7.26.15: Here We Are Now, Entertain Us

Not to completely discount the serious issues that are being brought up during the primary season, but that's what it's all about right now - entertainment.  The Republican primary in particular is its own poorly produced reality show with the press providing the cameras and the candidates trying to distinguish themselves with ever more ridiculous stunts and statements; all in the hope of unseating the ultimate reality star and Republican front-running presidential candidate, Donald Trump.

That was all just a mouthful of 'ugh.'

However, if this crazy Republican primary's goal is in fact to entertain us, here are a few suggestions to make it so.  First, since there are 16 candidates, there should be a debate tournament where the candidate highest in the polls faces off against the person with the lowest number.  As Chuck Todd pointed though, the lowest polling person will have to be drawn at lottery since more than a few have under one percent.  (What's interesting is that all these candidates under one percent are suffering from the Citizens United decision because they're not the ones getting the big checks.  If Citizens United were to be overturned, all the candidates would be on more equal footing and you'd hear more from people like Ohio governor John Kasich (R).)

Another way is that all the candidates have to submit a video like Rand Paul did - showing the candidate putting the tax code through a wood chipper.  Lindsey Graham could just re-edit his 'phone antics' video to make it about NSA surveillance.  And Marco Rubio could make an instructional video on how to stay classy.  (Marco Rubio saying that the President of United States has 'no class' is just stupid because unless you make the distinction of saying 'professionally without class,' calling someone classless is a personal attack.  That's how it comes off when Mr. Rubio has been using these terms and it just sounds petty. It's something that Mr. Rubio and Mr. Walker for that matter both suffer from, pettiness.)

Lastly, all the Republican candidates have to say something particularly derogatory about another Republican, not running for president.  Donald Trump implied (said, until he tried to take it back) that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was not a war hero, and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) a 'liar.' Supposedly the majority leader told his fellow Republicans that he wouldn't add amendments (controversial ones - the repeal of the AFA and the re-authorization of the Export-Import Bank)  to a transportation bill.  And again, we refer you to Senator Rubio calling the president 'classless.' They all have to do this because it seems like our politicians are incapable of restraining themselves from dishing out personal attacks on others. So now you have to be original because we love the fireworks! (As we've said before, if Senator McCain isn't a war hero then who is? And to say that he is not a 'hero' given how he conducted himself while captured, is to what.. suggest that he's the antithesis of that, a coward? As for Mr. Cruz, it seems like he violated the Senate's code of conduct as that term of discourse is forbidden when referring to other senators. Bottom line is that it was a cheap shot for a grab of attention and he should be censured for it. This continued prying off of any reasonable hold on serious political discourse, lead by Mr. Trump, is going to cause real damage to the Republican party in general.)

This 'entertainment factor' in the Republican primary is fostering of an overall distrust of the Republican party's ability to seriously lead, a distrust that eclipses the trust issues people have with Hillary Clinton, and that's saying something.

Ron Fournier, columnist for the National Journal, said that it basically comes down to the level of distrust voters have for Hillary Clinton, Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report agreed, and neither of them are wrong.  What tires us, and everyone else, about the Clintons in general is the perpetual flow of shenanigans constantly surrounding them.  Whether it's something that Sec. Clinton says or Pres. Clinton says or something that one of their friends did or said it continually begs the question - what now?

What Mrs. Clinton benefits from is that her campaign challenges are just the cutaway scenes in the broader show that is "Reality President."  You can't say it hasn't been entertaining.

Panel: Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Sara Fagen, fmr. political director, Bush White House; Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal

7.19.15: What the Iranian Nuclear Deal Means

The nuclear deal with Iran is a tricky one, no doubt.

England's Prime Minister David Cameron stated that it must be qualified as a success because it takes the prospect of a nuclear Iran off the tables for 15 years. We wouldn't go that far because the deal was an inevitability so it was the making best of a bad situation, especially given how New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman explained the lead up.  Mr. Friedman said that since the Iraq war was a failure for the United States, it took the military option in the region off the table in negotiations, and the Iranians recognized that. That assessment basically outlines the balance of leverage that the different sides have.

You have to weigh each sides hand against one another and for the United States that means potentially getting one big upside in exchange for a lot (and we mean a lot) of potential smaller downsides.  The big upside, of course, is that United States gets an Iran without nukes, but it could also mean that the Iranians have a lot more money, through the lifting of sanctions and through commerce, to play their proxy military terror games with.

We understand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has to denounce the deal as loudly as possible, but the agreement was necessary. The fact remains that Russian and China want to do commerce with Iran and they were going to start with or without a deal in place.  At that point, Iran will be free to proceed toward their goal of being a nuclear power. Iran is an existential threat to Israel, but we'd like that to be more in the conventional sense than in a nuclear one.

