were going well, they did not have this sense of collective identity, but now that they're in grave trouble... What they have collectively in common is poor management and having no sense of the future of industry. The deterioration of manufacturing, as a whole, in the U.S. has been occurring for years. What the President-Elect conveys in this interview and beyond is a calming effect that he understands the problem. This was the essence of the interview, void of no tangible solutions. Are these solutions that he speaks about coming on January 20th? The philosophy that shared success by all Americans is the key to long-term prosperity seems like an obvious notion now, but this has not been the case as exemplified by the current administration. The audacity of hope...
The domestic economic conundrum makes foreign policy almost seem cut and dry in terms of what to do - country by country. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, India, and Pakistan are collectively linked, yes, but all have their individual solutions as well. The President-Elect, in this interview, recognized this and has put a team in place, one which this column endorses, to handle these relations. The most complicated of which remains Iraq. On a campaign promise, Mr. Obama said that he would end the occupation of this country. We predict that it will never be fast enough for the hard left. However, there is a responsibility for the United States to do the right thing and not leave Iraq in chaos or with doubt about its own future. It will take longer than 16 months. Mr. Brokaw mentioned the term residual force... Become familiar and comfortable with this term as it will be with us for some time.
Mr. Obama has pulled together an all-star team for a cabinet and the names do inspire confidence - Clinton, Richardson, Holder, Geithner, Napolitano... our only worry is that the posts vacated by these individuals will not be replenished with the same talent in kind, but only time will tell.
_____________________________
Now, with regard to the future of Meet The Press... After much speculation and a mid-week leak, all curiosity has been laid to rest and David Gregory will be taking over as host. The final four, as it were, consisted of Mr. Gregory, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Gwen Ifill. When looking at that list, the choice becomes obvious. As previously stated in this column, the drawback to Mr. Todd is that he doesn't have the interview experience, just crunching election numbers. Granted, he did bring a new precise calculus to it, but that's not enough to be Moderator. Andrea Mitchell has guest hosted MTP in the past and may do so in the future, but frankly, what a snooze fest when she does. Ms. Ifill, on the other hand, is more than qualified and ready to be Moderator, however, why would you want to leave PBS and the News Hour - our equivalent of BBC 1 News? You don't so it became a process of elimination.
In the most recent past, Mr. Gregory elevated his profile as NBC's combative White House Correspondent. In terms of network news, 'combative' is not considered a compliment. However, it was the only dose of sobriety that the public had seen from the White House Press Corps in the face of ridiculously misdirected statements coming from the White House at the time. What is key is that Mr. Gregory, at 38, will be the long-term Moderator and will grow into the desk. He talked about bringing a sense of purpose to his work on Meet The Press and as discussed, there is no other in which people are paying more attention. This column is looking on with its own sense of purpose and growing with him.
But as the President-Elect stated, that is his No. 1 priority, an economic recovery plan. This column watches and reads a lot of interviews and we've never witnessed a definitive answer to any of the problems we're facing. With that said, it is slightly comforting to know that the next President has a firm grasp of the nuances and the problems but there is no quick fix, ready solution, easy answer, or word of encouragement right now.
Mr. Obama has increasingly said that even though a short term is essential, we have to focus on the long term so that we don't have a repeat these systemic problems. He stated that again today and there has been much talk of Infrastructure projects to put people back to work. It's about time. This sounds like a 'new' New Deal and this is what is needed. What we first must understand is that even though we may not be collectively in a place as bad as when we were in the Great Depression, today's potential for things being much worse is right at our doorstep. The financial industry is a much more complicated working beast than it was in the 1930's so the pitfalls are much more dangerous.
Also, with respect to this 'new' New Deal comparison, it must be said that America needs a collective change of attitude and we hope that the President-Elect will bring this to the country. Waiting this long to address infrastructure is typically American. Instead of practicing preventive medicine in the form of steady infrastructure maintenance, we've handled it like our own personal health - let it go until its way too late and then radical surgery is required. Instead of a daily dose of fitness, we forego it and eventually rely on cosmetic surgery. Now we're at that point where not even a plastic surgeon can help.
