From listening to all the conversation today, it boils down to this: Republicans want entitlement reform and the Democrats want an increase on taxes (35% to 39.4%) for incomes over $250,000. One is certainly more complicated than the other, but everyone - Mr. Geithner, Congressman Van Hollen, Senators Corker and McCaskill - seemed to think that a deal will get done. The reason is that one has to get done. It would be the height of irresponsibility if they didn't get a deal done especially since it was noted that the economy grew 2.7% in the 3rd quarter. It's in everyone's best self-interest to make to make this politically theater end its run.
However, when asked about a tax rate increase on the wealthiest Americans, Senator Corker would not answer that question directly, reason being that no Republican can be seen or heard as raising tax rates, optically/politically it's goes against the Republican orthodoxy and if anyone of them said publicly they would do as much, then the party would lose any leverage it has. Even Grover Norquist, when asked directly by David Gregory if there were going to be new tax rates, he wouldn't answer.
He wouldn't answer because what Grover Norquist wants is unrealistic and he knows it. Understand that the pledge that he has Republicans sign is for no tax increases of any kind and that means no closing loopholes, no increasing individual rates, no elimination of corporate tax subsidies, farmer subsidies ($23 billion a year) and no increases on dividends or capital gains. Given that, Senator Corker has already violated this pledge saying that his proposal closes loopholes, which isn't enough to get the job done. And to be clear about the pledge that Republicans sign - Mr. Norquist says that it is a pledge that representatives make to the citizens of their states and constituents, and not to him or Americans for Tax Reform, the organization that he heads. There are two basic problems with this and the first is that the pledge to the oath of office - to the country as a whole - trumps a special interest pledge. This is something that a number of Republicans have been falling back on as their way to circumvent the signing. The second problem is that the pledge doesn't realistically represent all of the electorate, only the conservative part of the constituency, and we're not really sure if even all those people would go along with every provision of the Norquist pledge.
So is Mr. Norquist's influence over? His response to that was that the headlines that suggested that were last week's news, and additionally that Republicans were briefly seduced by the President and Democrats into violating the pledge, but in the end it won't happen. Mr. Norquist said that the President has unreasonable positions because
he won't budge so they won't hold. Always being in full debate mode,
Mr. Norquist basically attacked the President using his own weakness,
indeed it is Grover who really has the unreasonable positions that won't
hold. Statements from Republican politicians lately suggest otherwise - Senator Corker is today's upfront example - and they are certainly trying to marginalize Mr. Norquist's influence in the negotiations. That much is clear. Secretary Geithner believes that the climate in Washington has changed because Republicans realize that there has to be new revenue, thus pushing Grover Norquist to the sidelines as much as they can. What they also push aside it should be noted are the big monied interests that fund American for Tax Reform.
It's because of those monied interests that would prompt CNBC's Jim Cramer to say to Mr. Norquist that Republicans are afraid of his views. Mr. Cramer is more of an overt partisan toward the President and Democrats but the bottom line is still money. Unlike his colleague, Maria Bartiromo who strikes us as socially liberal, but who is very fiscally conservative (a true New York business person) was calling for structural changes to the entitlement programs while warning that dividends and capital gains shouldn't be touched in tax reform. Capital gains were something that Senator Corker specifically mentioned during the program as something on the table. But Ms. Bartiromo has a point that in those capital gains and dividends are 401K accounts and pensions. However, the drastic nature of her alarm is a bit of crying wolf because an increase on capital gains, even a modest one, wouldn't adversely effect markets in the long term, perhaps for a quarter or two, but the market would adjust.
It's a banal fact that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the biggest drives of our debt, but we disagree that structural changes are necessary, reform for sure but to structural change these programs is to eliminate these programs all together. These are too big and complex to get done sufficiently in the next 29 days so sticking to tax reform, which is big enough, would be the right call. There are some things that can be done around the margins such as means testing which Senator McCaskill and Secretary Geithner mentioned - something that everyone seems to think makes sense. However, to avoid this fiscal cliff, these programs should be left until after the 1st of the year. And despite what Mr. Norquist says about Obamacare being a big tax increase, the savings in payments to providers (the $716 billion) are real. And as Congress Van Hollen mentioned, the focus should be on quality of care and not volume/quantity. That's the right course but is still tricky because Tort reform would have to be part of that. What Mr. Van Hollen is referring to is that hospitals adopt a Mayo Clinic model where doctors are paid a salary instead of paid by procedure. The savings in that alone would be huge, by the way.
Senator Corker said that it wasn't Speaker John Boehner's political base that was holding up a deal but a willing partner on the other side, meaning the President. Secretary Geithner said that the only thing standing in the way of a deal is a tax rate increase on the top 2% of Americans, and Jim Cramer heatedly asked Mr. Norquist if he would like to see a recession instead of said increase. (His answer unfortunately is probably yes.) As Ms. Bartiromo stated, the time for opening salvos is over, which means that special interest representatives such as Mr. Norquist and pundits such as herself have to get out of the way if anything is going to be done.