However, this is what really gets to us, where Republicans have a point, and that is this deal legitimizes Iran as a rational regional power without them having to change their behavior in the larger sense outside of the nuclear issue. You have to concede to Senator Tom Cotton's (R-AR) use of the term 'enabling,' clearly. And the fall down that was allowing the end of the conventional arms embargo ensures that it's full speed ahead with weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah.  More Kalashnikovs point in the direction of the United States and Israel is never a good idea.

Another big point that makes us uncomfortable is the 10-year period of stringent monitoring; it should have been 20 years.  This way, it's a true generational shift in the leadership of Iran and with that would come a change in attitude, possibly, as they would at that time be more integrated into the world economy.  It really speaks to the mentality of the two countries: For the United States, ten years is a long time, especially in politics, but a country like Iran has a much longer view of history and ten years is nothing.

The Iranians made this deal about more than just nuclear weapons and the United States, Britain and France, at least, should have insisted on the same.  Not having nuclear weapons for 10 years doesn't all of sudden make you a legitimate, rational actor in the region, with undo influence.  It's not just about nuclear proliferation, it's more than that. Fmr. governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) commented that we didn't even insist on a 'show of faith' with the releases of the 4 Americans in Iranian prisons, certainly a black eye for the Administration. The unfettered mindset that it is only about nuclear weapons, is the flaw in Secretary Kerry's thinking.

All right... We got that out... and now that we've said that piece, here's another: you sign off on it, and hold Iran to their word.  To skeptics that say Iran will most certainly cheat, we would argue to go into it with that assumption, and when cheating is verified then the deal is off anyway.  Congress should not vote it down and insist on a better deal because they're not going to get it, no chance. Republicans are going to have to buck their reputation of having ceremonious votes that will accomplish nothing.

(You can only hope that American intelligence agencies will use what ever means and then some to spy on Iran, to stay a few steps ahead of them.  More international commerce for Iran means more Iranians traveling abroad hence more intelligence targets.)

And speaking of 'accomplishing nothing,' there's presidential candidate Donald Trump, who just yesterday criticized Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in the senator's home state saying, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured? I like people who weren't captured." To paraphrase Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he's an idiot mouthing off who trying to land a TV show. We've never agreed with Senator McCain's overly hawkish positions, but he's definitely a American hero. If he's not, then who is?

And if you think that Donald Trump is destroying the Republican party brand, which he is, don't blame the press because we all know that celebrity news sells and you can't ignore that.  Blame goes to the Republican party who gave him crowning status in all those years he didn't declare himself as a candidate. Neither the character nor the temperament as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) put it.


Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Bill Richardson, fmr. Governor of New Mexico and US Ambassador to the UN.


A couple more things...
In the immigration debate between Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Raul Labrador (R-UT), Mr. Labrador said that we need to limit our legal immigration, which would draw a raised eyebrow, for sure. But then he went on to explain that our outdated system can not handle the volume.  Another term for federal computer systems is 'infrastructure,' something that Republicans do not want to raise one dime for through taxes to pay for.

And we can not come to accept that lone-wolf Islamic terrors acts are the new norm in this country as Michael Leiter described.  We're not there yet, but we're close - it's just that it is so randomly spread out that the American people don't sense the entire forest, and its constancy.

Lastly, as Chuck Todd admitted at the end, today's program covered a lot of ground, no joke.  Overall, Meet The Press is starting to get back up to spec., but it's not quite there yet.  Lots of good information today, lots to choose from if you happen to write a blog about the show, but they shouldn't be afraid of some longer form segments utilizing the panel as questioners.

7.12.15: Perspective on U.S. Adversaries

We'll concede Senator Corker's point that Mitt Romney's statement about Russia being our number one adversary isn't so far fetched, but it's still not correct. The Tennessee Senator himself explained that there are several significant concerns, not necessarily placing one of the other - to name a few: ISIS, the Iranian nuclear deal; and China... of course.

We'd like to hear more from the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate on China and what we're doing about cyber-security.  As Ret. Maj. Gen. Brett Williams explained, the hacking of the 21.5 million background checks from the Office of Personnel Management was an act of pure espionage.  Strategically, China tops the list of U.S. competitors for global influence, by far.  Putin wants a 'benevolent' dictatorship in Russia, but that's not what China is about at all. In fact, there's little likelihood that something like that would happen in China.  In addition to cyber-espionage, China has also been aggressive militarily in disputed waters with several of our Pacific-Rim allies, claiming islands and building bases. And then there is omnipresent economic entanglement.

