It was fittingly ironic, and appropriate, that Mr. Gregory would start today's program with a weather report on Hurricane Sandy. We know it's going to hit but how hard and exactly where are still in question, and those are the questions we still have on the election with nine days to go - how's it's going to go and where are the keys to victory going to be? This week's program did little to clarify the questions as none of the guests could cut through the discussion well enough to convince anyone of anything.
The race is deadlocked in seeral states with nine days to play, count Ohio among them of course where both candidates are at this moment campaigning hard and the reason for that is no one has been able to cut through the clutter. And why is that? What really hasn't been mentioned is the zero-accountability equation at work. New York Times columnist David Brooks said that this has been the worst campaign he's ever covered because both sides are just going purely negative with no discussion of the fundamental issues. We would disagree because there has been discussion of fundamental issues but what's at work is the zero-accountability factor.
Obama surrogates, ones on this program included, look to what the President hasn't been able to do and blame the Republican controlled Congress as Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne pointed out, noting that since Mr. Obama has taken office, all Republicans have said is no. The Obama campaign would say that it's the reason why we don't have a debt deal or a jobs bill. Conversely, the Romney campaign hasn't taken any responsibility for its positions or the switching thereof, which even Carly Fiorina said have shifted. However, when the panel touched on truthfulness among the candidates, Ms. Fiorina dismissed these shifts and charged that the President has been less truthful than Mr. Romney, and then she quickly interjected Libya into the conversation, which the moderator quickly shut down. It's was another one of Ms. Fiorina's feeble ways to make a political point. [With all due respect, Ms. Fiorina has a weak political game and that she's the vice-chair for anything insttantly puts the odds in favor of the other guy.] So no one's accountable and no one's telling the truth... and did we mention we're nine days out?
To qualify things, you expect campaign teams to bend messaging as far as they can to suit their needs, but what does it say about us that it's understood, common knowledge even, that Mitt Romney constantly changes his positions, or as illustrated this week flat out untruths - see Jeep shipping jobs to China, and he can get away with it as if it's ok. The race is neck and neck so it must be, right? On the other hand, Governor Kasich (R-OH) pointed to the business uncertainty that the President has created because of new regulations. In terms of his argument, businesses will continue to suffer under the President's current policies. To be clear however, the uncertainty that Mr. Kasich is talking about is inherent when an election is pending so of course everyone is in a wait-and-see mode. What we found most interesting was when Mr. Gregory asked the Governor who was more responsible for the economic turnaround in Ohio, him or the President, his answer was that 'it was probably the job creators.' This was quite telling. First, what politician is his or her right mind wouldn't take credit for something like that when asked. Mr. Kasich didn't, couldn't realistically, take the credit and of course he wasn't going to give it to the President so it's 'probably' the job creators. No, it was the President. Mr. Obama loaned government money to the auto industry to save it from collapse. Mr. Romney would not have done that. He would have not given a government guarantee to the companies, but only one to the consumers on the loans for there cars. There's a big difference there that hasn't been quite clearly pointed out.
One other point for clarification. Mr. Kasich mentioned Mr. Romney's accomplishment of saving the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. The Olympics before Mr. Romney took over were going bankrupt and he turned it around. But how did he do it? That's the real editorial theme for us for the Romney campaign, we need the 'how' explained. What Mr. Romney did when he took over was that he went to the government and lobbied for a $2 billion bailout. The state couldn't cover the bill so he asked the government and the Olympics were saved. You be the judge, but ultimately it seems we'll have to rely on the wisdom of Hamilton County (the pivotal Ohio county).
We could go on and on with both sides, but there is one thing that is puzzling, even troubling, to us and this is this issue of rape, which isn't really the issue as it is more about women's health and their right to control their own.
Senatorial candidate Richard Murdoch (R-IN) explained during a debate that even though a rape occurred, the child should be carried to term because in a way it was still God's will that it happened. This reeks of ignorant misogyny to understate it certainly, and this is the only candidate that Mitt Romney has stumped for, doing so in a commercial. In light of the candidate's remarks, which by the way Carly Fiorina - the Vice Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee - said was a stupid thing, Mr. Romney has decided not to strike the ad or directly condemn the comments. If you're a woman you'd have to ask yourself, how much different are the two men's economic policies because one clearly doesn't have a problem with taking away women's rights when it comes to their own health decisions.
Mr. Romney can shift his words but not his actions, and it is on those that he should be judged.
Vice Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Carly
Fiorina; Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne; NY Times columnist David
Brooks; MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow; and NBC’s Chuck Todd.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
10.21.12: The State of the Race
The first segment with Chuck Todd was a fall down in terms of presentation, but it answered the question - where are we? The state of the race is a toss up - 47 percent to 47 percent, and Mr. Obama's lead among women is shrinking, down to single digits. As David Axelrod said in his interview, he thought that the race would always be close, which everyone could foresee, but a dead heat? It's the President's race to lose, and David Axelrod is responsible for the campaign's poor performance.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) wasn't exactly correct when he says the President has failed to put forth a plan for the coming new term, but there is truth in the assessment in as much as the President's campaign team [see: David Axelrod] hasn't effectively articulated a compelling message for the next four years.
