David Gregory played the May 1st tape to Senator Rubio in reference to his last visit and his answer with regard to being a potential vice-presidential choice of Governor Romney. In that May 1st interview, Mr. Rubio said that he had no desire to be the vice president, but his answer differed today. It wasn't a reversal, but you can tell he's in the running and is interested. He said that he wouldn't discuss anymore at this point, and while that would strike someone as a reversal of thinking, we this answer along with all his other answers of the issues as non-committal, even vague in some places, as if he's triangulating his answers so that they don't fall outside of Governor Romney's positions. Politico's Jonathan Martin used the term 'cautious.' The problem with this is that Mr. Romney himself is yet to fully explain his positions on key issues, such as immigration.
This week the Supreme Court will rule on two major cases, one being the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law and the other on the Affordable Health Care act. On the former, Senator Rubio said that the Arizona law is constitutional, meaning that law enforcement has the right to demand proof of citizenship if the person is stopped and suspected of wrong-doing. While he thinks this is good for Arizona, he also said that he didn't think it was right for Florida. One of his reasons that he thought it was necessary in Arizona because it's a security matter and then laid the blame at the feet of the federal government for not enforcing the laws.
The Senator's answers are confusing at best. By saying it's right for Arizona, but not Florida, seems to indicate that he's for state solutions, but then he blames the federal government for failure on immigration. But what is the Obama Administration's failure? Mr. Rubio stated that the legal system of immigration is broken so how can we improve the situation for illegal immigrants? The problem with the Arizona law is that it opens up a situation in which law enforcement can demand citizenship proof from anyone - citizen or not - on the spot, and if you can not prove it, you could be detained. We think that most Americans would have a serious problem with someone asking to see 'your papers.' This plays into the general premise that Republican lawmakers are creating legislation that isn't big government, but resembles big brother.
And what of the Dream Act? Mr. Rubio is against it because he says it's 'too broad,' but like Romney, then has no answer as to what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already in this country. Neither politician has offered a solid alternative to the Dream Act to address the ultimate status of these people. Self-deportation, as Mr. Romney has suggested, is not an adequate solution. The core problem, right now, for Republicans is that immigration policy requires temperance and that's something that the core of the party won't bend on. It's a hardline stance that makes it so difficult for Senator Rubio, or Governor Romney who is trying to tact back to the middle on this, to answer honestly. Because of the build up of hardline rhetoric on the side of the Republicans, coming down off of that position for any conservative politician is not viable, hence there can be no compromise.
Mr. Rubio is, in fact, working on a comprehensive immigration bill, but it isn't ready yet. Keeping this in mind and considering his statement today when he said that if he doesn't have every answer to every question on the bill, it's loses credibility, and we respect that kind of thinking. However, in advance of said bill, there are two flags that we'd like to raise. One, the bill needs to be detailed. Unlike Congressman Paul Ryan's budget bill, it must contain specifics. It's why we don't agree with Mr. Ryan's plan - there aren't any specifics. For example, he said that his plan would close loopholes in the tax code, but he doesn't specify which ones. Secondly, and this speaks to the Republicans' tendency to fall into lock-step, the bill should have more than one name attached to it, hence opening it to wider debate. Paul Ryan constructed a budget bill and all Republicans are for it, all of it. Then there will be the Rubio Immigration Bill, and all Republicans will be for all of that. No bill is perfect through and through but by denying openmindedness to amendends, Republicans would have you think differently.
The second decision coming this week, possibly tomorrow, from the Supreme Court is on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, specifically the individual mandate. First, just set aside what we know, and that is that Republicans are against the act and Democrats are for it. The debate was highly contentious to say the least, but the bill was passed... by Democrats, and they feel it should be the law. If the roles were reversed, Republicans understandably, justifiably would feel the same way. The problem here is that the Supreme Court is about to make law. Some would say 'no' that's not the case, but the perception is clearly there and in today's media world perception often supplants fact.
During today's panel, the possibility was raised that the Court could strike down the individual mandate, but uphold other parts of the law. They could do that, but that's called legislating. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they are striking down the law, the entire law and that's how it should be. Then everyone will have to adjust to the consequences of the Supreme Court determining law. What we also find little odd is that everyone seems to feel that the law will indeed be struck down, which just reeks of cynicism, sending the message that everyone understands that the court is partisan and will employ that partisan advantage to a result. The writers of the Constitution did not design the Court to operate in that capacity, but here we are. Governor Richardson got it exactly right, the Supreme Court shouldn't strike down any of the law and shouldn't be making political decisions. And that should stand for both sides.
It's moments like these that remind us of a key phrase Judge Roberts used during his confirmation hearings and that was that he was going to 'call balls and strikes,' implying that there would be no political agenda at work when making decisions. As chief justice, the court's decisions reflect on him and so far, his court has a very high profile, a controversial one that the Supreme Court should absolutely not have. If it were acting in a manner that consistent with calling balls and strikes, then they should keep the same profile as an umpire. We see them on the field, we respect their decisions, but we don't know their names.
Round Table: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Former Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM); POLITICO’s Senior Political
Reporter Jonathan Martin; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs
Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Postscript: We really haven't commented on Mr. Romney's potential vice-presidential running mate too much, though we do have our opinions on it. However, does it matter so much to speculate in this column and devote time to it? Not really. We do feel compelled to comment because after all, this column is based around what is said on Meet The Press and they do discuss the topic. With that in mind, Governor Richardson said that Romney needs a person who would make a splash. That person would be someone such as Condoleezza Rice, who Jonathan Martin said was all the buzz recently in Utah. But we don't see Mr. Romney going that way. The most reasonable, safest pick would be Governor Tim Pawlenty. He governed the moderate state of Minnesota and has a good solid conservative record. He was also an early, vocal Romney supporter, who many thought got out of the race too soon. Aside from the few brief comments, we're content not to speculate and hold for the examination when the choice is finally made.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
6.10.12: The Off Week
Call us creatures of habit that we had to write a post today even though this week's Meet The Press did not air due to French Open coverage. If you're a follower of politics you certainly know that this week was a bad one for the President. Starting with the weak jobs report then moving on to a big Democratic loss in Wisconsin to the President himself making the verbal gaffe by saying that the private sector is fine to the finale of being out fund raised by the Romney campaign by 17 million dollars.
But what may not be so evident is that this week's happenings are a peak at what's to come to come for the United States down the road, and for the sake of off-week candor, it's not good for the American people. Because if you take these incidents and extend them out a bit further, here's what you might see.
In the case of the gubernatorial election in Wisconsin, Scott Walker retained his seat as governor and more significantly, what people are calling it is a death blow to public unions. What Wisconsin showed us is that the unions don't have the muscle anymore to stand up to corporate energy. If you look at the statistics over the past 30 years, you'll see that as union jobs decline so has middle class income. The goals of the Republican Party's corporate benefactors are to crush unions in the private sector to maximize profits, profits that were used to outspend the Democrats approximately 9 to 1. And though Governor Walker exempted the police and firemen from the slashing of negotiating rights (virtually rendering the unions ineffectual), but it's just a matter of time to when they will not be exempt. Eventually, the police and fire unions disappear as well... then what? Following the corporate tact to a farther conclusion, these organizations will become inefficient as Republican politicians advocate for privatization. A for profit police force would be devastating to our culture. Think about it, prisons today have a financial incentive to have more people in prison because they are privately owned with shareholders - the more prisoners, the more profits. So imagine if the same company owned the local jail and the local police force.
Secondly, corporate money is decidedly behind the Republican party. The showed their hand in Wisconsin and then it was proven with the windfall of cash that the Romney campaign received and we think it's only going to get worse. Now that Republicans are beginning to rally around the single candidate, this solely unique candidate that is a representative of the consolidated money hence power structure, the distance in sums will become greater.
And though some say that the money that was injected into the Wisconsin race would have been legal even if the Citizens United Supreme Court case went the other way, Citizens United opened up the flood gates to for corporate entities to operate without having to disclose, hence political agendas with no checks and balances.
A short yet a bit dire column, we know, but we believe the ultimate success of the United States is in striking the right balance between private control and public control of the country's general welfare. And what is most disconcerting is that this balance is being irrevocably damaged, permanently tilting to the side of the private where money and not the general welfare, will be the goal.
But what may not be so evident is that this week's happenings are a peak at what's to come to come for the United States down the road, and for the sake of off-week candor, it's not good for the American people. Because if you take these incidents and extend them out a bit further, here's what you might see.
In the case of the gubernatorial election in Wisconsin, Scott Walker retained his seat as governor and more significantly, what people are calling it is a death blow to public unions. What Wisconsin showed us is that the unions don't have the muscle anymore to stand up to corporate energy. If you look at the statistics over the past 30 years, you'll see that as union jobs decline so has middle class income. The goals of the Republican Party's corporate benefactors are to crush unions in the private sector to maximize profits, profits that were used to outspend the Democrats approximately 9 to 1. And though Governor Walker exempted the police and firemen from the slashing of negotiating rights (virtually rendering the unions ineffectual), but it's just a matter of time to when they will not be exempt. Eventually, the police and fire unions disappear as well... then what? Following the corporate tact to a farther conclusion, these organizations will become inefficient as Republican politicians advocate for privatization. A for profit police force would be devastating to our culture. Think about it, prisons today have a financial incentive to have more people in prison because they are privately owned with shareholders - the more prisoners, the more profits. So imagine if the same company owned the local jail and the local police force.
Secondly, corporate money is decidedly behind the Republican party. The showed their hand in Wisconsin and then it was proven with the windfall of cash that the Romney campaign received and we think it's only going to get worse. Now that Republicans are beginning to rally around the single candidate, this solely unique candidate that is a representative of the consolidated money hence power structure, the distance in sums will become greater.
And though some say that the money that was injected into the Wisconsin race would have been legal even if the Citizens United Supreme Court case went the other way, Citizens United opened up the flood gates to for corporate entities to operate without having to disclose, hence political agendas with no checks and balances.