Given all of that, it's unbelievable to hear Maj. Gen. Williams say that cyber-security and hence cyber-warfare doesn't figure into the overall strategic defense plan; that it is treated separately.  More discouraging was his statement that there is no will to make the difficult decisions to get anything done, translate to appropriate the money.  Perhaps worst of all is that there has been poor risk assessment... is that what defense is all about?

He also said something that we all know but always bears repeating, which is that we spend the money in the wrong places. It was only of some consolation that he demurred when Mr. Todd asked him if the United States is involved in cyber-espionage, giving a vague answer that the United States uses all the tools available for defense.  From the 'John Q. Public' perspective, the answer is, "We better be!" which has some wisdom in its simplicity.

And on Iran, we couldn't how politically versus factual based Senator Corker's statement about the negotiations being on a downward trend for a while actually was. We side with his concerns inspections and verification, and in the case we welcome a tempered conservative perspective on what's in the deal. That comes from no distrust of the Obama Administration as much as it does the Iranian regime. Mr. Corker was absolutely correct in saying the Iran will cheat by the inch. The reason for our certainty is that we all do it, given the opportunity in a particular situation, human nature.

It was good to hear Mr. Corker endorsing the Obama Administration in its forcing of the issue as it were. The United States has to because ultimately Russia and China are not as concerned as we are about Iran having nuclear capabilities, and if Iran having nuclear weapons benefits Russia and China's interests in the region then so be it.  Russia has been helpful in the negotiations because their interest is served by having Iran help them with eliminating Islamic extremists before they start to fully infiltrate into Chechnya.  However, does feel the same on that existential threat as the United States does when it comes to Iran's threat to Israel.

All of this comes into play while assessing Secretary Kerry's negotiating skills, with which Mr. Corker said he was not impressed.  However, with the details of the deal apparently coming this week, we'll have to leave it at, "We''ll see."

***

What separates the pros from us are articulated statements like Matt Bai's of Yahoo News, in which he said that, "Her [Governor Nikki Haley's] journey on the flag is the Republicans' journey on the flag." Concise and true. When asked about her profile being on the rise, Ms. Haley responded that she thinks about the Emanuel 9, as she called them, and the effect their deaths have had on the state of South Carolina in particular let alone the country. Providing some perspective on 'Ms. Haley's journey,' it's the first time that Southern conservative politicians have really begun to understand the meaning of that flag through the eyes of African Americans, and they have begun to see the horror in it.

And when the victims' families showed that there is no political high ground in terms of Christian forgiveness, the effect on southern republican thinking was profound.


Panel: Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian; Maria Hinojosa, NPR; Matt Bai, Yahoo! News; Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute


One Last Thing...
And the Trump Effect is real, and it's wreaking havoc in the Republican primary and with the RNC. Chairman Reince Priebus is a chump if he thinks Mr. Trump is going to listen to him on anything. Trump knows that people buying what he's selling, not the Republican National Committee, and because of it the damage to the Republican Party will be felt hard.  The politician that benefits the most from all this turmoil is Hillary Clinton because moderate Republicans, especially woman, will ultimately migrate to her.

7.12.15: The Ted Cruz Interview

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) used the term 'true believer' to describe President Barack Obama when praising the president's passion when it came to fighting for what he believed in.  Then in the next breath, Mr. Cruz praised Donald Trump for being the one to bring up the immigration debate.

These two points speak directly to why Mr. Cruz would not be a good president and by extension a poor candidate and even by extending further a failed leader in the Senate.

First, Mr. Cruz lacks sound and shrewd tactics on every political level.  In coming out in support of Donald Trump, he is illustrating poor judgement of sound political tactics.  In the case of the government shutdown, he bullied through the door getting his shutdown over healthcare and then embittered other Republicans because he had no endgame. For his filibuster all it is remembered for - the joke clip that will be forever used in b-roll - is when he recited Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham.  Poor Tactics.

Another point is that he doesn't, or isn't willing to, recognize how people view him, he has very little self-awareness, which is interesting in as much as it's a trait of being cocky, a state of being he thought he shed when he said that he wasn't picked to serve in the Bush Administration; being the "Michael J. Fox in American President." The Bush Administration didn't want Ted Cruz because he is the true believer himself, and they certainly were not, not on small government and social issues.  Mr. Cruz wanted to be the one saying, "Do the right thing, Mr. President," and that's exactly what they didn't need.

We respect the fact that Mr. Cruz remains strong in his convictions and political beliefs, though with many we disagree. However, it is difficult to take those views seriously when such buffoonery occurs trying to impose those views on resistant forces.  If President Obama is as to the left as Mr. Cruz says he is being his polar opposite on the right, the Senator from Texas doesn't seem to recognize what separates the two of them when comparing levels of success. Mr. Obama seems the long game and prepares for a long debate - plans long and sees long. And his administration is keenly aware of what people are saying - constantly pushing buttons to influence thinking.

