Yesterday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted for a budget that continues to fund the government, but that delays the implementation of the Affordable Care Act for a year and repeals a medical device tax.
The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), has already said that he will strip out those provisions and send it back to the House, thus creating the stalement, stare-down shutdown situation we're all facing on Tuesday.
Enter star Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).
Mr. Cruz needed to make this appearance on "Meet The Press" today because his arguments have required tougher questioning for some time. He needed to explain his position (and we say his position because it is not shared by many of his Republican colleagues) to an audience outside of the conservative echo-chamber so we can understand his perspective.
However, in the face of these tough questions, the Senator, known as a skilled debater, fell flat in front of the logic of his opposition. He explained the Senator Reid was being unreasonable in his unwillingness to compromise on delaying the Affordable Healthcare Law by a year. He said that Senator Reid has told the American people to 'go and jump in a lake,' and that Mr. Reid's position was absolutist.
Mr. Cruz called delaying Obamacare for one year a compromise, but is it really? No, as Chris Matthews outlined, the Affordable Care Act passed through the House, through the Senate; the president signed it into law; and the Supreme Court upheld the passing of the law. Given this, there is simply no reason why Mr. Reid should compromise. "When is a law [finally] legitimate?" Mr. Gregory later asked during the panel. In this instance, Mr. Reid is doing right by the American people by not compromising with the extremists in the House and Mr. Cruz.
The fact is that far-right Republicans are going to bring us all down because they refuse to uphold law. It may be true when Mr. Cruz says that millions of Americans oppose the law, but on the other side of that the majority of Americans (that would be millions too) support the law and think that it should at the very least be upheld. We agree with Dee Dee Meyers who said that it was an 'unreasonable avenue to pursue.'
And clearly illustrated in today's interview is that Republicans have no alternative plan to control healthcare costs in this country when Mr. Cruz said that the best way to get health insurance is to get a job. That's simply a ridiculous answer, because having one doesn't beget the other. That was an appallingly cavalier answer that says he doesn't understand the reality of healthcare distribution in America. Instead, it speaks of an idealogue with no real solutions.
Mr. Cruz also weakly tried the populist argument, quoting union leaders who say Obamacare is destroying employer-based healthcare and citing how corporations are getting exemptions; then he turns around and says Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) is an inspiration to him, essentially killing the legitimacy of his populist stance.
Why?
As a Senator, Phil Gramm, as the Chairman of the Banking Committee, pushed through the end of the Glass-Steagall Act, which kept commercial banks separate from Wall Street Banks which in turn created an unregulated environment leading to derivatives and credit default swaps... Yes, remember these terms... They're the ones you had to familiarize yourself with when the world economy was in the midst of a complete meltdown in 2008. Well, Mr. Cruz is inspired all right... Inspired to bring it all down again because he doesn't believe that we as a country should try and insure as many people as we can.
Senator Cruz also explained that Obamacare 'isn't working,' and it's important to note the grammatical tense here because the law hasn't been fully implemented yet - that starts Tuesday - so how can he say that it isn't working? If he's speaking about provisions like parents keeping their kids on insurance plans until age 26, more Republican households take advantage of that than Democratic ones. Overall, the provisions that went into immediate effect - another being no rejection due to a preexisting condition - are very popular.
Former Governor Jon Huntsman, who tries to be the voice of reason (and whose opinions are constantly dismissed by other Republicans), said that politics aside, the 17 healthcare exchanges that will start on Tuesday will be an 'interesting experiment,' but it's politics that will dictate the success of the law. And what you're going to see is that the states that have embraced the law, will be successful in the overall goal, which is to lower healthcare costs across the board. The states that do not will see their costs continue to rise.
Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) stated the Democrats and the president want the government to shutdown to make the Republicans look bad... No, Republicans don't need help from Democrats, they're making themselves look bad all on their own.
No more delays and no more kicking and screaming - fund and implement it
and let's see where it shakes out. If Republicans don't like it, then win
back the Senate and the Presidency and repeal it. If the law turns out to stink and everyone hates then that won't be hard to do. In the meantime, take your medicine.
Roundtable: Republican Congressman from Idaho Raul Labrador; former
Republican Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman; former White House Press
Secretary during the Clinton administration Dee Dee Myers; and author of
the new book “Tip and The Gipper,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.
Note: With regard to President Obama speaking with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, talk is good in a Godfather sort of way. Until Iran dismantles its nuclear weapons ambitions and recognizes Israel's right to exist, the U.S. stance is 'keep your friends close, and your enemies on the defensive.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Sunday, September 22, 2013
9.22.13: "Losing My Democracy"
Are we in the midst of a democracy lost? It would certainly seem that way and one can not dismiss Tavis Smiley's statement that if this country doesn't undertake a course correction soon, we're in jeopardy of losing our democracy. Maybe it's not as dire as that sounds, but one can not help to think given what was said on today's "Meet The Press" that the United States is headed that way.
Take exhibit one, the interview with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in the wake of another mass shooting, this one in the nation's capital. Mr. LaPierre focused on the lack of security at the base and that in a post-9/11 world should have had more layers of security and more people armed on the base. His other focus was on the 'complete breakdown,' he called it, of the mental health system.
He explained that if someone is exhibiting dangerous behavior, with or without a gun, should be committed and 'entered into the system.' Mr. LaPierre railed against the release of criminals in California, despite deplorable conditions caused by extreme overcrowding. He concluded that American society should not allow these people to have guns and for ordinary citizens to arm themselves to ensure safety.
However, it's a false sense of safety. One could interpret his statements to conclude that the only way forward is more incarceration, more confinement, and more registering of individuals, except for when they buy guns. Mr. LaPierre's unfortunate view doesn't play to an essential American characteristic, an optimistic view of the future. Instead, he takes the easy path, that makes one uneasy, and plays on fear.
Sandy Phillips, mother of Aurora, CO shooting victim Jessica Ghaw, said that background checks, something favored by an overwhelmingly majority of Americans should not be a hard fix, but let's face it. It's not because public outrage doesn't write a big check.
The conditions that create the violence and mental instability are never mentioned, which brings us to the debate over the U.S. economy and the looming government shutdown, which none of the guests on the program seemed to think would happen. Mr. Gregory asked 4 members of Congress and all of them registered a 'no' - Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
But a shutdown is staring us in the face because Republicans insist on defunding the Affordable Care Act, and will not fund any part of the government unless this is done, Additionally, they are threatening to default on the country's debts by not raising the debt ceiling also because of the Affordable Care Act. Essentially nullifying the democratic process, they're willing to tank the world's economy because they, as the minority, refuse to enforce a law that was passed by the majority of Congress and signed by the President. Not only that, but Republican have refused to pass any appropriation bills unless the ACA is defunded.
Congresswoman Blackburn said that 7 million people are being cut from employer-based health insurance because of Obamacare and that premium costs are going up. Mr. Gregory correctly leveled that playing field by noting that in the states that embraced the exchanges, costs have decreased while costs have increased in states that have not enacted the exchanges. [Interestingly, more Republican families have kept their children on parental health plans than Democratic families have - a major tenant of the ACA.] However, Ms. Blackburn should celebrate this statistic because the ACA is an opportunity for the corporations to cut insurance and reap more profits - taking away people's insurance while not increasing their pay so that they can still afford it through an independent system. Senator Lee said the majority problem with the ACA is the enormous amount of uncertainty, which is another form of playing to people's fears.