Mr. Obama frequently talks about resetting and it is exactly what we have to do. It seems counter-intuitive to spend through a recession but that's exactly what needs to be done and the government is the only one who has the money right now so rightly, the President-Elect stated that we can not worry about the deficit in the short term.
With this said, the President-Elect has been measured in his statements about the auto industry. He's said they've made mistakes but they are the backbone of American manufacturing. Eventually, he gets to a statement resembling - we want them to succeed but we don't want them coming back in six months with hats in hand, but it's one of the few things he doesn't on which he does not have a sound of conviction. We constantly hear about GM, Ford, and Chrysler as one - the big three as if they have always been a collective. This is simply not the case and they should be treated as individuals. When things were going well, they did not have this sense of collective identity, but now that they're in grave trouble... What they have collectively in common is poor management and having no sense of the future of industry. The deterioration of manufacturing, as a whole, in the U.S. has been occurring for years. What the President-Elect conveys in this interview and beyond is a calming effect that he understands the problem. This was the essence of the interview, void of no tangible solutions. Are these solutions that he speaks about coming on January 20th? The philosophy that shared success by all Americans is the key to long-term prosperity seems like an obvious notion now, but this has not been the case as exemplified by the current administration. The audacity of hope...
The domestic economic conundrum makes foreign policy almost seem cut and dry in terms of what to do - country by country. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, India, and Pakistan are collectively linked, yes, but all have their individual solutions as well. The President-Elect, in this interview, recognized this and has put a team in place, one which this column endorses, to handle these relations. The most complicated of which remains Iraq. On a campaign promise, Mr. Obama said that he would end the occupation of this country. We predict that it will never be fast enough for the hard left. However, there is a responsibility for the United States to do the right thing and not leave Iraq in chaos or with doubt about its own future. It will take longer than 16 months. Mr. Brokaw mentioned the term residual force... Become familiar and comfortable with this term as it will be with us for some time.
Mr. Obama has pulled together an all-star team for a cabinet and the names do inspire confidence - Clinton, Richardson, Holder, Geithner, Napolitano... our only worry is that the posts vacated by these individuals will not be replenished with the same talent in kind, but only time will tell.
_____________________________
Now, with regard to the future of Meet The Press... After much speculation and a mid-week leak, all curiosity has been laid to rest and David Gregory will be taking over as host. The final four, as it were, consisted of Mr. Gregory, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Gwen Ifill. When looking at that list, the choice becomes obvious. As previously stated in this column, the drawback to Mr. Todd is that he doesn't have the interview experience, just crunching election numbers. Granted, he did bring a new precise calculus to it, but that's not enough to be Moderator. Andrea Mitchell has guest hosted MTP in the past and may do so in the future, but frankly, what a snooze fest when she does. Ms. Ifill, on the other hand, is more than qualified and ready to be Moderator, however, why would you want to leave PBS and the News Hour - our equivalent of BBC 1 News? You don't so it became a process of elimination.
In the most recent past, Mr. Gregory elevated his profile as NBC's combative White House Correspondent. In terms of network news, 'combative' is not considered a compliment. However, it was the only dose of sobriety that the public had seen from the White House Press Corps in the face of ridiculously misdirected statements coming from the White House at the time. What is key is that Mr. Gregory, at 38, will be the long-term Moderator and will grow into the desk. He talked about bringing a sense of purpose to his work on Meet The Press and as discussed, there is no other in which people are paying more attention. This column is looking on with its own sense of purpose and growing with him.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
11.16.08: Put Up or Shut Up
Today's Meet The Press first featured Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) as opposing views on the automotive bailout, you can easily surmise who is for and against in this duo. And it's easy for a column such as this to sit back, not claim expertise, and just report what the two senators said without taking a stand on this issue. Well, it's put up or shut up here in this space and everywhere in America. Hard decisions are at every turn.
Before we get to that, let's just briefly review some of the details presented by the two men. Senator Shelby's argument is that the Big 3 should not be bailed out and go into bankruptcy because they don't make products that people want, they're not innovative, and bad management abounds. True, true, and true. On the other side, Senator Levin pointed out that 1 in 10 jobs are automotive related and that GM, in particular, is making many innovations. Additionally, if GM files bankruptcy, 175 billion dollars will be lost in tax revenue and the ensuing legal fees.