Speaking of influencing thinking, it's never going to happen when you propose that judges should run for election as Mr. Cruz did. This is even a matter of bad tactics as much as it is just simply a stupid idea, not thought out for even a second.

At the very cynical least, in his defense of Donald Trump, Mr. Cruz makes the unforced error of also offending the Hispanic community, one where he should be a leader, and not understanding that he would need those votes. Unlike Rand Paul, Ted Cruz makes no attempt to speak effectively to constituency groups that have different views from his own. You can't lead America if you don't want to consider and talk to most Americans.

As for the rest, you get the point...

(full post on this week's "Meet The Press" coming shortly.)

6.29.15: Supreme Court Decisions in 'Just Another' American Week

What a week... Or ten days as it were...

-Republicans siding with President Obama on the Pacific trade pact
-Confederate Flags being removed from state houses throughout the South
-The Supreme Court uploading a provision of Obamacare, essentially saving it
-ISIS orchestrating three near simultaneous terror attacks in three continents - Tunisia, Yemen and
  France
-The return of the Supreme Court to render that marriage equality is the law of the land
-President Obama delivering an inspired foundation-grounding eulogy for Reverend Clementa
  Pinkney leading the congregation through "Amazing Grace"

And those are even come close to covering it... Welcome to the world.

The moderator, Chuck Todd, had it correct that these past ten days cement President Obama's legacy and also bring it into distinct focus, the good and the bad.

The two Supreme Court decisions were to be expected, frankly.  The Obamacare challenge should have never even come up, but that it had and now that the court has issued its ruling, repeal mentioned by Governor Bobby Jindal in his interview today (R-LA) is not a political reality. And the only thing that Republicans are gathering consensus is a feeling of relief. Now that the court has ruled they can continue to rhetorically oppose the law without the responsibility of coming up with a viable alternative.  Obamacare may be flawed, for certain, but the truly disingenuous political games that Republicans have been playing - e.g. wasting time and tax payers' money with 50+ votes for repeal in the House - make you want to root for the law's success.

Though Justice John Roberts said that people across the country can celebrate the decision but not the reading of the Constitution that brought the decision about. Once again we turn to Mr. Jindal who said that he strongly opposes the Supreme Court's ruling because it's an attack on religious liberty and how it could man redefine an institution created by God? Obviously, five justices disagreed with Judge Roberts but even given the conflict of interpretation, in a less binding but equally significant document, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," which we now rightfully include women, understanding that it means both.  For Mr. Jindal's part, the notion that religious liberty is being thwarted in some way is ridiculous because when you consider and equate religious liberty to religious tolerance, the United States is more religiously tolerant than ever before. And marriage is a man-made tradition inspired by a belief in God, but still man-made which can be changed.

Mr. Jindal also explained that when it comes to race relations in the United States, he has spoken many times on the subject and is a strong advocate of racial equality.  This is great that Mr. Jindal believes that no one in the United States should be discriminated against based on race, but gender and sexual identity is a completely different story? He mentioned the first amendment and if his reasoning for being against marriage equality is because it goes against God then that's a potential attack on that very amendment, which says that no law shall be made with respect to religion. (Our first amendment is quite pliable.)

It may seem like a lot of rapid social change going on a once, but the reality is that both racial and sexual-orientation justice have been a long long time in the making, as Newt Gingrich pointed out in the case of gay rights with the riots of Stonewall occurring 46 years ago. He also said that once same-sex marriage started happening in one state, there was no going back and that it was a just a matter of time before all states recognized it.

It has been all those little unrecognized transformational moments, drawn from pain from agony, that have come before to deliver 'just another one' like those delivered upon this week.

As for the Confederate Flag, we think you know where we stand. In the laws of social physics, there's only so much pressure that can build up before things blow [read: change dramatically]. 

With regard to Mr. Obama's presidency, his legacy and the credit to be given, the panel considered the term 'transformational.' His presidency is hyper-historic and his legacy, two defining aspects will be the Affordable Care Act and the significant social change that happened during his two terms. Kathleen Parker posed the question as to how much credit President Obama should receive for all this. We'd come down on the answer of 'a lot' but not 'all.' The president gets the credit because it is his administration that sets the tone, makes the arguments, presents the agendas and forces its position requiring others to respond. 

Senator Ted Cruz's (R-TX) response was to call this week's one of the darkest in our history. Mr. Jindal said that if the country wanted to save money, it should get rid of the court as it is reading neither the Constitution nor the dictionary; if so, what makes him think they are reading the Bible either? It's not required reading for the justices. Mr. Todd asked him why Louisiana is the only state not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, Mr. Jindal responded by trying to dismiss this fact and half-heartedly gave a few 'procedural' answers. 

