Guests: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., weigh in on the numerous issues facing the Obama administration. Also: Erin Burnett and Andrew Ross Sorkin on the possible repercussions of cutting executive pay on Wall Street. Plus, a political roundtable: Jane Mayer, Joe Scarborough, Dan Senor and Tavis Smiley.
Today's program centered around two topics, no matter what segment and who the guest, the public option of the healthcare bill and Afghanistan strategy. I listed the guests above simply for reference.
Straight off, we need to discuss the statement made by Senator Schumer that he believes the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has the 60 votes in the chamber to pass a public option, which he will introduce into the bill. Obviously, Republicans are not for the public option in the healthcare and simply feel that letting people buy insurance across state lines would suffice to foster mpre competition and hence more competitive pricing which will lower costs overall. Both have their pitfalls to be sure and Senator Cornyn stated what all Republicans think is that the public option is just the first step to singular payer (as they have in many European countries).
Erin Burnett, who by the way has been wrong on so many occasions with regard to the market that we distrust her expertise, said that the U.S. will be borrowing a lot money to cover everything until 2019. Will we be running deficits until then as she's saying? Not necessarily. Pragmatically, what she is calling for is fiscal responsibility. To say that one party, usually the Republicans, have a monopoly on responsible spending is complete nonsense. Both parties spend big, they just spend big on different things. Republicans incur huge military debt and Democrats spend big domestically.
However, right now we're in a position where we have to do both.
With regard to Afghanistan, there is disagreement within the administration and amongst the public on what to do - increase the troop levels another 41,000+ as General McChrystal is recommending or concentrate more on Al Qeada solely as Vice President Biden is advocating.
The former Vice President Dick Cheney now famously said this week that the President is 'dithering' with regard to his no decision on Afghanistan. The politically correct thing to say here is that this is out of line because it undermines the Administration and the U.S. policy blah blah blah... Not Mr. Cheney's style of course, and it was a cheap shot, and we agree with what many in the press have said that Mr. Cheney is so discredited on good foreign policy decisions that he should really just.... to use his words, 'fuck off.'
The back and forth, the up and down, side to side.... Anyway, you look at it, here's the bottom line:
President Obama really does need to step up and start making some hard decisions. This column is growing impatient with just hearing that 'The White House is signaling... etc.' With regard to Afghanistan, frankly the Administration is stuck and caught in a holding pattern because of the election run-off, the United States can not announce a strategy while the Afghan government is in question. They should explain this to the public and plan for the different scenarios in the meantime.
This column recommends that the U.S. should commit more troops, but what ever number we commit, the N.A.T.O. forces should match to put as much of an international face on the increase as possible. Have them take the in-country/city patrols with U.S. assistance and then with the rest of our force concentrate on the border - Al Qeada and extremists. But this should be done in post-haste so we can get out of there as quickly as possible.
So when the election is decided, President Obama better have something at the ready. We're giving him a little window here.
However, what has been much more disappointing is Administration's positions on healthcare. We now here that they are leaning toward the 'trigger' idea with regard to the public option, employed only if the insurance companies don't get their act together as Senator Snowe of Maine suggested. What this essentially does is drop the public option from the bill. But... remember, the Administration has given such a declarative statement.
We could go on, but the time is overdue that the President, not people in his administration, but the man himself should state precisely what he believes should be in the bill. (It should be a public option - 61% of the public want it - in so many words, he campaigned on it.) If the public option is of the state by state opt-out, fine. Trigger or nothing at all, this column would just like to know for what he is willing to go to the mat. He's trying not to get his hands too dirty, leaving it to others in the administration.
Mr. President, whatever it is you believe, tell us flat out and take the lead. The time for wonder on these two critic issues is over.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
10.18.09: The Iron Head of Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona
Senior White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett aptly set the stage for the discussion to follow between Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Kyl (R-AZ) by clearly articulating the President's position on the public option consideration in the healthcare legislation. The public option is the last 8-foot hurdle in the steeple chase of healthcare reform. Ms. Jarrett also delivered some tough talk for the insurance industry, which frankly, the administration is late to do.
The easy, shallow argument for some one who says that he doesn't want a government bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor, one can say 'as opposed to today's alternative, an insurance company bureaucrat that gets a bonus for denying me coverage.'
Most people in this country agree that the insurance companies are the problem, except maybe the people of Arizona according to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who stated on today's Meet The Press that there needs to be changes in the system without reforming it entirely. What this indicates he that the Senator believes that the system we have in place is working fine, hence the increase in overall healthcare costs for the country are on a normal trajectory and that the Democrats' healthcare plan is fiscally irresponsible. . He also explained that the Republicans offered a lot of amendments but that now the Senate bill is being written in Harry Reid's office behind closed doors and that 'Republicans need not apply.' If this bitterness were on the other foot, Mr. Kyl would call it procedure - let's be clear. Given his answer, Senator Kyl does not see healthcare as a moral imperative.
And with regard to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Gregory posed the question of the war being fiscally neutral, to which Mr. Kyl appropriately said that war can not be done on the cheap. However, one has to ask where were such statements when Mr. Rumsfeld made the assessment to do the Iraq war on the cheap. The mistake of going in on the cheap ended up costing the United States more in the long run - and it continues to be a long run.
Mr. Dodd, who has done less than a stellar job in his position, kept emphasizing accessibility and affordability. He unequivocally stated that the Public Option should be in the legislation to reduce the burden on the federal budget, a view this column advocates. Perhaps the compromise will be that there will be public option that individual states can elect not to offer. Cynically, one could wish for this because if you're a Democrat because you'll see the Republican controlled states, i.e. Texas and Arizona, initially opt out and then because of the reality of the burden put on the population, they have to institute it. This would put party Republicans in a worse position if the public option were to pass nationally outright. Republicans can just claim victory in a losing cause.
And it's ironic that Senator Jon Kyl should be a guest on today's program, of which the entire second half was devoted to initiating NBC's "A Woman's Nation." This is the individual who said, "I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive." And isn't it also curious that Republicans yearn for a time when men worked and woman worked in the home (yes, a simplified version), but it is their fiscal policies over the decades that have created the condition in which women (families) don't have the choice but to have both parents working.
Maria Shriver, NBC's guest editor, pointed out that 50% of the women in the U.S. work and that 38% are the bread winners for their families. Most significantly she pointed out that this is a permanent change. That's what every one needs to get their head around. Additionally, the conversation, which included John Podesta and Valerie Jarrett, swirled around the notion of 'care.' Women, in addition to working, also take on the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to caring for the children AND when care for the elderly. Care.... care like watching out for the health of individuals. It comes back to that. People have to work more to pay for healthcare but they are then less available to care for the individuals who rely on them.
Not to trivialize or to do injustice to the discussion by not writing a ton in this forum, we suffice to say that the burden on women in this country is completely out of proportion. We hope that this week-long expose and discussion brings this issue to the forefront of this country's collective dialogue.
Lastly today, we considered noting last week's Meet The Press Minute and that the reinstitution of this segment on the program is applauded by this column. It reminds the viewers of another reason why they come to Meet The Press - for the historical perspective it can provide.
Today's Meet The Press Minute was no exception with a segment from September 10, 1972, in which the guest was Gloria Steinem. Ms. Steinem was a lightning rod for the women's movement during the 1970's but looking at today's clip really does give perspective.
If this question and answer exchange were to of taken place today, Mr. Lawrence Spivak, the moderator, would have been terminated immediately after the program. His line of questioning was sexist to the nth degree, asking why a woman doesn't have control of a man since it is her who controls him from birth to puberty to beyond. If it weren't 1972, you would think he was being sarcastic. Ms. Steinem gave the male moderator an intellectual beatdown, which we hope for history's sake, turned off a lot more male viewers at the time.
Keep the Meet The Press Minute!
The easy, shallow argument for some one who says that he doesn't want a government bureaucrat coming between me and my doctor, one can say 'as opposed to today's alternative, an insurance company bureaucrat that gets a bonus for denying me coverage.'
Most people in this country agree that the insurance companies are the problem, except maybe the people of Arizona according to Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who stated on today's Meet The Press that there needs to be changes in the system without reforming it entirely. What this indicates he that the Senator believes that the system we have in place is working fine, hence the increase in overall healthcare costs for the country are on a normal trajectory and that the Democrats' healthcare plan is fiscally irresponsible. . He also explained that the Republicans offered a lot of amendments but that now the Senate bill is being written in Harry Reid's office behind closed doors and that 'Republicans need not apply.' If this bitterness were on the other foot, Mr. Kyl would call it procedure - let's be clear. Given his answer, Senator Kyl does not see healthcare as a moral imperative.