Right now, there is 25 billion dollars waiting for the Big 3 - this column say use it. As Katty Kay pointed out later in the show, under normal economic circumstances, you could let it go, but these aren't normal circumstances. This column believes that the big three should receive this money with strict conditions. First, it should be taken out of the $700 billion initially allocated -$25 billion is 4%. The Bush Administration is against this idea because that money is strictly for the financial industry. The Bush Administration, we believe, is giving this money to save its corporate cronies and coffers and the vote of no-confidence with their decisions has long been established.
Remember that GM is a global company and leads the way around the world in the auto industry. This is the catalyst for their recovery and it should be invested in. The strict conditions should include but not be limited to the following: the head of GM, Wagoner, has to re-interview for the job. He should come with an action plan and make the case to the government that he is the one that can turn things around. If the Board at GM, who wants Wagoner kept on, can fork over $25 billion then they get the say, but if it's coming from the government, us, then the government has the say. Clear goals need to be set and fuel efficiency has to be the top line of the mandate. These things will be difficult on the American Auto Worker, but here's the choice - lower benefits or no benefits. Most Americans right now, even the ones on Wall Street, are saying at this moment that they just feel lucky to have a job. This is an attitude to be capitalized on. It's about survival and survival is a powerful motivation. Also, messaging on behalf on the Big 3 is vital as well. If GM and the other two U.S. auto companies were to replace every "Escalade" commercial during Sunday football with commercials explaining innovation and change in philosophy and new models that reflect that - people would feel more confident about helping these companies. And that's another why we should let these companies fail. The devastating psychological effect of the loss of that many jobs, essentially all at once, will grind over spending and confidence to a resounding halt. Lastly, some people would argue that if you bailout the auto companies, then why not then Circuit City or DHL? Retailers and Service companies have failed in this country and have been reinvented - it's more of a natural life and death cycle of business. Remember Woolworth's? The autos are absolutely different, manufacturing can not be allowed to fail - if manufacturing forever flees, it will never return. Retail outlets will always spring up anew.
Everything else about the program today was periphery. T Boone Pickens is on his way to getting his wind farms done. It's going to happen. It's the natural gas initiative that needs the scrutiny and support. How fast we act on that is key.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Good choice, it is the number 3 spot in the administration and placates many hard feelings. However, there are two other reasons why it's a good choice. One, she has the experience, savvy, and forthrightness to do the job AND it's true, she doesn't have the much leverage in the Senate as a junior Senator. Clintons are best when they're on the world stage. Andrea Mitchell brought up that they would have to vet Bill Clinton with regard to the donors for his library. Talk about not rehashing the past... the library is built and whoever donated, the result is that it will not be torn down. Hillary Clinton carries a ton of Bill's luggage. At a certain point, we have to let her stop paying the fees to check those bags.
Before we get to that, let's just briefly review some of the details presented by the two men. Senator Shelby's argument is that the Big 3 should not be bailed out and go into bankruptcy because they don't make products that people want, they're not innovative, and bad management abounds. True, true, and true. On the other side, Senator Levin pointed out that 1 in 10 jobs are automotive related and that GM, in particular, is making many innovations. Additionally, if GM files bankruptcy, 175 billion dollars will be lost in tax revenue and the ensuing legal fees.
Right now, there is 25 billion dollars waiting for the Big 3 - this column say use it. As Katty Kay pointed out later in the show, under normal economic circumstances, you could let it go, but these aren't normal circumstances. This column believes that the big three should receive this money with strict conditions. First, it should be taken out of the $700 billion initially allocated -$25 billion is 4%. The Bush Administration is against this idea because that money is strictly for the financial industry. The Bush Administration, we believe, is giving this money to save its corporate cronies and coffers and the vote of no-confidence with their decisions has long been established.