Round Table: Grover Norquist, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Chris Van
Hollen (D-MD), and CNBC’s Jim Cramer and
Maria Bartiromo
Sunday, December 02, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
11.25.12: Manners in America
Unlike last week's program, which needed another hour, this week's Meet The Press could have ended a little early. The final infomercial for the film Lincoln was unnecessary. [For the record, The Opinion also saw the film this weekend and we think it a must see.] The program should have been more flexible with it's segments as the subject of the Middle East should have been delved into much deeper. As we are at a crossroads with our domestic economic issues, our stance and strategic leverage in the Middle East is also at a precipice.
Mr. Gregory asked the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) whether the Morsi government of Egypt was a partner or a problem, to which he answered 'both.' However, the problem side of the scale outweighs the partner side by a significant amount. First, Morsi, by government decree, is consolidating power. They have since clarified that it was temporary to route out corruption, but the Egyptian people are staging massive protests, not buying the 'clarification.' So you have more civil unrest while additionally facilitating weapons shipments from Iran into Gaza.
David Brooks said that the president's support of Israel was handled well, and it is important that Mr. Obama, at this time, keep showing that unwavering support because right now they are more isolated than at any time since the Sinai Peace Agreement. While Russia and China will join the U.S. in sanctioning Iran because of the nuclear issue, those two countries are willing to look the other way when it comes to Israel and the conventional self-destruction of the region. Both will work with the party that is in control of the oil, no matter what the politics. So that leaves the United States to support the Israelis while trying to racket down their tension with Hamas. That's where the focus should be and not on the politics, yes the politics, of Benghazi.
Benghazi is something that Republicans simply won't drop and in today's interview, Congressman Peter King's (R-NY) reasoning seemed selective and hypocritical. Mr. King said that Ms. Rice knew the briefing was incomplete and that there was classified information that she didn't share, stating that she should have not been a 'puppet.' This is coming from the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee. If Ms. Rice had gone off message and given classified information, at the time, to the public, Mr. King would have condemned that. Not to mention that the logic of his statement is short sighted in as much as Condoleezza Rice not having all the facts on WMD in Iraq. Certainly some puppeteering was going on then.
Speaking of Ms. Rice, Mr. Gregory referred to an op-ed in today's Washington Post, in which the former Secretary of State argued that the United States must act now on Syria. And what be the fact? That's the kicker, isn't it? They didn't explain during the program and if you read the piece, you'll see that Ms. Rice calls for a no-fly zone over Syria, but it short on details of what else should be done. a familiar pattern. It's a pattern Republicans, by their own record, have seemed to follow these past 15 years when assessing what to do in terms of foreign policy and that is not to evaluate the best weapons for the job, just to grab the biggest one.
Conversely, in a welcomed unfamiliar pattern, and despite CEOs like Honeywell's David Cole not being bullish on a debt deal, Republicans have been sending conciliatory signals working something out with Democrats. What has been a significant consequence of President Obama's reelection is the diminishing stature of Grover Norquist and his tax pledge, as evidenced today by Mr. King and Saxby Chambliss noted via video clip. It makes this column optimistic that a deal will be made because as David Brooks stated, "We're one deal away from being the hot spot in the world." He was talking economically, but it's true on a few levels. The people of the United States voted for their government to work together and it looks as though our federally elected officials want to do that. The signal that that sends to the rest of the world is that our democracy can come together to solve big problems in a time when consolidation of power dominates the news. This deal will also strengthen and steady the U.S. economy in a time when many others are faltering. And economic strength is what this country craves most.
In getting a deal done, Carly Fiorina believes that there will be an increase in tax rates for millionaires, but that the increase level will be upped to $1 million from $250,000. There's one point of potential compromise though we're thinking that will shake out at about $500,000. Another could be on which tax loopholes to close - foreign tax shelters would be a good start. Yet another, as Mr. Brooks mentioned could be on capital gains taxes. The point is that we remain optimistic because there are lots of good points for give and take to give Republicans what David Brooks called a 'pathway to yes,' our new national motto of unity we guess.
Why we think some are not so optimistic is because of entitlement reform featuring the usual trio of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Just as the President and Democrats have to give Mr. Boehner and the Republicans a pathway to yes on taxes, the Republicans must do the same on entitlement reform and that starts with letting the issue of Obamacare and Republican repeal end. If Republicans want anything on Social Security, they'll have to stop threatening Obamacare and just work with it. Because Republicans are usually better negotiators, especially when they're in the minority, they could get a year increase of eligibility on Social Security simply to stop threatening repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Again, the point is that there are many entry ways to getting a deal done, and all they have to do is remember that in America we remember to hold the door open for each other.