We've touched on this in previous columns that Mr. Obama's agenda, to see it through, was predicated on him winning another term in office. That's why you see the President and his team focusing so much on the measures they put in place instead of what more they are going to do. It takes time for laws to be implemented, time which Mr. Obama may not have. In the mean time, the 'no second term agenda/vision' is talking point number one for Republicans, and they'll be hammering that home until election day, hence Mr. Rubio's repetition of the statement and again later with Senator Rob Portman's (R-OH) interview. Mr. Axelrod, to counter the charge, mentioned taxes, education and manufacturing, but the latter two really fold into the first. The administration's education and manufacturing aspirations are tied to revising the tax structure, which needs to be done and the raising of income tax to 39% for the income individuals make over $250,000 is a necessary step to close the budget gap. It's not a panacea by any means, but it is one component of getting the deficit under control.
Before we get fully into comments made with regard to foreign positions, we find it very interesting that all the Republican representatives, Mike Murphy included, referred to the President's statements on Libya as 'shifting.' Where the Obama Administration has been accusing the Romney campaign of shifting positions when it comes to social and economic issues, a factual weakness for Mr. Romney. Several examples of this were illustrated on the program today - Mr. Romney's changing position on the Blunt Amendment where employers can decline to cover contraception for women (see Mr. Rubio's segment), his tax plan in which Alan Simpson and Erskin Bowles both said it wouldn't add up (see Mr. Portman's segment), with regard to Medicare again that it wouldn't change for current recipients (see Mr. Rubio again), and especially on the issue of women in the workplace - think binders (see both Mr. Rubio and Mr. Portman). To counter this, the Romney campaign is taking their weakness and are now projecting it on the President with the difference of the attack being on the President's foreign policy. It's pure Karl Rove political strategy - take your weakness and make it the other guy's.
Despite Mr. Rubio and Mr. Portman's statements respectively, we trust that we'll get a more accurate assessment from the likes of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who lead off on the Libya topic saying that it has been completely politicized, which it has, calling it a totally contrived story to weaken the President on foreign policy. Even Republican strategist Mike Murphy, no stranger to hyperbole, called it a train wreck on all sides specifically citing the Romney press conference. What Mr. Friedman didn't explicitly say was that the responsibility for it being politicized lies with the Romney campaign and the Republicans following suit.
However, the shifting that Republicans are referring to isn't really happening as much as it was the Administration putting emphasis on what actually happened in Benghazi. What we do know is that there was a coordinated attack on the consulate and either before, after, during or all three there was a demonstration associated with an anti-Muslim video. To politicize the incident is irresponsible because as we have learned with many isolated attacks, the facts will change as more information comes to light, and the President, as David Axelrod pointed out, has launched an investigation. We find that foreign policy has been one of the President's strengths, a policy that George H.W. Bush would call 'prudent.' We would assess thus far that the Obama Administration has not played politics with foreign policy simple for the fact that he seems to have upset both sides - the right on Afghanistan and the left on drone strikes. However, with that said and not to excuse it, but we understand why the Administration would not want to put emphasis on a terror attack, no matter where it is, that happened on September 11th. There are political consequences for making it an issue, of which the Obama Administration is aware. Libya is not an illustration of what Paul Ryan called a complete unraveling of Mr. Obama's foreign policy, and we agree with Helene Cooper who said it should not be litigated [amongst the sides as it has been].
And speaking on New York Times reporter Helene Cooper, the other foreign policy matter for discussion today is Iran, the impetus for which was he reporting in today's paper that the United States and Iran are trying to find a way to the negotiating table, something that both side deny for obvious reasons. Mr. Portman quipped that it sounded like a security leak on behalf of the Administration, but as Ms. Cooper pointed out, there were indications as much from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations last month, but would wait for the outcome of the election.
It is true that Iran's economy is in a shambles especially with the last oil embargo kicking in for full effect so Iran has to act and their only chip is their nuclear program. Mr. Rubio said that a military option has to be on the table, somewhat implying that he doesn't think the Obama Administration would follow that tact, but what you have to understand is that given Israel's position, a military strike is always on the table, just not necessary a U.S. military option. Iran is not going to sit down with Israel, this much we know. And all diplomacy has to be exhausted before any military option is decided upon as Ms. Cooper also pointed out. And it is worth noting that the Obama Administration has brought in the world community in getting tough diplomatically with Iran, something that these potential meetings could be seen as alienating as was suggested by Mr. Portman. However, if the United States doesn't lead in finding a way to the negotiating table, and brings in other countries, then the administration would be accused of 'leading from behind' again. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, we guess. It all makes for an interesting debate tomorrow on foreign policy.
Round Table: Democratic Strategist and Former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers; Republican strategist Mike Murphy; NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman; and NY Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) wasn't exactly correct when he says the President has failed to put forth a plan for the coming new term, but there is truth in the assessment in as much as the President's campaign team [see: David Axelrod] hasn't effectively articulated a compelling message for the next four years.
We've touched on this in previous columns that Mr. Obama's agenda, to see it through, was predicated on him winning another term in office. That's why you see the President and his team focusing so much on the measures they put in place instead of what more they are going to do. It takes time for laws to be implemented, time which Mr. Obama may not have. In the mean time, the 'no second term agenda/vision' is talking point number one for Republicans, and they'll be hammering that home until election day, hence Mr. Rubio's repetition of the statement and again later with Senator Rob Portman's (R-OH) interview. Mr. Axelrod, to counter the charge, mentioned taxes, education and manufacturing, but the latter two really fold into the first. The administration's education and manufacturing aspirations are tied to revising the tax structure, which needs to be done and the raising of income tax to 39% for the income individuals make over $250,000 is a necessary step to close the budget gap. It's not a panacea by any means, but it is one component of getting the deficit under control.