A short yet a bit dire column, we know, but we believe the ultimate success of the United States is in striking the right balance between private control and public control of the country's general welfare. And what is most disconcerting is that this balance is being irrevocably damaged, permanently tilting to the side of the private where money and not the general welfare, will be the goal.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
6.3.12: What's Fair Game
In this week's critique, some would say that it's an utter failure that this latest jobs report only shows 69,000 jobs created, but we would contest that people's perspectives are out of proportion. If this is an utter failure, what do you call losing 2.6 million jobs in the last year of your term as it did when George Bush was in office. Anyone, reading this column that would criticize that line of questioning, would most probably say that you 'shouldn't look backward, bringing up President Bush is a tired strategy,' or it's simply 'unfair.' Kevin Madden, Mr. Romney's senior adviser used this defense in today's round table discussion saying that Democrats are using the same Bain attacks on Romney today that they did in 1994 when Mr. Romney ran against Ted Kennedy. Additionally, the unemployment rate ticked up a .10 of a percent to 8.2. The reality of which is that more people are re-entering the workforce looking for work, but understandably this is overshadowed by the unemployment number going up, and means that enough jobs haven't been created, and enough hasn't been. The stock market drop is more of a product of the uncertainty of Europe's fiscal problems, not ours.
With that said, the overarching (non)debate issue here is if Mr. Romney's time at Bain Capital is fair game, and for that matter is his religion. Bain Capital is completely fair game. Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) noted that Bain was very good at creating wealth, not jobs. Whether you agree with that statement or not, it's right to debate that merits of that when the person responsible is seeking the office of the President. If Bain Capital also created a lot of jobs, then the debate should also be, something that is not discussed, is what kinds of jobs are those? If creating only jobs that pay the minimum wage, what kind of future is in that? All of these things should be on the table. With regard to Mr. Romney's Mormon religion, it would only be appropriate to debate it if he is making decisions solely based on his religion, theocratic policy making which goes against the Constitution. Otherwise, America is all about believing what you want in terms of religion.
Mr. Patrick brought up another good point that Governor John Kasich (R-OH) took exception, in which is that the President hasn't done enough according to Republicans, the same people that say that the government should do less. Translating Mr. Kasich's argument, the President hasn't done enough to get out of the way and the examples he cited were the over-regulation of the financial industry (Dowd-Frank), the uncertainty of tax policy, and the over-zealous EPA. In the face of such rhetoric, the Democrats are soft in poking holes in the Republican argument. Dowd-Frank was enacted because the financial industry, left to its own devices, made bad bets and never considered the larger repercussions as the money rolled in. Governor Kasich, in regard to tax policy, said that we should cut taxes and eliminate loopholes in the code, but the reality of what Republicans want to do, or won't allow to happen, is in fact the closing of tax loopholes because they have been indoctrinated with the idea that closing loopholes is a tax increase. To this point, Governor Patrick is correct in that Republicans' ideology is being placed ahead of what is the overall good for the country.
And lastly, we feel that Republicans simply don't understand the necessity of the EPA and the longer-term win we would have with the EPA playing a vital role. The EPA should regulate hard to keep our air and water clean, which would translate into lower long-term healthcare costs, and over-time save us money.
Contrary to a prominent American, corporations are not people, and the United States should not be run like a business, and here's why - it's pretty simple. In the Constitution it says that the United States government is to provide for the general welfare of the people. Corporations have no such obligation - the obligation for them is to their shareholders, hardly the general welfare. And corporations are not democracies. So running the United States like a corporation will essentially violate the Constitution in that it will cease on trying to achieve one of its central mandates, providing for the general welfare.
Governor Kasich really had no answer for Mr. Gregory with regard to the fact that Mr. Romney didn't support the auto bailout. Mr. Kasich honed the message as best he could in that he said that there were only 1,800 direct jobs created in the Ohio auto industry sector. The key word there is 'direct.' He's referring to how many jobs the auto makers themselves created... probably. But its the part suppliers and makers, the repair and body shops that have also benefited from the bailout.
Evident in the views of Governor Patrick and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) are that government can do good by investing - yes stimulating - in the economy, specifically in infrastructure. However, it is unrealistic that it can be done without any way to finance it. If Republicans truly favor closing loopholes, then we should do that and with the money set up an infrastructure bank - something where there could be consensus, unlike the auto bailout.
Mr. Kasich said that what he's seen during this campaign is that because President Obama doesn't have a plan, he resorts to just attacking Mr. Romney. He went on to say that he was not happy with how the Republicans blew up the budget when he left Congress, but there needs to be an executive in the White House. But George Bush was to be that executive and failed because he tried to run the United States as a business and not a country. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, during today's round table, answered ever question in these terms, and explained that the President is pitting Americans against each other, but that's not the case. It's really about the unfair influence that big corporations have on our politics. It's what former Senator Bill Bradley was talking about at the end of the program. 'Corrosive' is the word he used, but what it doing is destroying the democratic ideal and transforming our system from what is now a shadow corporatocracy into an overt one. When Governor Kasich says that Washington is dysfunctional, it's not because of Democrats, it's because of the lobbied and monied interests that have unequaled influence in the Capitol, which by the way the Republicans vociferously defend. And we'll just say it right now, because Mr. Castellanos said it twice today, do not use Moses and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. That analogy is disgustingly flawed on many levels, especially when you think that Moses lead his people out of bondage, then applying this analogy in contrasting Mitt Romney to Barack Obama? Please.
Romney Senior Adviser Kevin Madden, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden, and Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed (D).
With that said, the overarching (non)debate issue here is if Mr. Romney's time at Bain Capital is fair game, and for that matter is his religion. Bain Capital is completely fair game. Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) noted that Bain was very good at creating wealth, not jobs. Whether you agree with that statement or not, it's right to debate that merits of that when the person responsible is seeking the office of the President. If Bain Capital also created a lot of jobs, then the debate should also be, something that is not discussed, is what kinds of jobs are those? If creating only jobs that pay the minimum wage, what kind of future is in that? All of these things should be on the table. With regard to Mr. Romney's Mormon religion, it would only be appropriate to debate it if he is making decisions solely based on his religion, theocratic policy making which goes against the Constitution. Otherwise, America is all about believing what you want in terms of religion.
Mr. Patrick brought up another good point that Governor John Kasich (R-OH) took exception, in which is that the President hasn't done enough according to Republicans, the same people that say that the government should do less. Translating Mr. Kasich's argument, the President hasn't done enough to get out of the way and the examples he cited were the over-regulation of the financial industry (Dowd-Frank), the uncertainty of tax policy, and the over-zealous EPA. In the face of such rhetoric, the Democrats are soft in poking holes in the Republican argument. Dowd-Frank was enacted because the financial industry, left to its own devices, made bad bets and never considered the larger repercussions as the money rolled in. Governor Kasich, in regard to tax policy, said that we should cut taxes and eliminate loopholes in the code, but the reality of what Republicans want to do, or won't allow to happen, is in fact the closing of tax loopholes because they have been indoctrinated with the idea that closing loopholes is a tax increase. To this point, Governor Patrick is correct in that Republicans' ideology is being placed ahead of what is the overall good for the country.
And lastly, we feel that Republicans simply don't understand the necessity of the EPA and the longer-term win we would have with the EPA playing a vital role. The EPA should regulate hard to keep our air and water clean, which would translate into lower long-term healthcare costs, and over-time save us money.
Contrary to a prominent American, corporations are not people, and the United States should not be run like a business, and here's why - it's pretty simple. In the Constitution it says that the United States government is to provide for the general welfare of the people. Corporations have no such obligation - the obligation for them is to their shareholders, hardly the general welfare. And corporations are not democracies. So running the United States like a corporation will essentially violate the Constitution in that it will cease on trying to achieve one of its central mandates, providing for the general welfare.
Governor Kasich really had no answer for Mr. Gregory with regard to the fact that Mr. Romney didn't support the auto bailout. Mr. Kasich honed the message as best he could in that he said that there were only 1,800 direct jobs created in the Ohio auto industry sector. The key word there is 'direct.' He's referring to how many jobs the auto makers themselves created... probably. But its the part suppliers and makers, the repair and body shops that have also benefited from the bailout.
Evident in the views of Governor Patrick and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (D) are that government can do good by investing - yes stimulating - in the economy, specifically in infrastructure. However, it is unrealistic that it can be done without any way to finance it. If Republicans truly favor closing loopholes, then we should do that and with the money set up an infrastructure bank - something where there could be consensus, unlike the auto bailout.
Mr. Kasich said that what he's seen during this campaign is that because President Obama doesn't have a plan, he resorts to just attacking Mr. Romney. He went on to say that he was not happy with how the Republicans blew up the budget when he left Congress, but there needs to be an executive in the White House. But George Bush was to be that executive and failed because he tried to run the United States as a business and not a country. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, during today's round table, answered ever question in these terms, and explained that the President is pitting Americans against each other, but that's not the case. It's really about the unfair influence that big corporations have on our politics. It's what former Senator Bill Bradley was talking about at the end of the program. 'Corrosive' is the word he used, but what it doing is destroying the democratic ideal and transforming our system from what is now a shadow corporatocracy into an overt one. When Governor Kasich says that Washington is dysfunctional, it's not because of Democrats, it's because of the lobbied and monied interests that have unequaled influence in the Capitol, which by the way the Republicans vociferously defend. And we'll just say it right now, because Mr. Castellanos said it twice today, do not use Moses and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. That analogy is disgustingly flawed on many levels, especially when you think that Moses lead his people out of bondage, then applying this analogy in contrasting Mitt Romney to Barack Obama? Please.
Romney Senior Adviser Kevin Madden, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, President of the Center for American Progress Neera Tanden, and Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed (D).
Sunday, May 20, 2012
5.20.12: Performing Triage
When you have Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as guests you ger a clear picture of the respective Democratic and Republican collective personalities encapsulated in two individuals. Senator Durbin's stands are more in line with what the American people want but can not argue the case effectively. On the other hand, Congressman Ryan's proposals are actually very unpopular but he sells them well.
For example, when Mr. Ryan says that in his budget plan they would eliminate tax shelters and loop holes in the tax code, which sounds great. However, he never specifies which ones. Additionally, do subsidies have implied inclusion or are they not part of the mix? It doesn't seem so since the Republicans recently defeated a bill that would end subsidies for oil companies. But you see, the Ryan budget isn't actually a 'budget.' Budgets contain numbers outlined specifically as to what they are attributed. Mr. Ryan doesn't do that in his document, and if it is a road map, as he calls it, then we'd be lost if we actually tried to use it to guide us.