Remember that GM is a global company and leads the way around the world in the auto industry. This is the catalyst for their recovery and it should be invested in. The strict conditions should include but not be limited to the following: the head of GM, Wagoner, has to re-interview for the job. He should come with an action plan and make the case to the government that he is the one that can turn things around. If the Board at GM, who wants Wagoner kept on, can fork over $25 billion then they get the say, but if it's coming from the government, us, then the government has the say. Clear goals need to be set and fuel efficiency has to be the top line of the mandate. These things will be difficult on the American Auto Worker, but here's the choice - lower benefits or no benefits. Most Americans right now, even the ones on Wall Street, are saying at this moment that they just feel lucky to have a job. This is an attitude to be capitalized on. It's about survival and survival is a powerful motivation. Also, messaging on behalf on the Big 3 is vital as well. If GM and the other two U.S. auto companies were to replace every "Escalade" commercial during Sunday football with commercials explaining innovation and change in philosophy and new models that reflect that - people would feel more confident about helping these companies. And that's another why we should let these companies fail. The devastating psychological effect of the loss of that many jobs, essentially all at once, will grind over spending and confidence to a resounding halt. Lastly, some people would argue that if you bailout the auto companies, then why not then Circuit City or DHL? Retailers and Service companies have failed in this country and have been reinvented - it's more of a natural life and death cycle of business. Remember Woolworth's? The autos are absolutely different, manufacturing can not be allowed to fail - if manufacturing forever flees, it will never return. Retail outlets will always spring up anew.
Everything else about the program today was periphery. T Boone Pickens is on his way to getting his wind farms done. It's going to happen. It's the natural gas initiative that needs the scrutiny and support. How fast we act on that is key.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Good choice, it is the number 3 spot in the administration and placates many hard feelings. However, there are two other reasons why it's a good choice. One, she has the experience, savvy, and forthrightness to do the job AND it's true, she doesn't have the much leverage in the Senate as a junior Senator. Clintons are best when they're on the world stage. Andrea Mitchell brought up that they would have to vet Bill Clinton with regard to the donors for his library. Talk about not rehashing the past... the library is built and whoever donated, the result is that it will not be torn down. Hillary Clinton carries a ton of Bill's luggage. At a certain point, we have to let her stop paying the fees to check those bags.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
11.9.08: The Hang Over
Despite the conversations on the program today and the introduction of an Obama central figure, Valerie Jarrett, the hang over is over... The autos are running out of cash, job losses continue to mount in huge chunks, spending at retail is at a stand still, and even the vaunted Warren Buffett is experiencing revenue losses at Berkshire Hathaway. The consolation comes in the form of President-Elect Barack Obama because he understands these dynamics infinitely more than John McCain does - it's just fact. And keep in mind that domestic policy and foreign policy are not mutually exclusive. Why does China have leverage on the world stage? Because they have the cash.
However, as Valerie Jarrett said, there are not two administrations are work here and, frankly, these two months will be crucial and this country still has to rely on George W. Bush. However, if there is any indication of the thoughtfulness that will go into an Obama administration, the transition team, co-chaired by Ms. Jarrett, has studied Presidential Transitions going back 50 years - what happened day by day, hour by hour in some cases. Do you think the Bush Administration did that?
Ms. Jarrett also touched on the fact that President-Elect Obama would seek different opinions and will most probably have Republicans in the cabinet. This column has advocated in the past that Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska would be an excellent choice, specifically for Secretary of Defense. No one would question his credentials or commitment to the job. Also, there is a quality to Senator Hagel (who did not run for re-election) that this column appreciates, which is that he understands the smallest parts of the great wheel are the most important. Having been a grunt (a non-commissioned soldier) in Vietnam, he understands the the chaos on the ground is not just theoretical when discussed in the power-broker halls of Washington.
Another item touched on during the hour was Mr. Obama's choice for chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel. Congressman Clyburn articulated is best when he said that managing is distinctly different than governing. We couldn't agree more, Congressman Emanuel is known for having sharp elbows and getting things done. John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, said that this choice was ironic because Mr. Emanuel, in his opinion, is very partisan and not emblematic of a bi-partisan effort that President-Elect Obama spoke about. We refer you back to Mr. Clyburn's statement. Also, Congressman Mel Martinez, also on the program, agreed, "I think you need someone in that job who you can trust, who's going to cover your backside, and who's smart and can run the trades on time--the trains on time. So I differ with, with Leader Boehner. I think that Rahm Emanuel for Barack Obama's a good choice."