Before we get fully into comments made with regard to foreign positions, we find it very interesting that all the Republican representatives, Mike Murphy included, referred to the President's statements on Libya as 'shifting.' Where the Obama Administration has been accusing the Romney campaign of shifting positions when it comes to social and economic issues, a factual weakness for Mr. Romney. Several examples of this were illustrated on the program today - Mr. Romney's changing position on the Blunt Amendment where employers can decline to cover contraception for women (see Mr. Rubio's segment), his tax plan in which Alan Simpson and Erskin Bowles both said it wouldn't add up (see Mr. Portman's segment), with regard to Medicare again that it wouldn't change for current recipients (see Mr. Rubio again), and especially on the issue of women in the workplace - think binders (see both Mr. Rubio and Mr. Portman). To counter this, the Romney campaign is taking their weakness and are now projecting it on the President with the difference of the attack being on the President's foreign policy. It's pure Karl Rove political strategy - take your weakness and make it the other guy's.
Despite Mr. Rubio and Mr. Portman's statements respectively, we trust that we'll get a more accurate assessment from the likes of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who lead off on the Libya topic saying that it has been completely politicized, which it has, calling it a totally contrived story to weaken the President on foreign policy. Even Republican strategist Mike Murphy, no stranger to hyperbole, called it a train wreck on all sides specifically citing the Romney press conference. What Mr. Friedman didn't explicitly say was that the responsibility for it being politicized lies with the Romney campaign and the Republicans following suit.
However, the shifting that Republicans are referring to isn't really happening as much as it was the Administration putting emphasis on what actually happened in Benghazi. What we do know is that there was a coordinated attack on the consulate and either before, after, during or all three there was a demonstration associated with an anti-Muslim video. To politicize the incident is irresponsible because as we have learned with many isolated attacks, the facts will change as more information comes to light, and the President, as David Axelrod pointed out, has launched an investigation. We find that foreign policy has been one of the President's strengths, a policy that George H.W. Bush would call 'prudent.' We would assess thus far that the Obama Administration has not played politics with foreign policy simple for the fact that he seems to have upset both sides - the right on Afghanistan and the left on drone strikes. However, with that said and not to excuse it, but we understand why the Administration would not want to put emphasis on a terror attack, no matter where it is, that happened on September 11th. There are political consequences for making it an issue, of which the Obama Administration is aware. Libya is not an illustration of what Paul Ryan called a complete unraveling of Mr. Obama's foreign policy, and we agree with Helene Cooper who said it should not be litigated [amongst the sides as it has been].
And speaking on New York Times reporter Helene Cooper, the other foreign policy matter for discussion today is Iran, the impetus for which was he reporting in today's paper that the United States and Iran are trying to find a way to the negotiating table, something that both side deny for obvious reasons. Mr. Portman quipped that it sounded like a security leak on behalf of the Administration, but as Ms. Cooper pointed out, there were indications as much from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations last month, but would wait for the outcome of the election.
It is true that Iran's economy is in a shambles especially with the last oil embargo kicking in for full effect so Iran has to act and their only chip is their nuclear program. Mr. Rubio said that a military option has to be on the table, somewhat implying that he doesn't think the Obama Administration would follow that tact, but what you have to understand is that given Israel's position, a military strike is always on the table, just not necessary a U.S. military option. Iran is not going to sit down with Israel, this much we know. And all diplomacy has to be exhausted before any military option is decided upon as Ms. Cooper also pointed out. And it is worth noting that the Obama Administration has brought in the world community in getting tough diplomatically with Iran, something that these potential meetings could be seen as alienating as was suggested by Mr. Portman. However, if the United States doesn't lead in finding a way to the negotiating table, and brings in other countries, then the administration would be accused of 'leading from behind' again. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, we guess. It all makes for an interesting debate tomorrow on foreign policy.
Round Table: Democratic Strategist and Former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers; Republican strategist Mike Murphy; NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman; and NY Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
10.14.12: Too Many Promises?
David Gregory set the prism into which we have to focus right at the top of the program and that is the fact of two debates coming in the next eight days. We understand this perspective of course but it is there that lies the problem. It seems as though the entire election has come down to these debates which really doesn't make any sense.
Among his many digs at the President, Alex Castellanos said today that Barack Obama has so much run for reelection as much as just trying to fight to not have Mitt Romney elected. There is a little truth in that but as we said last week, the problem that the President is having in his reeclection bid is that his policies of the first term are predicated on achieving a second term. His plan for healthcare, for example, is to see the Affordable Care Act fully implemented. If we were advising the President, in the next debate Mr. Obama needs to articulate what he accomplished in the first term and how implementation in the second term is critical for the benefit of the economy. However, he also needs somehow to introduce new ideas into the conversation. This would have a two-pronged effect. One, it would set a vision for the second term, something that in fact the President has failed to articulate, and two it puts your debate opponent in a defensive posture as he may not be studied on the subject.
For Romney, he needs to be specific and the how. Though his presentation was better, the platitudes have to stop and he needs to be specific, while maintaining the likeability factor that he established in the first debate. The other question specifically in the case of Mr. Romney is how is which way is going to go - it seems that for debate purposes he is expressing more moderate views (which his senior campaign advisers will retract later). But it still comes down to how are you going to achieve the fiscal plan that he has been talking about.