Mr. Gregory posed the question of "Can Washington Govern?" According to Mr. Ryan, the Senate under Democratic control has not passed a budget since Mr. Obama took office. We get annoyed at such statements simply for the fact that we now have to go back once again and point out that a simple majority in the Senate gets nothing done, unlike the House where it does. Is this the kind of math that Mr. Ryan ignores? If you need 60 votes and you only ever have 53 (a majority) to try and pass a bill, it will never pass and in knowing that why propose the thing in the first place. To feel good about yourself? That is what the Republicans have been doing in the House with bills they know will not make it through the Senate.
But can Mr. Durbin argue this effectively? No, because simply saying the Mr. Romney, if he were elected President, would return us to Bush-era economic policies is a boogie-man type tact without giving an anecdote that American can relate to. He doesn't explain why we should bring back the Simpson-Bowles recommendations and why they would work. Because there is a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases - means testing for Social Security recipients but increases in education. Mr. Ryan said he didn't vote for Simpson-Bowles because it didn't address health care. There are two points with that. One, he didn't vote for it because it calls for some tax increases - something (stupidly) no Republican can vote for, and two, it does address health care but not to his liking.
Mr. Ryan is mentioned as a Vice-Presidential candidate for Mr. Romney but we'd advise the Governor not to select him. The reason is that no matter where Paul Ryan goes, he can not talk about anything else except for defending his budget, which is only not as controversial as 'Obamacare' because Paul Ryan isn't on a national ticket. However, as Newark Mayor Corey Booker accurately pointed out later in the program that while 'Obamacare' remains controversial with the American people, several components are quick popular. Mr. Ryan's defense is weak, and will remain so if he can not give any specifics. And with Mr. Romney endorsing the Ryan plan, it only helps him with the Republican base - he's one of the guys, but with independents, it doesn't help him at all. Coming onto the national political scene with policy controversy already around you isn't good for the Republican ticket.
Paul Ryan said that we have a narrow window in which to get the debt crisis under control, hence we have to act now. This is just our take on things, and it touches on something we said last week, but the small window he's taking about is more a reflection of being able to pass Republican ideological policy, the narrow window does in fact reflect the debt crisis but when he's discussing it, it also refers to the changing population demographics of this country and the Republican Party's shrinking ability to pass legislation that erodes social programs. And this is why you see tactics such as Mr. Boehner repeat threats of not raising the debt ceiling, hence shutting down the government because their negotiating window is shrinking and they have to employ every threat/tactic they can. Again, playing into the question of whether or not Washington can govern, the answer is not like this. What you have is the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States is engaging in a type policy blackmail. This is poor leadership, so when Mr. Ryan says that the Republicans will have to pass stop gap measures because of poor White House leadership has also has to turn that looking glass on his own party as well. We're sorely missing this function of government and it doesn't help when Vice-President Joe Biden says that if we're re-elected there won't be compromise.
Yet, here we are that in some polls, as Mike Murphy pointed out, Mr. Romney is ahead of Mr. Obama because the economy hasn't bounced back quickly enough. But as Mayor Booker rightly said, the mess that was created, it going to take more than 4 years to correct. Americans can not seem to deal with this fact. But they have to remember that we started 2 wars and didn't put them on the budget, then handing out a tax cut that did little for the middle class (we put our $600 check in the bank, and then paid a credit card bill) to further the deficit spending. At the time, Dick Cheney said that deficits didn't matter, but now they do. With the Ryan plan, deficits will increase sharply at the beginning, but in 40 years, we'll have a balanced budget - just the notion of that doesn't seem realistic.
Given the closeness of the polls, will the election solve anything or get anything done - the question Mr. Gregory posed to the panel. The answers were mixed, amongst which was Ms. Strassel, from the Wall Street Journal, banally saying that if there are majorities throughout there would be changes. However, if you were to strictly listen to this week's panel, and not look at the polls, you come to the conclusion that Mr. Romney's chances are not good. They talked about 'framing' the candidates, but most focused on Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama, even given the resurgence of talk about Jeremiah Wright the controversial minister, remains very likeable to the electorate, and his last three years in office has been a sufficient amount of time to make a judgement. Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is being defined as we go, and not just by the other side, but by every one except by the candidate himself.
Surprisingly, it was CNBC's Jim Cramer that delivered the harshest definition of Mr. Romney saying that the Bain Capital narrative of the candidate will stick and that Mr. Romney is a job destroyer. It's really Mr. Romney's fault that Bain will stick because 1) he doesn't talk about his time at Bain in any detail, 2) he can not talk about his time as Governor of Massachusetts, and 3) on the stump when he speaks about a personal journey, he always talks about his father, not himself. Not to mention that we wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Booker when he assessed that the Super PACs that exist on both side want this campaign to go into the gutter of personal attacks and stay there, an inevitability. Later in the segment, after Mike Murphy weakly tried to mitigate the criticism of Mr. Romney's position with regard to bailing out the auto industry, Mr. Cramer mocked the role he played, saying that he would have only performed triage.
At this stage of the Presidential campaign, it seems like every one is having trouble with triage, no one, media included, can determine what is most important to the American people while the respective camps rip band-aids off the trivial.
Roundtable: Mayor of Newark, NJ, Cory Booker (D), Republican strategist Mike Murphy, CNBC's Jim Cramer, and the Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel
Postscript: The G8 Summit and the economic crisis in the Euro-zone were only briefly mentioned at the end of the program. We didn't touch on it here because it deserves a separate column which is coming. However, Mr. Cramer did say that there would be a run on European banks and we agree simply for the fact that that is exactly what is happening in Greece now.
Postscript 2: The 'Corey Booker/Chris Christie' Ad - Why all the attention beside the fact that it is really funny? Because it shows a Republican and a Democrat of the same state having a laugh together, something so sorely missed in Washington these days - the simple notion that we live here together and are allowed to like each other.
For example, when Mr. Ryan says that in his budget plan they would eliminate tax shelters and loop holes in the tax code, which sounds great. However, he never specifies which ones. Additionally, do subsidies have implied inclusion or are they not part of the mix? It doesn't seem so since the Republicans recently defeated a bill that would end subsidies for oil companies. But you see, the Ryan budget isn't actually a 'budget.' Budgets contain numbers outlined specifically as to what they are attributed. Mr. Ryan doesn't do that in his document, and if it is a road map, as he calls it, then we'd be lost if we actually tried to use it to guide us.
Mr. Gregory posed the question of "Can Washington Govern?" According to Mr. Ryan, the Senate under Democratic control has not passed a budget since Mr. Obama took office. We get annoyed at such statements simply for the fact that we now have to go back once again and point out that a simple majority in the Senate gets nothing done, unlike the House where it does. Is this the kind of math that Mr. Ryan ignores? If you need 60 votes and you only ever have 53 (a majority) to try and pass a bill, it will never pass and in knowing that why propose the thing in the first place. To feel good about yourself? That is what the Republicans have been doing in the House with bills they know will not make it through the Senate.
But can Mr. Durbin argue this effectively? No, because simply saying the Mr. Romney, if he were elected President, would return us to Bush-era economic policies is a boogie-man type tact without giving an anecdote that American can relate to. He doesn't explain why we should bring back the Simpson-Bowles recommendations and why they would work. Because there is a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases - means testing for Social Security recipients but increases in education. Mr. Ryan said he didn't vote for Simpson-Bowles because it didn't address health care. There are two points with that. One, he didn't vote for it because it calls for some tax increases - something (stupidly) no Republican can vote for, and two, it does address health care but not to his liking.
Mr. Ryan is mentioned as a Vice-Presidential candidate for Mr. Romney but we'd advise the Governor not to select him. The reason is that no matter where Paul Ryan goes, he can not talk about anything else except for defending his budget, which is only not as controversial as 'Obamacare' because Paul Ryan isn't on a national ticket. However, as Newark Mayor Corey Booker accurately pointed out later in the program that while 'Obamacare' remains controversial with the American people, several components are quick popular. Mr. Ryan's defense is weak, and will remain so if he can not give any specifics. And with Mr. Romney endorsing the Ryan plan, it only helps him with the Republican base - he's one of the guys, but with independents, it doesn't help him at all. Coming onto the national political scene with policy controversy already around you isn't good for the Republican ticket.
Paul Ryan said that we have a narrow window in which to get the debt crisis under control, hence we have to act now. This is just our take on things, and it touches on something we said last week, but the small window he's taking about is more a reflection of being able to pass Republican ideological policy, the narrow window does in fact reflect the debt crisis but when he's discussing it, it also refers to the changing population demographics of this country and the Republican Party's shrinking ability to pass legislation that erodes social programs. And this is why you see tactics such as Mr. Boehner repeat threats of not raising the debt ceiling, hence shutting down the government because their negotiating window is shrinking and they have to employ every threat/tactic they can. Again, playing into the question of whether or not Washington can govern, the answer is not like this. What you have is the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States is engaging in a type policy blackmail. This is poor leadership, so when Mr. Ryan says that the Republicans will have to pass stop gap measures because of poor White House leadership has also has to turn that looking glass on his own party as well. We're sorely missing this function of government and it doesn't help when Vice-President Joe Biden says that if we're re-elected there won't be compromise.
Yet, here we are that in some polls, as Mike Murphy pointed out, Mr. Romney is ahead of Mr. Obama because the economy hasn't bounced back quickly enough. But as Mayor Booker rightly said, the mess that was created, it going to take more than 4 years to correct. Americans can not seem to deal with this fact. But they have to remember that we started 2 wars and didn't put them on the budget, then handing out a tax cut that did little for the middle class (we put our $600 check in the bank, and then paid a credit card bill) to further the deficit spending. At the time, Dick Cheney said that deficits didn't matter, but now they do. With the Ryan plan, deficits will increase sharply at the beginning, but in 40 years, we'll have a balanced budget - just the notion of that doesn't seem realistic.
Given the closeness of the polls, will the election solve anything or get anything done - the question Mr. Gregory posed to the panel. The answers were mixed, amongst which was Ms. Strassel, from the Wall Street Journal, banally saying that if there are majorities throughout there would be changes. However, if you were to strictly listen to this week's panel, and not look at the polls, you come to the conclusion that Mr. Romney's chances are not good. They talked about 'framing' the candidates, but most focused on Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama, even given the resurgence of talk about Jeremiah Wright the controversial minister, remains very likeable to the electorate, and his last three years in office has been a sufficient amount of time to make a judgement. Mr. Romney, on the other hand, is being defined as we go, and not just by the other side, but by every one except by the candidate himself.