The fact is that you could twist and pull the argument any way you want but like it or not, the law was passed then upheld by the Supreme Court so it's the obligation of Congress to make it work. And if Republicans refuse to do this, it will be the last time the United States jeopardizes the world economy on such a scale because other countries (the world community) will shift from the dollar as the standard currency of exchange to something else.
On top of this, Republican have refused to pass any appropriation bill unless the ACA is defunded, an prime example being the Farm Bill because in that bill is contained funding for food stamps. They did come about passing a bill in the House that cut another $20 billion in food stamps, something that will never make its way through the Senate.
The inscription on the Statue of Liberty says in part 'give us your tired, your poor...' In America today, the government seems to be saying, 'to hell with those people,' and that statue was given to the us by the French anyway.
Guests: Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
Round Table: Editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol; Wall Street Journal Columnist Kim Strassel; former White House Press Secretary, now MSNBC political contributor Robert Gibbs; and PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
Take exhibit one, the interview with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in the wake of another mass shooting, this one in the nation's capital. Mr. LaPierre focused on the lack of security at the base and that in a post-9/11 world should have had more layers of security and more people armed on the base. His other focus was on the 'complete breakdown,' he called it, of the mental health system.
He explained that if someone is exhibiting dangerous behavior, with or without a gun, should be committed and 'entered into the system.' Mr. LaPierre railed against the release of criminals in California, despite deplorable conditions caused by extreme overcrowding. He concluded that American society should not allow these people to have guns and for ordinary citizens to arm themselves to ensure safety.
However, it's a false sense of safety. One could interpret his statements to conclude that the only way forward is more incarceration, more confinement, and more registering of individuals, except for when they buy guns. Mr. LaPierre's unfortunate view doesn't play to an essential American characteristic, an optimistic view of the future. Instead, he takes the easy path, that makes one uneasy, and plays on fear.
Sandy Phillips, mother of Aurora, CO shooting victim Jessica Ghaw, said that background checks, something favored by an overwhelmingly majority of Americans should not be a hard fix, but let's face it. It's not because public outrage doesn't write a big check.
The conditions that create the violence and mental instability are never mentioned, which brings us to the debate over the U.S. economy and the looming government shutdown, which none of the guests on the program seemed to think would happen. Mr. Gregory asked 4 members of Congress and all of them registered a 'no' - Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
But a shutdown is staring us in the face because Republicans insist on defunding the Affordable Care Act, and will not fund any part of the government unless this is done, Additionally, they are threatening to default on the country's debts by not raising the debt ceiling also because of the Affordable Care Act. Essentially nullifying the democratic process, they're willing to tank the world's economy because they, as the minority, refuse to enforce a law that was passed by the majority of Congress and signed by the President. Not only that, but Republican have refused to pass any appropriation bills unless the ACA is defunded.
Congresswoman Blackburn said that 7 million people are being cut from employer-based health insurance because of Obamacare and that premium costs are going up. Mr. Gregory correctly leveled that playing field by noting that in the states that embraced the exchanges, costs have decreased while costs have increased in states that have not enacted the exchanges. [Interestingly, more Republican families have kept their children on parental health plans than Democratic families have - a major tenant of the ACA.] However, Ms. Blackburn should celebrate this statistic because the ACA is an opportunity for the corporations to cut insurance and reap more profits - taking away people's insurance while not increasing their pay so that they can still afford it through an independent system. Senator Lee said the majority problem with the ACA is the enormous amount of uncertainty, which is another form of playing to people's fears.
The fact is that you could twist and pull the argument any way you want but like it or not, the law was passed then upheld by the Supreme Court so it's the obligation of Congress to make it work. And if Republicans refuse to do this, it will be the last time the United States jeopardizes the world economy on such a scale because other countries (the world community) will shift from the dollar as the standard currency of exchange to something else.
On top of this, Republican have refused to pass any appropriation bill unless the ACA is defunded, an prime example being the Farm Bill because in that bill is contained funding for food stamps. They did come about passing a bill in the House that cut another $20 billion in food stamps, something that will never make its way through the Senate.
The inscription on the Statue of Liberty says in part 'give us your tired, your poor...' In America today, the government seems to be saying, 'to hell with those people,' and that statue was given to the us by the French anyway.
Guests: Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
Round Table: Editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol; Wall Street Journal Columnist Kim Strassel; former White House Press Secretary, now MSNBC political contributor Robert Gibbs; and PBS’s Tavis Smiley.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
9.15.13: No Diplomatic Break Through in Syria
Of the fifteen... yes, fifteen individuals who appeared on the program today to discuss Syria and the U.S. economy respectively, the only one to not offer something constructive was Republican Strategist Ana Navarro. If she's a strategist for the party, it's no wonder why Republicans are in disarray and lacking in a cohesive, sensible message. Point being, fifteen people offering commentary in an hour is a lot so why have any one superfluous.
Ms. Navarro's lack of depth of knowledge on Syria can only invite sympathy for President Obama's dilemma, otherwise known as his indecisiveness on the matter. She had a few empty ziggers for Mr. Obama - commander in confusion, offending the Keystone Cops - but she had her facts wrong and her analysis was reckless.
She stated that the Administration had agreed to a 'no force' policy unless sanctioned by the United Nations, but the fact is that the United States hasn't changed in use-of-force policy toward Syria, which is the right to act unilaterally. And as we've pointed out in previous columns, arming the Syrian rebels, even if they have a legitimate sounding name like the Free Syrian Army, is not the right solution. To reiterate what we've referenced before, which Richard Wolfe cited today, is the Mujahideen and what that lead to. When Mr. Gregory asked Senator John McCain (R-AZ) what the United States should sacrifice in the Syrian civil war, he answers was 'weapons.' Hardly a 'sacrifice.'
Too many points of view and no good solutions. And the discussed proposed deal between the United States and Russia to resolve the chemical weapons threat is unrealistic at best, cynically manipulative at the least on the part of Mr. Putin. Senator McCain did offer a succinct analogous example of what the United States is dealing with, describing how Mr. Putin did in fact blame the rebels for the chemical attack in and op-ed in this week's New York Times to only later say that Assad has chemical weapons and will get rid of them. And the deal calls for the destruction of Assad chemical arsenal with in a six month time frame. An independent verification process to make sure all the weapons are accounted for will take longer than that. And no sanctions. All this knowing that Russia a nuclear power that since its Soviet collapse has needed the United States' help in securing its nuclear material. Mr. Putin simply doesn't have the track record for ensuring a legitimate process.