In the Stephen Corbert interview today, Mr. Corbert posed the question as to whether or not Mr. Romney was going to be a candidate that waits until he's in office then open up the books to see where everything is. The example that he used was as if the CEO of Pepsi were coming in to run GM.
Despite our two-bit debate advise, our tips speak to the larger problems with each campaign and those transcend the debates. It seems odd to us that because of a poor debate performance, President Obama is now somehow not qualified to hold the office anymore. Conversely, because of a strong one, Mr. Romney deserves the office more. Two simple questions respectively for the candidates. Mr. Obama, what more are you planning to do? Mr. Romney, what are the specifics to your economic policies?
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) assessed it thusly: It's the vision of Mitt Romney and the record of President Obama. He later mentioned it again with a whiff of religiosity - an 'uplifting vision.' While you can dissect the President's record and decide for yourself whether he's done a good job and deserves a second term, but unless Mr. Romney gets specific, a 'vision,' even an uplifting one, just doesn't cut it. And if it seems like we're being overly harsh and harping on this one point it's because of its vital importance to assessing the candidate.
Mr. Castellanos said something unintentionally telling about Mr. Romney and that is that he has been doing town hall meetings for the last five years. Mitt Romney has been campaigning for the past five years and we're not totally sure what positions Mr. Romney will take during Tuesday night's debate. For at least four of those past five years, steered more and more to the right, but then we were all asked to forget that last week. Specifics clear up the issue of where the candidate truly stands.
In the panel's assessment of the Vice-Presidential Debate, everyone was a bit off base, even Tom Brokaw who said that on substance, it was a draw. One thing is for sure, in terms of substance Vice President Joe Biden had the advantage - he's been 'in the room' the last four years - and he used it. This was clearly the case on the issue of Afghanistan. To illustrate Mr. Ryan's naivete, the Congressman said that he agreed with the 2014 withdrawal but that we shouldn't announce our withdrawal. One, you can not just start withdrawing troops without telling the host country. And two by default, Mr. Ryan in fact announced our withdrawal in his statement. No matter who wins the Presidency, by 2015, we're out. And it seemed that the two parties are pretty close together on what to do in Afghanistan, it's just a political sin to point that out right now.
Medicare was clearly another issue where Mr. Biden more substantive command. Mr. Brokaw's seeing it as a draw is probably the product of talking policy at too many cocktail parties over the years (though we'll always start out giving him the benefit of the doubt) because certainly the debate was not a draw.
Atlanta Mayor, Kasim Reed (D-GA) said that the Mr. Biden dominated Mr. Ryan, which wasn't the case either. Mr. Ryan did ask all the correct questions that a committee chairman would ask in a hearing on what happened in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. We say that purposely because despite his asking good questions, it is too soon for a hearing which Republicans are conducting right now. Let's have the investigation first. However, for the purposes of the debate, Mr. Ryan effectively illustrated that the Administration has a lot to answer for - the conflicting messages and lack of action on security requests. We would agree overall that politicizing the tragedy in Libya is the absolute wrong thing to do, but then again, we completely understand why it would be exploited in that way. It's a measure of how much you're willing to tolerate.
A couple more points. Governor McDonnell said that from the debate it was clear that Mr. Ryan understands the budget better than anyone else in Congressman. Which debate was he watching that he could make that assessment? When the moderator of the debate, Martha Raddatz presses for specifics, and you have none to offer, and then verbally confirms with you that we're not getting detail on what they would not, that's not command. All the laughs, and interruptions aside, [Colloquial Note: that's how people in the northeast speak to one another. If you stop making a strong enough point in the other interlocutor's mind, he will start speaking over you until you cede the floor.] the Vice President had to defend the President's record and he did so strongly.
As for the President, it is his election to lose, especially since the unemployment rate is now at 7.8 percent. So now, everyone's watching to see if he can pull out a win on Tuesday night, he certainly needs it. But as we said, he shouldn't need it as sorely as the first debate performance would indicate - note the word shouldn't. What's in everyone's psyche, on both sides of the aisle, and a problem for the President is something that Stephen Corbert just tossed out there, which was promises that Mr. Obama has not fulfilled. The President did make a lot of promises, too many. We could go through some and explain the obstruction from here and there as reasons to why it was left unfulfilled, cutting the deficit for example because Mr. Obama did know that two wars were going to be put on the books, but he said that anyway. But at the proverbial end of the day, Americans want to know if you got it done or not, period.
Too many promises, and as we see it, if Mitt Romney gets elected, he'll leave unfulfilled promises behind as well. Then again, maybe not because he hasn't been specific on how he'll make good on them.
Round Table: Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA); Mayor Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta); Fmr. Gov Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); GOP strategist Alex Castellanos; and NBC’s Tom Brokaw
Among his many digs at the President, Alex Castellanos said today that Barack Obama has so much run for reelection as much as just trying to fight to not have Mitt Romney elected. There is a little truth in that but as we said last week, the problem that the President is having in his reeclection bid is that his policies of the first term are predicated on achieving a second term. His plan for healthcare, for example, is to see the Affordable Care Act fully implemented. If we were advising the President, in the next debate Mr. Obama needs to articulate what he accomplished in the first term and how implementation in the second term is critical for the benefit of the economy. However, he also needs somehow to introduce new ideas into the conversation. This would have a two-pronged effect. One, it would set a vision for the second term, something that in fact the President has failed to articulate, and two it puts your debate opponent in a defensive posture as he may not be studied on the subject.