And with regard to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Gregory posed the question of the war being fiscally neutral, to which Mr. Kyl appropriately said that war can not be done on the cheap. However, one has to ask where were such statements when Mr. Rumsfeld made the assessment to do the Iraq war on the cheap. The mistake of going in on the cheap ended up costing the United States more in the long run - and it continues to be a long run.
Mr. Dodd, who has done less than a stellar job in his position, kept emphasizing accessibility and affordability. He unequivocally stated that the Public Option should be in the legislation to reduce the burden on the federal budget, a view this column advocates. Perhaps the compromise will be that there will be public option that individual states can elect not to offer. Cynically, one could wish for this because if you're a Democrat because you'll see the Republican controlled states, i.e. Texas and Arizona, initially opt out and then because of the reality of the burden put on the population, they have to institute it. This would put party Republicans in a worse position if the public option were to pass nationally outright. Republicans can just claim victory in a losing cause.
And it's ironic that Senator Jon Kyl should be a guest on today's program, of which the entire second half was devoted to initiating NBC's "A Woman's Nation." This is the individual who said, "I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive." And isn't it also curious that Republicans yearn for a time when men worked and woman worked in the home (yes, a simplified version), but it is their fiscal policies over the decades that have created the condition in which women (families) don't have the choice but to have both parents working.
Maria Shriver, NBC's guest editor, pointed out that 50% of the women in the U.S. work and that 38% are the bread winners for their families. Most significantly she pointed out that this is a permanent change. That's what every one needs to get their head around. Additionally, the conversation, which included John Podesta and Valerie Jarrett, swirled around the notion of 'care.' Women, in addition to working, also take on the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to caring for the children AND when care for the elderly. Care.... care like watching out for the health of individuals. It comes back to that. People have to work more to pay for healthcare but they are then less available to care for the individuals who rely on them.
Not to trivialize or to do injustice to the discussion by not writing a ton in this forum, we suffice to say that the burden on women in this country is completely out of proportion. We hope that this week-long expose and discussion brings this issue to the forefront of this country's collective dialogue.
Lastly today, we considered noting last week's Meet The Press Minute and that the reinstitution of this segment on the program is applauded by this column. It reminds the viewers of another reason why they come to Meet The Press - for the historical perspective it can provide.
Today's Meet The Press Minute was no exception with a segment from September 10, 1972, in which the guest was Gloria Steinem. Ms. Steinem was a lightning rod for the women's movement during the 1970's but looking at today's clip really does give perspective.
If this question and answer exchange were to of taken place today, Mr. Lawrence Spivak, the moderator, would have been terminated immediately after the program. His line of questioning was sexist to the nth degree, asking why a woman doesn't have control of a man since it is her who controls him from birth to puberty to beyond. If it weren't 1972, you would think he was being sarcastic. Ms. Steinem gave the male moderator an intellectual beatdown, which we hope for history's sake, turned off a lot more male viewers at the time.
Keep the Meet The Press Minute!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
10.11.09: What's 'Winning?'
It's a sad state of affairs when this column is relieved to be discussing the enigma of Afghanistan instead of healthcare reform. But while we're thinking of it, the key to healthcare reform is actually quite simple, politically difficult for no good reason, but what has to be done is that we need to take the power away from the insurance companies. Do that and everything will fall into place.
So now, on to Afghanistan.
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made the point at the top of the program that we need to show the Afghan people resolve. Resolve would be defined as NOT cutting and running. The possibility of this is slim - this American mistake is well documented, especially in this region. General McChrystal, who is not only the commander of the U.S. forces but who is also the N.A.T.O. commander is requesting 40,000 more troops to squash the Taliban. There is a necessity to keep the face of this operation as international as possible. It is American dominated, yes, the international forces need to be recognized - more so than they are now.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), also on the Armed Services Committee, said he would go with the general's recommendation of the troop increase. But then he said that no matter how many troops you send it won't make a difference if the Afghan government isn't seen as legitimate. Mr. Gregory appropriately called the Senator on this, to which he back tracked and said it needed to be a combined effort to send more troops and simultaneously sure up the government of Afghanistan.
Senator Graham has it correct, but the problem is that he doesn't know why he has it right. Every time (seriously, no exaggeration) Senator Graham states his opinion, his personal assessment gets replaced by the consensus Republican talking point. It's as if he checks himself mid-sentence. The surge in Iraq worked and there are people who are of the mind that a similar strategy would work in Afghanistan. In fact, General McCaffery, guest on today's program, stated the we have to escalate, at the very least in the short term. It's just not that simple.
As we said last week, what's needed is more diplomatic boots on the ground to assist with the governmental infrastructure and builders. With regard to the troops, a clear goal in terms of who we're fighting must be set. Wisely, Senator Levin articulated what most agree upon, which is that there can not be a timeline for ending this conflict, at least not right now. But this is up against the following chart:
Not only is this graphic troubling [responsibility squarely resides with the Bush Administration] because of the length of time without a strategic goal, but the fact that we don't know when this will end. Republicans advocate more troops to 'win it,' but what does that mean exactly? Repbulicans want the win but they seem to just want the presence of the U.S. Military to overcome, intimidate, and conquer. Not a good plan.
Operationally, the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate out of Pakistan, and despite whatever has been said, Pakistan is not cooperative. Vice President Joe Biden has it correct that this should be the focus, especially given the Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Does this rule out a troop increase - no. But there has to be clear reasons for every additional soldier to be there. Stabilizing the country [read: decreasing the violence] and assisting the government in becoming more efficient should have been going on for 8 years now, but unfortunately, we're just starting now.
Lastly, we'll leave you this week with comments on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win and gays in the military. First, Senator Levin stated it correctly - recognition of the new direction that he has set for us. And though it is not deserved, this column feels that it is very poor taste for Republicans to stand in open opposition against the President receiving it. Where's our national collective pride? It' sad, but we don't have that anymore - not in the slightest.
And as far as gays in the military - end 'don't ask, don't tell.' You can not advocate freedom for all - a Republican talking point - but only if you're part of certain groups. It doesn't work that way. Any American that wants to serve in our military and put his/her life on the line for our country, should be honored - not persecuted.
So now, on to Afghanistan.
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made the point at the top of the program that we need to show the Afghan people resolve. Resolve would be defined as NOT cutting and running. The possibility of this is slim - this American mistake is well documented, especially in this region. General McChrystal, who is not only the commander of the U.S. forces but who is also the N.A.T.O. commander is requesting 40,000 more troops to squash the Taliban. There is a necessity to keep the face of this operation as international as possible. It is American dominated, yes, the international forces need to be recognized - more so than they are now.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), also on the Armed Services Committee, said he would go with the general's recommendation of the troop increase. But then he said that no matter how many troops you send it won't make a difference if the Afghan government isn't seen as legitimate. Mr. Gregory appropriately called the Senator on this, to which he back tracked and said it needed to be a combined effort to send more troops and simultaneously sure up the government of Afghanistan.
Senator Graham has it correct, but the problem is that he doesn't know why he has it right. Every time (seriously, no exaggeration) Senator Graham states his opinion, his personal assessment gets replaced by the consensus Republican talking point. It's as if he checks himself mid-sentence. The surge in Iraq worked and there are people who are of the mind that a similar strategy would work in Afghanistan. In fact, General McCaffery, guest on today's program, stated the we have to escalate, at the very least in the short term. It's just not that simple.
As we said last week, what's needed is more diplomatic boots on the ground to assist with the governmental infrastructure and builders. With regard to the troops, a clear goal in terms of who we're fighting must be set. Wisely, Senator Levin articulated what most agree upon, which is that there can not be a timeline for ending this conflict, at least not right now. But this is up against the following chart:
Not only is this graphic troubling [responsibility squarely resides with the Bush Administration] because of the length of time without a strategic goal, but the fact that we don't know when this will end. Republicans advocate more troops to 'win it,' but what does that mean exactly? Repbulicans want the win but they seem to just want the presence of the U.S. Military to overcome, intimidate, and conquer. Not a good plan.
Operationally, the leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda operate out of Pakistan, and despite whatever has been said, Pakistan is not cooperative. Vice President Joe Biden has it correct that this should be the focus, especially given the Pakistan's nuclear capabilities. Does this rule out a troop increase - no. But there has to be clear reasons for every additional soldier to be there. Stabilizing the country [read: decreasing the violence] and assisting the government in becoming more efficient should have been going on for 8 years now, but unfortunately, we're just starting now.