Mr. McCain's hawkish stance on the situation is of the kind that the American people do not have the stomach for right now, reflected in Senator Roy Blount's (R-MO) comments that he is not in favor of military action. However, after noting the president's deficiencies as a commander, he mentioned one of his proposals, which he said was to establish a safe zone for refugees in Syria. Noble, but how could that be accomplished without having soldiers on the ground to enforce it? However, Mr. Blount is right to ask the Administration what kind of military strike is small but consequential because it is difficult to understand what that would look like.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) in a mild attempt to give the Administration some credit, called the deal a 'diplomatic break though' with the caveat that it is one fraught with danger. Given its parameters, one could hardly call it that. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker in speaking about herself was actually reflecting the position of most elected officials in that she opposed military intervention, didn't know what was best to do, and was glad she didn't have to make the decision. Yet, go ahead and knock the president because he hasn't figured it out. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's assessment was more sympathetic of the difficulties the Administration faces. The moderator noted one of Mr. Friedman's columns in which he says its difficult to face down dictators in the Middle East when there is an absence of organized charismatic leader on the other side (difficult to continue deposing a Hitler without a Churchill). Vladimir Putin would not be the guy filling Churchill's shoes. It speaks to the point that Robin Wright has made before on the program which is that a regional solution is needed for the Middle East. Traditional thinking is that it all starts with the Israelis and the Palestinians, but with a plethora of bad actors in the region, we're not so sure anymore. As long as the violence in the region is motivated by religion, there will be no reconciliations.
But maybe, just maybe the Churchill-type figure in the equation is United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. It's a long shot but if he can garner support from the Security Council members to pursue his call for charging Bashar Assad with war crimes, that would truly be a diplomatic break through the world needs.
Program Guests:
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Armed Services Committee member Roy Blunt (R-MO).
New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman; Senior Fellow at the Wilson Center Robin Wright; National Correspondent for the Atlantic and Columnist for Bloomberg View, Jeffrey Goldberg; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Round Table: Associate Editor at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward; Executive Editor of MSNBC.com and author of The Message: The Reselling of President Obama, Richard Wolffe; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; and Republican Strategist Ana Navarro.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd
former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Plus, the top lawmaker in the effort to regulate Wall Street after the crisis, Fmr. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo.
And speaking of what the world needs, here's something it doesn't need... and Americans don't need, and that is Republicans continually threatening to bring down the world economy with threats of shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling. Chuck Todd noted a poll that showed 44% of Americans are not in favor of raising the debt ceiling (22% in favor), and that the president had a lot of work to do to change these opinions around. What that poll says to us is that Americans simply don't understand what the debt ceiling is, why it has to be raised, and how their Congressional leaders are failing them in correcting its trajectory.
On the fifth anniversary of the 2008 financial meltdown, Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called on Washington to play a more constructive role in economic stability by cooperating (parties working together) and passing the big reforms needed - immigration, tax reform, et. al. Great sentiment but is he going to be the one to talk to the Tea Party because they just don't seem to be listening.
Ms. Navarro's lack of depth of knowledge on Syria can only invite sympathy for President Obama's dilemma, otherwise known as his indecisiveness on the matter. She had a few empty ziggers for Mr. Obama - commander in confusion, offending the Keystone Cops - but she had her facts wrong and her analysis was reckless.
She stated that the Administration had agreed to a 'no force' policy unless sanctioned by the United Nations, but the fact is that the United States hasn't changed in use-of-force policy toward Syria, which is the right to act unilaterally. And as we've pointed out in previous columns, arming the Syrian rebels, even if they have a legitimate sounding name like the Free Syrian Army, is not the right solution. To reiterate what we've referenced before, which Richard Wolfe cited today, is the Mujahideen and what that lead to. When Mr. Gregory asked Senator John McCain (R-AZ) what the United States should sacrifice in the Syrian civil war, he answers was 'weapons.' Hardly a 'sacrifice.'
Too many points of view and no good solutions. And the discussed proposed deal between the United States and Russia to resolve the chemical weapons threat is unrealistic at best, cynically manipulative at the least on the part of Mr. Putin. Senator McCain did offer a succinct analogous example of what the United States is dealing with, describing how Mr. Putin did in fact blame the rebels for the chemical attack in and op-ed in this week's New York Times to only later say that Assad has chemical weapons and will get rid of them. And the deal calls for the destruction of Assad chemical arsenal with in a six month time frame. An independent verification process to make sure all the weapons are accounted for will take longer than that. And no sanctions. All this knowing that Russia a nuclear power that since its Soviet collapse has needed the United States' help in securing its nuclear material. Mr. Putin simply doesn't have the track record for ensuring a legitimate process.
Mr. McCain's hawkish stance on the situation is of the kind that the American people do not have the stomach for right now, reflected in Senator Roy Blount's (R-MO) comments that he is not in favor of military action. However, after noting the president's deficiencies as a commander, he mentioned one of his proposals, which he said was to establish a safe zone for refugees in Syria. Noble, but how could that be accomplished without having soldiers on the ground to enforce it? However, Mr. Blount is right to ask the Administration what kind of military strike is small but consequential because it is difficult to understand what that would look like.
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) in a mild attempt to give the Administration some credit, called the deal a 'diplomatic break though' with the caveat that it is one fraught with danger. Given its parameters, one could hardly call it that. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker in speaking about herself was actually reflecting the position of most elected officials in that she opposed military intervention, didn't know what was best to do, and was glad she didn't have to make the decision. Yet, go ahead and knock the president because he hasn't figured it out. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's assessment was more sympathetic of the difficulties the Administration faces. The moderator noted one of Mr. Friedman's columns in which he says its difficult to face down dictators in the Middle East when there is an absence of organized charismatic leader on the other side (difficult to continue deposing a Hitler without a Churchill). Vladimir Putin would not be the guy filling Churchill's shoes. It speaks to the point that Robin Wright has made before on the program which is that a regional solution is needed for the Middle East. Traditional thinking is that it all starts with the Israelis and the Palestinians, but with a plethora of bad actors in the region, we're not so sure anymore. As long as the violence in the region is motivated by religion, there will be no reconciliations.
But maybe, just maybe the Churchill-type figure in the equation is United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. It's a long shot but if he can garner support from the Security Council members to pursue his call for charging Bashar Assad with war crimes, that would truly be a diplomatic break through the world needs.
Program Guests:
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Armed Services Committee member Roy Blunt (R-MO).
New York Times Columnist Tom Friedman; Senior Fellow at the Wilson Center Robin Wright; National Correspondent for the Atlantic and Columnist for Bloomberg View, Jeffrey Goldberg; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Round Table: Associate Editor at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward; Executive Editor of MSNBC.com and author of The Message: The Reselling of President Obama, Richard Wolffe; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; and Republican Strategist Ana Navarro.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd
former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Plus, the top lawmaker in the effort to regulate Wall Street after the crisis, Fmr. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo.
And speaking of what the world needs, here's something it doesn't need... and Americans don't need, and that is Republicans continually threatening to bring down the world economy with threats of shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling. Chuck Todd noted a poll that showed 44% of Americans are not in favor of raising the debt ceiling (22% in favor), and that the president had a lot of work to do to change these opinions around. What that poll says to us is that Americans simply don't understand what the debt ceiling is, why it has to be raised, and how their Congressional leaders are failing them in correcting its trajectory.