Surprisingly, it was CNBC's Jim Cramer that delivered the harshest definition of Mr. Romney saying that the Bain Capital narrative of the candidate will stick and that Mr. Romney is a job destroyer. It's really Mr. Romney's fault that Bain will stick because 1) he doesn't talk about his time at Bain in any detail, 2) he can not talk about his time as Governor of Massachusetts, and 3) on the stump when he speaks about a personal journey, he always talks about his father, not himself. Not to mention that we wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Booker when he assessed that the Super PACs that exist on both side want this campaign to go into the gutter of personal attacks and stay there, an inevitability. Later in the segment, after Mike Murphy weakly tried to mitigate the criticism of Mr. Romney's position with regard to bailing out the auto industry, Mr. Cramer mocked the role he played, saying that he would have only performed triage.
At this stage of the Presidential campaign, it seems like every one is having trouble with triage, no one, media included, can determine what is most important to the American people while the respective camps rip band-aids off the trivial.
Roundtable: Mayor of Newark, NJ, Cory Booker (D), Republican strategist Mike Murphy, CNBC's Jim Cramer, and the Wall Street Journal's Kim Strassel
Postscript: The G8 Summit and the economic crisis in the Euro-zone were only briefly mentioned at the end of the program. We didn't touch on it here because it deserves a separate column which is coming. However, Mr. Cramer did say that there would be a run on European banks and we agree simply for the fact that that is exactly what is happening in Greece now.
Postscript 2: The 'Corey Booker/Chris Christie' Ad - Why all the attention beside the fact that it is really funny? Because it shows a Republican and a Democrat of the same state having a laugh together, something so sorely missed in Washington these days - the simple notion that we live here together and are allowed to like each other.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
5.13.12: You Can't Erase History
Aaron Ross Sorkin accurately said today that one of the problems for the banks is not that they're too big to fail, something that Jamie Dimon said did not support, but too big to manage. The question is how can one Mr. Dimon, who is regarded as one of the best in his business, miss what he called a major mistake. He went farther by saying that, "We know we were sloppy, we know we were stupid, and we know we used bad judgement." Yet, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said this was an example of how the Dodd-Frank law didn't work, meaning that we need to get rid of it. We would conclude that he means that we would replace it with nothing, hence making the effort by investigators now looking into the bank's actions unnecessary in finding out why the bank lost $2 billion by trading credit derivatives and were designed to hedge
against financial risk.
But if the CEO of JP Morgan Chase said that his company was sloppy, that means that they don't have a handle on or a proper way to monitor the traders that work for there. It's an industry that has little time or interest in policing itself, but at the same token doesn't want to be regulated. Our feeling is that you can not put blame on the banks for tanking the economy in 2008. The rules at the time were that there were essentially no rules, and traders' obligations are to the bank and making money, not to a single home owner in Florida. If we do not want to see another crisis like this again, then the government for the general welfare of the people have to put rules in place as prevention measures. Of course the financial industry isn't going to like it, but as Mr. Dimon said, he supports large parts of the Dodd-Frank law. However, he has also been critical, of course, so let's not deem Mr. Dimon with too many magnanimous-type adjectives, especially when he talks about how the industry is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and raising the rates on capital gains.
What we saw on today's show was a banker speaking more responsibly about the overall good of the the American people than a political party representative, the representative. The logic is if a part doesn't work, you fix or replace it with something stronger, not to get rid of the part and then hope the thing still works without it. But that is what Reince Priebus was advocating for today. Get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with nothing, and you will see a financial boom, but only in the short-term until the same thing happens all over, but not with housing, but some other industry next time. Playing for the short-term is popular, instant gratification is now a core American trait, and that's the promise that Republicans carry with them. However, it does nothing for the sustainable economic health of the country. The cycle that we're seeing - Republicans delivering us 'high' times followed by a complete bust; then Democrats getting into office to try to clean up the mess, causing people, spurred by the Republican rhetoric, to become impatient for more high times; and then the Republicans, hoping the public forget the details of why they caused the problems in the first place, ask for control again and claiming that the law has made things worse. As Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said, the war is within Washington.
Then you come to moments like these, 7 months before the election, with the RNC Chairman on Meet The Press taking cheap shots at the President saying that Mr. Obama is in love with the sound of his own voice and hasn't fulfilled the promises that he set. All Republicans say that, and they all leave out the second part, which is that we're going to block every effort on his part to make good on those promises.
[With all this stinging commentary, we as a column must officially go on record (again) to say that we're no fan of Reince Priebus and he does the Republican party, even in its currently radicalized state, a disservice as its foremost spokesperson.]
But make no mistake, Mr. Priebus, the Republican Party and their corporate backers know that the country's demographics are changing to a more Democratic viewpoint and if Republican want to have their way and serve its interests, the time is now. This is why you see a Republican House passing all kinds of bills that won't become law. It's like throwing darts at a board with your back turned, over the shoulder. It's awkward and consistently miss the mark, but by chance you might hit it once. That's what Republicans hope to accomplish in this instance.
Economically, Republicans would like to return the country to Bush-era policies, we all know this, but the key word here is return, but we can not go back. From this point, banks need to build their business given the rules in place because they have proven to be irresponsible [think Mr. Dimon's "We know we acted stupidly."].
What we said above translates to the marriage equity debate in as much as that Republicans should not be concerned with being on the wrong side of history (the short-term), but being history (the long-term). They have to be willing to adapt or risk irrelevance.
Last week, a funny thing happened on Meet The Press. Usually, a historic act makes news, this time making news prompted a historic act, and after Vice President Joe Biden said he was 'comfortable' with gay marriage, the President came out and said that he personally was for it as well. (Legislatively, he would leave it to the states to decide.) Chris Matthews found it interesting why the Administration would want to publicize the friction in the White House caused by Mr. Biden being out front on the issue. We think that's the reason, the Obama Administration is stern when it comes to people knowing who exactly drives the boat, and that's Barack Obama. It's not some kind of Bush-Cheney situation where the joke.. urrrr reality... was that Cheney really called all the shots.
Refreshingly, on today's program, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Al Cardenas said that he was surprised by people's surprise. "A lot to do about nothing," he said. We wouldn't dismiss it like that, but he does have a point. People shouldn't be that surprised. However, he also said that he thought this would cause an uprising of social conservative in November the likes of which we haven't seen for 20 some odd years. Here, we would disagree because from 20 years ago to now, too many people's attitudes have changed, as well as demographics, and the impact he's suggesting will not come to fruition.
However, as Jonathan Capeheart noted, this is not a slam dunk for President though it has buoyed millions psychologically. Within the body politic of Washington, the lines are being drawn, and not in sand. People are looking for the permanent marker as we head down the stretch of the Presidential election, and Republicans are trying to figure out a way to ultilize the President's historic stance on gay marriage against him beyond this one issue because they can not erase it.
Round Table: Lt. Governor of California Gavin Newsom; Chairman of the American Conservative Union Al Cardenas; Washington Post columnists Kathleen Parker and Jonathan Capehart; and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.
But if the CEO of JP Morgan Chase said that his company was sloppy, that means that they don't have a handle on or a proper way to monitor the traders that work for there. It's an industry that has little time or interest in policing itself, but at the same token doesn't want to be regulated. Our feeling is that you can not put blame on the banks for tanking the economy in 2008. The rules at the time were that there were essentially no rules, and traders' obligations are to the bank and making money, not to a single home owner in Florida. If we do not want to see another crisis like this again, then the government for the general welfare of the people have to put rules in place as prevention measures. Of course the financial industry isn't going to like it, but as Mr. Dimon said, he supports large parts of the Dodd-Frank law. However, he has also been critical, of course, so let's not deem Mr. Dimon with too many magnanimous-type adjectives, especially when he talks about how the industry is in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts expire and raising the rates on capital gains.
What we saw on today's show was a banker speaking more responsibly about the overall good of the the American people than a political party representative, the representative. The logic is if a part doesn't work, you fix or replace it with something stronger, not to get rid of the part and then hope the thing still works without it. But that is what Reince Priebus was advocating for today. Get rid of Dodd-Frank and replace it with nothing, and you will see a financial boom, but only in the short-term until the same thing happens all over, but not with housing, but some other industry next time. Playing for the short-term is popular, instant gratification is now a core American trait, and that's the promise that Republicans carry with them. However, it does nothing for the sustainable economic health of the country. The cycle that we're seeing - Republicans delivering us 'high' times followed by a complete bust; then Democrats getting into office to try to clean up the mess, causing people, spurred by the Republican rhetoric, to become impatient for more high times; and then the Republicans, hoping the public forget the details of why they caused the problems in the first place, ask for control again and claiming that the law has made things worse. As Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) said, the war is within Washington.
Then you come to moments like these, 7 months before the election, with the RNC Chairman on Meet The Press taking cheap shots at the President saying that Mr. Obama is in love with the sound of his own voice and hasn't fulfilled the promises that he set. All Republicans say that, and they all leave out the second part, which is that we're going to block every effort on his part to make good on those promises.
[With all this stinging commentary, we as a column must officially go on record (again) to say that we're no fan of Reince Priebus and he does the Republican party, even in its currently radicalized state, a disservice as its foremost spokesperson.]
But make no mistake, Mr. Priebus, the Republican Party and their corporate backers know that the country's demographics are changing to a more Democratic viewpoint and if Republican want to have their way and serve its interests, the time is now. This is why you see a Republican House passing all kinds of bills that won't become law. It's like throwing darts at a board with your back turned, over the shoulder. It's awkward and consistently miss the mark, but by chance you might hit it once. That's what Republicans hope to accomplish in this instance.
Economically, Republicans would like to return the country to Bush-era policies, we all know this, but the key word here is return, but we can not go back. From this point, banks need to build their business given the rules in place because they have proven to be irresponsible [think Mr. Dimon's "We know we acted stupidly."].
What we said above translates to the marriage equity debate in as much as that Republicans should not be concerned with being on the wrong side of history (the short-term), but being history (the long-term). They have to be willing to adapt or risk irrelevance.