Lastly, we'll leave you this week with comments on President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win and gays in the military. First, Senator Levin stated it correctly - recognition of the new direction that he has set for us. And though it is not deserved, this column feels that it is very poor taste for Republicans to stand in open opposition against the President receiving it. Where's our national collective pride? It' sad, but we don't have that anymore - not in the slightest.
And as far as gays in the military - end 'don't ask, don't tell.' You can not advocate freedom for all - a Republican talking point - but only if you're part of certain groups. It doesn't work that way. Any American that wants to serve in our military and put his/her life on the line for our country, should be honored - not persecuted.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
10.4.09: From the Khyber Pass to the Partisan Divide
Given the report in today's New York Times that Iran has to the data to construct a nuclear bomb, it became topic umber one on the charts for today's Meet The Press and its first guest Ms. Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador of the United Nations. The report stems from a 'confidential' analysis from the U.N. Nuclear Agency that says that Iran has sufficient information to create a workable atomic bomb (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/middleeast/04nuke.html?_r=1&hp). Just a couple things here before we get to the conversation with Ms. Rice. One, a report like this is most certainly better for the entire international community when made public. It should not be held in secret. Now that it is out in the open, it forces other countries to weigh in with their concerns and then possibly a wider consensus on what position to take can jell.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, with all the talk of Iran and its nuclear facilities, one large secret facility exposed last week, to think that Iran didn't have this knowledge, even without the report, doesn't say much for our analytical skills. However, something like this does have to come from the United Nations because if the United States were to bring this to the table, we would be scoffed at. We are the boy that cried wolf. The last time the U.S. presented nuclear evidence to that body, none of it turned out to be true.
Today's interview with Ms. Rice served to introduce her to the MTP audience. Also, it's one thing to speak in front of a room full of international diplomats, but it is another to appear on Meet The Press. It showed in Ms. Rice's answers with her being the consummate diplomat giving, essentially, non-answers. However, her hands are tied in as much as she speaks not for herself but for United States international policy as dictated by the President. Ms. Rice repeated the themes of thoughtful and thorough analysis with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But it is of no matter. Just know that Iran has the resources to make a nuclear bomb or they at least have the resources they need to acquire the missing puzzles pieces. This column is of the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will possess this technology. That doesn't mean we're happy about it... nor sad - it's just a matter of being realistic. And other governments have to step up, taking more of a leadership role in the collective bargaining while the U.S. conducts individual negotiations.
Afghanistan is what really tripped up the U.N. Ambassador... the subject has been doing that to a lot of people lately including today's gaggle of pundits. When Mr. Gregory pressed Ms. Rice on the difference of strategy in keeping America safe vs. making Afghanistan stable, she didn't have a clear answer/position. The reason - because the Administration does have one either. In all fairness, the Administration is diligently constructing a policy with the news today that insurgents stormed an outpost killing 8 U.S. soldiers.
Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist, on today's panel said we would either have to leave or triple down, meaning commit more troops and go in for the long haul. David Brooks is of the mind that the Taliban remaining in country is not an option and says that they are redefining the standard by allowing the existence of the Taliban as long as there is no Al Qaeda. But here's to Mr. Brooks who feels that the administration will make the right decision. Rachel Maddow, competent at identifying the partisanship of an issue, said the political divide that the one side is willing to give the President time and the other is saying he's moving too slowly - you figure out which is which. Mr. Murphy sees it as a 'binary' choice, siting that the politics involved is an inevitable mess.
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist, who rounded out today's paneland ever insightful, countered saying that this cut and dry choice is the critical mistake. He explained, citing General McChrystal, that in order of a counter-insurgency to work, there must be good governance and given that they are looking for a responsible way to get rid of Al Qaeda.
No matter how many troops the U.S. commits, it will not rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. The commitment to get rid of Al Qaeda, or as it stands now its operational/inspirational head, should ultimately remain the focus of U.S. policy. In doing so, assist the Afghan government in building up a sound infrastructure of personnel. The diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan requires its own 'surge' with an actual increase of individuals on the ground. To go in and spend another trillion dollars - all in as Mr. Murphy suggests - would simply dig us in deeper, hence longer.
Lastly, we would just like to touch on one more topic that all of today's guests had an opinion on and serves as a solid barometric reading of where we are as a country as it relates to our political discourse - the 2016 Olympics. Much had been made of the President going to Denmark to lobby for Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics. There was even more made of it it, when after his appearance, Chicago didn't even make it into the final round of voting. As Ms. Maddow pointed out, the Weekly Standard's office celebrated the news that Chicago was not chosen. Ambassador Rice said that it is never a mistake for fight for something for your country. Many asked why would the President go on such a frivolous trip when there are so many more serious matters at hand. Mr. Murphy said it was amateur staff work sending the President to try and get something like that when it isn't a sure thing. David Brooks is with President Obama on it - he took a risk putting the country over his own personal prestige. We're all over the place.
Chicago was a long shot to get the 2016 Olympics, something most people didn't know. Being as though the city is the adopted hometown of the President, it is not unreasonable that he would go and try to tip the scales in the favor of a U.S. city. Given that, we fall on the side of David Brooks and Amb. Rice. - why not? And anyone who makes a big deal that he went all the way to Denmark should know that the President was in country for four hours, and traveled a total of fourteen. That is 18 hours total - less than one day. Another American example of making a big deal out of nothing.
And we'll leave you this week with these two quotes.
"...loons and harmful for America..." David Brooks on today's Meet The Press when referring to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Mark Levine. Mr. Brooks keeping it real. We applaud.
"...It's the same dance toward the dumbing of the base." After Rachel Maddow attempted to make the point that MSNBC is not a one-party network with Joe Scarborough as part of the mix, Mr. Murphy literally left Ms. Maddow speechless when he concluded with comparing her network's prime-time to Fox's. We appreciate Ms. Maddow's perspectives on what she covers on much of her show, but since her very quick rise as a TV persona, we haven't seen her really get slammed like that before - quite humbling. Glad to see it happen.
You know, keep everyone in check.
MTP Minute: William Safire - 99 TImes. The dialogue between him and Mr. Russert could collectively be made into a great piece of theater.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, with all the talk of Iran and its nuclear facilities, one large secret facility exposed last week, to think that Iran didn't have this knowledge, even without the report, doesn't say much for our analytical skills. However, something like this does have to come from the United Nations because if the United States were to bring this to the table, we would be scoffed at. We are the boy that cried wolf. The last time the U.S. presented nuclear evidence to that body, none of it turned out to be true.
Today's interview with Ms. Rice served to introduce her to the MTP audience. Also, it's one thing to speak in front of a room full of international diplomats, but it is another to appear on Meet The Press. It showed in Ms. Rice's answers with her being the consummate diplomat giving, essentially, non-answers. However, her hands are tied in as much as she speaks not for herself but for United States international policy as dictated by the President. Ms. Rice repeated the themes of thoughtful and thorough analysis with regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions. But it is of no matter. Just know that Iran has the resources to make a nuclear bomb or they at least have the resources they need to acquire the missing puzzles pieces. This column is of the opinion that it is a foregone conclusion that Iran will possess this technology. That doesn't mean we're happy about it... nor sad - it's just a matter of being realistic. And other governments have to step up, taking more of a leadership role in the collective bargaining while the U.S. conducts individual negotiations.
Afghanistan is what really tripped up the U.N. Ambassador... the subject has been doing that to a lot of people lately including today's gaggle of pundits. When Mr. Gregory pressed Ms. Rice on the difference of strategy in keeping America safe vs. making Afghanistan stable, she didn't have a clear answer/position. The reason - because the Administration does have one either. In all fairness, the Administration is diligently constructing a policy with the news today that insurgents stormed an outpost killing 8 U.S. soldiers.
Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist, on today's panel said we would either have to leave or triple down, meaning commit more troops and go in for the long haul. David Brooks is of the mind that the Taliban remaining in country is not an option and says that they are redefining the standard by allowing the existence of the Taliban as long as there is no Al Qaeda. But here's to Mr. Brooks who feels that the administration will make the right decision. Rachel Maddow, competent at identifying the partisanship of an issue, said the political divide that the one side is willing to give the President time and the other is saying he's moving too slowly - you figure out which is which. Mr. Murphy sees it as a 'binary' choice, siting that the politics involved is an inevitable mess.
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist, who rounded out today's paneland ever insightful, countered saying that this cut and dry choice is the critical mistake. He explained, citing General McChrystal, that in order of a counter-insurgency to work, there must be good governance and given that they are looking for a responsible way to get rid of Al Qaeda.