For Romney, he needs to be specific and the how. Though his presentation was better, the platitudes have to stop and he needs to be specific, while maintaining the likeability factor that he established in the first debate. The other question specifically in the case of Mr. Romney is how is which way is going to go - it seems that for debate purposes he is expressing more moderate views (which his senior campaign advisers will retract later). But it still comes down to how are you going to achieve the fiscal plan that he has been talking about.
In the Stephen Corbert interview today, Mr. Corbert posed the question as to whether or not Mr. Romney was going to be a candidate that waits until he's in office then open up the books to see where everything is. The example that he used was as if the CEO of Pepsi were coming in to run GM.
Despite our two-bit debate advise, our tips speak to the larger problems with each campaign and those transcend the debates. It seems odd to us that because of a poor debate performance, President Obama is now somehow not qualified to hold the office anymore. Conversely, because of a strong one, Mr. Romney deserves the office more. Two simple questions respectively for the candidates. Mr. Obama, what more are you planning to do? Mr. Romney, what are the specifics to your economic policies?
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) assessed it thusly: It's the vision of Mitt Romney and the record of President Obama. He later mentioned it again with a whiff of religiosity - an 'uplifting vision.' While you can dissect the President's record and decide for yourself whether he's done a good job and deserves a second term, but unless Mr. Romney gets specific, a 'vision,' even an uplifting one, just doesn't cut it. And if it seems like we're being overly harsh and harping on this one point it's because of its vital importance to assessing the candidate.
Mr. Castellanos said something unintentionally telling about Mr. Romney and that is that he has been doing town hall meetings for the last five years. Mitt Romney has been campaigning for the past five years and we're not totally sure what positions Mr. Romney will take during Tuesday night's debate. For at least four of those past five years, steered more and more to the right, but then we were all asked to forget that last week. Specifics clear up the issue of where the candidate truly stands.
In the panel's assessment of the Vice-Presidential Debate, everyone was a bit off base, even Tom Brokaw who said that on substance, it was a draw. One thing is for sure, in terms of substance Vice President Joe Biden had the advantage - he's been 'in the room' the last four years - and he used it. This was clearly the case on the issue of Afghanistan. To illustrate Mr. Ryan's naivete, the Congressman said that he agreed with the 2014 withdrawal but that we shouldn't announce our withdrawal. One, you can not just start withdrawing troops without telling the host country. And two by default, Mr. Ryan in fact announced our withdrawal in his statement. No matter who wins the Presidency, by 2015, we're out. And it seemed that the two parties are pretty close together on what to do in Afghanistan, it's just a political sin to point that out right now.
Medicare was clearly another issue where Mr. Biden more substantive command. Mr. Brokaw's seeing it as a draw is probably the product of talking policy at too many cocktail parties over the years (though we'll always start out giving him the benefit of the doubt) because certainly the debate was not a draw.
Atlanta Mayor, Kasim Reed (D-GA) said that the Mr. Biden dominated Mr. Ryan, which wasn't the case either. Mr. Ryan did ask all the correct questions that a committee chairman would ask in a hearing on what happened in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. We say that purposely because despite his asking good questions, it is too soon for a hearing which Republicans are conducting right now. Let's have the investigation first. However, for the purposes of the debate, Mr. Ryan effectively illustrated that the Administration has a lot to answer for - the conflicting messages and lack of action on security requests. We would agree overall that politicizing the tragedy in Libya is the absolute wrong thing to do, but then again, we completely understand why it would be exploited in that way. It's a measure of how much you're willing to tolerate.
A couple more points. Governor McDonnell said that from the debate it was clear that Mr. Ryan understands the budget better than anyone else in Congressman. Which debate was he watching that he could make that assessment? When the moderator of the debate, Martha Raddatz presses for specifics, and you have none to offer, and then verbally confirms with you that we're not getting detail on what they would not, that's not command. All the laughs, and interruptions aside, [Colloquial Note: that's how people in the northeast speak to one another. If you stop making a strong enough point in the other interlocutor's mind, he will start speaking over you until you cede the floor.] the Vice President had to defend the President's record and he did so strongly.
As for the President, it is his election to lose, especially since the unemployment rate is now at 7.8 percent. So now, everyone's watching to see if he can pull out a win on Tuesday night, he certainly needs it. But as we said, he shouldn't need it as sorely as the first debate performance would indicate - note the word shouldn't. What's in everyone's psyche, on both sides of the aisle, and a problem for the President is something that Stephen Corbert just tossed out there, which was promises that Mr. Obama has not fulfilled. The President did make a lot of promises, too many. We could go through some and explain the obstruction from here and there as reasons to why it was left unfulfilled, cutting the deficit for example because Mr. Obama did know that two wars were going to be put on the books, but he said that anyway. But at the proverbial end of the day, Americans want to know if you got it done or not, period.
Too many promises, and as we see it, if Mitt Romney gets elected, he'll leave unfulfilled promises behind as well. Then again, maybe not because he hasn't been specific on how he'll make good on them.
Round Table: Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA); Mayor Kasim Reed (D-Atlanta); Fmr. Gov Jennifer Granholm (D-MI); GOP strategist Alex Castellanos; and NBC’s Tom Brokaw
Sunday, October 07, 2012
10.7.12: How Long a Way Does Style Go?