This is the best opportunity that this country has had in a long time to build consensus. National greatness will never be constructed if consensus is not build first.
With this, this column believes that Senator John McCain could actually play a big role. Remember that his position on immigration was very much at odds with most Republicans, and even though it didn't go far enough, it was a big step. Are we saying that he should have a significant position in some capacity... no. It is for him to decide how his voice will be heard, but we can't help thinking that he is a different man than what his campaign portrayed him to be.
Are we being a little too forgiving? Are we too caught up in the moment of a new beginning? Our ability to 'reboot' as Bill Maher put it. Maybe, but when a woman in line to vote said to me that she had never seen a line like this before, I said to her that people seem to believe that for the first time in a long time, they have something to vote for. My vote for Senator Kerry in 2004 was a vote against George Bush, not FOR Kerry. He would have not been a good President - a blessing in disguise really. If the outcome would have been different, we as a country would have not arrived at this monumental moment.
[Aside: As it relates to Senator Kerry, this column does not advocate for him in any cabinet position in an Obama Administration. Reasons to be discussed in the coming days.]
Lastly, there were two quotes from today's MTP that encapsulate the discussion - one directly from Congressman James Clyburn and the other from Ms. Doris Kearns Goodwin quoting FDR.
Mr Clyburn: That kind of excitement will not last if people don't have dignity restored to their homes.
Ms. Goodwin quoting FDR: "Great crises present great opportunities."
So enjoy the moment, we absolutely should, but just know that you might have to go to the bottle again very soon to get the hair off the dog.
However, as Valerie Jarrett said, there are not two administrations are work here and, frankly, these two months will be crucial and this country still has to rely on George W. Bush. However, if there is any indication of the thoughtfulness that will go into an Obama administration, the transition team, co-chaired by Ms. Jarrett, has studied Presidential Transitions going back 50 years - what happened day by day, hour by hour in some cases. Do you think the Bush Administration did that?
Ms. Jarrett also touched on the fact that President-Elect Obama would seek different opinions and will most probably have Republicans in the cabinet. This column has advocated in the past that Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska would be an excellent choice, specifically for Secretary of Defense. No one would question his credentials or commitment to the job. Also, there is a quality to Senator Hagel (who did not run for re-election) that this column appreciates, which is that he understands the smallest parts of the great wheel are the most important. Having been a grunt (a non-commissioned soldier) in Vietnam, he understands the the chaos on the ground is not just theoretical when discussed in the power-broker halls of Washington.
Another item touched on during the hour was Mr. Obama's choice for chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel. Congressman Clyburn articulated is best when he said that managing is distinctly different than governing. We couldn't agree more, Congressman Emanuel is known for having sharp elbows and getting things done. John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, said that this choice was ironic because Mr. Emanuel, in his opinion, is very partisan and not emblematic of a bi-partisan effort that President-Elect Obama spoke about. We refer you back to Mr. Clyburn's statement. Also, Congressman Mel Martinez, also on the program, agreed, "I think you need someone in that job who you can trust, who's going to cover your backside, and who's smart and can run the trades on time--the trains on time. So I differ with, with Leader Boehner. I think that Rahm Emanuel for Barack Obama's a good choice."
This is the best opportunity that this country has had in a long time to build consensus. National greatness will never be constructed if consensus is not build first.
With this, this column believes that Senator John McCain could actually play a big role. Remember that his position on immigration was very much at odds with most Republicans, and even though it didn't go far enough, it was a big step. Are we saying that he should have a significant position in some capacity... no. It is for him to decide how his voice will be heard, but we can't help thinking that he is a different man than what his campaign portrayed him to be.