Last week, a funny thing happened on Meet The Press. Usually, a historic act makes news, this time making news prompted a historic act, and after Vice President Joe Biden said he was 'comfortable' with gay marriage, the President came out and said that he personally was for it as well. (Legislatively, he would leave it to the states to decide.) Chris Matthews found it interesting why the Administration would want to publicize the friction in the White House caused by Mr. Biden being out front on the issue. We think that's the reason, the Obama Administration is stern when it comes to people knowing who exactly drives the boat, and that's Barack Obama. It's not some kind of Bush-Cheney situation where the joke.. urrrr reality... was that Cheney really called all the shots.
Refreshingly, on today's program, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Al Cardenas said that he was surprised by people's surprise. "A lot to do about nothing," he said. We wouldn't dismiss it like that, but he does have a point. People shouldn't be that surprised. However, he also said that he thought this would cause an uprising of social conservative in November the likes of which we haven't seen for 20 some odd years. Here, we would disagree because from 20 years ago to now, too many people's attitudes have changed, as well as demographics, and the impact he's suggesting will not come to fruition.
However, as Jonathan Capeheart noted, this is not a slam dunk for President though it has buoyed millions psychologically. Within the body politic of Washington, the lines are being drawn, and not in sand. People are looking for the permanent marker as we head down the stretch of the Presidential election, and Republicans are trying to figure out a way to ultilize the President's historic stance on gay marriage against him beyond this one issue because they can not erase it.
Round Table: Lt. Governor of California Gavin Newsom; Chairman of the American Conservative Union Al Cardenas; Washington Post columnists Kathleen Parker and Jonathan Capehart; and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
4.29.12: Criticism of the Criticism
Despite having to cut through some respective twisting of facts, we always find having campaign representatives, and specifically Ed Gillespie (R) and Robert Gibbs (D), highly informative because their answers provide insights to what political tact each campaign will take on a particular political issue.
Before getting into other issues, it was a good first tackle by Mr. Gregory to discuss whether or not the assassination of Osama Bin Laden is being politicized and whether it should be. [Let's take a time out by saying that this subject is and was tied into NBC's Brian Williams' special program on the one-year anniversary of the operation.] To answer the first part, it is certainly being used for political gain as evidenced by what Vice President Joe Biden has been saying on the campaign trail. "Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive." The key part what he follows it up with, "Could Mitt Romney use that as a slogan," and then he goes on to explain why. It's a bit of a stretch to say that Mitt Romney, if President, wouldn't have taken steps to get him given actionable intelligence, even though he did say it wouldn't have been a priority to get Bin Laden. Mr. GIbbs stopped short saying that it is not clear as to whether he would have or not. For President Obama, on the other hand, it was a priority and the success of the mission proved to be significant, especially in the psyches of a younger generation who spent most of their informative years living under the shadow of a post-9/11 world.
It was an vital get. The killing or capturing of Osama Bin Laden should have always been a priority. That President Bush didn't put a priority on it, and in fact didn't get him in the ensuing 7 years of his Presidency was a error in judgement, and given that, it's fair game for Mr. Obama to tout the fact that his administration conducted the successful mission. However, prominent Republicans, Senator John McCain as Mr. Gregory noted, said that the ad in question had gone over the line. Mr. Gillespie said that the President turned a national triumph into a divisive partisan political attack against Mr. Romney, the 'sign of a desperate campaign.'
For Mr. Gillespie, here's where his argument falls down. When Mr. Gregory asked him if the country was safer now, Mr. Gillespie said that the United States isn't as strong as it should be, and he repeated the phrase again for lack of a credible counter because he certainly can not say that the United States is not safe, without causing a stir, but on the other hand, he can not say that we're safer because that would be giving credit to President Obama.
[As for the second part of Biden's slogan, Mr. Romney is on record saying that he would have not helped General Motors with a bailout, and where he didn't level with the American people when saying that the government should not bail out private companies, he's not addressing the big picture that no saving G.M. would have been the killing of an industry - that's how key General Motors is to the entire equation.]
Going further on foreign policy, there were conflicting opinions on our relationship with Russia. Mr. Gillespie said the 'reset button' diplomacy is not working. Conversely, Mr. Gibbs said that the United States, under President Obama, was able to get them to go along with sanctions against Iran. Well, neither the 'reset button' or the 'I saw into his soul' approaches have been effective. It's difficult to say from what we've heard today who has done better, but should we keep Russia in a subordinate role to China (a role reversal from the height of the Cold War)? Absolutely.
What was definitive and insightful came with the discussion of how women are being and would be treated under Republican leadership versus Democratic leadership. Mr. Gillespie, countering the presumed charge that Republicans have a 'war on women,' explained the women are economically worse off under President Obama since he took office, citing a few statistics. Mr. Gibbs, for his effort, noted women's health care restrictions Republicans are proposing. The argument is on two different plains. But it distills down to this, and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos explained the strategy inadvertently during the panel when verbally jousting with Rachel Maddow saying that the subject wasn't the states but the federal government. To deflect the conversation away from the unprecedented amount of legislation Republicans have introduced limiting women's reproductive rights on a state level, Mr. Romney will try and keep the focus on the economy and how that has effected women. It's not quite saying one thing and doing another. It's more of a matter of saying one thing while others do another thing that we won't talk about.
One has to realize that the economy has been difficult on women because of what has been done on the state level by Republicans in their cutting of education budgets, a move that disproportionately negatively effectives women. Mr. Gillespie stated that the work place has become hostile toward women under President Obama. This is simply a political platitude, for which the President's record doesn't reflect, starting with his signing of the Fair Pay For Women Act aka Lilly Ledbetter. Then there is the clip of Speaker John Boehner from the floor of the House saying the so-called 'war on women' is something that the Democrats are simply using for political gain. Yes, that is correct, but why? Because Republicans have tried to institute policies not favorable to women so what does he expect? Mr. Boehner's pompous indignation that Democrats would challenge these policies, making a political issue, given what's on record, shows some pretty thin skin.
Lastly, we like the succinct description Mr. Gibbs put on the Republicans' criticism of the Administration's handling of the economic - that we didn't clean up your mess fast enough. One reason why we like it is because it plays into Mitt Romney's criticism that the recovery hasn't been fast enough. The reason for that is political gridlock. [Quick Aside: For good or ill, depending on what political side you're on, simple Senate majority needs to be put back in place as a rule.] It's an effective criticism of the criticism because by all indications Republicans want to repeal all the economic policies put into place by the Democrats under President Obama, returning us to the policies of the Bush Administration which created the Great Recession, essentially trying to clean up the mess by making more of a mess.
[On a program note, during today's program, there were two extended promotions for other programing on the network and as we touch on earlier in the column, they were woven into the topics discussed. There was a promotion for Brian Williams' special on the killing of Osama Bin Laden and an interview promotion for Saturday Night Live. This has been somewhat of a trend on the program, and it's inappropriate for the 'program of record' as we like to refer to Meet The Press. There is too much to discuss and Meet The Press is a serious program which required every minute to be focused on the topics at hand. There is plenty of other airtime on the network to promote programming.]
Round Table: Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen is back to weigh in on the campaign. Also joining us: Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.
Before getting into other issues, it was a good first tackle by Mr. Gregory to discuss whether or not the assassination of Osama Bin Laden is being politicized and whether it should be. [Let's take a time out by saying that this subject is and was tied into NBC's Brian Williams' special program on the one-year anniversary of the operation.] To answer the first part, it is certainly being used for political gain as evidenced by what Vice President Joe Biden has been saying on the campaign trail. "Bin Laden is dead, and GM is alive." The key part what he follows it up with, "Could Mitt Romney use that as a slogan," and then he goes on to explain why. It's a bit of a stretch to say that Mitt Romney, if President, wouldn't have taken steps to get him given actionable intelligence, even though he did say it wouldn't have been a priority to get Bin Laden. Mr. GIbbs stopped short saying that it is not clear as to whether he would have or not. For President Obama, on the other hand, it was a priority and the success of the mission proved to be significant, especially in the psyches of a younger generation who spent most of their informative years living under the shadow of a post-9/11 world.
It was an vital get. The killing or capturing of Osama Bin Laden should have always been a priority. That President Bush didn't put a priority on it, and in fact didn't get him in the ensuing 7 years of his Presidency was a error in judgement, and given that, it's fair game for Mr. Obama to tout the fact that his administration conducted the successful mission. However, prominent Republicans, Senator John McCain as Mr. Gregory noted, said that the ad in question had gone over the line. Mr. Gillespie said that the President turned a national triumph into a divisive partisan political attack against Mr. Romney, the 'sign of a desperate campaign.'
For Mr. Gillespie, here's where his argument falls down. When Mr. Gregory asked him if the country was safer now, Mr. Gillespie said that the United States isn't as strong as it should be, and he repeated the phrase again for lack of a credible counter because he certainly can not say that the United States is not safe, without causing a stir, but on the other hand, he can not say that we're safer because that would be giving credit to President Obama.
Going further on foreign policy, there were conflicting opinions on our relationship with Russia. Mr. Gillespie said the 'reset button' diplomacy is not working. Conversely, Mr. Gibbs said that the United States, under President Obama, was able to get them to go along with sanctions against Iran. Well, neither the 'reset button' or the 'I saw into his soul' approaches have been effective. It's difficult to say from what we've heard today who has done better, but should we keep Russia in a subordinate role to China (a role reversal from the height of the Cold War)? Absolutely.
What was definitive and insightful came with the discussion of how women are being and would be treated under Republican leadership versus Democratic leadership. Mr. Gillespie, countering the presumed charge that Republicans have a 'war on women,' explained the women are economically worse off under President Obama since he took office, citing a few statistics. Mr. Gibbs, for his effort, noted women's health care restrictions Republicans are proposing. The argument is on two different plains. But it distills down to this, and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos explained the strategy inadvertently during the panel when verbally jousting with Rachel Maddow saying that the subject wasn't the states but the federal government. To deflect the conversation away from the unprecedented amount of legislation Republicans have introduced limiting women's reproductive rights on a state level, Mr. Romney will try and keep the focus on the economy and how that has effected women. It's not quite saying one thing and doing another. It's more of a matter of saying one thing while others do another thing that we won't talk about.