But the real reason is that he doesn't like it hence the state is dragging its feet, a passive aggressive move not good if you're running for president; all because he believes it goes against the teachings of the Bible. Now that's taking religious liberties.


Panel: Charles Ogletree, Harvard University; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University; Newt Gingrich, Republican at Large


Quick Note...

Governor Jindal and Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) for that matter getting into the presidential race will bring the official count for the 'why not me' primary to 14, and this number doesn't include probable entrant Governor Scott Walker (R-WI).  First, at 15 hopefully the party will feel it's reached its quota for candidates. We sit and hear the argument for Mr. Walker, but Mr. Jindal and Mr. Christie? Please, why?  They must be running for cabinet positions, in which the joke would be on us when Mr. Christie is appointed Secretary of Transportation. Secondly, this many candidates with bomb-throwing tempers could have a gladiatorial political death effect on some careers.  But what ever, why not me?

6.21.15: Deflecting and Diffusing Questions Doesn't Work on Us Anymore

Even though Mr. Todd prefaced the video by saying that it only featured African-American men, but it was in no way a comment about the racial component of gun violence.  As managing editor, Mr. Todd made the wrong decision in choosing to air it with given its inadequate representation of diversity. All the caveats and explanations given before are not going to overcome the visual presentation.  Despite David Brooks becoming choked up, the backlash was to be expected.

We understand the message of the video and the heart of it seems well placed, but for a national audience on "Meet The Press" given what just happened in Charleston, it showed poor judgement not recognizing an obvious shortcoming.

The goal of showing the video was to further the discussion and although it did not turn out how the "Meet The Press" intended, it was successful in extending the discourse in as much as that whites should have that honest conversation with themselves about their attitudes toward race.  There is a constant posture of deflect and diffuse, to be so careful in what one says that nothing actually gets said, hence nothing done.  Eugene Robinson shouldn't have to point out that this was a racist act of terror perpetrated by a white man and that the two murders who recently escaped prison were also white.  Helene Cooper apologized for her cynical answer when it came to guns control law, because she reasoned that if we weren't going to pass any meaningful gun laws after twenty kindergarten kids were senseless murdered then why we would do anything after a white guy guns down 9 African-Americans in a church.  However, she shouldn't have apologized because it stems from the frustration that we all feel in our leaders who are beholden to the gun lobby (among others).

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee offered very little in the form of consolation in term of having an honest dialogue about race as he deflected question after question avoiding giving an honest answer on everything during his interview.  When asked about the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina state house, he said that it was a matter of states' rights. And we understand that Mr. Huckabee is a man of faith and we don't begrudge him that, but faith alone is not going to solve the problem.  He also said that there were bigger issues to be addressed like the economy and defense of the country. But isn't he missing (or denying) the point entirely? The Confederate flag is a symbol of racism for many in this country and it is a touchstone in the conversation about race relations in this country, which is a major issue.  It's disconcerting that Mr. Huckabee is not more sensitive to this social dynamic and what has been going on in cities across the United States.  Mr. Huckabee keeps a rational tone when giving non-answers to questions or, as we explained before, deflecting to a different topic, but it makes us conclude that he would govern very differently from what he is selling on the campaign trail, at least when in the national eye.

One more point on this: Mr. Huckabee doesn't believe in man-made climate change and instead of addressing Mr. Todd's question about whether he agreed with Pope Francis on the subject, he instead talked about responsible energy policy, which sounds nice but there was nothing concrete in his answer. When pressed again about it, he said that the Pope covered many topics like abortion, and then he went on about that.

We happen to agree with Pope Francis that man's activity are accelerating climate change, between all the greenhouse gas emissions and the plastic island the size of Texas, three-feet deep, floating in the Pacific Ocean most certainly are created by man and neither is good for the health of the planet.  And let us also point out that we strongly disagree with any politician saying that the Pope shouldn't weigh in on political issues; lest we remind them that not only is the head of the Catholic Church, but he's also a head of state, the Vatican state.


[On a programming note, today's "Meet The Press" had a great panel - all journalists - and what would have made the Mike Huckabee interview better would have been if he actually met the press and each panelist asked one question of the candidate.  It's part of our general feeling that the panel isn't utilized enough or quite appropriately. Take out one of the shorter segment - don't do them every week - and extend the interview when it's an interview of significance.  (Which makes us think, maybe Mr. Huckabee doesn't meet that criteria.)]