Are we being a little too forgiving? Are we too caught up in the moment of a new beginning? Our ability to 'reboot' as Bill Maher put it. Maybe, but when a woman in line to vote said to me that she had never seen a line like this before, I said to her that people seem to believe that for the first time in a long time, they have something to vote for. My vote for Senator Kerry in 2004 was a vote against George Bush, not FOR Kerry. He would have not been a good President - a blessing in disguise really. If the outcome would have been different, we as a country would have not arrived at this monumental moment.
[Aside: As it relates to Senator Kerry, this column does not advocate for him in any cabinet position in an Obama Administration. Reasons to be discussed in the coming days.]
Lastly, there were two quotes from today's MTP that encapsulate the discussion - one directly from Congressman James Clyburn and the other from Ms. Doris Kearns Goodwin quoting FDR.
Mr Clyburn: That kind of excitement will not last if people don't have dignity restored to their homes.
Ms. Goodwin quoting FDR: "Great crises present great opportunities."
So enjoy the moment, we absolutely should, but just know that you might have to go to the bottle again very soon to get the hair off the dog.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
11.2.08: 48 Hours to Go
With 48 hours to go, the last MTP before the general hosted Obama and McCain mouthpieces - Senator John Kerry and former Senator Fred Thompson respectively. They did not appear together, which is usually the better way to go, but with so little time, the circumstances dictate equal time.
Fred Thompson is an unreliable Republican. So few people take him seriously, especially after that half-assed Presidential run... yeah, remember that - it seems like a forever ago. He's unreliable because his self-agenda trumps party. When he was not a Senator, he was employed by a right to choose lobbying firm - not a republican platform. And his whole-hearted endorsement of Sarah Palin as vice-president reeks of wantonness for a cabinet position. And by the way, he was a mediocre Senator, at best.
Mr. Thompson talked about unprecedented headwinds facing McCain, and this column must admit that this race is closer than it really should be. More about that later. Mr. Thompson came off as a bit of a John McCain shill, not necessarily a Republican one. Mr. Brokaw asked a good question about principles and Mr. Thompson's response was telling. He said it's not the principles that are the problem but the deviation from those principles, referring to Republican principles. Well, you can see the problem with that answer. Two words - Ted Stevens. Republican principles in this election center around keeping power. Little else outside of the major motivation is considered.
One last thing, Mr. Thompson also talked about courage on the Senate floor. I'm sorry (not really), but this is a sham - that's not real courage.
Go to this link for real courage: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?scp=2&sq=afghan&st=cse
With that said, John Kerry still carries a huge chip on his shoulder from the '04 race with a long saber slash across his back for good measure. It's still raw and still visible. But Senator Kerry hammered a good point that Fred Thompson, or any Republican, does not mention the middle class. They have no answer or strategy or tactic even when it comes to working families in this country.
And I am tired of hearing about how Sarah Palin is getting beaten up in the press. Mr. Kerry is right when he said that zero foreign policy experience disqualifies here for the office she's seeking. Ms. Palin has not held one national press conference where national reporters are in a room asking questions. She deserves what she gets. You don't answers questions and we'll start digging... deep.
Where I disagree with Mr. Kerry is that he said that he wants Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. However, no effing way! Lieberman has effectively ceded his say within the Democratic caucus. Joe Lieberman has become a disgrace to public service, putting himself above all else.
So why is this race closer than it should be. Enter the panel of David Broder, Michelle Norris, Chuck Todd, and David Gregory. A bit refreshingly, they began by exposing any semblance of what is left of the elephant in the proverbial room by addressing the root cause of the closeness - race. The simple sad fact is that many in the electorate (and calling the people of the U.S. an 'electorate' seemingly does them a dignity that not all deserve) are not willing to vote for a black man.
Chuck Todd said something very hopeful, but that this column thinks is still a bit naive, which is that Senator Obama may over perform with Southern Whites. The reason is that the south has openly dealt with race for much longer and therefore have a better understanding. Hmmmm..... interesting, but I believe that is still wishful thinking unfortunately.
Finishing up the campaign, both candidates will end their respective campaigns in Virginia, a critical state that will serve as the barometer of change, not since 1964 has Virginia gone to a Democrat. However, the most critical is Pennsylvania where Senator Obama has a solid lead but that the people feel is still winnable. Democrats have consistently carried the day in this state, but it still gives them pause because of the socially conservative western part of the state.