On the fifth anniversary of the 2008 financial meltdown, Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson called on Washington to play a more constructive role in economic stability by cooperating (parties working together) and passing the big reforms needed - immigration, tax reform, et. al. Great sentiment but is he going to be the one to talk to the Tea Party because they just don't seem to be listening.
Sunday, September 08, 2013
9.8.13: Syria and Chemical Weapons
"Once we're in, we're in."
Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX)
"It's not our problem, until it's our problem."
Former Senior Adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod
If you boil down all the commentary from today's Meet The Press, you're left with these two quotes as the arguments for the United States becoming involved in the Syrian civil war and why not. We'll add one more adage to the mix:
There are no perfect plans, only perfect intentions...
And that's where we begin, with the interview of White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough who said that the Administration's intention for airstrikes is that they will be 'targeted, limited, and consequential.' Mr. McDonough continued with the argument that if we do not act in retaliation against the Assad Regime that it will send a signal to other players in the region that they can deploy chemical weapons, or in the case of Iran (as the Chief of Staff noted) the use of nuclear weapons without any retaliatory consequences.
However, no matter how good the intention, the plan that Mr. McDonough laid out is far from perfect, and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) warned that once a tomahawk missile hits the ground in Syria, the United States will become a full player in the civil war, this being accurately summarized by Mr. McCaul (see above).
The argument that Mr. McDonugh is making on behalf of the Administration is that 1) America's credibility is on the line if we don't act, 2) using chemical weapons violates a 100 year ban on such action (since WWI), and 3) we don't want to see these weapons ever used on U.S. soldiers.
Worthy arguments, but one flawed piece of logic on the part of the Administration is that air-strikes will effect the balance in the civil war, something the Mr. McDonough did admit will be a consequence of getting involved, but that there will be no after effect for the United States for doing so. This will not be the case as Syria is not Bosnia and that is what the Obama Administration is thinking - that we'll have a bombing campaign, like the Clinton Administration conducted in Bosnia in the late '90's - where the country's leader will cower under the pressure. That's not going to happen with Mr. Assad because he has strong outside allies, allies that would like nothing better than to see the United States become bogged down in another conflict to cripple U.S. power abroad even further, limiting its leverage. Our credibility has been long established in the region already and military involvement in Syria will only further damage it. Simply, the United States is viewed by countries in the Middle East as a bad actor, despite the United States' best intentions.
Another piece of flawed thinking on the part of the Administration is that by making Congress a 'full partner' as Mr. McDonough explained, will spread the responsibility for involvement amongst all of our political leaders in the hopes that it will cause the U.S. to act in a unified manner. Again, it's just not going to happen, and it's a consequence of the United States body politic being so divided on domestic issues.
Case in point, Rep. Pete King's (R-NY) stated support of the president's plan to hit Syria while criticizing him for not being a Commander in Chief as much as a community organizer. Republican politicians who support military action against Syria don't support the way in which Mr. Obama is carrying it out. In this one sense, fmr Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was correct that politics are at work. If the president goes to Congress for counsel, he is seen as weak because he can't make a decision on his own. On the other hand, if Mr. Obama acts without Congress, he'll be accused of breaking with the Constitution for not getting Congress' approval first.
[Some would criticize the president for not reaching out enough to politicians on the opposite side of the aisle before such crises in an attempt to build some sort of rapport, but what would have been Mr. Obama's motivation to do so when an entire political party has tried to delegitimize his presidency from day one.]
What remains after all this back and forth is clear evidence that Bashar Assad's regime launched a chemical attack against his own people, killing over 1,400 - there's not other way to interpret this video released by the White House.
"Heartbreaking," as Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) described it.
With sixty percent of the American people against getting involved with the Syrian Civil War and Representatives such as Ms. Sanchez saying that they fail to understand how this affects America's national security, why would the administration be pressing so hard as Mr. McDonough was today?
We agree with David Axelrod who correctly said that the world is getting smaller and we're all becoming more interconnected (it's not our problem until it's our problem), and the reality of chemical and nuclear (or even biological) weapons is that they know no borders. There are some types of chemicals and energy that if unleashed, there's no going back. (There are now reports that the Japanese are going to build a $500 million mile-long ice wall in the ocean in an attempt to contain radiated water from leaking out of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant. Stopping the flow of water in the ocean is like trying to stop the wind.)
Point being, we simply can not stand by and let a dictator like Mr. Assad use such weapons without the international community coming down hard, and we find it very telling when Andrea Mitchell reported that the Saudis are advising on a delay of military action to go back to the United Nations Security Counsel. As we've outlined in a previous column, there are more options and ways to punitively punish the Assad Regime beside the United States unilaterally firing missiles into Syria, which would only make the situation worse as a result. Those options, such as getting Russia and China to vote with you through the United Nations, is more difficult, but the better way isn't always the easiest way especially when it comes to diplomacy.
The world's major governments, including the ones that support Mr. Assad, ignore the deployment of such weapons at all our peril. However, for military action to be justified, there simply has to be more of an international consensus, and we say that with the United States' national interests primarily in mind.
Round Table: former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; Director of the Wilson Center and fmr Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA); and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd
Congressional Guests: Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Rep. Mike McCaul (R-TX); Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA); and Rep. Pete King (R-NY)
Sunday, September 01, 2013
9.1.13: No Slam Dunk in Syria
As you can tell from the interviews and discussion on today's Meet The Press, there are no easy answers on what the United States should do in response to the apparent evidence that chemical weapons by the Assad regime on his own people, specifically sarin gas.
Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that on a moral basis the United States needs to act and stated that American credibility in the region and around the world is on the line. Mr. Kerry quashed the use of Mr. Gregory's term, 'slam dunk,' but instead used the phrase 'high evidence' that WMDs were used outside of Damascus, and if you've seen the footage, there is in fact little doubt that Bashir Assad has used chemical weapons.Given this evidence and the fact that Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are backing the Assad Regime, this is no time to unnecessarily beat up on President Obama politically because if one thing is clear at this point, the United States needs to act in a unified manner. This is to say that, what is first in the best interest of the country is that the President seek Congressional approval before moving ahead with military action. But understand that President Obama seemingly came to this decision only after he witnessed the British Parliament reject any military intervention in Syria with the U.S. as the lead. This isn't at all surprising given the fact that the last time the British followed us into war, it was a disaster. The president is playing a bit of politics here as he was prepared to go into Syria without Congressional authority, but now that he has called on Congress to give authorization, it will rightly shift the responsibility for the decision to both the Congressional and Executive branches of government.
And no matter what side of the political aisle you favor, you have to be satisfied with some of the thoughtful questions Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) brought up in today's interview. (Where we're quite leery when it comes Congressional wisdom is with House Speaker John Boehner. He's third in line to the presidency, and he's just no up to the task of leadership.) Senator Paul asked if a bombing campaign would worsen the refugee crisis in Jordan, which he seemed to think it would and we would agree. The problem there is that Jordan is a true ally of the United States and putting this kind of strain on them does not serve our interests well in the region. And this is where we would disagree with Senator Paul, the United States does have interests in the region that are affected by the civil war in Syria, and he named them - Russia and China as players in the region. China not so much as Russia and the reason is that Russia needs its access to the Mediterranean with its port located in Syria so it's in Russia's interest to back Assad. You might ask, doesn't Russia have any concern for the use of chemical weapons, and the answer is simply no. Remember, this is a Russian government that in the process of defeating Chechen rebels, conceded the deaths of hundreds of school children, so in other words Putin believes the means do justify the ends.