One has to realize that the economy has been difficult on women because of what has been done on the state level by Republicans in their cutting of education budgets, a move that disproportionately negatively effectives women. Mr. Gillespie stated that the work place has become hostile toward women under President Obama. This is simply a political platitude, for which the President's record doesn't reflect, starting with his signing of the Fair Pay For Women Act aka Lilly Ledbetter. Then there is the clip of Speaker John Boehner from the floor of the House saying the so-called 'war on women' is something that the Democrats are simply using for political gain. Yes, that is correct, but why? Because Republicans have tried to institute policies not favorable to women so what does he expect? Mr. Boehner's pompous indignation that Democrats would challenge these policies, making a political issue, given what's on record, shows some pretty thin skin.
Lastly, we like the succinct description Mr. Gibbs put on the Republicans' criticism of the Administration's handling of the economic - that we didn't clean up your mess fast enough. One reason why we like it is because it plays into Mitt Romney's criticism that the recovery hasn't been fast enough. The reason for that is political gridlock. [Quick Aside: For good or ill, depending on what political side you're on, simple Senate majority needs to be put back in place as a rule.] It's an effective criticism of the criticism because by all indications Republicans want to repeal all the economic policies put into place by the Democrats under President Obama, returning us to the policies of the Bush Administration which created the Great Recession, essentially trying to clean up the mess by making more of a mess.
[On a program note, during today's program, there were two extended promotions for other programing on the network and as we touch on earlier in the column, they were woven into the topics discussed. There was a promotion for Brian Williams' special on the killing of Osama Bin Laden and an interview promotion for Saturday Night Live. This has been somewhat of a trend on the program, and it's inappropriate for the 'program of record' as we like to refer to Meet The Press. There is too much to discuss and Meet The Press is a serious program which required every minute to be focused on the topics at hand. There is plenty of other airtime on the network to promote programming.]
Round Table: Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen is back to weigh in on the campaign. Also joining us: Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, and Republican strategist Alex Castellanos.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
4.15.12: How Will History Judge?
Representative Michele Bachmann stated during her debate segment with Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) that health insurance costs have risen 9% in the past year under 'Obamacare,' and that families (women) pay $2,000 dollars more in gas per year under President Obama, and that these are the real issues that women should be concerned about.
What you can appreciate about this debate is that the two representatives from their respective sides elevated it beyond the misplaced comments by the CNN contributor Hilary Rosen. However, the two spoke on different planes. When asked about women, Mrs. Bachmann, as previously mentioned talked about the economic impact on women whereas Mrs. Gillibrand spoke about womens' freedom to make health care choices. When Mrs. Bachmann finally weighed in on the points that the Senator was making, her argument completely fell down. Congresswoman Bachmann said that HR1 was a law designed to have women make their own health care choices, but that's simply not the case - it was an abortion restriction bill, which has been followed by 90 state bills that have been passed restricting a woman's choices with her doctor. As we've said before, legislating womens' bodies is the ultimate in big government control over an individual, more so than a health care mandate ever would be. And speaking of the mandate, the reason why health care costs have gone up 9% is not because of 'Obamacare,' which hasn't been fully implemented yet, but instead it is because that private insurance companies are trying to reap as much profit as possible before it kicks in when they won't be able to charge what ever they want, taking advantage of people.
So when Mr. Gregory challenges Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the strength of the economy and the recovery that is still underway, of course he's going to say is still pretty tough. And the reason that it's still tough right now, as it applies to this country, separating out for a moment Europe's financial situation and the effect it has on the stock market, is that President Obama and the Democrats put in place rules such as Dowd-Frank and the Affordable Health Care Act to rein corporate excess. Of course one person's excess is another person's extra profit.
In between the lines you can distill the different strategies. The Obama Administration is looking more long term, while Republicans are looking for the politically and economically expedient. This bears out with regard to the debt and deficit. Mrs. Bachmann stated that in 15 years our economy will collapse under the weight of our debt if we stay on the trajectory we're on, to which Mr. Geithner disagreed. But even if this collapse were inevitable, the Republican answer in the form of the Paul Ryan budget plan doesn't head this off. His budget, if enacted, would not balance the budget until 2040 - 28 years from now.
Despite the anemic job growth numbers, Secretary Geithner stated that by all indications, the policies the administration has put in place are having a positive effect. He cited the growth in business and manufacturing and an increase in consumer confidence. With a weak dollar, manufacturing will pick up hence businesses will grow which is all good, but a weak dollar doesn't help consumers so why the increase in confidence? It's a false label, it's not that consumers have more confidence, it's just that they've had to figure out how to buy things with less money and that took some time to figure out - get out of your house, take the second job, sell a few things, and only now are people starting to buy things again, specifically, for example, women and moms.
"Ridiculous," was the word Mr. Geithner used to describe Mr. Romney's statement that 92% of the jobs lost belonged to women. That's not even a real news maker because no one has really come to believe anything that Mitt Romney says, the core realization that the public will come to and the primary reason why he will not be elected President. Calling Mr. Romney out like that doesn't require any political courage, and where Mr. Geithner could have exercised some was when he rightly mentioned teachers losing their jobs and that a high percentage of those positions are held by women. Where he came up short was that he didn't explain that those teacher job losses were the product of Republican state houses cutting their public budgets and shifting the dollars to tax cutting. He didn't go there. Nor did he mention, as Mrs. Gillibrand correctly did, the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act that President Obama signed into law. How does Mrs. Bachmann defend, for example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's decision to repeal that law on the state level. She can't and she has to change the subject as she did today because it's not OK that an employer can just decide to pay a woman 75 cents on the dollar for an equal amount of work - simply.
Then there is the whole 'still blaming George Bush' debate and if it's still valid to do so, as Mr. Geithner did today in the context of the tax cuts, with which Mrs. Bachmann took umbrage. Well, in a way as far as continued Bush blame - no, but ultimately in a way - yes. No, because the Obama Administration has not done a good enough job of controlling government waste in medicare and medicaid and has not cut the defense budget at all. However, we're still debating the Bush tax cuts. And if we really want to get rid of the 'blame George Bush' game, then we have to eliminate the tax cuts that carry his name. If you're a Democrat that means raising the rate back up to what it was in the Clinton era. If you're a Republican, that means replacing the namesake (insert Romney or Ryan) and providing an even larger permanent cut.
That's the choice going forward now that the general is effectively on, and as Mike Murphy said during the round table, it's going to get nasty, quickly - no one seemed to disagree. How could anyone in the stratosphere disagree with that? Thirty-five million dollars was spent between Mr. Romney's campaign and his surrogates on attacking Rick Santorum, in the primary. That figure will balloon to about $300 million in the general, not to be outdone by much by Mr. Obama. Ironically, Chuck Todd said that Mr. Romney was getting tagged with Santorum rhetoric. Mr. Romney had to go too far to the right in our estimation to get the votes over his opponents and in some cases, too far from which to recover. This is why Mr. Gregory illustrated the disparity in respective support from women votes - 57% for Mr. Obama, 38% for Mr. Romney. Also, a costly factor in the election. Voter turnout, as Mr. Todd, mentioned will be negatively effective, especially on the Republican side if Mr. Romney starts walking any hard right statements back to the middle, combined with the negative advertising.
And instead of debating whether or not Mitt Romney should make an appearance on Saturday Night Live, how about we give a little thought to what Mr. Geithner said during his interview, which was that history will judge what President Obama has done, is doing, and what he will do favorably. After all, Mike Murphy said that the election would be a referendum on each individual - stick with that. Some would argue that history will not be favorable given the $5 trillion in debt that has accumulated under the Obama Administration so far. They'll be correct if Mr. Obama wins a second term and doesn't focus on deficit reduction once the health care act is in full effect. If Romney wins the election, Mr. Obama's policies will be looked upon as even more favorably because Mr. Romney will throw back the country into a deep recession and then people once again long for fiscal sanity.
Round table: former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN), Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd.
Postscript: Mr. Gregory's interview with Bill Cosby (excerpted during the program) provided nice closure to the program despite some frivolous conversation during the panel. We agree with Mr. Cosby that the Trayvon Martin shooting should be more a conversation about the gun instead of race. Sadly, there is nary a politician with the political courage to speak up about it. We would also agree that it is un-American to route for the failure of the President because in essence, hoping for that is hoping that America fails, and that just sucks.
What you can appreciate about this debate is that the two representatives from their respective sides elevated it beyond the misplaced comments by the CNN contributor Hilary Rosen. However, the two spoke on different planes. When asked about women, Mrs. Bachmann, as previously mentioned talked about the economic impact on women whereas Mrs. Gillibrand spoke about womens' freedom to make health care choices. When Mrs. Bachmann finally weighed in on the points that the Senator was making, her argument completely fell down. Congresswoman Bachmann said that HR1 was a law designed to have women make their own health care choices, but that's simply not the case - it was an abortion restriction bill, which has been followed by 90 state bills that have been passed restricting a woman's choices with her doctor. As we've said before, legislating womens' bodies is the ultimate in big government control over an individual, more so than a health care mandate ever would be. And speaking of the mandate, the reason why health care costs have gone up 9% is not because of 'Obamacare,' which hasn't been fully implemented yet, but instead it is because that private insurance companies are trying to reap as much profit as possible before it kicks in when they won't be able to charge what ever they want, taking advantage of people.
So when Mr. Gregory challenges Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the strength of the economy and the recovery that is still underway, of course he's going to say is still pretty tough. And the reason that it's still tough right now, as it applies to this country, separating out for a moment Europe's financial situation and the effect it has on the stock market, is that President Obama and the Democrats put in place rules such as Dowd-Frank and the Affordable Health Care Act to rein corporate excess. Of course one person's excess is another person's extra profit.
In between the lines you can distill the different strategies. The Obama Administration is looking more long term, while Republicans are looking for the politically and economically expedient. This bears out with regard to the debt and deficit. Mrs. Bachmann stated that in 15 years our economy will collapse under the weight of our debt if we stay on the trajectory we're on, to which Mr. Geithner disagreed. But even if this collapse were inevitable, the Republican answer in the form of the Paul Ryan budget plan doesn't head this off. His budget, if enacted, would not balance the budget until 2040 - 28 years from now.
Despite the anemic job growth numbers, Secretary Geithner stated that by all indications, the policies the administration has put in place are having a positive effect. He cited the growth in business and manufacturing and an increase in consumer confidence. With a weak dollar, manufacturing will pick up hence businesses will grow which is all good, but a weak dollar doesn't help consumers so why the increase in confidence? It's a false label, it's not that consumers have more confidence, it's just that they've had to figure out how to buy things with less money and that took some time to figure out - get out of your house, take the second job, sell a few things, and only now are people starting to buy things again, specifically, for example, women and moms.
