3.27.16: Super Zombies Control the Party Nominations

In this election cycle for both Democrats and Republicans it seems as though it is less about the electoral vote than it is about delegates, specifically what we'll call the super zombies.  As Ben Ginsberg explained, zombie delegates in the Republican party are ones beholden to no one, just as super delegates in the Democratic party.

These super zombies are going to get who they want in the general and it's pretty clear that on the Democratic side of things their choice is Hillary Clinton, despite what Bernie Sanders said in his interview of beginning to convince some of the super zombies to get on his side after he swept yesterday's caucuses in Hawaii, Alaska and Washington. He's not going to convince enough of them that's for sure because it's also clear that in the bigger states where primaries are held, not caucuses, - e.g. New York and California - Sec. Clinton fares much better than Senator Sanders.

However, if Senator Sanders wins the primary vote, why wouldn't the super zombies not support him because polls show that both he and Sec. Clinton beat Donald Trump in the general election. Here's the thing about the super zombies, in both parties they form their the establishment, center-right and center-left, but still center. So where in the Democratic party the electorate views them with scorn and cynicism - part of the problem.

In the Republican party, however, the super zombies are viewed by many as the saviors from political chaos and insanity that has manifested itself in the form of Donald Trump. If Mr. Trump doesn't have the required 1,237 delegates come the convention the super zombies will come in and throw their support behind another candidate, eat up all the Trump supporters and through them behind another candidate, saving the party from itself.

The problem is that these delegates like zombies, if they do that at the convention, have no plan for the "Now, what?" Mr. Trump's supporters as we've said previously are going to go with him, where ever he goes. Mr. Todd pointed out on today's program that Senator Cruz tweeted that Donald Trump is not a Republican, which leaves him an out on the 'supporting the nominee' pledge.

But however he justifies backing out of this pledge, as Hallie Jackson explained, it's a problem for Senator Cruz who prides himself as a man of his word, no matter how wrong those words are. And it is because of wrong words that Senator Cruz is wrong in thinking that the delegates have his back at the convention.

As much as Mr. Trump has disqualified himself to be president because as Andrea Mitchell explained he has no basic knowledge of foreign policy, stunning so, (See the referenced Trump interview with The Washington Post editorial board: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-met-with-donald-trump-electing-him-is-still-a-radical-risk/2016/03/21/bfbe5498-ef90-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html) Senator Cruz inspires little more confidence or competence with five words:  Patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods.

In the wake of the ISIS terror attacks in Brussels, that was exactly the wrong thing to say here in The United States primarily because it goes against the laws and principles on which the country exists, not that it matters during an election season that on the Republican side has gone way off the rails. Coupled with irresponsible statement was the sad descent of the 'political' discourse into talking about the candidates wives.

For Gov. John Kasich's part, we don't necessarily agree that a vote for him is a vote for Donald Trump, but we don't really disagree either. He surely is pulling votes away from Ted Cruz but just how many or enough? Either way, we like that John Kasich is staying in the race and staying on positive message as the 'told you so' candidate for the Republicans because when it's all said and done, he won't be the nominee but would have been the one to win.

For example, Gov. Kasich said in reaction to failures by the Belgian government leading up to the attacks, he offered that the NATO alliance needs to be reformed into not only a military alliance but a 'policing and intelligence' alliance.  We would agree to the extent that NATO should coordinate all the member intelligence, but we disagree with the policing aspect. Point being is that you can reasonably discuss and argue the merits of these points with John Kasich.

But if not him, then who?

At the top we mentioned that all super zombies (delegates) occupy the same space hovering around the center where you also find the Republican suburban women's vote, and as Andrea Mitchell pointed out, the Clinton campaign (she being the most 'moderate Republican/centrist Democrat' in the race) feels that it can capture it. She can, and she will if the Republican nominee is either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz (Criminally investigating Planned Parenthood is not popular with women.).


Panel: NBC News Campaign Reporting Team: Andrea Mitchell, Kristen Welker, Hallie Jackson, Katy Tur

One more thing...

Happy Easter! If you celebrate this most holy of Christian holidays then we wish you particularly well this weekend.