And a little bit more on the Confederate Flag... Leave it again to Eugene Robinson to educate us and explain that the flag has only been flying above the state house since 1961.  He explained that it was basically a 'middle finger' to the Federal Government in response to Civil Rights legislation.  Another reason that it should come immediately: The entire motivation for flying it again was because of prejudice.

And for the record, Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) pointed out that the stars and bars isn't actually the flag of the Confederacy but a battle flag.  Well, the South may have started with one, but they certainly ended with another.  We've pasted both in below so you know what the real one looks like.  However, one shouldn't be replaced with the other - both still need to go.

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; David Brooks, The New York Times (columnist); Gerald Seib, The Wall Street Journal; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post.


A couple more notes...
1. We're in simply wonder of the strength that these grieving families have in the wake of this unspeakable act.  To even come on the program and speak with such love, dignity, and yes, faith speaks to the best of this country.

2. He was mentioned ever so briefly during the program, but Donald Trump's candidacy will be short-lived, mark our words.  And ask yourself, after giving such an insidious race-baiting speech, then having nothing constructive to say after the tragedy in Charleston, would you vote for such a person?  That's an example of representing the worst of America.

6.19.15: Bury The Confederate Flag

Congressman (former Governor) Mark Sanford (R-SC) said that the Confederate Flag is a very complicated issue for the people of South Carolina.  He said that while he understands that some may view it as a symbol of racism, others view it as a symbol of the heritage of the state and of state’s rights or that it serves as a reminder that someone’s great great grandfather fought and died in a uniquely American war.

Those are cowardly reasons.  The fact is that the Civil War has been over for 151 years and the South lost.  Let me repeat: The South lost.

And the continuing “tribute” to the Southern soldiers who fought and died in the war is not honorable at all.  While surely brave, those soldiers fought and died under the banner of the Confederate flag for a cause to perpetuate enslavement of other people, other Americans as it turns out.  Your great, great grandfather who fought for the South was not fighting for a noble cause, so these soldiers should be remembered not celebrated.  And the Confederate flag, a symbol of white supremacy, should be appropriately relegated to the discarded ashes of history.

All this poetic lead up is almost frivolous to the essential question for white South Carolinian politicians right now, which is “What are you so afraid of in getting rid of that racist symbol?”  What? Your white constituents will vote you out of office?  If that’s your worry then your leadership skills should be brought into question.  And if you support that symbol, then categorize yourself appropriately – bigot at the least, racist at the utmost.

Honestly, it doesn’t take that much courage to vote to have it removed, and every excuse for keeping it simply illustrates bigotry on the part of the person supporting these ‘reasons.’  Any Southern politician who defends the continued flying of the Confederate flag is a coward, pure and simple.

Obviously, I’m not from the South (I lived there - South Carolina as a matter of fact, beautiful state, wonderful people - but I'm not from there) so I must not understand the nuance and history… but what really is there to understand?  I mean, really?  

It’s funny that in a country that can not remember history of three years ago, somehow can not seem to let go this particularly horrible aspect of our past.

Here’s a history lesson: At the time of the Revolution, representatives from the Northern colonies proposed the elimination of slavery, but the only way to get the Southern colonies on board in collective defiance of England was to declare African-Americans as three-fifths of a person.  A ludicrous notion, but that was the compromise.  So when someone says that the civil war was about more than just the ownership of other humans, the other factors are all ones that could have been negotiated without firing a shot.

It’s time to completely bury this symbol of the Confederacy.  It doesn’t serve as a cautionary reminder of what we all call the original sin of the United States.  It’s continued display only empowers bigotry without penance.

But what do I know...

The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/19/why-south-carolinas-confederate-flag-isnt-at-half-mast-after-church-shooting/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3

The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/20/us/charleston-shooting-reignites-debate-about-confederate-flag.html?rref=us&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&pgtype=article

6.14.15: Relationships Matter

It feels like forever since we've written a piece so we're so glad to be back.  What's odd is that we haven't written in three weeks but have only missed one show, which was on the 31st of May, a "Campaign Special," which would have to be programmed over multiple dates because of the ridiculous number of Republican candidates, and Jeb Bush is set to announce tomorrow... But we always knew that he would.

We would count Jeb Bush in the 'good candidate' column, as opposed to say Ted Cruz who would be placed in the 'stupid candidate' list. Unfortunately, you can not separate them in these terms for the purposes of a debate.  There would be the policy debate and a separate one called the red meat debate.  But Mr. Bush is a good candidate for Republicans. That's not to say we think he's going to win or that we agree with his policies, no.  What we are saying is that he's conservative but has some more moderated views very different from his base, namely immigration.  Let's face it, if Republicans want to win the presidency, it's going to take a moderate candidate.  It's a complete fallacy to believe that someone like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum or the aforementioned Mr. Cruz could ever be elected.  We sure they're nice people (well, maybe not Mr. Cruz), but they would all be horrible as presidents of the United States.  Mitt Romney in his interview explained his previously use of the term 'chaos' as a description of the Republican primary in 2012.  He said that Republicans attacking Republicans makes things messy.