Guest List:
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), and Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King (R-NY).
Documentary filmmaker and historian Ken Burns; Vice Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Carly Fiorina; MSNBC’s Al Sharpton; New York Times columnist David Brooks; and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.
One more thing: In the discussion with reference to the film Lincoln, Ken Burns did talk about something that is certainly worth noting and that is the issue of race in America. No pithy nor solemn statement from this column can serve as an adequate statement of justice, figuratively or literally, on the issue of race except to say the mere acknowledgement that it is still an issue is one moment closer to it ceasing to be an issue.
Mr. Gregory asked the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) whether the Morsi government of Egypt was a partner or a problem, to which he answered 'both.' However, the problem side of the scale outweighs the partner side by a significant amount. First, Morsi, by government decree, is consolidating power. They have since clarified that it was temporary to route out corruption, but the Egyptian people are staging massive protests, not buying the 'clarification.' So you have more civil unrest while additionally facilitating weapons shipments from Iran into Gaza.
David Brooks said that the president's support of Israel was handled well, and it is important that Mr. Obama, at this time, keep showing that unwavering support because right now they are more isolated than at any time since the Sinai Peace Agreement. While Russia and China will join the U.S. in sanctioning Iran because of the nuclear issue, those two countries are willing to look the other way when it comes to Israel and the conventional self-destruction of the region. Both will work with the party that is in control of the oil, no matter what the politics. So that leaves the United States to support the Israelis while trying to racket down their tension with Hamas. That's where the focus should be and not on the politics, yes the politics, of Benghazi.
Benghazi is something that Republicans simply won't drop and in today's interview, Congressman Peter King's (R-NY) reasoning seemed selective and hypocritical. Mr. King said that Ms. Rice knew the briefing was incomplete and that there was classified information that she didn't share, stating that she should have not been a 'puppet.' This is coming from the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee. If Ms. Rice had gone off message and given classified information, at the time, to the public, Mr. King would have condemned that. Not to mention that the logic of his statement is short sighted in as much as Condoleezza Rice not having all the facts on WMD in Iraq. Certainly some puppeteering was going on then.
Speaking of Ms. Rice, Mr. Gregory referred to an op-ed in today's Washington Post, in which the former Secretary of State argued that the United States must act now on Syria. And what be the fact? That's the kicker, isn't it? They didn't explain during the program and if you read the piece, you'll see that Ms. Rice calls for a no-fly zone over Syria, but it short on details of what else should be done. a familiar pattern. It's a pattern Republicans, by their own record, have seemed to follow these past 15 years when assessing what to do in terms of foreign policy and that is not to evaluate the best weapons for the job, just to grab the biggest one.
Conversely, in a welcomed unfamiliar pattern, and despite CEOs like Honeywell's David Cole not being bullish on a debt deal, Republicans have been sending conciliatory signals working something out with Democrats. What has been a significant consequence of President Obama's reelection is the diminishing stature of Grover Norquist and his tax pledge, as evidenced today by Mr. King and Saxby Chambliss noted via video clip. It makes this column optimistic that a deal will be made because as David Brooks stated, "We're one deal away from being the hot spot in the world." He was talking economically, but it's true on a few levels. The people of the United States voted for their government to work together and it looks as though our federally elected officials want to do that. The signal that that sends to the rest of the world is that our democracy can come together to solve big problems in a time when consolidation of power dominates the news. This deal will also strengthen and steady the U.S. economy in a time when many others are faltering. And economic strength is what this country craves most.
In getting a deal done, Carly Fiorina believes that there will be an increase in tax rates for millionaires, but that the increase level will be upped to $1 million from $250,000. There's one point of potential compromise though we're thinking that will shake out at about $500,000. Another could be on which tax loopholes to close - foreign tax shelters would be a good start. Yet another, as Mr. Brooks mentioned could be on capital gains taxes. The point is that we remain optimistic because there are lots of good points for give and take to give Republicans what David Brooks called a 'pathway to yes,' our new national motto of unity we guess.
Why we think some are not so optimistic is because of entitlement reform featuring the usual trio of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Just as the President and Democrats have to give Mr. Boehner and the Republicans a pathway to yes on taxes, the Republicans must do the same on entitlement reform and that starts with letting the issue of Obamacare and Republican repeal end. If Republicans want anything on Social Security, they'll have to stop threatening Obamacare and just work with it. Because Republicans are usually better negotiators, especially when they're in the minority, they could get a year increase of eligibility on Social Security simply to stop threatening repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Again, the point is that there are many entry ways to getting a deal done, and all they have to do is remember that in America we remember to hold the door open for each other.
Guest List:
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), and Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King (R-NY).
Documentary filmmaker and historian Ken Burns; Vice Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Carly Fiorina; MSNBC’s Al Sharpton; New York Times columnist David Brooks; and NBC’s Andrea Mitchell.