With that said, here's an informative (and short) article by Rollo Romig in The New Yorker on how Muslims view Jesus: http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/how-muslims-view-easter

No matter what you believe, we'll leave you this week with an image I took yesterday, in which all can understand the sentiment. Again, Happy Easter.

click photo to enlarge

3.20.16: Donald Trump Is In The Race Until The End

Before we start...

Going forward you have to do your political calculus with the understanding that candidate Donald J. Trump will be in the race until the end. Either Republicans support him and award him the nomination to represent them in the general or they deny him the nomination at the convention and he most assuredly runs as a third-party candidate.

Republicans have to decide what is more important to them - winning an election at all costs or keeping your party's principles and philosophies in tact, hence 'saving it' from Donald Trump. Said candidate has one objective and that is to win the presidency. Mr. Trump wants the legitimacy of representing the Republican party in the race, not to mention their support, but it won't change his goal if they don't give it. The Atlantic's Molly Ball alluded to this ever so briefly at the end.

Now...

With that in mind, all the scenarios that senior Republican strategists Steve Schmidt (McCain campaign) and Stuart Stevens (Romney campaign) described respectively are moot. When Mr. Stevens answers that "yes, we can still stop Trump," we need clarification. Stop Trump from what exactly? Getting the nomination? Becoming the president? Mr. Stuart also explained that Mr. Trump is losing Romney voters but that is not going to be enough to swing the nomination away from Mr. Trump. It may, however, legitimize the formation of a third party.

Either way, down ticket races will be affected because if Mr. Trump is the party standard-bearer, that trouble for Republican senators up for re-election in purple states. Compounding this problem for these senators is the obstruction of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee from getting a hearing, orchestrated by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). One understands his cause of blocking the nomination, hoping for a Republican presidential win, but the risk is huge, and here's why.

First, in today's consecutive interviews with Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. McConnell, it's clear that they have both been hypocritical in their statements about SCOTUS nominees in a president's final year in office. The fact is that this is the luck (or unluck) of the draw with life-time appointments. There are going to be those odd times where the law is inconvenient, but it should still be followed, despite what Sen. McConnell tells you about history and principle.

Getting back to Senate elections, the obstruction of the Supreme Court could cost Sen. McConnell is majority leadership because he's asking senators like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire to not only run away from the Republican candidate Donald Trump but you're also having them run away from the establishment because of the hard line on the Supreme Court position. Not good at all if you want to hold the majority in the Senate.

With Republican establishment heads spinning around in 360-rotations, a la Linda Blaire and all the chaos, discuss about the Democratic race went under the radar this week with the exception of the topic of Sec. Clinton's speaking style, which apparently receives derisive critiques from male pundits. The only conclusion to draw is that a discussion such as this can only benefit Mrs. Clinton. If male pundits access that Hillary Clinton is shrill and doesn't 'smile enough,' women especially ones over 60 like Joy-Ann Reid outlined would understandably be upset. They would say that  in her victory speech on Tuesday, she was speaking to a big cheering crowd necessitating the need to speak more loudly. In terms of temperament, they would describe it as ' determined.' These types of criticisms  aren't levied against other candidates, but then again, who says any part of politics is fair.


Panel: Jose Diaz-Balart, NBC News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reed, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post


One More Thing...

President Obama in Cuba. If he doesn't speak out strongly about political prisoners and dissidents in Cuba, American democracy, human rights today, then all the criticisms of the trip and him going become valid. If he does speak about those things, it will cement Obama's legacy with something history will view in a positive light.

3.13.16: Mr. Trump Showing In His Inner Hugo Chavez

In the wake of Friday's events in Chicago at a Trump rally, we're simply stunned by the comments we heard today not only from Donald Trump but what we didn't hear from John Kasich and Ted Cruz, the latter of whom said that he would in fact support Donald Trump if he's the Republican nominee because Hillary Clinton (and Bernie Sanders) would be a 'manifest disaster' to use his term. But this coming from a man who called the Republican Majority Leader a liar on the floor of Senate and President Obama a world-class demagogue.