No matter how many troops the U.S. commits, it will not rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. The commitment to get rid of Al Qaeda, or as it stands now its operational/inspirational head, should ultimately remain the focus of U.S. policy. In doing so, assist the Afghan government in building up a sound infrastructure of personnel. The diplomatic presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan requires its own 'surge' with an actual increase of individuals on the ground. To go in and spend another trillion dollars - all in as Mr. Murphy suggests - would simply dig us in deeper, hence longer.
Lastly, we would just like to touch on one more topic that all of today's guests had an opinion on and serves as a solid barometric reading of where we are as a country as it relates to our political discourse - the 2016 Olympics. Much had been made of the President going to Denmark to lobby for Chicago hosting the 2016 Olympics. There was even more made of it it, when after his appearance, Chicago didn't even make it into the final round of voting. As Ms. Maddow pointed out, the Weekly Standard's office celebrated the news that Chicago was not chosen. Ambassador Rice said that it is never a mistake for fight for something for your country. Many asked why would the President go on such a frivolous trip when there are so many more serious matters at hand. Mr. Murphy said it was amateur staff work sending the President to try and get something like that when it isn't a sure thing. David Brooks is with President Obama on it - he took a risk putting the country over his own personal prestige. We're all over the place.
Chicago was a long shot to get the 2016 Olympics, something most people didn't know. Being as though the city is the adopted hometown of the President, it is not unreasonable that he would go and try to tip the scales in the favor of a U.S. city. Given that, we fall on the side of David Brooks and Amb. Rice. - why not? And anyone who makes a big deal that he went all the way to Denmark should know that the President was in country for four hours, and traveled a total of fourteen. That is 18 hours total - less than one day. Another American example of making a big deal out of nothing.
And we'll leave you this week with these two quotes.
"...loons and harmful for America..." David Brooks on today's Meet The Press when referring to Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Mark Levine. Mr. Brooks keeping it real. We applaud.
"...It's the same dance toward the dumbing of the base." After Rachel Maddow attempted to make the point that MSNBC is not a one-party network with Joe Scarborough as part of the mix, Mr. Murphy literally left Ms. Maddow speechless when he concluded with comparing her network's prime-time to Fox's. We appreciate Ms. Maddow's perspectives on what she covers on much of her show, but since her very quick rise as a TV persona, we haven't seen her really get slammed like that before - quite humbling. Glad to see it happen.
You know, keep everyone in check.
MTP Minute: William Safire - 99 TImes. The dialogue between him and Mr. Russert could collectively be made into a great piece of theater.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
9.27.09: Know Your Enemy
"I am not going to run from a fight when I know who I am fighting for.'
- NY Governor David Patterson
Mr. Patterson said this while David Gregory is citing his poll numbers with a 20% approval rating. In this case, it is a kind determination that deserves respect. Whether the citizens of New York feel like he is, in fact, fighting for their best interest will ultimately be decided on election day. But the notion, that Mr. Patterson knows who he is fighting for, is of critical importance.
This brings us to the subject of Afghanistan, which in terms of the program, serves as a welcome change from the constant back and forth of healthcare. Also, what this conversation shows us is that Americans can work together and listen to one another. Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), who became per snippety this week with Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) over healthcare, guested on today MTP along with Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). Before we go any farther, it is worth stating how much better off this country is to have Mr. Webb in office over Mr. George Allen (Mr. Macaca for the less informed). As a former Secretary of the Navy and a son in Iraq, Mr. Webb evaluates our military policy with a multi-level insight - both personally and professionally - that is levelheaded and realist in perspective. Today was a clear example of our politicians can wisely discuss critical matters. And the critical matter at hand is whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan.
President Clinton, today's first guest in a recorded interview, outlined it as a surge similar to the one in Iraq that proved successful. However, the President was non-committal to whether or not more troops would be beneficial. His tact, as well as the two guest Senators, is to wait for what General Petreas and General McCrystal have to report in terms of strategy. Senator Webb pointed out that we have to determine whether this will be a counter terror strategy or a counter insurgency approach. Counter insurgency, as Mr. Webb continued to explain, is nation building, a matter of which is having at least 400,000 Afghan police and soldiers trained up, but that it is also a country that has never had more than 90,000 in those combined positions in its history.
With questions of whether the Karzai Government is even legitimate, it's difficult to advocate for nation building in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we didn't do so much of nation building as we did nation rebuilding. Infrastructure was not a question until we started blowing things up. However, in Afghanistan, there is nothing, it's completely starting from scratch. So what seems to be happening now, is a bit of both - building in Afghanistan and routing out the Taliban to get to Al Qaeda. A hybrid or two-pronged approach, what ever you want to call it, is not an option. Detractors would call this unfocused and indecisive, but no matter which way is the focus, there will have to be some of the other.
If there was an instance in which military action would be beneficial to decapitate Al Qaeda, it would be here. Counter terror should be the focus: Though the Taliban is not an outside overt threat to the United States (they won't bomb us), they will harbor Al Qaeda again if they control Afghanistan. Unchecked, Al Qaeda would turn its attention to Pakistan, attempting to destabilize a nuclear power. This is a distinct possibility, which truly endangers us... and everyone else. Not to mention that they will have to time to plan another creative large-scale attack. To do this, additional troops are necessary and in effect we agree with Senator Kyl that more troops would keep the Taliban out. However, if the mission were nation building, more troops would also be required. What it boils down to is not if more troops are going, it's a matter of what they're going to do once they get there. We need to know who exactly we're fighting for.
So the level headed Republicans understand that the Democratic President isn't delaying a strategic decision, he's being careful listening to his generals before deciding. Once, he does then a new debate will begin.
Waiting for the generals...
The other important international concern discussed on today's program was Iran. This morning is was reported that Iran has conducted a long range missile test, which is troubling given that the missiles that pass the test are likely to be pointed at Israel. This column's take on this missile test is that it is a warning shot. The United States, along with France and Britain, announced and condemned this week a secret Iranian nuclear facility too big to be just for peaceful purposes.
President Clinton offered a hopeful approach saying that if Iran reverses course, think of the places that we could go together. That idea is not unrealistic because we know that ordinary Iranians and Americans have similar attitudes - citizenry to citizenry very compatible. However, the Iranian government is not going to reverse course anytime soon so Mr. Clinton's hopeful notion will have to be put on hold.
Right now, we [read: U.S., France, Britain (mainly)] are threatening the stick but haven't used it. If we are serious, we have to pick it up in the form of strict sanctions. MIlitary action is unwise in the short term and the long term. In the short term, it's a third battlefront in the region for the U.S. and in the long term we make an enemy of the Iranian citizenry. Sanctions need to be communicated that it is not the Iranian people we're acting against but their repressive government - clearing identifying who were are fighting against. There can be no flinching with Iran, decisiveness is key. And during this time, there must be hard diplomacy with China, who as Mr. Webb pointed out, remains neutral and continuing trade with Iran.
on going.....
Coming full circle, Governor. Patterson, today's last guest, made his case for the hard decisions in trying to straighten out New York State's budget. He explained himself well and is most likely doing the right thing for his constituents, but it's being swallowed like castor oil - complaints all the way down. And as we pointed out at the top, Mr. Patterson is 'blind, but not obvious' (his quote) and knows who he is fighting for. Unfortunately, he's still trying to figure out exactly who he is fighting against - which looks like everyone.
- NY Governor David Patterson
Mr. Patterson said this while David Gregory is citing his poll numbers with a 20% approval rating. In this case, it is a kind determination that deserves respect. Whether the citizens of New York feel like he is, in fact, fighting for their best interest will ultimately be decided on election day. But the notion, that Mr. Patterson knows who he is fighting for, is of critical importance.
This brings us to the subject of Afghanistan, which in terms of the program, serves as a welcome change from the constant back and forth of healthcare. Also, what this conversation shows us is that Americans can work together and listen to one another. Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), who became per snippety this week with Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) over healthcare, guested on today MTP along with Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). Before we go any farther, it is worth stating how much better off this country is to have Mr. Webb in office over Mr. George Allen (Mr. Macaca for the less informed). As a former Secretary of the Navy and a son in Iraq, Mr. Webb evaluates our military policy with a multi-level insight - both personally and professionally - that is levelheaded and realist in perspective. Today was a clear example of our politicians can wisely discuss critical matters. And the critical matter at hand is whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan.
President Clinton, today's first guest in a recorded interview, outlined it as a surge similar to the one in Iraq that proved successful. However, the President was non-committal to whether or not more troops would be beneficial. His tact, as well as the two guest Senators, is to wait for what General Petreas and General McCrystal have to report in terms of strategy. Senator Webb pointed out that we have to determine whether this will be a counter terror strategy or a counter insurgency approach. Counter insurgency, as Mr. Webb continued to explain, is nation building, a matter of which is having at least 400,000 Afghan police and soldiers trained up, but that it is also a country that has never had more than 90,000 in those combined positions in its history.