They gathered today's special round table session for the entire program [tag on the end their comments on an Arnold Schwarzenegger interview from the Press Pass] to reassess the state of affairs in the presidential campaign due to, of course, Governor Mitt Romney's strong performance in the debate on Wednesday night. If you didn't know the polls, the indication from today's group would have you think that Mr. Romney is now ahead. (51.1% Barack Obama to 47.8% Mitt Romney - fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com).
Today's players:
Senior Adviser to the Obama campaign, Robert Gibbs; former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen; Republican strategist Mike Murphy; and NBC’s Political Director Chuck Todd.
The reason is that in fact Mr. Romney performed better than the President that night, but the win may have some unintended repercussions, which we'll get to in a minute. But first there are a few themes that permeated throughout, one of which was the apathy among voters to want to 'start over' and go in a different direction [with Mitt Romney]. The other to a lesser extent was that the President lacks a vision of what his second term will look like.
They both play into the same one mistake that the Obama Administration has made in its reelection bid and that was that his policies were predicated on achieving a second term, a mistaken presumption. However, the notable legislation that has gone through - The Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank financial reform - needs a second Obama term in office to succeed. The Republicans know that once 'Obamacare' kicks in, people are not going to want to go back. It's just the way it will be because most people, a general consensus if you will, don't care if the insurance companies don't make as much profit as they have been.
Newt Gingrich said at the top of the discussion that the race is going back and forth, and everyone ran with it even though Mr. Romney has never lead in the race. Ms. Rosen and Mr. Gibbs played defense against Mr. Gingrich and Mike Murphy. We assume that the producers figured two referees in Chuck Todd and Mr. Gregory would be needed to somewhat table the hyperbole.
To that point, we return to Mr. Gingrich and his reaction to the unemployment figures dropping from 8.1% to 7.8%, a head-turner for certain, where he stated that people have such a distrust of Barack Obama that it leads people to come to conclusions such as the administration influenced the statistics, as insinuated by Jack Welch, former CEO of GE. That's correct because people like Newt Gingrich keep fueling it. This, relievingly so, prompted Chuck Todd to interject that there is too many corrosive statements by a few influential people an is causing a vital breakdown of trust in our institutions. And he's right. The new stat should be welcomed by everyone, but these days there's no having it.
Mr. Gingrich, one more time please. In the Republican primary race, Mr. Gingrich once called the man he now defends fundamentally dishonest. It's notable because in winning the debate, Mr. Romney has set up a bad dual dynamic - the campaign Romney and the debate Romney, which are at odds with one another, but will to meet at some point, and someone is going to get shafted. Republicans are attempting to hail this as the big swing because they have been so thirsty for a battle victory after feeling like one was never coming. However, in this desperation it seems like they are willing to look the other way when it comes to his policies, namely his tax plan. The debate Mr. Romney said that he would not cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, while campaign Mr. Romney promises at 20% across the board cut.
Mike Murphy said that 60 million people got a look at Mitt Romney and they liked what they saw, but Lord knows Americans like a good sales pitch and that's where Mr. Romney's private sector experience came into play, in the interview. Oddly but like Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney does seem to feel that what he says one day is automatically discounted when he says the contrary on the next. But video exists and the reason it exists is because people watch it. Despite Mr. Murphy's bathroom statistic, it's the reason why trust is a factor in the race and it doesn't favor Mr. Romney.
However, Mr. Murphy did mention that Mr. Romney has talked about one of the tax loopholes that he would close, which was surprisingly candid on strategy given that Mr. Romney has not in fact mentioned it - the home mortgage deduction. This doesn't play well for anyone who aspires to or is now owning a home. It really didn't get that much discussion play, but it just illustrates that Mr. Romney needs to be more forthcoming in the specifics of his policy proposals. This, by the way, was a key factor in President Obama's poor debate performance. He didn't force Mr. Romney to be specific, especially since most people realize that Mr. Romney was just saying many things that people wanted to hear. Style over substance - it may not win but it will keep things interesting.
Today's players:
Senior Adviser to the Obama campaign, Robert Gibbs; former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen; Republican strategist Mike Murphy; and NBC’s Political Director Chuck Todd.
The reason is that in fact Mr. Romney performed better than the President that night, but the win may have some unintended repercussions, which we'll get to in a minute. But first there are a few themes that permeated throughout, one of which was the apathy among voters to want to 'start over' and go in a different direction [with Mitt Romney]. The other to a lesser extent was that the President lacks a vision of what his second term will look like.
They both play into the same one mistake that the Obama Administration has made in its reelection bid and that was that his policies were predicated on achieving a second term, a mistaken presumption. However, the notable legislation that has gone through - The Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank financial reform - needs a second Obama term in office to succeed. The Republicans know that once 'Obamacare' kicks in, people are not going to want to go back. It's just the way it will be because most people, a general consensus if you will, don't care if the insurance companies don't make as much profit as they have been.
Newt Gingrich said at the top of the discussion that the race is going back and forth, and everyone ran with it even though Mr. Romney has never lead in the race. Ms. Rosen and Mr. Gibbs played defense against Mr. Gingrich and Mike Murphy. We assume that the producers figured two referees in Chuck Todd and Mr. Gregory would be needed to somewhat table the hyperbole.