In today's interview, Mr. Trump had the gall to rhetorically ask, "What have I said that's wrong?" while blaming 'professional disrupters' for the violence at his rallies. Hugh Hewlitt confirmed that there are in fact professional protesters, and we concur with Mr. Hewlitt (after ripping into him a few weeks back)! We googled it and we found one firm call Crowd on Demand based in Beverly Hills. We are surprised that the only professional protester firm you can hire wasn't in Chicago.  Again ridiculous, and we were coming to the conclusion that Mr. Hewlitt is not a thoughtful conservative. He seems stuck in his own echo chamber.

Mr. Trump takes no ownership of responsibility for the incendiary rhetoric - Mexicans as rapists, Islam hating America, etc. - that has caused the protests to form in the first place. Not to mention that on this very program this week he said that if Bernie Sanders' supporters came to more Trump rallies to try and disrupt them, he would call for his supporters to go after Bernie's. What?......... He then proclaimed that his rallies are peaceful. In Mr. Trump's view, there's only democracy for the people who support him, which isn't democracy at all! Mr. Trump even accused Chuck Todd of not loving the American flag as much as him when discussing an incident in.

People, this is Hugo Chavez type stuff.

For Ted Cruz, Reince Priebus, Chris Christie, Ben Carson and the rest of the crazy right-wingers who condone or (gasp) endorse Donald Trump, they should be ashamed of themselves for putting blind ambition ahead of country. Running a country is not the same as running a business and if you think it is, either your ego and wallet are so big that you think that's the way it should be or you're not informed enough on the matter to know the difference.

In a way, we hope that Donald Trump does get the nomination and it destroys the Republican party because we're so fed up with the denials, ignoring of facts, lies, obstruction and partisanship to the extent that it damages the country as a whole. As it is right now, the Republican party no longer functions as a public good. Winning at all costs is the only thing that matters instead of looking to do the one thing  explicit in the name of The United States of America, and that is to united people.

Short post this week, but we refuse to ruin the rest of our pleasant Sunday discussing the disgusting Donald Trump.


Panel: Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist, Anne Gearan, The Washington Post, Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator


One more thing...

Ted Cruz won the Guam caucus.

3.6.16: For the Republican Base, Mitt Romney Is The Problem. A Self-Awareness Problem.

An election is a process, most times educational (good or bad), sometimes cathartic, at times shocking, and always repeating itself between a series of campaign peaks. Unlike previous election processes, this one as it concerns Republicans has turned wild and ugly... not to mention juvenile but that another story.

However, the next peak in the comes March 15 when Floridians and Ohioans respectively go to the polls and in the time until then, the Republican establishment is going to try desperately to repair a party, for which the conservative consensus is fractured.  In the role of chief mechanic for these repairs, the establishment has brought back Mitt Romney who delivered a scathing rebuke of Trump the candidate and the businessman, to which David Brooks said it was about time. However, we would agree with former Dick Cheney adviser Mary Matalin who said it was the wrong messenger at the wrong time. What seems to have not sunken in for Gov. Romney and the establishment is that the Republican base understands that they are trying to be 'reasoned' with but it's not going to work because of all the empty rhetoric they've been fed for so long with nothing to show for it. The base is aware of all this and is rejected it.

Mr. Romney doesn't have a good answer when it comes to why he was so enthusiastic four years ago to accept Donald Trump's endorsement while now he calls him a scam artist or whatever. Mr. Romney, you reap what you sew...

The Detroit Free Press' Stephen Henderson pointed out that the Trump candidacy is the product of unfulfilled rhetoric, in which many Republicans systematically used coded language that reeked of bigotry. Remember Sarah Palin shouting about 'taking our country back' in trying to deny President Obama re-election to a second term? This kind of bigoted dog-whistle has been going on for the last 40 years. And when Mary Matalin says that she wants to choke Stephan Henderson because she thinks it's not true, furthers the point.

[For all this talk today about inappropriate comments and staying away from them on "Meet The Press," they sure had their own share. Ms. Matalin's was just one. The other was when Chuck Todd referred to a David Brooks analogy as "Trump Goggles." This term referencing "beer goggles," a sophomoric sexist comment in itself, and by the look on Mr. Todd's face when he said it, he knew it.]