This is why the Obama Administration has been more deliberative, as Robert Gibbs put it in the round table discussion - Russia is a powerful rogue actor in this scenario that United States can in no way count on President Putin to be cooperative, and if for nothing else, be subversive to any action that could strengthen the United States' position. One can also ask where is the world community on this - the UN and the other regional players? Why did the British reject getting involved? And the reason is simple, one word - Iraq. The round table today discussed the U.S. credibility around the world, and it has been damaged, maybe not reparably but definitely for the foreseeable future. Katty Kay of the BBC cited it as the reason why the British Parliament said no to military intervention. Militarily, no one is assured of where U.S. leadership will take us.
In using military action, does the United States acting this way produce the right thing (what ever your interpretation is of that) ousting Assad from power and ending a civil war, in which WMD has been used, or does the United States escalate a proxy war with Russia and Iran. The latter scenario seems most likely, at least in the eyes of the British. We understand why Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) want to go bigger militarily because half measures in cases like this tend to fail, and their goal as Bill Kristol outlined is to get rid of the Assad Regime. These three men have always been overly hawkish, and what they are not fully considering is if the United States does succeed in toppling the Assad regime, what are we left with?
During the panel discussion, it was mentioned that the Syrian rebels feel abandoned by the U.S. because it has been slow to act, and Mr. McCain has made this point. However, and let's be clear, the United States should not act based on anything the Syrian rebels say. Just because their goal is the same as the United States' goal of toppling Assad, the rebels' interests beyond that most likely don't meet with U.S. interests. Is there intention to set up a democratic Syria? Unlikely. Would their control of the country be inclusive with no persecution of Christians in the country, a concern voiced by Senator Paul? Doubtful.
Moral imperative, though seemingly noble, is not enough to warrant United States intervention. The use of chemical weapons is a red line, the president was right about that. Secretary Kerry was correct that if we allow Assad to act with impunity he may turn and use them against one of our allies in the region.The United States has to go big here but not necessarily in a military capacity. The military action needs to be preventive in nature - a no-fly zone, an overwhelming amount of aid to Syrian refugees (win their support), and perhaps targeted strikes on suspected chemical weapons installations. Where the U.S. needs to go radically big is to hit the UN, the WMF, and all the countries in the region in the wallet to pressure them to end this crisis. It can no longer solely be on the shoulders of the United States to end crises around the world. The global economy relies on everyone and that's how it should trend with conflicts around the world as well.
Round Table: Editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol; co-anchor and managing editor of “The PBS Newshour,” Gwen Ifill, who interviewed President Obama this week; Former White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs; and anchor for BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Note: This week's Meet The Press is how every week should go - in depth interviews, staying on a few important topics and addressing them in detail so that one can achieve a full perspective on the pressing topic at hand.
Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that on a moral basis the United States needs to act and stated that American credibility in the region and around the world is on the line. Mr. Kerry quashed the use of Mr. Gregory's term, 'slam dunk,' but instead used the phrase 'high evidence' that WMDs were used outside of Damascus, and if you've seen the footage, there is in fact little doubt that Bashir Assad has used chemical weapons.Given this evidence and the fact that Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are backing the Assad Regime, this is no time to unnecessarily beat up on President Obama politically because if one thing is clear at this point, the United States needs to act in a unified manner. This is to say that, what is first in the best interest of the country is that the President seek Congressional approval before moving ahead with military action. But understand that President Obama seemingly came to this decision only after he witnessed the British Parliament reject any military intervention in Syria with the U.S. as the lead. This isn't at all surprising given the fact that the last time the British followed us into war, it was a disaster. The president is playing a bit of politics here as he was prepared to go into Syria without Congressional authority, but now that he has called on Congress to give authorization, it will rightly shift the responsibility for the decision to both the Congressional and Executive branches of government.
And no matter what side of the political aisle you favor, you have to be satisfied with some of the thoughtful questions Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) brought up in today's interview. (Where we're quite leery when it comes Congressional wisdom is with House Speaker John Boehner. He's third in line to the presidency, and he's just no up to the task of leadership.) Senator Paul asked if a bombing campaign would worsen the refugee crisis in Jordan, which he seemed to think it would and we would agree. The problem there is that Jordan is a true ally of the United States and putting this kind of strain on them does not serve our interests well in the region. And this is where we would disagree with Senator Paul, the United States does have interests in the region that are affected by the civil war in Syria, and he named them - Russia and China as players in the region. China not so much as Russia and the reason is that Russia needs its access to the Mediterranean with its port located in Syria so it's in Russia's interest to back Assad. You might ask, doesn't Russia have any concern for the use of chemical weapons, and the answer is simply no. Remember, this is a Russian government that in the process of defeating Chechen rebels, conceded the deaths of hundreds of school children, so in other words Putin believes the means do justify the ends.
This is why the Obama Administration has been more deliberative, as Robert Gibbs put it in the round table discussion - Russia is a powerful rogue actor in this scenario that United States can in no way count on President Putin to be cooperative, and if for nothing else, be subversive to any action that could strengthen the United States' position. One can also ask where is the world community on this - the UN and the other regional players? Why did the British reject getting involved? And the reason is simple, one word - Iraq. The round table today discussed the U.S. credibility around the world, and it has been damaged, maybe not reparably but definitely for the foreseeable future. Katty Kay of the BBC cited it as the reason why the British Parliament said no to military intervention. Militarily, no one is assured of where U.S. leadership will take us.
In using military action, does the United States acting this way produce the right thing (what ever your interpretation is of that) ousting Assad from power and ending a civil war, in which WMD has been used, or does the United States escalate a proxy war with Russia and Iran. The latter scenario seems most likely, at least in the eyes of the British. We understand why Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) want to go bigger militarily because half measures in cases like this tend to fail, and their goal as Bill Kristol outlined is to get rid of the Assad Regime. These three men have always been overly hawkish, and what they are not fully considering is if the United States does succeed in toppling the Assad regime, what are we left with?
During the panel discussion, it was mentioned that the Syrian rebels feel abandoned by the U.S. because it has been slow to act, and Mr. McCain has made this point. However, and let's be clear, the United States should not act based on anything the Syrian rebels say. Just because their goal is the same as the United States' goal of toppling Assad, the rebels' interests beyond that most likely don't meet with U.S. interests. Is there intention to set up a democratic Syria? Unlikely. Would their control of the country be inclusive with no persecution of Christians in the country, a concern voiced by Senator Paul? Doubtful.