With questions of whether the Karzai Government is even legitimate, it's difficult to advocate for nation building in Afghanistan. In Iraq, we didn't do so much of nation building as we did nation rebuilding. Infrastructure was not a question until we started blowing things up. However, in Afghanistan, there is nothing, it's completely starting from scratch. So what seems to be happening now, is a bit of both - building in Afghanistan and routing out the Taliban to get to Al Qaeda. A hybrid or two-pronged approach, what ever you want to call it, is not an option. Detractors would call this unfocused and indecisive, but no matter which way is the focus, there will have to be some of the other.
If there was an instance in which military action would be beneficial to decapitate Al Qaeda, it would be here. Counter terror should be the focus: Though the Taliban is not an outside overt threat to the United States (they won't bomb us), they will harbor Al Qaeda again if they control Afghanistan. Unchecked, Al Qaeda would turn its attention to Pakistan, attempting to destabilize a nuclear power. This is a distinct possibility, which truly endangers us... and everyone else. Not to mention that they will have to time to plan another creative large-scale attack. To do this, additional troops are necessary and in effect we agree with Senator Kyl that more troops would keep the Taliban out. However, if the mission were nation building, more troops would also be required. What it boils down to is not if more troops are going, it's a matter of what they're going to do once they get there. We need to know who exactly we're fighting for.
So the level headed Republicans understand that the Democratic President isn't delaying a strategic decision, he's being careful listening to his generals before deciding. Once, he does then a new debate will begin.
Waiting for the generals...
The other important international concern discussed on today's program was Iran. This morning is was reported that Iran has conducted a long range missile test, which is troubling given that the missiles that pass the test are likely to be pointed at Israel. This column's take on this missile test is that it is a warning shot. The United States, along with France and Britain, announced and condemned this week a secret Iranian nuclear facility too big to be just for peaceful purposes.
President Clinton offered a hopeful approach saying that if Iran reverses course, think of the places that we could go together. That idea is not unrealistic because we know that ordinary Iranians and Americans have similar attitudes - citizenry to citizenry very compatible. However, the Iranian government is not going to reverse course anytime soon so Mr. Clinton's hopeful notion will have to be put on hold.
Right now, we [read: U.S., France, Britain (mainly)] are threatening the stick but haven't used it. If we are serious, we have to pick it up in the form of strict sanctions. MIlitary action is unwise in the short term and the long term. In the short term, it's a third battlefront in the region for the U.S. and in the long term we make an enemy of the Iranian citizenry. Sanctions need to be communicated that it is not the Iranian people we're acting against but their repressive government - clearing identifying who were are fighting against. There can be no flinching with Iran, decisiveness is key. And during this time, there must be hard diplomacy with China, who as Mr. Webb pointed out, remains neutral and continuing trade with Iran.
on going.....
Coming full circle, Governor. Patterson, today's last guest, made his case for the hard decisions in trying to straighten out New York State's budget. He explained himself well and is most likely doing the right thing for his constituents, but it's being swallowed like castor oil - complaints all the way down. And as we pointed out at the top, Mr. Patterson is 'blind, but not obvious' (his quote) and knows who he is fighting for. Unfortunately, he's still trying to figure out exactly who he is fighting against - which looks like everyone.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
9.20.09: A Harsh Response
Recently, at one of these Freedomworks-sponsored tea party events, a man whose family members perished in the Holocaust attacked another man who was holding a sign that depicted President Obama as Adolf Hitler. The attacker was arrested. Now we're not saying that the man shouldn't have been arrested, but what we are saying is that overt racist references that are still open wounds for an individual or particular group of people will provoke a heightened reaction.
In David Gregory's interview with President Obama, as he made the Meet The Press round of his Sunday intervews, he reacted to former President Jimmy Carter's remarks, centered on race and racist resistance, with regard to criticism of the President. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer in Georgia, living in the height of segregation where overt racial bias [understated] and racial violence prevailed. In other words, he's a man who knows. Now, is President Carter sometimes guilty of over-dramatization? Sure, but he also has a knack of telling people what they need to hear even if they don't like it.
Of course, the President has too distance his answer from Jimmy Carter's observations. To say anything otherwise would then invite the distillation of every debate on public policy down to that one element. Mr. Obama acknowledged that for a small amount of people it is a problem but that is not what drives the language. He once again referred to the example of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when in his day amidst the changes he was making, he was called every name in the book.
(Just an impression: On this topic of race at one point, this column felt that Mr. Gregory pressed the President in a way that simply sought to obtain a provocative quote. It is a tact to which Mr. Gregory is prone, but one that he should get away from. Another probing but thoughtful question should be the approach.)
As we know, the above topic is fueled by the debate on healthcare reform. What more can be said? At least that's our initial thought. We'll try and keep it within the context of what was said on today's program... but no guarantees.
Given what we said above about Mr. Gregory's tact, we liked that when asking the President about the public option he asked it as such: So the public option is dead? In a matter of fact tone. The President needs to clearly state his way out of this box, repeatedly. This column, frankly, finds his answer disappointing. He said that it is not dead, but not essential for reform. As long as the insurance companies dictate who receives what coverage for treatment, core reform is empty.
And lastly, with regard to Afghanistan, at this moment, the President is still getting only minor pressure from the Republicans and minimal heat from the Democrats and the left. The President is closely following the advice of the generals, but a report, mentioned on the program, indicates that the Obama Administration is asking the generals to hold off on their assessment. This is a mistake on two levels: One, we should never delay an assessment that should lead to the wisest strategy on the ground. Literally, Our soldiers depend on it. And two, politically, putting more focus on Afghanistan could serve as a counter balancing issue that unites politicians versus what is going on in the healthcare debate.
However, on today's program, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said he was concerned about the 'changing goals' in Afghanistan. The strategy, as it stands, is to stabilize the country by destroying any Taliban influence, the group that harbors Al Qaeda, the leadership of which we're trying to catch. The constant problem with Congressman Boehner is that he makes these statements that he doesn't like the Administration's direction but never offers a concrete alternative view. Exasperatingly, it begs the question: What is solution to the problem? On Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter, Mr. Boehner was in lock step with most all of the previous administration's disastrous decisions making his 'concerns' virtually irrelevant.
For a change of pace, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put his support behind the President and wants him to succeed. Whether he agrees with everything or not, foreign military policy should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, former Vice President Dick Cheney solidified that it always would be. Despite all of this, decisions and assessments should never be put on hold.
On the domestic front, it has and always will be grossly partisan. Senator Graham said that the President is saying everything that everyone wants to hear but that the 'details just don't add it,' Mr. Boehner added that he didn't want to see a giant government take over of healthcare. The Republicans, as they did on today's program, are floating the notion of stopping and starting over with the legislation. In unprecedented expression for this column, that is the biggest load of bullshit we've ever heard.
One, the minority party does not dictate the terms of discussion.
Two, the Republicans would never entertain such a notion if they were in control [see the previous administration].
Three, Republicans complain also complain about the T.A.R.P. when considering cost for healthcare, but if it was for their deregulating everything during the previous administration's run, we wouldn't have needed the T.A.R.P. in the first place.
Four, it is a blatant delay tactic to block any real reform before the mid-term elections start heating up, hence the presence of a huge wedge issue.
Five, until the Republicans come up with some serious proposals to reform healthcare so that the insurance companies don't control everything, then they have no ground on which to stand for even the right to ask for a 'do-over.'
We could digress further...
And with regard to the vitriolic public rhetoric, all Mr. Boehner could offer was that, 'it's been spirited.' Senator Graham pointed out that the President was combative in his address to the joint session. These two statements reek of enabling, or to frame it in political operative terms (most used by Republicans), guilt by association. For Senator Graham, his sensitivity comes off as passive aggressive in so much that it says that what his South Carolinian colleague Joe Wilson said was appropriate, even given Mr. Graham's statements to the contrary. Not to mention what a tight-knit group South Carolina politicians are with the senator stating on today's Meet The Press that Governor Mark Sanford should finish his term. Despite the Governor's disappearance for five days and his apparent usage of government travel for private purpose.
As for Congressman Boehner, sadly, it just seems as though is just sitting back and letting the rhetoric take hold, almost content with what he sees. So if this week's column seems particularly disgusted with some of the Republican statements, it's because when you enable people by condoning images of our President as Adolf Hitler, you're going to get a harsh response.