Ms. Matalin explained that conservatives don't see themselves as racists and bigots using coded language, to which we would suggest that they step outside themselves and take a serious look because it's no accident that the majority of the country perceives the Republican base (not the establishment) that way. That may not necessarily be fair, but that's the way it is, and nominating Donald Trump doesn't help that perception. The time for reasoning, and reason, is over.

Mr. Todd showed a clip of a Trump rally where he had everyone raise their right hand to make a pledge to vote for him. They didn't reference him by name, but you know they were making the Hitler reference.



Scary.

But really it just more silliness in Mr. Trump's ultimate reality role - presidential candidate.


Panel: Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News; Stephen Henderson, The Detroit Free Press; David Brooks, The New York Times; Mary Matalin, fmr. advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney

2.28.16: The Republican Primary Never Ceases to Amaze

If you want to be the man, you have to beat the man.
                                                                   -Ric Flair

We didn't anticipate starting off today's column with a quote from professional wrestling icon Ric Flair, but this is how Chuck Todd assessed the Republican race despite its devolution into a name-calling challenge. Conservative standard bearer, RedState's Erick Erickson called the performances at Thursday night's Republican debate "childish." But here we stand with Donald Trump in the clear lead to win the Republican party nomination for president - an unmitigated disaster for the party establishment who will stay home, according to Mr. Erickson, if Mr. Trump is in fact the nominee.

Senators Rubio and Cruz have had to get waist-deep in the mud with Mr. Trump in a last ditch effort to stop his momentum, which as Mr. Todd described as unsuccessful. Not surprising for Senator Cruz as anyone can rationalize that it was just a matter of time before that happened, and by natural extension Mr. Cruz contributed more today by saying that Mr. Trump has done business with the mafia in his development dealings. A serious charge that at this point just comes across as just another inflammatory remark thrown into the circus-like mix of rhetoric. However, for Senator Rubio, going to this level debases his candidacy and will ultimately be his downfall. He has wrongly been advised that to win, Mr. Rubio has to play Mr. Trump's game, but here's the problem with that: It's Trump's game, and as a casino owner will tell you, "The house always wins." If Senator Rubio really wants to win, he has to change the game entirely, which he seems unable to do.

Andrea Mitchell said that a Democratic woman would have trouble in a debate against a candidate like Mr. Trump, but especially Hillary Clinton who is vulnerable on the e-mail issue and on political Benghazi attacks. However, looking at the field, it may be that only a Democratic woman could change the game and beat Mr. Trump. Senator Rubio, the establishment's hope, is going to lose - period, hard stop.

Given that, it's either an open convention, which would turn a fracture into a clean break of the Republican party or it's a Trump nomination where the establishment, and its money, will stay home. Either way, it doesn't look good for the Republican Party headed into Super Tuesday, for which Mr. Todd outlined a number of scenarios in which either Mr. Rubio or Mr. Cruz could emerge as the legitimate number 2 candidate for the nomination. However, none of it matters because after Tuesday, if the polls are projecting even somewhat accurately Mr. Trump is going to be too far ahead for them to catch up.

Charles Cook explained today how Mr. Trump is held to a lower standard than the other candidates by the press as he is never asked what policies he would put in place, only offering that for what ever it is it will be bigger and better if Mr. Trump is president. One, this is true, and two, it will change during the general election when the press gangs up on him with the realization that he could actually take the office.

However, it's also a matter of leadership, which wasn't discussed today and we're referring to the leadership that should be coming from the party itself, meaning Reince Preibus the Republican National Committee chair. He has been absent during this campaign and under his leadership, he has allowed the Republican race to become a "farce," as Erick Erickson described it. Mr. Preibus seems to believe that even Donald Trump, under the moniker of the Republicans, winning the presidency would be a good thing for his party, which is so misguided that it is a wonder he's still the chairman of the party.

Helping Mr. Preibus' delusion is the fact that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsed Mr. Trump for president this week, something that the entire panel assessed as naked political opportunism, which it most certainly is. The endorsement is completely disingenuous, sure, but let's face it, Gov. Christie is going to need a job. If Trump wins, Christie's in the cabinet. If Mr. Trump loses, at least for his loyalty, Mr. Christie will have a job with Mr. Trump doing something somewhere. Well played Mr. Christie.