Moral imperative, though seemingly noble, is not enough to warrant United States intervention. The use of chemical weapons is a red line, the president was right about that. Secretary Kerry was correct that if we allow Assad to act with impunity he may turn and use them against one of our allies in the region.The United States has to go big here but not necessarily in a military capacity. The military action needs to be preventive in nature - a no-fly zone, an overwhelming amount of aid to Syrian refugees (win their support), and perhaps targeted strikes on suspected chemical weapons installations. Where the U.S. needs to go radically big is to hit the UN, the WMF, and all the countries in the region in the wallet to pressure them to end this crisis. It can no longer solely be on the shoulders of the United States to end crises around the world. The global economy relies on everyone and that's how it should trend with conflicts around the world as well.
Round Table: Editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol; co-anchor and managing editor of “The PBS Newshour,” Gwen Ifill, who interviewed President Obama this week; Former White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs; and anchor for BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Note: This week's Meet The Press is how every week should go - in depth interviews, staying on a few important topics and addressing them in detail so that one can achieve a full perspective on the pressing topic at hand.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
8.25.13: The Fleeting American Dream
To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his immaculate "I Have A Dream" speech, today's program was dedicated to the status of the American Dream and what it means. The funny thing is that not one of the guests nor the moderator actually described what it is, as if assuming that everyone watching has the same idea of what it is. So what is the American Dream?
It used to be: a family with two kids, two cars, and a house, which is really to say that the American Dream was to have a little bit better life for you and your kids than your parents had. But that's not what is is now. Now, the American Dream is seen as achieved only if you've gotten rich, if you've 'made it,' what ever that means. The American Dream for most Americans today, is simply that... a dream.
And by the fact that there are few rich people relative to the rest of the popular, , the dream becomes harder to obtain, or at the very least the perception of that achievement is skewed and hence unrealized. More and more you're seeing that kids today will not be better off than their parents were, and this notion has reached the level of general consensus.
Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), the only living speaker from the 1963 March, outlined many positive changes in our country, but most of them have been social. That's not to say they aren't significant. The United States, like it or not, is much more socially progressive than other countries and we'll be the better for it. We say with full knowledge that there are times, like with the George Zimmerman trial, that will make it seem like that progress has collapsed, but it's not the case.
He also said that there are forces that create a sense of fear, that our country needs to be taken back, and he rhetorically asked, "Taken back to where?" This is a notion we could never reconcile with the Sarah Palin-types leading the Tea Party Movement. The say that we need to take the country back, and to Mr. Lewis' point - to where. Back to a false notion of the 50's when the social and economic order seemed more secure? That's what it always seemed like they meant. But the fact is that in the 1950's income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were twice as high as they are today and because of that, social services were more robust and public service positions (teacher, policeman, fireman) were realistic vital options for families to get a solid leg up. However, the same people who are demanding their country back are also saying that the government shouldn't have to help you because government is inherently bad. In cities and town all across this country you're seeing the laying off of public workers as tax revenues for municipalities are cut.
With what we've just said, Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) would accuse this column, as on the program he accused black political leaders, of only talking about hopelessness and despair instead of hope. It was a disingenuous shot he took that basically went without rebuttal. But what would he say to those people? How do you say to someone, "Hey, continue to have hope even though you should never expect anyone to help you." Ms. WuDunn cited a statistic that in the United States, 1 in 12 people move economically. Given that statistic, how can you agree with Congressman Labrador that the American Dream is alive and well?
Newark Mayor and Senatorial candidate Cory Booker said he's been disappointed on how difficult it is to get young people to think of public service and a cause bigger than themselves, but that's the kind of climate this country has created. Why would someone want to join government when all they've been told all their lives is that government is the problem.
If we continue to collectively believe that the achievement of the American Dream is directly tied to how much money you have in your wallet, it will be forever harder to obtain. It's about much more than that. It's about being able to live one's life with dignity and with the knowledge that if you play by the rules and work hard, you'll have the intrinsic sense that you've achieved a successful American life.
One of the greatest notions that makes up this American nation is a sense of optimism, that the American Dream is not just a dream, but something that can actually be realized. Right now, we're afraid, for most Americans today, that simply isn't the case.
Round table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); business executive and author, Sheryl WuDunn; President and Founder of the National Action Network, MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton; New York Times Columnist David Brooks; and presidential historian and author of “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream,” Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Postscript: At the end of the hour, Mr. Gregory interviewed Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and lauded him for taking on his own party with regard to education, who said at one time that Republicans can not be the 'stupid party.' The governor talked briefly about education and then immediately after said something stupid, which was that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced and that Republicans in Congress should do everything they can to defund the law. The reason we call this stupid is because not once have we heard a thoughtful alternative solution from Republicans on how to lower healthcare costs while insuring more people. When you ask them, "Replace it with what?" all you get are crickets...
More on Syria in a later column.
It used to be: a family with two kids, two cars, and a house, which is really to say that the American Dream was to have a little bit better life for you and your kids than your parents had. But that's not what is is now. Now, the American Dream is seen as achieved only if you've gotten rich, if you've 'made it,' what ever that means. The American Dream for most Americans today, is simply that... a dream.
And by the fact that there are few rich people relative to the rest of the popular, , the dream becomes harder to obtain, or at the very least the perception of that achievement is skewed and hence unrealized. More and more you're seeing that kids today will not be better off than their parents were, and this notion has reached the level of general consensus.
Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), the only living speaker from the 1963 March, outlined many positive changes in our country, but most of them have been social. That's not to say they aren't significant. The United States, like it or not, is much more socially progressive than other countries and we'll be the better for it. We say with full knowledge that there are times, like with the George Zimmerman trial, that will make it seem like that progress has collapsed, but it's not the case.
He also said that there are forces that create a sense of fear, that our country needs to be taken back, and he rhetorically asked, "Taken back to where?" This is a notion we could never reconcile with the Sarah Palin-types leading the Tea Party Movement. The say that we need to take the country back, and to Mr. Lewis' point - to where. Back to a false notion of the 50's when the social and economic order seemed more secure? That's what it always seemed like they meant. But the fact is that in the 1950's income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans were twice as high as they are today and because of that, social services were more robust and public service positions (teacher, policeman, fireman) were realistic vital options for families to get a solid leg up. However, the same people who are demanding their country back are also saying that the government shouldn't have to help you because government is inherently bad. In cities and town all across this country you're seeing the laying off of public workers as tax revenues for municipalities are cut.
With what we've just said, Congressman Raul Labrador (R-ID) would accuse this column, as on the program he accused black political leaders, of only talking about hopelessness and despair instead of hope. It was a disingenuous shot he took that basically went without rebuttal. But what would he say to those people? How do you say to someone, "Hey, continue to have hope even though you should never expect anyone to help you." Ms. WuDunn cited a statistic that in the United States, 1 in 12 people move economically. Given that statistic, how can you agree with Congressman Labrador that the American Dream is alive and well?
Newark Mayor and Senatorial candidate Cory Booker said he's been disappointed on how difficult it is to get young people to think of public service and a cause bigger than themselves, but that's the kind of climate this country has created. Why would someone want to join government when all they've been told all their lives is that government is the problem.
If we continue to collectively believe that the achievement of the American Dream is directly tied to how much money you have in your wallet, it will be forever harder to obtain. It's about much more than that. It's about being able to live one's life with dignity and with the knowledge that if you play by the rules and work hard, you'll have the intrinsic sense that you've achieved a successful American life.