In David Gregory's interview with President Obama, as he made the Meet The Press round of his Sunday intervews, he reacted to former President Jimmy Carter's remarks, centered on race and racist resistance, with regard to criticism of the President. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer in Georgia, living in the height of segregation where overt racial bias [understated] and racial violence prevailed. In other words, he's a man who knows. Now, is President Carter sometimes guilty of over-dramatization? Sure, but he also has a knack of telling people what they need to hear even if they don't like it.
Of course, the President has too distance his answer from Jimmy Carter's observations. To say anything otherwise would then invite the distillation of every debate on public policy down to that one element. Mr. Obama acknowledged that for a small amount of people it is a problem but that is not what drives the language. He once again referred to the example of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when in his day amidst the changes he was making, he was called every name in the book.
(Just an impression: On this topic of race at one point, this column felt that Mr. Gregory pressed the President in a way that simply sought to obtain a provocative quote. It is a tact to which Mr. Gregory is prone, but one that he should get away from. Another probing but thoughtful question should be the approach.)
As we know, the above topic is fueled by the debate on healthcare reform. What more can be said? At least that's our initial thought. We'll try and keep it within the context of what was said on today's program... but no guarantees.
Given what we said above about Mr. Gregory's tact, we liked that when asking the President about the public option he asked it as such: So the public option is dead? In a matter of fact tone. The President needs to clearly state his way out of this box, repeatedly. This column, frankly, finds his answer disappointing. He said that it is not dead, but not essential for reform. As long as the insurance companies dictate who receives what coverage for treatment, core reform is empty.
And lastly, with regard to Afghanistan, at this moment, the President is still getting only minor pressure from the Republicans and minimal heat from the Democrats and the left. The President is closely following the advice of the generals, but a report, mentioned on the program, indicates that the Obama Administration is asking the generals to hold off on their assessment. This is a mistake on two levels: One, we should never delay an assessment that should lead to the wisest strategy on the ground. Literally, Our soldiers depend on it. And two, politically, putting more focus on Afghanistan could serve as a counter balancing issue that unites politicians versus what is going on in the healthcare debate.
However, on today's program, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said he was concerned about the 'changing goals' in Afghanistan. The strategy, as it stands, is to stabilize the country by destroying any Taliban influence, the group that harbors Al Qaeda, the leadership of which we're trying to catch. The constant problem with Congressman Boehner is that he makes these statements that he doesn't like the Administration's direction but never offers a concrete alternative view. Exasperatingly, it begs the question: What is solution to the problem? On Afghanistan and Iraq, for that matter, Mr. Boehner was in lock step with most all of the previous administration's disastrous decisions making his 'concerns' virtually irrelevant.
For a change of pace, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put his support behind the President and wants him to succeed. Whether he agrees with everything or not, foreign military policy should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, former Vice President Dick Cheney solidified that it always would be. Despite all of this, decisions and assessments should never be put on hold.
On the domestic front, it has and always will be grossly partisan. Senator Graham said that the President is saying everything that everyone wants to hear but that the 'details just don't add it,' Mr. Boehner added that he didn't want to see a giant government take over of healthcare. The Republicans, as they did on today's program, are floating the notion of stopping and starting over with the legislation. In unprecedented expression for this column, that is the biggest load of bullshit we've ever heard.
One, the minority party does not dictate the terms of discussion.
Two, the Republicans would never entertain such a notion if they were in control [see the previous administration].
Three, Republicans complain also complain about the T.A.R.P. when considering cost for healthcare, but if it was for their deregulating everything during the previous administration's run, we wouldn't have needed the T.A.R.P. in the first place.
Four, it is a blatant delay tactic to block any real reform before the mid-term elections start heating up, hence the presence of a huge wedge issue.
Five, until the Republicans come up with some serious proposals to reform healthcare so that the insurance companies don't control everything, then they have no ground on which to stand for even the right to ask for a 'do-over.'
We could digress further...
And with regard to the vitriolic public rhetoric, all Mr. Boehner could offer was that, 'it's been spirited.' Senator Graham pointed out that the President was combative in his address to the joint session. These two statements reek of enabling, or to frame it in political operative terms (most used by Republicans), guilt by association. For Senator Graham, his sensitivity comes off as passive aggressive in so much that it says that what his South Carolinian colleague Joe Wilson said was appropriate, even given Mr. Graham's statements to the contrary. Not to mention what a tight-knit group South Carolina politicians are with the senator stating on today's Meet The Press that Governor Mark Sanford should finish his term. Despite the Governor's disappearance for five days and his apparent usage of government travel for private purpose.
As for Congressman Boehner, sadly, it just seems as though is just sitting back and letting the rhetoric take hold, almost content with what he sees. So if this week's column seems particularly disgusted with some of the Republican statements, it's because when you enable people by condoning images of our President as Adolf Hitler, you're going to get a harsh response.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
8.30.09: Ted Kennedy Tribute
There is really nothing, no unique insight, that this humble column can add with regard to Senator Ted Kennedy. In it banality, it is worth saying again that there is now a huge void in the Senate by the lose of this American patriot.
This is a defining moment for the Democratic Party. Will the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy inspire them to rally together and pass a transformative healthcare bill? Will they now legislate with a sense of purpose?
Senator Kennedy is handing them that opportunity.
Today's guests;
Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Chris Dodd, Maria Shriver, Bob Shrum, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin.
This is a defining moment for the Democratic Party. Will the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy inspire them to rally together and pass a transformative healthcare bill? Will they now legislate with a sense of purpose?
Senator Kennedy is handing them that opportunity.
Today's guests;
Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Chris Dodd, Maria Shriver, Bob Shrum, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
8.23.09: Mired...
Have you ever painted a room in your home and then one thing leads to another and you then decide to rearrange the room all together and things get chaotic and really messy before it gets all straightened out? Well, that's where we are right now as a country. Incredibly messy but with the idea that it's going to be much better when it's straightened out. However, we've walked into the room, and backtracked moaning, "Whoa.... is this mess going to be cleaned up?"
In Afghanistan, we're incurring more soldier deaths now than in any time since we've been there in 8 years. When you engage the enemy, they will shoot at you. Today's in-studio guest, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a way we're starting there anew. Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, via satellite during the segment, said success depends on Afghanistan's government being able to apply take care of its citizens in all facets.
We're a long way away from that point. Simply because we're picking up the ball in Afghanistan in a time when we've given the opposition (The Taliban) a chance to mend and regroup. And why is that? Because we were bogged down in Iraq, a completely unnecessary war, for the past 7 years. If the U.S. had not gone into Iraq and kept the pressure up in Afghanistan, we would not see the military losses we're seeing now. Also, as a aside, if Saddam were still in power right now, you could hypothetically say that the U.S. would have also had a diplomatic opportunity with Iraq's [read: Saddam's] natural enemy - Iran, especially given what happened with the recent elections and subsequent unrest in that country.
So the question posed on whether or not this is a war of necessity or a war of choice now? Unfortunately, both Iraq and Afghanistan now are of necessity. The Taliban, if in control, would most certainly given safe haven for Al Qaeda, but more importantly use the southern part to disrupt stability in Pakistan. With that in mind, our presence is required, don't you think?
However, it is disconcerted when you set a quote for Special Envoy to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke say we'll know success when we see it - Mr. Gregory rightly noted. And Ambassador Eikenberry said success in terms of self-governing is years away. The new approach the Chairman pointed out, is a robust cooperation between civilian entities and the military - enacted because of lessons learned, Admiral Mullen said, from Iraq... Lessons certainly learned well.
We're physically mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, but mentally, we're mired domestically in old habits of being stalled by fear, which 'joyfully' brings us to the healthcare debate with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), both on the finance committee, in the second segment.
Senator Schumer pithily framed the public option this way - its like private colleges versus state universities - the two coexist so that more people have access to a college education. It's not completely apples to apples as an analogy for the public option, but it's close. And the people do not have a problem with a public option in the healthcare bill. Let's be clear, the Congressional Republicans have a problem with the public option.
But is the President backing away from the inclusion of the public option. Senator Schumer said no, Tavis Smiley of PBS, in the last segment, said yes. Based on President Obama saying that the public option was just a 'sliver' of healthcare reform, you would have to conclude that yes, he is. But he should not back away. Just the opposite, he should be using the full weight of his office to get the 'blue dog' Democrats in line/on board with what he wants and push it through. It is time to heed Congresswoman Maxine Waters' (D-CA) advice.