"Ridiculous," was the word Mr. Geithner used to describe Mr. Romney's statement that 92% of the jobs lost belonged to women. That's not even a real news maker because no one has really come to believe anything that Mitt Romney says, the core realization that the public will come to and the primary reason why he will not be elected President. Calling Mr. Romney out like that doesn't require any political courage, and where Mr. Geithner could have exercised some was when he rightly mentioned teachers losing their jobs and that a high percentage of those positions are held by women. Where he came up short was that he didn't explain that those teacher job losses were the product of Republican state houses cutting their public budgets and shifting the dollars to tax cutting. He didn't go there. Nor did he mention, as Mrs. Gillibrand correctly did, the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act that President Obama signed into law. How does Mrs. Bachmann defend, for example, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's decision to repeal that law on the state level. She can't and she has to change the subject as she did today because it's not OK that an employer can just decide to pay a woman 75 cents on the dollar for an equal amount of work - simply.
Then there is the whole 'still blaming George Bush' debate and if it's still valid to do so, as Mr. Geithner did today in the context of the tax cuts, with which Mrs. Bachmann took umbrage. Well, in a way as far as continued Bush blame - no, but ultimately in a way - yes. No, because the Obama Administration has not done a good enough job of controlling government waste in medicare and medicaid and has not cut the defense budget at all. However, we're still debating the Bush tax cuts. And if we really want to get rid of the 'blame George Bush' game, then we have to eliminate the tax cuts that carry his name. If you're a Democrat that means raising the rate back up to what it was in the Clinton era. If you're a Republican, that means replacing the namesake (insert Romney or Ryan) and providing an even larger permanent cut.
That's the choice going forward now that the general is effectively on, and as Mike Murphy said during the round table, it's going to get nasty, quickly - no one seemed to disagree. How could anyone in the stratosphere disagree with that? Thirty-five million dollars was spent between Mr. Romney's campaign and his surrogates on attacking Rick Santorum, in the primary. That figure will balloon to about $300 million in the general, not to be outdone by much by Mr. Obama. Ironically, Chuck Todd said that Mr. Romney was getting tagged with Santorum rhetoric. Mr. Romney had to go too far to the right in our estimation to get the votes over his opponents and in some cases, too far from which to recover. This is why Mr. Gregory illustrated the disparity in respective support from women votes - 57% for Mr. Obama, 38% for Mr. Romney. Also, a costly factor in the election. Voter turnout, as Mr. Todd, mentioned will be negatively effective, especially on the Republican side if Mr. Romney starts walking any hard right statements back to the middle, combined with the negative advertising.
And instead of debating whether or not Mitt Romney should make an appearance on Saturday Night Live, how about we give a little thought to what Mr. Geithner said during his interview, which was that history will judge what President Obama has done, is doing, and what he will do favorably. After all, Mike Murphy said that the election would be a referendum on each individual - stick with that. Some would argue that history will not be favorable given the $5 trillion in debt that has accumulated under the Obama Administration so far. They'll be correct if Mr. Obama wins a second term and doesn't focus on deficit reduction once the health care act is in full effect. If Romney wins the election, Mr. Obama's policies will be looked upon as even more favorably because Mr. Romney will throw back the country into a deep recession and then people once again long for fiscal sanity.
Round table: former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN), Republican strategist Mike Murphy, and NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd.
Postscript: Mr. Gregory's interview with Bill Cosby (excerpted during the program) provided nice closure to the program despite some frivolous conversation during the panel. We agree with Mr. Cosby that the Trayvon Martin shooting should be more a conversation about the gun instead of race. Sadly, there is nary a politician with the political courage to speak up about it. We would also agree that it is un-American to route for the failure of the President because in essence, hoping for that is hoping that America fails, and that just sucks.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
4.1.12: We Like Broccoli
Substituting for Mr. Gregory this week were NBC's Savannah Guthrie and Joe Scarborough respectively, with Mr. Scarborough taking the round table. In the opening interview, Rick Santorum said that what's worse than a contested convention is picking the wrong candidate. With due respect, Ms. Guthrie got the wrong candidate in grilling Mr. Santorum on getting out of the race. Those questions should really go to Newt Gingrich, who at this point is being completely ignored by the media. The general Republican consensus with the small wave of endorsements this week of Mitt Romney is that Republicans should start focusing on a one on one race. However, that's all that Rick Santorum wants, his chance to have a one on one primary votes with Mr. Romney. It's Mr. Santorum's only real chance to contend, possibly beat, Mr. Romney in Wisconsin and or Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum's home state and where it is now a dead heat.
In his campaign of inevitability, as Mr. Santorum correctly put it, Mitt Romney may be that 'wrong' candidate as his favorability rating is at 34 percent, damage done inadvertently by his Super PAC, so much negative advertising that it has turned people off. Also, there's the damage the candidate has done to himself with all of his changing on positions and the endless verbal gaffes, that Mika Brzezinski who essentially co-hosted today's round table, pointed out through a series of clips. We must admit it is fun to see how far Mitt Romney can take this vulgar display of wealth, and the house with the lobbyist and car elevator is a great way to one-up yourself.
Mr. Santorum was also making the case that the Republican nomination is not a done deal because more than half of the delegates in states where they've already had primaries have not yet committed to a candidate. But what is the end game for Mr. Santorum in taking this line of attack, a contested convention? It's at the convention where the establishment does take over, which is only a further benefit to Mr. Romney. It's a weak case on the part Rick Santorum for the nomination. But you never know, we agree with Tom Friedman who said today on the panel that the Republican Party is becoming a radical party. You could tell that the comment made his conservative colleague David Brooks cringe, as it should. In this Republican primary, the rhetoric has gone farther to the right than in the past 40 years at least.
And of course, speaking of weak cases, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) best answer in defense of two-thirds of the American people against the Affordable Healthcare Act is that once people get beyond all the horribles being touted about the bill, they'll see the benefits. What? However, he did say that the concept of the individual mandate came from the conservative Heritage Foundation back in 1993. For Democrats, this is a good nugget to be pulling out hammering home, that conservatives were for this but the Dems just haven't made the point effectively enough as Mr. Schumer did today. It wasn't as weak an argument as the case the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made for the law before the Supreme Court this week, according to all reports, blogs, and tweets.
Mr. Schumer did say that even given the weak argument, it's difficult to say how the court will judge. However, there will be significant negative effects if the court does not uphold the law, and those will be felt on all sides. From the round table, Jon Meacham stated that it would be a permanent black eye for the President if it's not upheld. It will be - he spent a year and a half working on a Health care law that was deemed unconstitutional. If the vote comes down 5-4 against, which looks like the anticipated tally, the court will be viewed by most to be ideological and partisan, and Republicans who will be thinking victory will once again be the grand party of 'no' because they'll offer no alternative but to cut benefits for Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest. Finally, what will ultimately be lost, and rather quickly, is Americans faith in our system of government. Congress can barely get anything done, and when they finally do pass something of significance, for good or ill, a court of 9 can negate the whole thing. It leads one to ask, what's the point?
There's no doubt that the court is ideological activist, the track record is there. We contended before in this column that the court makes decisions without considering the practical nature of their conclusions. Case in point is the Citizens United decision, where the court made a conclusion and now see the result in practice and there thinking that it's pretty awful what they unleashed. Since they've seen it now and the accompanying consequences, this time around with health care the judges are trying to consider the effect of the decision more. This is what leads a smart man to ask dumb questions about mandating people to eat broccoli.
It seems that the court is short in the overarching consideration for the Interstate Commerce Clause and the effect on it for striking down the law, a point that Senator Schumer rightly brought up. By ruling against the government, the court could put Congress's ability to regulate industries that operate state to state in real jeopardy. As Mr. Schumer mentioned, food safety standards could deteriorate. This and environmental protections, air and water, are underestimated in significance of importance in this country. We don't seem to understand that the better the food, the better the air, and the better the water, the less we'll be sick and... then require less health care.
Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times, Fmr. Newsweek Executive Editor Jon Meacham, Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) and MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski.
Postscript: Oh yeah, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) was on the program today to endorse Mitt Romney. We guess that is what you would call 'mild news' given the upcoming Wisconsin primary. Important? Hardly, no one's listening, not even in Wisconsin.
In his campaign of inevitability, as Mr. Santorum correctly put it, Mitt Romney may be that 'wrong' candidate as his favorability rating is at 34 percent, damage done inadvertently by his Super PAC, so much negative advertising that it has turned people off. Also, there's the damage the candidate has done to himself with all of his changing on positions and the endless verbal gaffes, that Mika Brzezinski who essentially co-hosted today's round table, pointed out through a series of clips. We must admit it is fun to see how far Mitt Romney can take this vulgar display of wealth, and the house with the lobbyist and car elevator is a great way to one-up yourself.
Mr. Santorum was also making the case that the Republican nomination is not a done deal because more than half of the delegates in states where they've already had primaries have not yet committed to a candidate. But what is the end game for Mr. Santorum in taking this line of attack, a contested convention? It's at the convention where the establishment does take over, which is only a further benefit to Mr. Romney. It's a weak case on the part Rick Santorum for the nomination. But you never know, we agree with Tom Friedman who said today on the panel that the Republican Party is becoming a radical party. You could tell that the comment made his conservative colleague David Brooks cringe, as it should. In this Republican primary, the rhetoric has gone farther to the right than in the past 40 years at least.
And of course, speaking of weak cases, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) best answer in defense of two-thirds of the American people against the Affordable Healthcare Act is that once people get beyond all the horribles being touted about the bill, they'll see the benefits. What? However, he did say that the concept of the individual mandate came from the conservative Heritage Foundation back in 1993. For Democrats, this is a good nugget to be pulling out hammering home, that conservatives were for this but the Dems just haven't made the point effectively enough as Mr. Schumer did today. It wasn't as weak an argument as the case the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made for the law before the Supreme Court this week, according to all reports, blogs, and tweets.