There's also the other thing with Mr. Bush - Jeb! There isn't any reference to 'Clinton' in Hillary's logo either.  Obviously, these dynasty candidates (one of the themes of today's program) have to shed a bit of the baggage that comes with their sir names; there is no doubt.  But make no mistake, it's much more difficult to overcome the association to disastrously imbecilic foreign policy that was the Iraq War than it is being associated with the 'go-go' 90's.  Interestingly, Mr. Obama's campaign logo was all about his last name, the big 'O.'

Mr. Todd put a lot of focus on the number of issues Mrs. Clinton covered in her rally speech on yesterday and the amount of time put toward each.  But this is the first rally of her campaign, the first of many to come so of course she's going to cover a lot of bases.  Mrs. Clinton will follow the standard candidate model with signature speeches coming in specific locations; e.g. Mr. Obama's speech in Philadelphia on the topic of race. This kind of drill down with regard to her kick-off campaign rally is unnecessary. 

The reason we bring it up is that in the last month (calender), Meet The Press hasn't discussed (especially this week) the big looming decisions that are about to be issued by the Supreme Court - one addressing same-sex marriage and marriage equality in all of the country and the other with regard to Obamacare.  The latter effects some 6 to 7 million people.  And not a word...  Is this on Mr. Todd or the producers? Both, probably.  If overlooked, it's like not hitting a pitcher throwing a grapefruit; and if a choice not to include, a poor one.

The panel agreed, obviously Stephanie Cutter, that no one gives a speech like Mr. Obama and for Mrs. Clinton to try and match that, it would be embarrassing.  But what came out of the discussion is worth mentioning.  Andrea Mitchell explained that Mrs. Clinton is portraying herself as a fighter [for the middle class].  Then the comment came that she would be the one to finish things that Barack Obama started but didn't have the mettle to complete.  In other words, one could say he was laying the groundwork.  We don't totally buy that.  And we do not agree with Hugh Hewlitt who assesses Mrs. Clinton's term as Secretary of State as a disaster.  By no means was it great, but picking up at the tail end of the Iraq War really handicap your odds of success.  Was she laying the groundwork for now Secretary Kerry?  One could argue, yes.

And since we're headed in that direction, it brings us to the subject of trade and this week's vote in the House.  What happened was that Democrats didn't back the president's wish for the administration to first negotiate a trade deal with other countries, fast track it, before bringing it to Congress for approval.  So when William Daley pointed out that it's smart for Mrs. Clinton to not comment, he's right because there is no trade deal per se.  This was all about the parameters in which the president is allowed to negotiate.

You could say that if all it does is give the president the ability to negotiate first, but Congress still has final say, then why not let the administration have that ability?  If it were only so easy.  If the administration has the ability to bring up trade deals with a sole up or down vote, because that's how it could be - a take it or leave, then it's a no-win situation for anyone in any aisle in Congress.  Remember, congresspeople have to live with these deals, presidents don't.  The last major trade deal was NAFTA, where President Bill Clinton got a lot of Republican votes, which candidate Hillary Clinton would now oppose.  Manufacturing in the United States suffered terribly from NAFTA.

But President Obama needed this negotiating power, because it's the only way something that needs to get down, actually happens.  Mr. Daley is wrong, we completely agree with Andrea Mitchell, in that relationship building is vitally important to be effective at your job, even if your job is President of the United States. We understand that Mr. Obama would be reticent to reach out to Republicans after conservative leaders let pass some really despicable language during the presidential campaigns and the 'You lie' and all that.  But to not be constantly reaching out to Democrats so that you not only know them but more importantly they know you, then how would you expect them to back you? Essentially, giving you full control of foreign economic policy.  When we put it like that, even Republicans would take pause before giving Mr. Obama that kind of power... and they were for it.

Mr. Romney admitted today that one of the flaws in his campaign was that he didn't reach out to minority voters soon enough, and we would add as much as he should have.  As a incredibly success businessman, one where the moderator of the program nominates you to head FIFA, he should have known that when doing business with lots of different groups, one has to tackle the most difficult relationships first. 

Relationships matter because if you have the right one, then you might just have the money to run for president.


Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Stephanie Cutter, former Obama Administration official; Evan Thomas, author


One Last Thing:  In addition to the high reverence we place on Meet The Press in calling it the 'news program of record' (being the first television program), one other big reason we started this blog is the tremendous respect we have for Tim Russert's approach to politics.  It inspired us (me) to comment and has continued to do so these years after his passing.