If Democrats want to really show that they can lead, they have to close ranks and the President needs to step up - shove the Republicans out of the way - just as the Republicans did during the Bush years. Because all the Republicans can do right now is spread wrong information - see all of today's answers by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). He said that the Congressional Budget Office said that tens of millions of people would go into the public plan and bankrupt us. What's nakedly obvious is that he's really saying that if there is a public option, the insurance companies will lose tens of millions. Mr. Gregory rightly corrected the Senator, pointing out that the C.B.O. said that 10 million would go into the public option but that also another 3 million would go into private insurance plans. Senator Hatch also proudly states that 85% of the people in the U.S. have health insurance but never mentions the details, where the information and not the devil, are contained. Such as the number of people who are under insured - 25 million people. Or the unknown number of people who will have their claim denied for one reason or another (an arbitrary insurance adjuster's decision). Senator Schumer talked about taking on the Insurance companies, and sadly this is never a rhetorical tact that the conservatives take, but it does give one a clear sight line into a blatant agenda. They are hoping for an Obama Waterloo.
There are three more things we'd like to quickly comment on from the program in terms of the healthcare debate. One, Mr. Gregory asked Senator Hatch if Senator Kennedy's absence from the debate was a big lose. He was right and wrong in the same sentence. Sen. Hatch said that yes, Sen. Kennedy is missed (the correct answer) and he continued to explain that Sen. Kennedy would be calling him up and saying let's work this out (the incorrect answer). Sen. Kennedy would be getting people in line with the public option, certainly not calling Sen. Hatch to get that done. Sen. Kennedy is sorely missed from the debate because most people don't realize how important of an issues this has been to him over the years.
And inside this fight we come to point number 2, which is that there is a 'gang of six' in the senate finance committee supposedly coming up with a bi-partisan bill that will serve as the Senate's bill. Isn't the most democratic notion to question why these six individuals are deemed to have so much decision making power. The Senate bill should reflect what the President wants and then get it through with a majority.
This brings us to the third part of this small trifecta. Senator Hatch said that reconciliation (a rarely used procedure in the senate that attempt to push a lawyer through with a simply majority - 51 votes - instead of the traditional two-thirds majority vote of 60) would be an abuse of Senatorial process in using it for Healthcare reform. The Democrats should be clear that if reconciliation is needed, it will be employed and if it's not made clear, then we'll continue to be mired in a endless list of concessions, which will render healthcare reform completely impotent.
In Afghanistan, we're incurring more soldier deaths now than in any time since we've been there in 8 years. When you engage the enemy, they will shoot at you. Today's in-studio guest, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a way we're starting there anew. Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, via satellite during the segment, said success depends on Afghanistan's government being able to apply take care of its citizens in all facets.
We're a long way away from that point. Simply because we're picking up the ball in Afghanistan in a time when we've given the opposition (The Taliban) a chance to mend and regroup. And why is that? Because we were bogged down in Iraq, a completely unnecessary war, for the past 7 years. If the U.S. had not gone into Iraq and kept the pressure up in Afghanistan, we would not see the military losses we're seeing now. Also, as a aside, if Saddam were still in power right now, you could hypothetically say that the U.S. would have also had a diplomatic opportunity with Iraq's [read: Saddam's] natural enemy - Iran, especially given what happened with the recent elections and subsequent unrest in that country.
So the question posed on whether or not this is a war of necessity or a war of choice now? Unfortunately, both Iraq and Afghanistan now are of necessity. The Taliban, if in control, would most certainly given safe haven for Al Qaeda, but more importantly use the southern part to disrupt stability in Pakistan. With that in mind, our presence is required, don't you think?
However, it is disconcerted when you set a quote for Special Envoy to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke say we'll know success when we see it - Mr. Gregory rightly noted. And Ambassador Eikenberry said success in terms of self-governing is years away. The new approach the Chairman pointed out, is a robust cooperation between civilian entities and the military - enacted because of lessons learned, Admiral Mullen said, from Iraq... Lessons certainly learned well.
We're physically mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, but mentally, we're mired domestically in old habits of being stalled by fear, which 'joyfully' brings us to the healthcare debate with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), both on the finance committee, in the second segment.
Senator Schumer pithily framed the public option this way - its like private colleges versus state universities - the two coexist so that more people have access to a college education. It's not completely apples to apples as an analogy for the public option, but it's close. And the people do not have a problem with a public option in the healthcare bill. Let's be clear, the Congressional Republicans have a problem with the public option.
But is the President backing away from the inclusion of the public option. Senator Schumer said no, Tavis Smiley of PBS, in the last segment, said yes. Based on President Obama saying that the public option was just a 'sliver' of healthcare reform, you would have to conclude that yes, he is. But he should not back away. Just the opposite, he should be using the full weight of his office to get the 'blue dog' Democrats in line/on board with what he wants and push it through. It is time to heed Congresswoman Maxine Waters' (D-CA) advice.
If Democrats want to really show that they can lead, they have to close ranks and the President needs to step up - shove the Republicans out of the way - just as the Republicans did during the Bush years. Because all the Republicans can do right now is spread wrong information - see all of today's answers by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). He said that the Congressional Budget Office said that tens of millions of people would go into the public plan and bankrupt us. What's nakedly obvious is that he's really saying that if there is a public option, the insurance companies will lose tens of millions. Mr. Gregory rightly corrected the Senator, pointing out that the C.B.O. said that 10 million would go into the public option but that also another 3 million would go into private insurance plans. Senator Hatch also proudly states that 85% of the people in the U.S. have health insurance but never mentions the details, where the information and not the devil, are contained. Such as the number of people who are under insured - 25 million people. Or the unknown number of people who will have their claim denied for one reason or another (an arbitrary insurance adjuster's decision). Senator Schumer talked about taking on the Insurance companies, and sadly this is never a rhetorical tact that the conservatives take, but it does give one a clear sight line into a blatant agenda. They are hoping for an Obama Waterloo.
There are three more things we'd like to quickly comment on from the program in terms of the healthcare debate. One, Mr. Gregory asked Senator Hatch if Senator Kennedy's absence from the debate was a big lose. He was right and wrong in the same sentence. Sen. Hatch said that yes, Sen. Kennedy is missed (the correct answer) and he continued to explain that Sen. Kennedy would be calling him up and saying let's work this out (the incorrect answer). Sen. Kennedy would be getting people in line with the public option, certainly not calling Sen. Hatch to get that done. Sen. Kennedy is sorely missed from the debate because most people don't realize how important of an issues this has been to him over the years.
And inside this fight we come to point number 2, which is that there is a 'gang of six' in the senate finance committee supposedly coming up with a bi-partisan bill that will serve as the Senate's bill. Isn't the most democratic notion to question why these six individuals are deemed to have so much decision making power. The Senate bill should reflect what the President wants and then get it through with a majority.
This brings us to the third part of this small trifecta. Senator Hatch said that reconciliation (a rarely used procedure in the senate that attempt to push a lawyer through with a simply majority - 51 votes - instead of the traditional two-thirds majority vote of 60) would be an abuse of Senatorial process in using it for Healthcare reform. The Democrats should be clear that if reconciliation is needed, it will be employed and if it's not made clear, then we'll continue to be mired in a endless list of concessions, which will render healthcare reform completely impotent.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
8.16.09: The Healthcare Debate - Framing the American Debacle
Today's Panel: Fmr. House Majority Leader Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX), now the head of FreedomWorks, an organizer of protesters at town hall meetings; Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Fmr. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), an informal adviser to the White House and author of "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis"; & Rachel Maddow, Host of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show.
_____
This column has been holding off as long as possible in commenting on the healthcare reform debate, the reason being is that we wanted to get the most clear picture of what both sides of debate want. Waiting was the responsible thing to do to try and understand as thoroughly as possible all the concerns... and because one of the debate's focal peaks had potential to develop on today's Meet The Press.
Before we get into the details, this column feels compelled to point out that in the midst of such a heated national debate where anxiety is high, profits are at stake, special interests abound, and suspicion on both sides runs rampant; a trusted voice is needed to cut through the clutter and create a calming effect. Well, the most trusted man in news passed away. Tim Russert was that newsman. When Walter Cronkite recently died, it got people thinking of the question of who is the most trusted person in news. Mr. Russert had gained the trust of more Americans than any other television journalist and his voice is needed in this debate.
With that said, can Mr. Gregory bring us back from the brink from the hysterical by dispelling the 'death panel' healtcare bill myth? To be clear, the 'death panel' notion is based on a provision in the bill that would require Medicare to reimburse the patient for this voluntary advance directive consultation with one's doctor. When the provision is described and discussed in clear language, it is a reasonable provision that keeps the control of an individual's life in his/her own hands. The term 'Death Panel' is the creation of a completely irresponsible political figure - Ms. Sarah Palin.