To that point, we return to Mr. Gingrich and his reaction to the unemployment figures dropping from 8.1% to 7.8%, a head-turner for certain, where he stated that people have such a distrust of Barack Obama that it leads people to come to conclusions such as the administration influenced the statistics, as insinuated by Jack Welch, former CEO of GE. That's correct because people like Newt Gingrich keep fueling it. This, relievingly so, prompted Chuck Todd to interject that there is too many corrosive statements by a few influential people an is causing a vital breakdown of trust in our institutions. And he's right. The new stat should be welcomed by everyone, but these days there's no having it.
Mr. Gingrich, one more time please. In the Republican primary race, Mr. Gingrich once called the man he now defends fundamentally dishonest. It's notable because in winning the debate, Mr. Romney has set up a bad dual dynamic - the campaign Romney and the debate Romney, which are at odds with one another, but will to meet at some point, and someone is going to get shafted. Republicans are attempting to hail this as the big swing because they have been so thirsty for a battle victory after feeling like one was never coming. However, in this desperation it seems like they are willing to look the other way when it comes to his policies, namely his tax plan. The debate Mr. Romney said that he would not cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, while campaign Mr. Romney promises at 20% across the board cut.
Mike Murphy said that 60 million people got a look at Mitt Romney and they liked what they saw, but Lord knows Americans like a good sales pitch and that's where Mr. Romney's private sector experience came into play, in the interview. Oddly but like Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney does seem to feel that what he says one day is automatically discounted when he says the contrary on the next. But video exists and the reason it exists is because people watch it. Despite Mr. Murphy's bathroom statistic, it's the reason why trust is a factor in the race and it doesn't favor Mr. Romney.
However, Mr. Murphy did mention that Mr. Romney has talked about one of the tax loopholes that he would close, which was surprisingly candid on strategy given that Mr. Romney has not in fact mentioned it - the home mortgage deduction. This doesn't play well for anyone who aspires to or is now owning a home. It really didn't get that much discussion play, but it just illustrates that Mr. Romney needs to be more forthcoming in the specifics of his policy proposals. This, by the way, was a key factor in President Obama's poor debate performance. He didn't force Mr. Romney to be specific, especially since most people realize that Mr. Romney was just saying many things that people wanted to hear. Style over substance - it may not win but it will keep things interesting.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
9.16.12: Mr. Netanyahu - Partisanship Takes a Holiday
During today's panel, Bob Woodward commented that creating policy in an effort to control angry people just isn't realistic. We can not do that in this country so how would it be expected that we can do it in other countries especially ones like Egypt and Libya. The tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens wasn't even 12 hours old before it became political. As we all know, Mitt Romney issued a statement that was critical of the President before Mr. Romney had all the facts, and it was widely interpreted as the Republican candidate trying to score cheap political points in a time of genuine crisis. We could editorialize more about Mr. Romney's wisdom, or lack thereof, in choosing to make this a political issue, but the bottom line is that Mr. Romney made a poor choice. As a matter of fact, during the panel Congressman Peter King (R-NY) and NBC's Andrea Mitchell sparred over it, in which the congressman came up short in his argument.
Today's first guest, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, stated it correctly in saying that when there is a time of crisis, the United Stated should communicate with a united voice. What Mr. Romney should have done was waited to get all the information, in the meantime stand behind the U.S. government and the President and let him do his job. Then, after the crisis, Mr. Romney would then do well to critique the President's performance. There's no other way to say it, but it's truly a shame that we're so divided here at home spurred by forces desperate for power that we can not speak with one strong voice to the rest of the world.
As evidenced through the news coverage, Ambassador Rice explained that there was a protest in Benghazi sparked by a controversial video produced here in the United States and that in the context of the protest a coordinated attack by an extreme element (note: Ms. Rice prudently did not specifically mention Al Qaeda) occurred. The protests have at this point spread across the entire Muslim world with a particularly dangerous flash point being Egypt, where as Jeffrey Goldberg explained, they are angry with everything (see map below).
Given that, the first priority is to protect our people and our interests as Ambassador Rice described. To be sure, the United States hasn't done anything in the past decade that would endear itself to the people of this region so these priorities are in a continual statement of uncertainty. Congressman Ellison (D-MN) said that pulling international aid away from these countries, particularly Egypt's $1.56 billion, would further inflame tensions. A reassessment of funds is warranted but not at this time. And in our interest as Ms. Rice pointed out is that the peace between Egypt and our only true ally in the region (Israel) be maintained. Not to mention as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, is that Prime Minister Morsi in Egypt knows he needs the aid so it's in his interest to come to a solution as well.
This, of course, brings us to the interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who much more tempered in his responses, not charging that the United States is complicit when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. He explained that his comments earlier in the week were aimed at the general international community but it was clearly implicit that he was talking to the Obama Administration. Congressman King, when pressed, said that 'yes' the Administration has thrown Israel under the bus so to speak, apparently not having its back in its aggressive posture with Iran. He also said that Israel doesn't trust the United States at this point, implying that it is due to the actions of the Obama Administration, citing the fact that the President won't meet with Mr. Netanyahu when he is in New York for a gathering of the U.N. General Assembly. In contrast, Bob Woodward stated that the President hasn't been weak when it comes to Middle East policy and on top of that, Jeffrey Goldberg said that it was in fact the Israeli Prime Minister that has mismanaged the relationship. The fact of the matter is, as Mr. Netanyahu said, is that the President has said Israel has the right to defend itself. In light of this, why should the United States coddle the Israelis? The answer is they shouldn't.