Mr. Schumer did say that even given the weak argument, it's difficult to say how the court will judge. However, there will be significant negative effects if the court does not uphold the law, and those will be felt on all sides. From the round table, Jon Meacham stated that it would be a permanent black eye for the President if it's not upheld. It will be - he spent a year and a half working on a Health care law that was deemed unconstitutional. If the vote comes down 5-4 against, which looks like the anticipated tally, the court will be viewed by most to be ideological and partisan, and Republicans who will be thinking victory will once again be the grand party of 'no' because they'll offer no alternative but to cut benefits for Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest. Finally, what will ultimately be lost, and rather quickly, is Americans faith in our system of government. Congress can barely get anything done, and when they finally do pass something of significance, for good or ill, a court of 9 can negate the whole thing. It leads one to ask, what's the point?
There's no doubt that the court is ideological activist, the track record is there. We contended before in this column that the court makes decisions without considering the practical nature of their conclusions. Case in point is the Citizens United decision, where the court made a conclusion and now see the result in practice and there thinking that it's pretty awful what they unleashed. Since they've seen it now and the accompanying consequences, this time around with health care the judges are trying to consider the effect of the decision more. This is what leads a smart man to ask dumb questions about mandating people to eat broccoli.
It seems that the court is short in the overarching consideration for the Interstate Commerce Clause and the effect on it for striking down the law, a point that Senator Schumer rightly brought up. By ruling against the government, the court could put Congress's ability to regulate industries that operate state to state in real jeopardy. As Mr. Schumer mentioned, food safety standards could deteriorate. This and environmental protections, air and water, are underestimated in significance of importance in this country. We don't seem to understand that the better the food, the better the air, and the better the water, the less we'll be sick and... then require less health care.
Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times, Fmr. Newsweek Executive Editor Jon Meacham, Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN) and MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski.
Postscript: Oh yeah, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) was on the program today to endorse Mitt Romney. We guess that is what you would call 'mild news' given the upcoming Wisconsin primary. Important? Hardly, no one's listening, not even in Wisconsin.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
3.25.12: The Anguish and the Anger of a Natural Sin
Mr. Gregory said that the President seemed reluctant to take the lead in discussing race at this time in the aftermath of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL. But David Plouffe, in his interview segment, said that the President's leadership has been profound. Really, he's stayed somewhat measured in his responses, as he's had to be, and he doesn't need to lead the conversation. The discussion, the way it's playing out in the public forum, is how the discussion needs to progress, and the President should weigh in and observe (as should Congress) about what the American people are saying - they are leading the discussion.
In response to something tragic, the nature first reaction is outrage, but more so anguish, as NPR's Michele Norris described it, because it has reinforced the existing reality of race relations in the United States of America, and specifically as Mr. Ben Jealous described it, African-American men being 'born suspect.' The anger will instill cause in individuals and the conversation will turn productive. It will happen, and we'll progress positively but it takes time. Mr. Jealous said he's already seen a coming together of the public.
As for the President's comments this week with regard to Trayvon Martin, of course it's going to touch him in profound way, he's an African-American and a father, he made a personal comment, and race is a component here. David Brooks described it as a nature sin, that we have to fight, and the only way to fight it is to bring it out in the open. We can not deny the reality so we find it distasteful for the Republican candidates for President, specifically Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, to say that President Obama has politicized this with his statements. Newt Gingrich went so far as to practically accuse the President of reverse-racism, that's disgraceful. Mr. Gingrich marginalizes himself from the conversation with such responses.
Moving on to another nature sin, the Obama Administration's energy policy has been 'cagey,' as Mr. Brooks described it. Mr. Obama has acted , in this area more so than all others, in a true political way, in that he's trying to make everyone happy and like what's he's doing. With his announcement of starting construction of the southern part of the keystone pipeline is the object example. This announcement is clearly aimed to placate his Republican opponents in an attempt to tamper down the rhetoric. All the while, he's also turning to his left and saying I'm holding that up for environmental concerns.
However, if the President doesn't announce plans to build the northern portion, even if it could devastate the environment, then what he has is the pipeline to nowhere. In other words, a political loser on both sides of the argument. With that said, the discussion in the media hasn't focused on at all on alternatives to the pipeline or on how we're building it. Are there any? It doesn't seem that way so it comes down to a do or don't do. Even though the pipeline won't be finished and producing until President Obama is significantly out of office, the call will have been his to make. He's not being completely honest with part of his base, and so that's the risk he takes politically, but we get it. He's trying to head off the politics of Keystone before he gets to the head to head with Mitt Romney, who Haley Barbour said is to be the nominee unless he steps on a landmine. (Even given the media downplaying of Rick Santorum winning big in the Louisiana primary yesterday.) Despite the reality that any President can not control gas prices, he's the one who gets blamed, and they all have thin skin on this issue, Mr. Obama being no exception. We guess what President Obama could say is that his policy on Keystone is just like one that Mitt Romney would agree with - I'm for the pipeline over here, but not over there, taking both sides.
Where the President will not, can not, should not play both sides is in the health care law debate. Right now, he is staying out of the argument while others make it in front of the Supreme Court this week. David Plouffe seemed confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the law, most probably calculating that the mostly conservative court could not possibly take the hit that they are partisan in their decisions, as it was perceived in the Citizens United case, and evident in the Bush vs. Gore decision.
We not going to underestimate the Supreme Courts capabilities in this case, they could very well repeal it, perception or no perception. What's funny is that Republicans are basically putting down what they in fact originally proposed, thanks to lefties like Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. Getting millions of more people into the market and potentially bringing costs down could be a bad thing. Our feeling is that Obamacare will be policy that years down the road will be one of those things, like Social Security, where everyone is saying, why wasn't this way before. Then is 40 more years, the whole thing will go haywire and we'll have to figure it out again.
Round table: Fmr. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R); head of the NAACP, Ben Jealous; NPR’s Michele Norris; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the New York Times’ David Brooks.
Post: We commend Rachel Maddow for her engaging in the conversation, through her book Drift, about America's constant state of war and the military superstructure that exists. The notion of Americans being comfortable with it is worrisome at the very least even though 60% of of the people say that we should get out of Afghanistan. It renders us with no moral high ground that we as Americans like to occupy, but in even cold financial terms, we spend too much money on the military superstructure. That's not the troops, who we need to spend more on, but the industries, contractors, and lobbies that push an agenda. What makes us slightly hopeful is that for all this to change, the conversation has to start somewhere and this one is starting in the right places. Way on one political side, the left, is Rachel Maddow talking about it. On the other end is Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. If you could get those two in the same room, on the same page talking about this, people would take notice.
In response to something tragic, the nature first reaction is outrage, but more so anguish, as NPR's Michele Norris described it, because it has reinforced the existing reality of race relations in the United States of America, and specifically as Mr. Ben Jealous described it, African-American men being 'born suspect.' The anger will instill cause in individuals and the conversation will turn productive. It will happen, and we'll progress positively but it takes time. Mr. Jealous said he's already seen a coming together of the public.
As for the President's comments this week with regard to Trayvon Martin, of course it's going to touch him in profound way, he's an African-American and a father, he made a personal comment, and race is a component here. David Brooks described it as a nature sin, that we have to fight, and the only way to fight it is to bring it out in the open. We can not deny the reality so we find it distasteful for the Republican candidates for President, specifically Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, to say that President Obama has politicized this with his statements. Newt Gingrich went so far as to practically accuse the President of reverse-racism, that's disgraceful. Mr. Gingrich marginalizes himself from the conversation with such responses.
Moving on to another nature sin, the Obama Administration's energy policy has been 'cagey,' as Mr. Brooks described it. Mr. Obama has acted , in this area more so than all others, in a true political way, in that he's trying to make everyone happy and like what's he's doing. With his announcement of starting construction of the southern part of the keystone pipeline is the object example. This announcement is clearly aimed to placate his Republican opponents in an attempt to tamper down the rhetoric. All the while, he's also turning to his left and saying I'm holding that up for environmental concerns.
However, if the President doesn't announce plans to build the northern portion, even if it could devastate the environment, then what he has is the pipeline to nowhere. In other words, a political loser on both sides of the argument. With that said, the discussion in the media hasn't focused on at all on alternatives to the pipeline or on how we're building it. Are there any? It doesn't seem that way so it comes down to a do or don't do. Even though the pipeline won't be finished and producing until President Obama is significantly out of office, the call will have been his to make. He's not being completely honest with part of his base, and so that's the risk he takes politically, but we get it. He's trying to head off the politics of Keystone before he gets to the head to head with Mitt Romney, who Haley Barbour said is to be the nominee unless he steps on a landmine. (Even given the media downplaying of Rick Santorum winning big in the Louisiana primary yesterday.) Despite the reality that any President can not control gas prices, he's the one who gets blamed, and they all have thin skin on this issue, Mr. Obama being no exception. We guess what President Obama could say is that his policy on Keystone is just like one that Mitt Romney would agree with - I'm for the pipeline over here, but not over there, taking both sides.
Where the President will not, can not, should not play both sides is in the health care law debate. Right now, he is staying out of the argument while others make it in front of the Supreme Court this week. David Plouffe seemed confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the law, most probably calculating that the mostly conservative court could not possibly take the hit that they are partisan in their decisions, as it was perceived in the Citizens United case, and evident in the Bush vs. Gore decision.
We not going to underestimate the Supreme Courts capabilities in this case, they could very well repeal it, perception or no perception. What's funny is that Republicans are basically putting down what they in fact originally proposed, thanks to lefties like Bob Dole and Mitt Romney. Getting millions of more people into the market and potentially bringing costs down could be a bad thing. Our feeling is that Obamacare will be policy that years down the road will be one of those things, like Social Security, where everyone is saying, why wasn't this way before. Then is 40 more years, the whole thing will go haywire and we'll have to figure it out again.
Round table: Fmr. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R); head of the NAACP, Ben Jealous; NPR’s Michele Norris; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; and the New York Times’ David Brooks.
Post: We commend Rachel Maddow for her engaging in the conversation, through her book Drift, about America's constant state of war and the military superstructure that exists. The notion of Americans being comfortable with it is worrisome at the very least even though 60% of of the people say that we should get out of Afghanistan. It renders us with no moral high ground that we as Americans like to occupy, but in even cold financial terms, we spend too much money on the military superstructure. That's not the troops, who we need to spend more on, but the industries, contractors, and lobbies that push an agenda. What makes us slightly hopeful is that for all this to change, the conversation has to start somewhere and this one is starting in the right places. Way on one political side, the left, is Rachel Maddow talking about it. On the other end is Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. If you could get those two in the same room, on the same page talking about this, people would take notice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)