One more thing: In the discussion with reference to the film Lincoln, Ken Burns did talk about something that is certainly worth noting and that is the issue of race in America. No pithy nor solemn statement from this column can serve as an adequate statement of justice, figuratively or literally, on the issue of race except to say the mere acknowledgement that it is still an issue is one moment closer to it ceasing to be an issue.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
11.18.12: Not Enough Time
David Gregory summed it up accurately today at the end of the program that they needed a second hour to cover everything that is going on with General Petraeus, Libya, the fiscal cliff, the future of the GOP, and not least of all the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians that is exponentially getting worse as we write this column.
In cutting to the quick of foreign policy matters, there are few sources better that Meet The Press can tap as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who quickly outlined that this conflict is very beneficial for Iran, of course, and Syria who is now escaping world scrutiny. The President has said that the United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself (and they do), but what we're about to see is a ground campaign against against the Palestinians. It's assured because the Netanyahu government will not negotiate with Hamas especially since they are lobbing Iranian rockets into Tel Aviv. Because of all this, analysts are saying that the peace process will be set back years and years. If a ground campaign does in fact happen, the peace process will come in the form of a cease fire with the Palestinians calling for mercy. The reason is that the proxy players in the region will be loath to become directly involved. If Egypt lead by the Muslim Brotherhood becomes directly involved, they're aid from the U.S. will be immediately cut as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) warned. This would decimate their economy and send them into a tailspin. The result, however, will incentivize the Muslim Brotherhood to instill a more Islamic fundamentalist approach to government.
Unlike Americans, citizens of the Middle East region have a more long range view of history and the 1967 6-Day war is not a distant memory. Israel will exercise its strength as a message/reminder to the others in the region, putting Iran on notice. The prospects are ugly for certain.
What's also ugly is this politicization, as Senator Feinstein (D-CA) described it, of the tragedy in Benghazi, and we agree with Tom Friedman that it is NOT a scandal but a tragedy. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) raised some very provocative questions about who knew what when, but as fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton John Podesta pointed out, there is zero evidence to support the assertion that the White House was misleading the American public about what happened in Benghazi.
Look at it this way, do we believe that Condoleezza Rice purposely mislead the American people about WMD in Iraq? No, she was communicating the information that was given to her (VP Dick Cheney? Well, that's a different story.). We do not believe that UN Ambassador Susan Rice purposely mislead people about what happened in Libya - no more than we believe that Condoleezza Rice was misleading. However, we understand why the White House put Susan Rice in the position of spokesperson on the issue. They wanted to give her the opportunity, given the pending departure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, to be out front on a diplomatic issue. The fact is it didn't go well and now people understandably don't feel confident in her ability to be the head diplomat for the United States. The Obama administration is going to have to move on and nominate some one else for the post.
If there was a change in the language on how to address this tragedy as Representative Rogers stated then that has to be flushed out but our sense is that there are politicians, such as Lindsay Graham and specifically John McCain who have misdirected their ire (don't even get us started on continuing grudge that Mr. McCain still holds from 2008). For example, Senator Graham was putting blame on the President for saying that Al Qaeda has been dismantled. The President has never said that Al Qaeda has been eliminated, but it is a fact that they are at its weakest point since September 11, 2001. Mr. Graham would say that we shouldn't re-litigate the past, but let's face it, the Bush Administration's strategy, tactics, and instincts were all wrong after that day. And how do we know? Because everything they asserted to be true came out to be incorrect. Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right when he said that we need to shutdown this partisan witch hunt and fix the intelligence gaps. The finger pointing needs to stop because it is impossible for the United States to adequately cover every danger zone where we have diplomats, and the suggestion from the South Carolina Senator that the President delayed information for political reasons to win reelection is appalling, especially coming from someone who is open-minded and willing to work with the other side of the political aisle.
And speaking of the other side of the political aisle, Mr. Romney's comments about the President giving 'gifts' to the electorate to obtain their votes, in our opinion, has disqualified him altogether from the political discourse. Mr. Romney can no longer be considered a helpful part of the process. As Mr. Graham said, the GOP is in a hole and Mr. Romney keeps digging and needs to stop. Not only does he need to stop but he needs to get out of the way altogether because he has shown that he can not be a positively constructive part of the wheel to move the country forward.
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); NY Times columnist Tom Friedman; fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton, John Podesta; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
In cutting to the quick of foreign policy matters, there are few sources better that Meet The Press can tap as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who quickly outlined that this conflict is very beneficial for Iran, of course, and Syria who is now escaping world scrutiny. The President has said that the United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself (and they do), but what we're about to see is a ground campaign against against the Palestinians. It's assured because the Netanyahu government will not negotiate with Hamas especially since they are lobbing Iranian rockets into Tel Aviv. Because of all this, analysts are saying that the peace process will be set back years and years. If a ground campaign does in fact happen, the peace process will come in the form of a cease fire with the Palestinians calling for mercy. The reason is that the proxy players in the region will be loath to become directly involved. If Egypt lead by the Muslim Brotherhood becomes directly involved, they're aid from the U.S. will be immediately cut as Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) warned. This would decimate their economy and send them into a tailspin. The result, however, will incentivize the Muslim Brotherhood to instill a more Islamic fundamentalist approach to government.