The fact, and Mr. Netanyahu admitted as much, is that both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama are equally committed to protecting Israel. And what you can glean from all this is that Mr. King's assessment comes through a partisan lens making it seem more reactionary than reasoned. In addition, Ms. Rice explained that the sanctions we've imposed on Iran have decimated their economy. She explained that the Iranians' currency has dropped 40 percent and that their oil production is at an all-time low. The latter is due in part that they don't have buyers for their oil and they don't have the refineries in country to process it into gasoline. Imagine if the U.S. Dollar's value dropped 40 percent in this country; there would be shear panic. All of this has lead to documented in-fighting within the Iranian government. And going back to our statement about not being able to speak effectively to the international community because you are fractured at home is what is happening in Iran.
But we must weigh those conclusions against the Prime Minister's statement that in 6 months, the Iranians will be 90 percent of the way there [to having a nuclear weapon] so there have to be red lines (lines in the sand if you will) that the Iranians simply can not cross. In those terms, we understand the gravity of the situation, but then when Mr. Netanyahu then says that the Iranians zealotry overshadows its desire for self-preservation, it's the sort of fear mongering that makes the 90 percent claim suspect.
Earlier in the week, it was clear that Mr. Netanyahu was being critical of the Obama Administration. Today, he said that he and Israel cherish the bipartisan support they have from the United States. He claimed the threat that his country faces from Iran is not a partisan issue, but a political one. At least it was true for today's interview.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN ); Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep Peter King (R-NY); author of the new book "The Price of Politics," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg; and NBC's Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell.
Today's first guest, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, stated it correctly in saying that when there is a time of crisis, the United Stated should communicate with a united voice. What Mr. Romney should have done was waited to get all the information, in the meantime stand behind the U.S. government and the President and let him do his job. Then, after the crisis, Mr. Romney would then do well to critique the President's performance. There's no other way to say it, but it's truly a shame that we're so divided here at home spurred by forces desperate for power that we can not speak with one strong voice to the rest of the world.
As evidenced through the news coverage, Ambassador Rice explained that there was a protest in Benghazi sparked by a controversial video produced here in the United States and that in the context of the protest a coordinated attack by an extreme element (note: Ms. Rice prudently did not specifically mention Al Qaeda) occurred. The protests have at this point spread across the entire Muslim world with a particularly dangerous flash point being Egypt, where as Jeffrey Goldberg explained, they are angry with everything (see map below).
Given that, the first priority is to protect our people and our interests as Ambassador Rice described. To be sure, the United States hasn't done anything in the past decade that would endear itself to the people of this region so these priorities are in a continual statement of uncertainty. Congressman Ellison (D-MN) said that pulling international aid away from these countries, particularly Egypt's $1.56 billion, would further inflame tensions. A reassessment of funds is warranted but not at this time. And in our interest as Ms. Rice pointed out is that the peace between Egypt and our only true ally in the region (Israel) be maintained. Not to mention as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, is that Prime Minister Morsi in Egypt knows he needs the aid so it's in his interest to come to a solution as well.
This, of course, brings us to the interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who much more tempered in his responses, not charging that the United States is complicit when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. He explained that his comments earlier in the week were aimed at the general international community but it was clearly implicit that he was talking to the Obama Administration. Congressman King, when pressed, said that 'yes' the Administration has thrown Israel under the bus so to speak, apparently not having its back in its aggressive posture with Iran. He also said that Israel doesn't trust the United States at this point, implying that it is due to the actions of the Obama Administration, citing the fact that the President won't meet with Mr. Netanyahu when he is in New York for a gathering of the U.N. General Assembly. In contrast, Bob Woodward stated that the President hasn't been weak when it comes to Middle East policy and on top of that, Jeffrey Goldberg said that it was in fact the Israeli Prime Minister that has mismanaged the relationship. The fact of the matter is, as Mr. Netanyahu said, is that the President has said Israel has the right to defend itself. In light of this, why should the United States coddle the Israelis? The answer is they shouldn't.
The fact, and Mr. Netanyahu admitted as much, is that both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama are equally committed to protecting Israel. And what you can glean from all this is that Mr. King's assessment comes through a partisan lens making it seem more reactionary than reasoned. In addition, Ms. Rice explained that the sanctions we've imposed on Iran have decimated their economy. She explained that the Iranians' currency has dropped 40 percent and that their oil production is at an all-time low. The latter is due in part that they don't have buyers for their oil and they don't have the refineries in country to process it into gasoline. Imagine if the U.S. Dollar's value dropped 40 percent in this country; there would be shear panic. All of this has lead to documented in-fighting within the Iranian government. And going back to our statement about not being able to speak effectively to the international community because you are fractured at home is what is happening in Iran.
But we must weigh those conclusions against the Prime Minister's statement that in 6 months, the Iranians will be 90 percent of the way there [to having a nuclear weapon] so there have to be red lines (lines in the sand if you will) that the Iranians simply can not cross. In those terms, we understand the gravity of the situation, but then when Mr. Netanyahu then says that the Iranians zealotry overshadows its desire for self-preservation, it's the sort of fear mongering that makes the 90 percent claim suspect.
Earlier in the week, it was clear that Mr. Netanyahu was being critical of the Obama Administration. Today, he said that he and Israel cherish the bipartisan support they have from the United States. He claimed the threat that his country faces from Iran is not a partisan issue, but a political one. At least it was true for today's interview.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN ); Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep Peter King (R-NY); author of the new book "The Price of Politics," The Washington Post's Bob Woodward; the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg; and NBC's Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)