And speaking of endorsements, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) came on today's "Meet The Press" to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for president. For the Democrats the debate has been much more civil by comparison and productive to the voters - there's substance there. We like the fact that Sec. Clinton has had the strong challenge from the left courtesy of Senator Sanders because otherwise, the Democratic voters wouldn't have had  a say in the positions that the eventual nominee with advocate for in the general election, the point made by Heather McGhee of Demos Action. However, in Rep. Gabbard's reasons endorsement of Senator Sanders, she explained the he has a military mindset and would be strong on foreign policy. Maybe he will be strong in that area, but a 'military mindset' is something Senator Sanders has yet to show.

Senator Sanders is running a strong campaign, but Sec. Clinton with a blow out win in South Carolina and favored heavily in most Super Tuesday primary states, the party seems to be running its most predicable course. The Republican primary, on the other hand, has come close to reaching its full potential of volatility, in which the culmination of these smaller rhetorical explosions on the campaign trail could result in a political nuke being set off at the Republican convention in Cleveland. So much potential that it makes the 'predictability' of the Democratic race translate into 'stability.'


Panel: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Charles Cook, The Cook Political Report; Heather McGhee, President of Demos Action; Erick Erickson, RedState.com

2.21.16: Hugh Hewlitt's Lost Logic and Harry's Solid For Hillary

After last night's South Carolina primary, it's clear from today's "Meet The Press" that Hugh Hewlitt's logic writ large on the Republican race has been knocked off its moorings. Mr. Hewlitt is still sticking to the line of thinking that Marco Rubio has a chance to win in Nevada and will win Florida, his home state, to which the rest of the panel all scoffed.  The go-to for Nevada politics, Jon Ralston, said that Trump would win easily in Nevada, given his financial ties. Mr. Hewlitt hasn't come to the reality that Joy-Ann Reid sharply put into focus for him which is that winning the establishment vote as Marco Rubio is doing isn't winning the nomination. That goes to someone who actually comes in first and that's Donald Trump. When Chuck Todd posed to Mr. Hewlitt that if the front runner were anyone else besides Donald Trump, the nomination would already be sewn up, to which he replied, because "This is the last war." The time between now and the March 1st super Tuesday, 14-state primary will be make or break for a 'traditional' Republican candidate.

When he commented on the Democratic race, he was no more sound. His general premise always has been the Hillary Clinton is a 'tremendously flawed' candidate. Never mind that in terms of flaws, the Republicans candidate are on the same playing field. That aside, he went on to explain that voters are sophisticated and will realize this. But who was he referring to, exactly?

Was he talking about voters in general or just Democratic voters as they relate to Hillary Clinton's campaign. We dissect this because obviously he doesn't think that Republican voters are sophisticated because they're voting for Donald Trump so he must be referring to Democrats who by extension are smarter voters?

If that wasn't enough, at the end of the program, Mr. Hewlitt stated that he'd rather lose the election than lose the Supreme Court, to which Chuck Todd pointed out that Republicans lose the election, they do in fact lose the Supreme Court. To save face, Mr. Hewlitt clarified as a general premise.  But what is he talking about? Who ever wins the next election that person could be confirming three new justices who will all most probably serve for the remainder of his lifetime. 

This is the general state of denial that the establishment is experiencing. As for the Republican talk-radio establishment, they're not fairing any better getting behind Ted Cruz. In his interview today, Sen. Cruz talked about how real conservatives were uniting around his campaign, building momentum. Chuck Todd had to take him down, and did. Below is the full clip, beginning with Mr. Cruz calling last night, "an incredible evening."