Unlike Americans, citizens of the Middle East region have a more long range view of history and the 1967 6-Day war is not a distant memory. Israel will exercise its strength as a message/reminder to the others in the region, putting Iran on notice. The prospects are ugly for certain.
What's also ugly is this politicization, as Senator Feinstein (D-CA) described it, of the tragedy in Benghazi, and we agree with Tom Friedman that it is NOT a scandal but a tragedy. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) raised some very provocative questions about who knew what when, but as fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton John Podesta pointed out, there is zero evidence to support the assertion that the White House was misleading the American public about what happened in Benghazi.
Look at it this way, do we believe that Condoleezza Rice purposely mislead the American people about WMD in Iraq? No, she was communicating the information that was given to her (VP Dick Cheney? Well, that's a different story.). We do not believe that UN Ambassador Susan Rice purposely mislead people about what happened in Libya - no more than we believe that Condoleezza Rice was misleading. However, we understand why the White House put Susan Rice in the position of spokesperson on the issue. They wanted to give her the opportunity, given the pending departure of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, to be out front on a diplomatic issue. The fact is it didn't go well and now people understandably don't feel confident in her ability to be the head diplomat for the United States. The Obama administration is going to have to move on and nominate some one else for the post.
If there was a change in the language on how to address this tragedy as Representative Rogers stated then that has to be flushed out but our sense is that there are politicians, such as Lindsay Graham and specifically John McCain who have misdirected their ire (don't even get us started on continuing grudge that Mr. McCain still holds from 2008). For example, Senator Graham was putting blame on the President for saying that Al Qaeda has been dismantled. The President has never said that Al Qaeda has been eliminated, but it is a fact that they are at its weakest point since September 11, 2001. Mr. Graham would say that we shouldn't re-litigate the past, but let's face it, the Bush Administration's strategy, tactics, and instincts were all wrong after that day. And how do we know? Because everything they asserted to be true came out to be incorrect. Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right when he said that we need to shutdown this partisan witch hunt and fix the intelligence gaps. The finger pointing needs to stop because it is impossible for the United States to adequately cover every danger zone where we have diplomats, and the suggestion from the South Carolina Senator that the President delayed information for political reasons to win reelection is appalling, especially coming from someone who is open-minded and willing to work with the other side of the political aisle.
And speaking of the other side of the political aisle, Mr. Romney's comments about the President giving 'gifts' to the electorate to obtain their votes, in our opinion, has disqualified him altogether from the political discourse. Mr. Romney can no longer be considered a helpful part of the process. As Mr. Graham said, the GOP is in a hole and Mr. Romney keeps digging and needs to stop. Not only does he need to stop but he needs to get out of the way altogether because he has shown that he can not be a positively constructive part of the wheel to move the country forward.
Round Table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); NY Times columnist Tom Friedman; fmr. White House Chief of Staff for President Clinton, John Podesta; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
11.11.12: The Election Hangover
When it comes to the aftermath of elections, the word mandate is always the first thing to be debated. Of course, the winning side will come out and say that they have one, see George W. Bush's quote noted on today's program, "I've earned political capital and I intend to spend it." Never mind that he didn't spend it wisely, a discussion for another day. However, Speaker of House John Boehner (R-OH) has already come out an said that the President's reelection is not a mandate for higher taxes, something that the President has been pushing for for the past few years, heavily during the campaign, essentially a return to the Clinton tax rates - 39.6% for individuals' earnings over $250,000. Anything under $250,000, the rate stays the same. It's an important point that hasn't been adequately relayed by Democrats because it doesn't have a good soundbite quality to it, but people understand how it is laid out, approval numbers for the plan go up.
So does the President, in fact, have a mandate, which means he has the full authorization from the electorate to implement his agenda? Not really. What the President does have is clear and distinct leverage, especially when it comes to the upcoming fiscal negotiations. The President's reelection coupled with the Democratic gains in the Senate and the rejection of a number of Tea Party candidates, the country has spoken that the President's plan - tax increases and spending cuts together - is the course to be taken.