One of the greatest notions that makes up this American nation is a sense of optimism, that the American Dream is not just a dream, but something that can actually be realized. Right now, we're afraid, for most Americans today, that simply isn't the case.
Round table: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID); business executive and author, Sheryl WuDunn; President and Founder of the National Action Network, MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton; New York Times Columnist David Brooks; and presidential historian and author of “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream,” Doris Kearns Goodwin.
Postscript: At the end of the hour, Mr. Gregory interviewed Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and lauded him for taking on his own party with regard to education, who said at one time that Republicans can not be the 'stupid party.' The governor talked briefly about education and then immediately after said something stupid, which was that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced and that Republicans in Congress should do everything they can to defund the law. The reason we call this stupid is because not once have we heard a thoughtful alternative solution from Republicans on how to lower healthcare costs while insuring more people. When you ask them, "Replace it with what?" all you get are crickets...
More on Syria in a later column.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
8.18.13: A Violent Summer After The Arab Spring
As the violence in Egypt escalates, many are going back and forth on what the United States' stance should be. Should we cut off aid, which mostly goes to the Egyptian military, or not? Are there any other measures that the Mr. Obama's Administration can take to quell the killing and unrest?
Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) felt that the United States should suspend financial aid ($1.5 billion per year) until the Egyptian military stops the violence and starts enacting democratic solutions (elections, rule of law, et al.). She said that the President came up short in his recent remarks on Egypt by not calling for aid suspension. Senator Reed's answer was a bit more nuanced but he came to the same conclusion to suspend aid. It would seem like the prudent thing to given the logic that our dollars are being used by a military that has killed some of it's own citizens.
However, just in course of the discussion on today's program, you are able to understand why cutting off aid is problematic. NBC Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel outlined two key factors as to why it wouldn't be a good idea. One, by cutting off aid to Egypt, the United States is essentially nullifying the Camp David Accords - the peace treaty, of biblical scale, between Egypt and Israel that is contingent of the U.S. giving aid to both countries. Based on that, our number one ally in the region doesn't want to see us pull the dollars and then go back to war footing with Egypt.
David Gregory, quoting a government official, said that in the course of this Arab Spring, there are centuries of sectarian and religious scores to settle. So given that long memory, the United States doesn't want to put itself in a position where we are the ones who break the historic deal we brokered.
By political extension, one could say that you're not a backer of Israel, if you're for the United States pulling the aid away from Egypt, a charge that always gives pause to American politicians. Therefore, the United States is best to consider our other allied partner countries in the region and not act, as is the usual, as if it is the only other player. From this, you have to appreciate that the president must choose his words carefully, and consider the ramifications for his decisions driven by consideration of a longer historical perspective. We say this, not so much in the defense of Mr. Obama in particular, but to recognize the responsibility of the office and the knowledge that comes with it. It doesn't make Senators Ayotte or Reed or Paul naive; it's simply a clear illustration of the difference between being in the position of a senator versus being the president.
Mr. Engel also reported that there is essentially an active insurgency in place formed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Our other allies - Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Qatar - feel that cutting off aid would make the insurgency even worse, and thus rendering tacit support for it and the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the military in opposition of a dogmatic Islamic [some would read that as 'extremist'] way of governing.
Yes, democracy is messy, as Senator Reed reminded us. Americans should remember the few wars this country had fought in the aftermath of our Revolutionary War (the undeclared war with France to establish our neutrality and the War of 1812, otherwise known as the Second War for Independence). Egypt's path, while of course tragic, is unavoidable given this level of political upheaval.
What to look for are the upcoming elections the Egyptian military is putting in place, but really all we're distressingly left with is Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Robin Wright's question - will the elections even be considered credible?
The only plausible transition that we can think of is as the violence continues overseas so does it here in the United States, given in a different manifestation. And despite the impressive numbers in reduction of violent crimes that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly outlined, it's not because of 'stop and frisk,' which NAACP President Ben Jealous accurately called a program.
The employment of the 'stop and frisk' program is understandable, which isn't to say that it's right or constitutional. Think about it... when two policemen get out of their car to 'stop and frisk' someone, what are they looking for? And don't say drugs. Unless a policeman is actually witnessing a drug buy, an individual taking drugs or erratic behavior, he is not going to stop. Policemen are searching for guns.
Once again, it all boils down to that - too many random, untraceable guns in circulation. 'Stop and Frisk' is a Constitutionally questionable program, driven by a culture of fear, employed in a futile attempt to keep illegal guns off the streets of New York City.
In a way, it's the antithesis of 'Stand Your Ground,' which encourages ordinary citizens to carry a gun and in effect determine their own sense of justice. However, when a law or a program has so many shadowy interpretations, there are bound to be abuses and incredible injustices such as racial profiling.
Both are driven by our culture of the gun, and whether the program seeks to extricate guns from the system or the law encourages an infusion of them, they are ultimately flawed and failed policies because neither does what they're designed to do - keep us safe or free.
Round Table: Former White House Press Secretary now an NBC News Political Analyst Robert Gibbs, Editor of the National Review Rich Lowry, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd.
Today's round table discussion focused on presidential politics when it should have really focused on foreign policy, something they never do anymore. There will be plenty of time coming to comment on the 2016 election, but we not going there now... too soon, with the exception to say this:
Robert Gibbs and Chuck Todd were surprised the Hilary Clinton would give a speech now that would clearly put her back in the middle of the political fray, and hence get too caught up in it too early. Why do this, Gibbs questioned while reminding us that Mrs. Clinton is the default 2016 Democratic candidate.
It may be jumping in too soon for Washington, but not for most people who aren't paying attention right now. Mrs. Clinton making a speech about the Voting Rights Act and racial discrimination to a base Democratic audience right now is a smart move. In August this far out, the scrutiny and criticism is as muted as it can be, but this is also the speech that the press will refer back to when citing her views on the subject. The press will drop it in two days and then refer back to it when it will eventually count, which would be during the Democratic primary.
Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) felt that the United States should suspend financial aid ($1.5 billion per year) until the Egyptian military stops the violence and starts enacting democratic solutions (elections, rule of law, et al.). She said that the President came up short in his recent remarks on Egypt by not calling for aid suspension. Senator Reed's answer was a bit more nuanced but he came to the same conclusion to suspend aid. It would seem like the prudent thing to given the logic that our dollars are being used by a military that has killed some of it's own citizens.
However, just in course of the discussion on today's program, you are able to understand why cutting off aid is problematic. NBC Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel outlined two key factors as to why it wouldn't be a good idea. One, by cutting off aid to Egypt, the United States is essentially nullifying the Camp David Accords - the peace treaty, of biblical scale, between Egypt and Israel that is contingent of the U.S. giving aid to both countries. Based on that, our number one ally in the region doesn't want to see us pull the dollars and then go back to war footing with Egypt.
David Gregory, quoting a government official, said that in the course of this Arab Spring, there are centuries of sectarian and religious scores to settle. So given that long memory, the United States doesn't want to put itself in a position where we are the ones who break the historic deal we brokered.