Senator Cruz finished third as Mr. Todd bluntly [read: rightly] pointed out, in the most evangelical state so far. If in South Carolina they deem your campaign the most dishonest, you know you have to be scraping the bottom of people's favorability lists. On this first Super Tuesday, Texas and Tennessee will be key indicator states for both Senators Cruz and Rubio respectively. The panel didn't seem bullish on the prospect of Senator Cruz carrying his own state and in Tennessee where establishment candidates go to become whole again, Senator Rubio's chances are iffy at best. Senator Rubio said that 70 percent of Republicans [nationally] are against Mr. Trump and those are the people who will eventually back him, but don't believe the hype on that because there will be 5 candidates in the race, most probably, through the March 15th primary that features Florida and Ohio. This is the day that John Kasich gets out. He'll carry his home state but lose big overall yet be ready for the VP choice if the nominee isn't Trump. Rubio, as we are now obligated to point out to Hugh Hewlitt and others, hasn't won any state contests yet.

Despite insistence by some to the contrary, there is a clear front runner is both races. While to understate the convoluted nature of the Republican race, on the Democratic side, the case for Hillary Clinton is becoming ever stronger, and despite what Mr. Hewlitt would tell you, she is the most electable candidate on either side of the aisle. The panel touched on a point that is going to start resonating louder and louder and that is that the proposals that Senator Sanders has been advocating for are going to be insanely expensive, as high as $31 Trillion over ten years. Once moderate Democrats and Independents start thinking about that number seriously, Sec. Clinton will solidify her advantage and her argument that it's just not realistic to reshape the economy so drastically as Senator Sanders proposes.

That's the argument but as Joy-Ann Reid expertly pointed out, it will be African-Americans who will control Hillary Clinton's fate and ultimately who is nominated. Ms. Reid also explained that it would specifically be African-Americans over 50, which is one of the key groups that we would argue knows best the pulse of the Democratic heart. Growing up as teenagers in neglected cities of the seventies, you remember the people who came and stood up for you the longest because at this point, this group of people has seen it all when it comes to the system being stacked in another direction, admitting what they know it is: institutional racism. Thank you, Ms. Reid for this point.

That fact, along with Harry Reid making a few phone calls (not everything that happens in Vegas stays there), carried the state of Nevada for Sec. Clinton. How about that?

As Jon Ralston explained, Senator Harry Reid - the guy even many Democrats love to hate - is still the most powerful pugilist in Nevada politics and on his way out changed the direction of the race, giving Hillary Clinton a vital up, the line she needed to climb to the nomination. And he did one more solid for a guy he is rather fond of, President Barack Obama. One must acknowledge that Senator Reid fought some ugly fights on behalf of the president and was motivated to protect his legacy by getting people out to the polls ultimately for the person who's openly still advocating for the president's policies.

And if, in fact, the momentum from Sec. Clinton's win in Nevada propels her to the nomination and then she goes on to indeed win the presidency, she will appoint those judges and that will be the legacy of Senator Harry Reid.

Mr. Hewlitt's worst nightmare.


Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Jon Ralston, Reno Gazette-Journal

A few more things:
Mr. Hewlitt explained that Jeb Bush was the wrong man for the wrong time. Perhaps. However, unfortunately for Jeb Bush, the real irony perhaps is that following his older brother's presidency there never was nor would there be a right time. Will Gov. Bush's legacy be rewritten as Ms. Reid described, to which Mr. Todd agreed that he benefited from the Clinton economy in the 90's when he was in office and then got out before his brother became established in his office? Maybe, but we would speculate, unlikely.

And lastly, as I always like to do - a shout out to our veterans, no matter what generation. I took this photo yesterday in lower Manhattan, The Korean War Memorial. Note the background, specifically through the soldiers left leg.

click on photo to enlarge

2.14.16: More Trouble For Republicans and The Bernie Referendum

As if it couldn't get any worse for Republicans, it just did.

With the unfortunate, untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, this throws all three branches of government hip deep into the muddy race for the executive. It's also sad when The National Journal's Ron Fournier says that with a call, it had already turned political 20 minutes after he passed. However, those are the terms in which justice are put because of the life time appointment. People spend years calculating the day one passes and hence who will get to make the appointment.