And as Jim Kramer pointed out in his very brief segment during today's program, a deal has to get done so that Wall Street and big business feel some sense of security in how the government will more forward financially. He has a point in as much as the country needs big business to do more hiring because without a deal, as he noted, they'll just lay people off. We find it ironic that Wall Street has the undying need to know that the government's finances are stable so that it can then go ahead to make risky bets. What that says is that the scale of fairness is weighted in the favor of business. It's just how this country operates at this point and that's why you hear some people suggesting that Mr. Romney, though defeated in the election, could play a role in the United States getting its fiscal house in order. This would be a bad idea as all it would do is give people second thoughts about their choice for President. There are plenty of other Republicans, more sensible ones, that the President could collaborate with to come up with a mutually beneficial, or equally painful, as the case may be.
Senator Coburn said that he saw more of the Republicans demonstrating what they were against during the election instead of what they were for and it was this messaging that needs to change if the Republicans want to take back the Oval Office. This may be true, but it also seems to play into the larger widely spread denial that the Republicans have about the overall electorate. The Republican party must become more sensible when it comes to minorities, immigrants, and women. Frankly, the Republicans are seen as anti all of that and they only have themselves to blame. If right-wing talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh are going to continue of have unfettered influence on the party, then their long-term prospects are dim.
The party perceived as the one of old white men has to modulate with the times, especially on immigration and women's issues, the latter of which was not discussed on the program today in depth, but everyone knows the depth of the hole the Republicans has dug for themselves - see Todd Akin and Richard Murdock as case studies. However, immigration, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needs to be addresses right away and comprehensively. Oddly enough, immigration reform in the long-term could benefit Republicans as well as Democrats if, and only if, they embrace the change because as Chuck Todd pointed out, the white vote in declining as an overall percentage, a big factor in the election.
In the post-mortem of the election, essentially Doris Kearns-Goodwin had it right. This election was lost by the Republicans in the primaries. The only moderate candidate, Mitt Romney, did emerge the victor but he had to go so far to the right because the others were so far out there that he could never get back to the center to make people feel comfortable. It's not the fault of the media or the Democrats; the Republicans have to own their views and understand that they were not in line with mainstream America.
Lastly, a word about David Petreaus, which in the post election hangover, it's one of those things where you're saying, 'Huh? What?' In resigning his position of the head of the CIA, General Petreaus did the right thing. We agree with Mrs. Kearns-Goodwin that it is a shame that a personal matter should be the demise of a professional career that has benefited the country so much. However, we also agree with Bob Woodward in that the CIA Chief is an exceptional position and from what we've researched, Gen. Petreaus' biographer may have had access to the Colonel's e-mail. Additionally, there may have been the potential for a blackmail situation, which can not stand for a person in the position of Gen. Petreaus. Great patriot but he has to go.
Rep.-elect Joaquìn Castro (D-TX); Republican strategist Steve Schmidt; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
So does the President, in fact, have a mandate, which means he has the full authorization from the electorate to implement his agenda? Not really. What the President does have is clear and distinct leverage, especially when it comes to the upcoming fiscal negotiations. The President's reelection coupled with the Democratic gains in the Senate and the rejection of a number of Tea Party candidates, the country has spoken that the President's plan - tax increases and spending cuts together - is the course to be taken.
And as Jim Kramer pointed out in his very brief segment during today's program, a deal has to get done so that Wall Street and big business feel some sense of security in how the government will more forward financially. He has a point in as much as the country needs big business to do more hiring because without a deal, as he noted, they'll just lay people off. We find it ironic that Wall Street has the undying need to know that the government's finances are stable so that it can then go ahead to make risky bets. What that says is that the scale of fairness is weighted in the favor of business. It's just how this country operates at this point and that's why you hear some people suggesting that Mr. Romney, though defeated in the election, could play a role in the United States getting its fiscal house in order. This would be a bad idea as all it would do is give people second thoughts about their choice for President. There are plenty of other Republicans, more sensible ones, that the President could collaborate with to come up with a mutually beneficial, or equally painful, as the case may be.
Senator Coburn said that he saw more of the Republicans demonstrating what they were against during the election instead of what they were for and it was this messaging that needs to change if the Republicans want to take back the Oval Office. This may be true, but it also seems to play into the larger widely spread denial that the Republicans have about the overall electorate. The Republican party must become more sensible when it comes to minorities, immigrants, and women. Frankly, the Republicans are seen as anti all of that and they only have themselves to blame. If right-wing talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh are going to continue of have unfettered influence on the party, then their long-term prospects are dim.
The party perceived as the one of old white men has to modulate with the times, especially on immigration and women's issues, the latter of which was not discussed on the program today in depth, but everyone knows the depth of the hole the Republicans has dug for themselves - see Todd Akin and Richard Murdock as case studies. However, immigration, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needs to be addresses right away and comprehensively. Oddly enough, immigration reform in the long-term could benefit Republicans as well as Democrats if, and only if, they embrace the change because as Chuck Todd pointed out, the white vote in declining as an overall percentage, a big factor in the election.