What does help Republicans here is something that David Broder mentioned in that the conservative suburbs of Philadelphia are buying the Palin pick. Being from this particular area, I can say that this constituency has a significant influence and if it were not for the Palin choice, Pennsylvania would be a dead heat. Again, take caution Democrats, Pennsylvania is still close and wasn't it Tim Russert who said back in March (or some time around then) that it would come down to Pennsylvania? Even he could have foreseen the Republican VP candidate coming.
Go out and vote!!!!!
Fred Thompson is an unreliable Republican. So few people take him seriously, especially after that half-assed Presidential run... yeah, remember that - it seems like a forever ago. He's unreliable because his self-agenda trumps party. When he was not a Senator, he was employed by a right to choose lobbying firm - not a republican platform. And his whole-hearted endorsement of Sarah Palin as vice-president reeks of wantonness for a cabinet position. And by the way, he was a mediocre Senator, at best.
Mr. Thompson talked about unprecedented headwinds facing McCain, and this column must admit that this race is closer than it really should be. More about that later. Mr. Thompson came off as a bit of a John McCain shill, not necessarily a Republican one. Mr. Brokaw asked a good question about principles and Mr. Thompson's response was telling. He said it's not the principles that are the problem but the deviation from those principles, referring to Republican principles. Well, you can see the problem with that answer. Two words - Ted Stevens. Republican principles in this election center around keeping power. Little else outside of the major motivation is considered.
One last thing, Mr. Thompson also talked about courage on the Senate floor. I'm sorry (not really), but this is a sham - that's not real courage.
Go to this link for real courage: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?scp=2&sq=afghan&st=cse
With that said, John Kerry still carries a huge chip on his shoulder from the '04 race with a long saber slash across his back for good measure. It's still raw and still visible. But Senator Kerry hammered a good point that Fred Thompson, or any Republican, does not mention the middle class. They have no answer or strategy or tactic even when it comes to working families in this country.
And I am tired of hearing about how Sarah Palin is getting beaten up in the press. Mr. Kerry is right when he said that zero foreign policy experience disqualifies here for the office she's seeking. Ms. Palin has not held one national press conference where national reporters are in a room asking questions. She deserves what she gets. You don't answers questions and we'll start digging... deep.
Where I disagree with Mr. Kerry is that he said that he wants Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. However, no effing way! Lieberman has effectively ceded his say within the Democratic caucus. Joe Lieberman has become a disgrace to public service, putting himself above all else.
So why is this race closer than it should be. Enter the panel of David Broder, Michelle Norris, Chuck Todd, and David Gregory. A bit refreshingly, they began by exposing any semblance of what is left of the elephant in the proverbial room by addressing the root cause of the closeness - race. The simple sad fact is that many in the electorate (and calling the people of the U.S. an 'electorate' seemingly does them a dignity that not all deserve) are not willing to vote for a black man.
Chuck Todd said something very hopeful, but that this column thinks is still a bit naive, which is that Senator Obama may over perform with Southern Whites. The reason is that the south has openly dealt with race for much longer and therefore have a better understanding. Hmmmm..... interesting, but I believe that is still wishful thinking unfortunately.
Finishing up the campaign, both candidates will end their respective campaigns in Virginia, a critical state that will serve as the barometer of change, not since 1964 has Virginia gone to a Democrat. However, the most critical is Pennsylvania where Senator Obama has a solid lead but that the people feel is still winnable. Democrats have consistently carried the day in this state, but it still gives them pause because of the socially conservative western part of the state.
What does help Republicans here is something that David Broder mentioned in that the conservative suburbs of Philadelphia are buying the Palin pick. Being from this particular area, I can say that this constituency has a significant influence and if it were not for the Palin choice, Pennsylvania would be a dead heat. Again, take caution Democrats, Pennsylvania is still close and wasn't it Tim Russert who said back in March (or some time around then) that it would come down to Pennsylvania? Even he could have foreseen the Republican VP candidate coming.
Go out and vote!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)