Mr. Gregory asked about such a provision that was in included in the Bush Administration's Prescription Drug Benefit bill in 2003, to which Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) said had he been in the Senate at the time, he would have opposed it because of the $10 trillion it adds to the country's long-term debt. Despite not really answering the question, his answer is fair enough based on financial reasoning. Since he was not a legislator at the time he can not be held accountable for that Republican initiative, but the Senator also opposes the Democrat's healthcare plan on the same grounds - it's not cost efficient. However, the Democrat's healthcare plan will add $1 Trillion to our national debt over the next ten years. By that rationale, the current proposition seems almost frugal. Republicans are playing politics with Americans' lives to ensure that insurance companies maintain their profit trajectory. On the other hand, Democrats and President Obama haven't made it reassuringly clear how it will be paid for. Saying that is going to be mostly paid for with the savings from streamlining and updating the system, it doesn't inspire confidence. We'll believe it when we see it because it doesn't matter which party controls the executive branch, that notion that it will be paid for from savings is unrealistic in this country. Is it going to be paid for by taxes on the richest 1%? By taxes on the middle class? Or are we simply going to borrow more money for it? To cut through the clutter, the President and the Democrats in Congress need to make this stupidly clear.
The substance of today's panel did actually come from fmr. Sen. Daschle and Sen. Coburn. Rachel Maddow made her first appearance today on Meet The Press and it was a necessary one because of the individual sitting to her left, ironically, Mr. Dick Armey - former House Majority Leader from Texas. The organization founded by Mr. Armey, Freedomworks, has contributed solely in a negative way to the debate. Mr. Armey speaks about freedom and liberty, as he did on today's program, but his sense of it is completely warped. It's freedom, liberty, and profit at the expense of others or at the very least a knowing disregard for the adverse repercussions self-interest inflicts. His facts are just those - his facts, and Ms. Maddow was an essential foil to Mr. Armey's bluster.
So we refer back to Sen. Coburn and his quote from the Washington Times as cited by Mr. Gregory, that the Democrats healthcare plan will kill Americans... The real substance? These are the kinds of statements that will contribute to the dreaded notion, which this column fears, that a bill will be passed but will essentially be compromised to the point of rendering it ineffective. (Mr. Daschle today said reform was a 50-50 chance.) What's more is that he stood by this statement and went on to say that America's healthcare system is among the best in the world, which simply is not true. Senator Daschle rightly pointed out that our infant mortality rate and life expectancy are ranked very low compared to the other industrialized nations of the world. Despite Senator Coburn's contention that these are not true measures is weightless. These are the measures! Added to what we pay as a country (12% of our GDP) comparatively to other countries, it makes our healthcare system the equivalent of a rusted out car with a half-assed paint job. To use a phrase, cash is needed for this clunker. And if his figures are to be believed, Mr. Daschle pointed out that it is projected that our healthcare in its current state will cost us $35 Trillion over the next ten years - an unsustainable figure.
But there is Mr. Armey arguing that Medicare is tyranny because seniors can not get out of it even if they wanted to, also arguing that social security should be phased out. These two arguments directly point to a solely profit driven agenda, one as we stated above should be allowed to dominate despite its effect on the vast majority of the country's citizenry, with some of those individuals mistakenly advocating against their own self-interests.
As it stands right now, the insurance companies, over 1,300 strong in the U.S., have the most leverage and decision-making power on how costs, profits, and money are distributed. (Let's not even start on the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex's influence.) What's wrong with that? Well, let's put it this way... When the fate of all is controlled by a private few [read: privately held company] not answerable to anyone except a profit-driven board of directors, there is no accountability to the majority. Corporatism is not beholden for the general welfare. Your life will be shortened, your liberty compromised, and your pursuit of happiness will be given a placebo shot and sent on its way.
_____
This column has been holding off as long as possible in commenting on the healthcare reform debate, the reason being is that we wanted to get the most clear picture of what both sides of debate want. Waiting was the responsible thing to do to try and understand as thoroughly as possible all the concerns... and because one of the debate's focal peaks had potential to develop on today's Meet The Press.
Before we get into the details, this column feels compelled to point out that in the midst of such a heated national debate where anxiety is high, profits are at stake, special interests abound, and suspicion on both sides runs rampant; a trusted voice is needed to cut through the clutter and create a calming effect. Well, the most trusted man in news passed away. Tim Russert was that newsman. When Walter Cronkite recently died, it got people thinking of the question of who is the most trusted person in news. Mr. Russert had gained the trust of more Americans than any other television journalist and his voice is needed in this debate.
With that said, can Mr. Gregory bring us back from the brink from the hysterical by dispelling the 'death panel' healtcare bill myth? To be clear, the 'death panel' notion is based on a provision in the bill that would require Medicare to reimburse the patient for this voluntary advance directive consultation with one's doctor. When the provision is described and discussed in clear language, it is a reasonable provision that keeps the control of an individual's life in his/her own hands. The term 'Death Panel' is the creation of a completely irresponsible political figure - Ms. Sarah Palin.
Mr. Gregory asked about such a provision that was in included in the Bush Administration's Prescription Drug Benefit bill in 2003, to which Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) said had he been in the Senate at the time, he would have opposed it because of the $10 trillion it adds to the country's long-term debt. Despite not really answering the question, his answer is fair enough based on financial reasoning. Since he was not a legislator at the time he can not be held accountable for that Republican initiative, but the Senator also opposes the Democrat's healthcare plan on the same grounds - it's not cost efficient. However, the Democrat's healthcare plan will add $1 Trillion to our national debt over the next ten years. By that rationale, the current proposition seems almost frugal. Republicans are playing politics with Americans' lives to ensure that insurance companies maintain their profit trajectory. On the other hand, Democrats and President Obama haven't made it reassuringly clear how it will be paid for. Saying that is going to be mostly paid for with the savings from streamlining and updating the system, it doesn't inspire confidence. We'll believe it when we see it because it doesn't matter which party controls the executive branch, that notion that it will be paid for from savings is unrealistic in this country. Is it going to be paid for by taxes on the richest 1%? By taxes on the middle class? Or are we simply going to borrow more money for it? To cut through the clutter, the President and the Democrats in Congress need to make this stupidly clear.
The substance of today's panel did actually come from fmr. Sen. Daschle and Sen. Coburn. Rachel Maddow made her first appearance today on Meet The Press and it was a necessary one because of the individual sitting to her left, ironically, Mr. Dick Armey - former House Majority Leader from Texas. The organization founded by Mr. Armey, Freedomworks, has contributed solely in a negative way to the debate. Mr. Armey speaks about freedom and liberty, as he did on today's program, but his sense of it is completely warped. It's freedom, liberty, and profit at the expense of others or at the very least a knowing disregard for the adverse repercussions self-interest inflicts. His facts are just those - his facts, and Ms. Maddow was an essential foil to Mr. Armey's bluster.
So we refer back to Sen. Coburn and his quote from the Washington Times as cited by Mr. Gregory, that the Democrats healthcare plan will kill Americans... The real substance? These are the kinds of statements that will contribute to the dreaded notion, which this column fears, that a bill will be passed but will essentially be compromised to the point of rendering it ineffective. (Mr. Daschle today said reform was a 50-50 chance.) What's more is that he stood by this statement and went on to say that America's healthcare system is among the best in the world, which simply is not true. Senator Daschle rightly pointed out that our infant mortality rate and life expectancy are ranked very low compared to the other industrialized nations of the world. Despite Senator Coburn's contention that these are not true measures is weightless. These are the measures! Added to what we pay as a country (12% of our GDP) comparatively to other countries, it makes our healthcare system the equivalent of a rusted out car with a half-assed paint job. To use a phrase, cash is needed for this clunker. And if his figures are to be believed, Mr. Daschle pointed out that it is projected that our healthcare in its current state will cost us $35 Trillion over the next ten years - an unsustainable figure.
But there is Mr. Armey arguing that Medicare is tyranny because seniors can not get out of it even if they wanted to, also arguing that social security should be phased out. These two arguments directly point to a solely profit driven agenda, one as we stated above should be allowed to dominate despite its effect on the vast majority of the country's citizenry, with some of those individuals mistakenly advocating against their own self-interests.
As it stands right now, the insurance companies, over 1,300 strong in the U.S., have the most leverage and decision-making power on how costs, profits, and money are distributed. (Let's not even start on the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex's influence.) What's wrong with that? Well, let's put it this way... When the fate of all is controlled by a private few [read: privately held company] not answerable to anyone except a profit-driven board of directors, there is no accountability to the majority. Corporatism is not beholden for the general welfare. Your life will be shortened, your liberty compromised, and your pursuit of happiness will be given a placebo shot and sent on its way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)