In the post-mortem of the election, essentially Doris Kearns-Goodwin had it right. This election was lost by the Republicans in the primaries. The only moderate candidate, Mitt Romney, did emerge the victor but he had to go so far to the right because the others were so far out there that he could never get back to the center to make people feel comfortable. It's not the fault of the media or the Democrats; the Republicans have to own their views and understand that they were not in line with mainstream America.
Lastly, a word about David Petreaus, which in the post election hangover, it's one of those things where you're saying, 'Huh? What?' In resigning his position of the head of the CIA, General Petreaus did the right thing. We agree with Mrs. Kearns-Goodwin that it is a shame that a personal matter should be the demise of a professional career that has benefited the country so much. However, we also agree with Bob Woodward in that the CIA Chief is an exceptional position and from what we've researched, Gen. Petreaus' biographer may have had access to the Colonel's e-mail. Additionally, there may have been the potential for a blackmail situation, which can not stand for a person in the position of Gen. Petreaus. Great patriot but he has to go.
Rep.-elect Joaquìn Castro (D-TX); Republican strategist Steve Schmidt; presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
11.4.12: Steering the Ship - Barack Obama
Well, we have finally arrived at the last installment of Meet The Press (from Rockefeller Plaza in New York) for the election, and there is still some commentary to take care of and some other, be it important, housekeeping. First, Mr. Gregory asked both solo interview guests, David Plouffe and Eric Cantor repsectively what the political effects of Hurricane Sandy has had on the race. Can we just say that two days before the election it was good to hear these two individuals try and deflect the politics from it as much as possible. Mr. Cantor praised both Governor Christie (R-NJ) and Newark Mayor Corey Booker (D-NJ), a round table guest, for their work in the aftermath. There are definite implicit political effects from Sandy that were touched on during the panel - the President looking and acting presidential and for Mr. Romney a late stall in the campaign - both of which benefit Mr. Obama - an October surprise where no one can take credit. But for all intents and purposes and polls, the race is 48% percent for Mr. Obama and 47% for Mr. Romney.
And with that in mind, Chuck Todd outlined that the President will be in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio tomorrow and Mr. Romney will be in Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire. All of those states will play out thusly: Mr. Obama will win in four of the six, leaving Mr. Romney to win New Hampshire and Florida. Florida should go Democratic strictly on the Medicare issue, but the senior transfers and non-Cuban Hispanics do not measure up to what is otherwise dominated by very conservative white Floridians - think Alabama type of conservative - and Catholic Cuban Americans. In the post-mortem of the election, the Democrats will conclude that their DNC Chair, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) came up short for them. She didn't deliver her home state and the Democrats didn't really pick up any seats in the House. The Democrats would do themselves well to have a dedicated Chair like the Republicans have in Reince Preibus. We're not saying the same calibur as Mr. Preibus, who we find buffoonish and too fixated on lowest common denominator politics, but some one nonetheless who has the sole responsibility of trying to win elections, and not his or her own.
The 'Jeep' issue is quite contentious as mentioned on the panel but the people of Ohio know the score on that, and it is for that reason Mr. Obama will win the state. Wisconsin is conservative, but not when it comes to labor and their view of the federal government when it comes to funding so they're not ready to give the nod to a Republican. And despite what Mr. Cantor said today, Virginia will go for Mr. Kaine for the Senate and vote for Mr. Obama's reelection.
The consensus on the round table with regard to the impact of the first debate and what it may mean for the outcome of the race concerns us greatly because though it is a reality that Mr. Romney has made it a close campaign, in which his performance played no small part, it's sad that our collective short attention span now dictates a snap judgement on the candidates.
One has to look at each candidate through the broader lens and consider in the case of Mr. Romney his statements in the Republican primary campaign and then throughout the general up to and including the debates. For Mr. Obama, you have his record of the last four years to make your judgement.
It is within those respective contexts that we have based our decision on who to endorse and how the election will turn out. Despite our concern for lack of bipartisan consensus building by this administration, we believe that Barack Obama should and will be elected once again to the Oval Office. We hope that given his reelection, the Republicans will conclude that they have to make a compromise with this President, something they have been staunchly opposed to doing to the detriment of the entire country sometimes. More specifically, Mr. Cantor was wrong today when he said that Mr. Romney has a plan to better the economy. That fact is that Mr. Romney has offered no details, only platitudes in this area. Mr. Obama on the other hand does have a second term agenda, but its not as 'grand' it seems. We're fine with that. One thing is for sure in the American electorate, we talk as though we want to take big steps, but don't really want to take them. But you can't turn a cargo ship like a speed boat because if you do you'll tip it over, and the cargo is us. After the election it is clear that both parties' priority will be taxes and spending, which is big enough. We hope that the Republicans will also come around on infrastructure, which sorely needs improving.