Speaking of which, President Obama will put forward a nominee, of course.  However, let's be clear, President Obama should put forth a nominee. As John Kasich said during today's interview, it's the president's prerogative. Just because the circumstance hasn't happened in 80 years does mean that the president should not conduct the business of the office even in his last year; another way of saying that we agree with the premise of Chuck Todd's question today to the Republican candidates of the 'three-year term' for the president? That's not the way it should be for either side - the the luck of the dice when it comes to life time appointments. The Republican-controlled Senate, lead by Mitch McConnell (R-KY) can then certainly delay the process and complain, but it will be at the peril of a Republican candidate winning the White House, certainly. The image of a Republican Senate unable to get anything done will come into sharp focus and hover over the election affecting the down ballot, especially if their nominee is Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

This will become even more difficult in the general election on the heels of this what likely is to go down as the presidential primary with the nastiest character assassination rhetoric in at least the last century, because of the direct nature of the attacks - to your face, on national television. Donald Trump called the presidency of George Bush a 'reign.' He also called Senator Cruz the 'single biggest liar' on the stage, implying that there were others. Mr. Cruz, for his part, confronted Senator Rubio in Spanish after he said that Mr. Cruz didn't know how. Bottom line: It was ugly.

This begs the question of how the Republican nominee is going to come out at the end of this fight. No matter who wins the Republican nomination, there is going to be a large contingent of unhappy and vocal people at the convention.

As for the Democratic nominees, the panel discussed the notion of the Clinton campaign being able to turn the primary race into a referendum on her opponent, Bernie Sanders, specifically on his record concerning issues important to black voters; his record of championing for their rights.

However, given today's panel discussion, the referendum on Senator Sanders has already begun, at least in the press.

The panel made the point that Senator Sanders rarely addresses blacks specifically, always opting to frame things within the larger economically argument that theoretically transcends race. But in lieu of that, this is where Senator Sanders is at a disadvantage to Sec. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has a long record of supporting causes important to the African-American community. Then the questions of how Senator Sanders intends to pay for his proposals compounds the argument against his candidacy.

If you're a left of center Democrat, the primary is going pretty much how you want it because Senator Sanders is pulling Hillary Clinton to the left but the sight on the horizon seems to be that Sec. Clinton will prevail, the 'establishment' candidate. Okay, what ever.

For the Republicans, it's a completely different story - there is no consensus candidate and the one with the most positive message (John Kasich) has the least amount of support. (And with all due respect to Dr. Carson, we'll put it kindly that he'd be doing his brand well by suspending his candidacy.) Kathleen Parker described Jeb Bush as 'desperate' - Laura Bush is now making appearances on Jeb's behalf as well as George in South Carolina this week.  Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are wildcards at best. That's why it's easy to see how many in the establishment like Marco Rubio - he can be molded. We know that his rhetoric is tightly scripted and memorized with discipline.  However, Senator Rubio should be careful what he wishes for because it has been proven that one-on-one he has folded, and Sec. Clinton is a strong debater. If it even gets to that point, which is doubtful.

Chris Cillizza described Donald Trump as 'off the rails' at last night's debate. It's safe to extrapolate that sentiment out over the entire Republican primary.


Panel: Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post.

2.7.16: The Republican Rumble and Democratic Mental Notes

One wouldn't really be able to comment on most of today's "Meet The Press" without having watched last night's Republican debate on ABC. So yes, since we're commenting, and hence admit that we spent our Saturday night watching it. There were also significant insights in the respective Democratic candidates' interview; more on this in a bit.

But first, boy, was it a dozzy of a debate! The whale of a take away from last night is something that we've been saying for a while now, which is another way of saying that it has been painfully obvious, that Marco Rubio is a scripted candidate that can not move off of scripted talking points. Last night, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) verbally ran over Senator Rubio like a dear in the headlights on a Jersey back road headed home late night from the shore. Mr. Rubio had that same panicked look in his eye like when he reached for the water off-camera during his State of Union response. He didn't know what hit him. NBC's Hallie Jackson noted his new nickname - Marco Roboto... ouch.

And despite what Hugh Hewlitt said about the rest of the debate being a strong one for Mr. Rubio outside those three minutes, that's the lasting image and it will hurt him in the primary.  On the other hand Donald Trump, despite being booed by the debate audience on a few occasions, did well to maintain his posture as the front runner in New Hampshire. The billionaire's toughest moment came on the issue of imminent domain, which Mr. Hewlitt pointed out, conservatives hate.