By political extension, one could say that you're not a backer of Israel, if you're for the United States pulling the aid away from Egypt, a charge that always gives pause to American politicians. Therefore, the United States is best to consider our other allied partner countries in the region and not act, as is the usual, as if it is the only other player. From this, you have to appreciate that the president must choose his words carefully, and consider the ramifications for his decisions driven by consideration of a longer historical perspective. We say this, not so much in the defense of Mr. Obama in particular, but to recognize the responsibility of the office and the knowledge that comes with it. It doesn't make Senators Ayotte or Reed or Paul naive; it's simply a clear illustration of the difference between being in the position of a senator versus being the president.
Mr. Engel also reported that there is essentially an active insurgency in place formed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Our other allies - Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Qatar - feel that cutting off aid would make the insurgency even worse, and thus rendering tacit support for it and the Muslim Brotherhood instead of the military in opposition of a dogmatic Islamic [some would read that as 'extremist'] way of governing.
Yes, democracy is messy, as Senator Reed reminded us. Americans should remember the few wars this country had fought in the aftermath of our Revolutionary War (the undeclared war with France to establish our neutrality and the War of 1812, otherwise known as the Second War for Independence). Egypt's path, while of course tragic, is unavoidable given this level of political upheaval.
What to look for are the upcoming elections the Egyptian military is putting in place, but really all we're distressingly left with is Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Robin Wright's question - will the elections even be considered credible?
The only plausible transition that we can think of is as the violence continues overseas so does it here in the United States, given in a different manifestation. And despite the impressive numbers in reduction of violent crimes that New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly outlined, it's not because of 'stop and frisk,' which NAACP President Ben Jealous accurately called a program.
The employment of the 'stop and frisk' program is understandable, which isn't to say that it's right or constitutional. Think about it... when two policemen get out of their car to 'stop and frisk' someone, what are they looking for? And don't say drugs. Unless a policeman is actually witnessing a drug buy, an individual taking drugs or erratic behavior, he is not going to stop. Policemen are searching for guns.
Once again, it all boils down to that - too many random, untraceable guns in circulation. 'Stop and Frisk' is a Constitutionally questionable program, driven by a culture of fear, employed in a futile attempt to keep illegal guns off the streets of New York City.
In a way, it's the antithesis of 'Stand Your Ground,' which encourages ordinary citizens to carry a gun and in effect determine their own sense of justice. However, when a law or a program has so many shadowy interpretations, there are bound to be abuses and incredible injustices such as racial profiling.
Both are driven by our culture of the gun, and whether the program seeks to extricate guns from the system or the law encourages an infusion of them, they are ultimately flawed and failed policies because neither does what they're designed to do - keep us safe or free.
Round Table: Former White House Press Secretary now an NBC News Political Analyst Robert Gibbs, Editor of the National Review Rich Lowry, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), and NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd.
Today's round table discussion focused on presidential politics when it should have really focused on foreign policy, something they never do anymore. There will be plenty of time coming to comment on the 2016 election, but we not going there now... too soon, with the exception to say this:
Robert Gibbs and Chuck Todd were surprised the Hilary Clinton would give a speech now that would clearly put her back in the middle of the political fray, and hence get too caught up in it too early. Why do this, Gibbs questioned while reminding us that Mrs. Clinton is the default 2016 Democratic candidate.
It may be jumping in too soon for Washington, but not for most people who aren't paying attention right now. Mrs. Clinton making a speech about the Voting Rights Act and racial discrimination to a base Democratic audience right now is a smart move. In August this far out, the scrutiny and criticism is as muted as it can be, but this is also the speech that the press will refer back to when citing her views on the subject. The press will drop it in two days and then refer back to it when it will eventually count, which would be during the Democratic primary.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
8.14.13: MTP Ratings Low, but Our Thank You
Columnist Jennifer Rubin, of The Washington Post, editorialized on the reasons why Meet The Pres is getting beaten in the ratings by both Face the Nation and This Week... and to a certain degree, we can not disagree with the litany.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/14/meet-the-worst-sunday-morning-show/?hpid=z4
We really like that she wrote this column. After all, it is a business, and it's the content that sells it so unforgiving observations are a necessity.
However, we'd like to offer criticism that's more constructive in tone. We've made it clear in the past that we're often baffled by the format and hence the pacing of the program. We don't have a real problem with the guest choices for the round table sessions per se, but two round tables in one program is too much.
We would suggest going a little bit more long form. Conduct an in-depth interviews with our Congress people, 18 minutes in length on a range of issues. If Meet The Press would like to have clips featured on the Huffington Post for something notable, it's better for something interesting that you got out of your guest's mouth instead of not doing so well in the ratings. The second segment could be rebuttal or perspective, but thoughtful counterpoint or further reporting (a reporter from a newspaper that's local to that politician, perhaps) on one of the subjects discussed. And maybe at the end, bring back something that resembles the Meet The Press Minute, but with a different twist, corresponding dates in the history of the program... We're not saying these are the answers, but just suggestions that better professionals could take as their own and run with.
As for our little column here, it's not great to hear that the program that your blog is based upon (and critiques) is the least popular of the Sunday political programming. But our hope is that we take what this great institution of a program offers us, and we run with the goal being that the points we've made transcend, if only a little bit, the dialogue that we've witnessed.
The support for this blog has grown, which has both startled and humbled this weekly column so we offer a very gracious thank you to all our readers. Thank you so much for reading.
We will continue our goal of contributing positive commentary that you find helpful and entertaining. Because, if it's Sunday....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/08/14/meet-the-worst-sunday-morning-show/?hpid=z4
We really like that she wrote this column. After all, it is a business, and it's the content that sells it so unforgiving observations are a necessity.
However, we'd like to offer criticism that's more constructive in tone. We've made it clear in the past that we're often baffled by the format and hence the pacing of the program. We don't have a real problem with the guest choices for the round table sessions per se, but two round tables in one program is too much.
We would suggest going a little bit more long form. Conduct an in-depth interviews with our Congress people, 18 minutes in length on a range of issues. If Meet The Press would like to have clips featured on the Huffington Post for something notable, it's better for something interesting that you got out of your guest's mouth instead of not doing so well in the ratings. The second segment could be rebuttal or perspective, but thoughtful counterpoint or further reporting (a reporter from a newspaper that's local to that politician, perhaps) on one of the subjects discussed. And maybe at the end, bring back something that resembles the Meet The Press Minute, but with a different twist, corresponding dates in the history of the program... We're not saying these are the answers, but just suggestions that better professionals could take as their own and run with.
As for our little column here, it's not great to hear that the program that your blog is based upon (and critiques) is the least popular of the Sunday political programming. But our hope is that we take what this great institution of a program offers us, and we run with the goal being that the points we've made transcend, if only a little bit, the dialogue that we've witnessed.
The support for this blog has grown, which has both startled and humbled this weekly column so we offer a very gracious thank you to all our readers. Thank you so much for reading.
We will continue our goal of contributing positive commentary that you find helpful and entertaining. Because, if it's Sunday....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)