We've discussed many times before in this column how the President's first term policies, to affect change, have to be seen through with a second term and we believe Mr. Obama deserves that second term. Despite unprecedented opposition and disparaging (many times racist in nature), Mr. Obama has had a successful first term. A country involved in two wars should not show bluster for more conflict, and the administration's tone has been solid, Libya withstanding. We strongly feel that a return to a neo-con type of foreign policy, which Mr. Romney would bring, is the wrong course international for the United States.
We do not want a pure ideologue as President so columnist David Brooks' endorsement of Mr. Romney because he is a more flexible flip-flopper makes no sense to us. A poor rationale. What we do want is a President that has shown conviction in what he believes and Mr. Obama's message has been far more consistent than Mr. Romney's. With that, it comes down to a matter of trust and who you believe can navigate the ship more effectively through stormy seas. As was illustrated this past week, Barack Obama has a much firmer command of the controls.
Round Table: Mayor Cory Booker(D-Newark); MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; TODAY co-host Savannah Guthrie; and NBC Special Correspondent, Tom Brokaw.
And with that in mind, Chuck Todd outlined that the President will be in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio tomorrow and Mr. Romney will be in Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire. All of those states will play out thusly: Mr. Obama will win in four of the six, leaving Mr. Romney to win New Hampshire and Florida. Florida should go Democratic strictly on the Medicare issue, but the senior transfers and non-Cuban Hispanics do not measure up to what is otherwise dominated by very conservative white Floridians - think Alabama type of conservative - and Catholic Cuban Americans. In the post-mortem of the election, the Democrats will conclude that their DNC Chair, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) came up short for them. She didn't deliver her home state and the Democrats didn't really pick up any seats in the House. The Democrats would do themselves well to have a dedicated Chair like the Republicans have in Reince Preibus. We're not saying the same calibur as Mr. Preibus, who we find buffoonish and too fixated on lowest common denominator politics, but some one nonetheless who has the sole responsibility of trying to win elections, and not his or her own.
The 'Jeep' issue is quite contentious as mentioned on the panel but the people of Ohio know the score on that, and it is for that reason Mr. Obama will win the state. Wisconsin is conservative, but not when it comes to labor and their view of the federal government when it comes to funding so they're not ready to give the nod to a Republican. And despite what Mr. Cantor said today, Virginia will go for Mr. Kaine for the Senate and vote for Mr. Obama's reelection.
The consensus on the round table with regard to the impact of the first debate and what it may mean for the outcome of the race concerns us greatly because though it is a reality that Mr. Romney has made it a close campaign, in which his performance played no small part, it's sad that our collective short attention span now dictates a snap judgement on the candidates.
One has to look at each candidate through the broader lens and consider in the case of Mr. Romney his statements in the Republican primary campaign and then throughout the general up to and including the debates. For Mr. Obama, you have his record of the last four years to make your judgement.
It is within those respective contexts that we have based our decision on who to endorse and how the election will turn out. Despite our concern for lack of bipartisan consensus building by this administration, we believe that Barack Obama should and will be elected once again to the Oval Office. We hope that given his reelection, the Republicans will conclude that they have to make a compromise with this President, something they have been staunchly opposed to doing to the detriment of the entire country sometimes. More specifically, Mr. Cantor was wrong today when he said that Mr. Romney has a plan to better the economy. That fact is that Mr. Romney has offered no details, only platitudes in this area. Mr. Obama on the other hand does have a second term agenda, but its not as 'grand' it seems. We're fine with that. One thing is for sure in the American electorate, we talk as though we want to take big steps, but don't really want to take them. But you can't turn a cargo ship like a speed boat because if you do you'll tip it over, and the cargo is us. After the election it is clear that both parties' priority will be taxes and spending, which is big enough. We hope that the Republicans will also come around on infrastructure, which sorely needs improving.
We've discussed many times before in this column how the President's first term policies, to affect change, have to be seen through with a second term and we believe Mr. Obama deserves that second term. Despite unprecedented opposition and disparaging (many times racist in nature), Mr. Obama has had a successful first term. A country involved in two wars should not show bluster for more conflict, and the administration's tone has been solid, Libya withstanding. We strongly feel that a return to a neo-con type of foreign policy, which Mr. Romney would bring, is the wrong course international for the United States.
We do not want a pure ideologue as President so columnist David Brooks' endorsement of Mr. Romney because he is a more flexible flip-flopper makes no sense to us. A poor rationale. What we do want is a President that has shown conviction in what he believes and Mr. Obama's message has been far more consistent than Mr. Romney's. With that, it comes down to a matter of trust and who you believe can navigate the ship more effectively through stormy seas. As was illustrated this past week, Barack Obama has a much firmer command of the controls.
Round Table: Mayor Cory Booker(D-Newark); MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough; GOP strategist Mike Murphy; TODAY co-host Savannah Guthrie; and NBC Special Correspondent, Tom Brokaw.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
10.28.12: The Wisdom of Hamilton County
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)