5.17.15: Which Candidate Can Lead America's Rebuilding?

Just when you think you know what you're talking about, Jeb Bush comes out and has the highest profile worst week of any presidential candidate. In last week's column, discussing “Meet the Press's” ‘donor series’ featuring Sheldon Adelson, we had said that Jeb Bush seemed to be the safe bet based on what Sheldon Adelson was looking for in a candidate. But after this week, Jeb Bush may have really taken himself out of the running. We disagree with Chuck Todd when he said of Mr. Bush’s statements today that right now it is relevant but down the line not so much. We think that this will continue to be relevant throughout the entire primary season and it's definitely going to loom large in the first debate, whether Jeb Bush participates in that first one or not.

And the reason is because video exists. Megyn Kelly of Fox News asked Mr. Bush if he knew then what he knows now, would he have made the same decision as his brother, George W and gone to war. Jeb Bush, for his part, was prepared for an Iraq question but not phrased that way – we’ll give him that. He had prepared for, would you have done the same with the intelligence available at the time? We fully understand that he either misheard it or interpreted it wrong or somehow heard the question that he wanted to hear, but in our opinion, either way the answer should have been ‘no.’  The conservative-friendly answer that he should have given in the first place was ‘knowing what we know now, we would have not gone into Iraq, but four days later was plenty of time for other Republican candidates to attack him from all flanks.

With the exception of Jeb Bush, all the other candidates have Monday morning quarterbacked the Iraq War efficiently enough for Americans know where each one stands. So instead of ‘relevant now, not relevant later’ this could be the week we look back and say Jeb Bush took himself out of the running.

In the interview with Rand Paul, he didn't go as far as to say that we are better off with dictators in the Middle East, but certainly affirmed as much. Let's face it, we let the genie out of the bottle in the Middle East and the radicals killed the genie. The only thing that we agreed with Sarah Fagan today was that Rand Paul was asking the right question of Hillary Clinton, which was ‘knowing what you know now would you go into Libya?’

Getting back to Iraq for a moment, the reason that we had this Delta force operation over the weekend goes back to George W. Bush's decision to invade, as will all operations moving forward against ISIS.  We agree that the symbolism and psychological effective of this successful attack where Delta force soldiers went deep into ISIS territory, killed their chief financier, grabbed a wealth of information and captured his wife is incredibly significant… and incredibly risky. For the U.S. military to commit to such an operation, the CIA must have been convinced that knowing what this man knew was vital in defeating ISIS .If one U.S. soldier were captured the consequences of that would have escalated military involvement tenfold within a month.

Returning to presidential candidates for a moment and thinking about the foreign policy and domestic economic challenges that the United States faces, we examine the full presidential field of candidates - both Republican and Democrat. We don't see any of these individuals being able to significantly move the needle in a way that positively affects the lives of middle-class, and aspiring middle-class, Americans.

The panel today was absolutely right about Hillary Clinton in that she has not put forward a vision for where she wants to take this country. She's not out there answering questions we don't know what her ideas are. Helene Cooper she is seeing Mrs. Clinton making the same mistakes as she did in 2008, which is disturbing and has to be really discouraging for all of her supporters. That there is no alternative challenge for her is a major problem. And in terms of the Republican field, we look across the entire scope and don't see one individual that is capable of leading all of America - not just the Republican Party, but all Americans. We just don't see it.

It is beyond our comprehension that not one of these candidates has come out and unequivocally said that we need to improve the infrastructure of this country.  The United States has to reorganize its priorities and sacrifice to do this.  Since Republicans control both the House and Senate, we comprehend their wantonness to cut taxes, but there are so many tax dollars at the top of the chain that are not collected that could help this country rebuild its infrastructure.

A graphic on today's program outlined that most of the train travel in this country is done in Democratic states, making Republicans less inclined to vote for train transportation. This is ridiculous and divisive. Most train travel occurs in California and the Northeast corridor. The Northeast corridor is responsible for 1/5 of the economy - 20%. California is the eighth largest economy in the world. Yet, our leaders do not seem to understand the implication of those statistics, and the necessity of this public transportation. In these terms, they just suck.

The sad, end result of the Amtrak train crash in Philadelphia is Washington voices such as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) rhetorically asking why we would extend funding for Amtrak and Republicans accusing Democrats of politicizing the issue. This was political as soon as it happened.   

What American people are really saying is that we don’t want it to be political; we just want better, safer ways to get around and nicer trains.  

Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ) is on to the right idea.

Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; David Axelrod, fmr. senior Advisor to President Obama; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Sara Fagen, fmr. White House Political Director