The Atlantic City property that raised the imminent domain issue for Mr. Trump.


(Aside: Mr. Trump's best moment was at the top of the debate where he essentially called out Ted Cruz for not having the guts to acknowledge to his face an attack he made of Mr. Trump on the campaign trail.)

Governor John Kasich (R-OH) and Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) were the two candidates that benefited the most and certainly presented themselves as the most reasonable in their responses. Mr. Rubio responses were reasoned, yes, but the question is if they are really his responses. For Governor Christie's part in instructively pointing this out, he really didn't advance his cause in terms of polling percentage. Mr. Bush, unfortunately for him once again did his futile best to take on Mr. Trump, dirtying himself just enough that it was Mr. Kasich's positive message that shined the best (his strongest performance), which will make a difference for his candidacy come Tuesday.

Speaking of positive messages, that brings us back to Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, who is trailing in New Hampshire polling. Despite this, Mrs. Clinton projected the more positive demeanor of the two, which is understood to be "putting on a good face when things aren't going well," but if her campaign can convey a positive vision that while being empathetic to the Sanders protest vote, the protest answer isn't necessarily the solution.

Look, the people in politics who understand that The United States is one humongous shipped that in order to be turned, it has to be done gradually or the whole thing will tip over are the ones who last and orchestrate long-term change. If you agree with this analogy then center-right or center-left are your preferred lanes depending on how you lean. To give you names, that's Bush, Kasich, Clinton, Christie (to a lesser degree).

The other very evident observation from the two interviews is that Mr. Sanders' answers on foreign policy aren't sure-footed enough, and in our humble opinion it's a topic that has been wrongly subordinated in this election cycle, with the possible exception of ISIS, which only begs the question for us as to when the United States is going to start recognizing Boko Haram as the threat that it is. We thankfully acknowledge that Mr. Sanders' judgements in his foreign policy votes were sound, it's not enough. Conversely, Secretary Clinton has the understanding that not only ISIS constitutes a foreign policy response but that also the Zika virus, for example, requires one as well. In the context of the world bringing a crazy plethora of dangers to our door with no ability to predict them, you have to at least know who you're dealing with, at the very least.

Lastly, given our pragmatic view, calling Wall Street finance and banking industry a fraud is counter-productive. Stating that it is a fraud whether true or not is not going to change the fact that it isn't going away. We're all for heavy regulation because we understand that basic fact, and in light of that it's more productive to work for changing the industry if necessary instead of just tearing the whole thing down.

These Democratic mental notes may not manifest into strengths for Mrs. Clinton and deficits for Mr. Sanders before New Hampshire votes, but down the line they'll only begin to matter more and more heading toward a general election.


Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator; Chris Matthews, MSNBC


One more thing...
Super Bowl Sunday - an unofficial holiday. But if that's the understanding and we're indeed calling it that then we hope that this message finds you well and with family enjoying each others' company on this distinct American holiday, the same as we would on any other.

No prediction, instead, here's to family time... and a good game!

1.31.16: Finally, Time to Put Up or Shut Up

The Iowa caucuses are upon us and Mr. Todd packed it in to today's program with four candidate guests, all senators: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul. Mr. Todd cut right to the heart of the matter with each candidate, which was essentially "Why you?"

Before we get into what each said, it's worth mentioning at the top here that it was refreshing that Rand Paul actual met the press, taking questions from the various journalists on the panel. One thing that he said of note which we agree with and that you should consider when polls are referenced is that they are taken among older voters. To Senator Paul's credit not many politicians would be at all comfortable doing that, especially Mr. Rubio, with whom we'll start.

So why if Mr. Rubio enjoys great popularity is he not doing better in the polls? The reason is that at the end of the day, people don't think he's mature enough to be the president of the United States. What that means is that people like what he says but don't trust him enough that he'll be his own man when making a decision. It's like voters get the feeling that in a crisis, he won't be able to handle it. Call it a feeling or whatever, but it's real. Illustrating this very point is the clip that Mr. Todd showed of Mr. Rubio, while a member of the Florida House, support cap and trade legislation with an EPA mandate. He then turns around and says that clip was taken out of context. It's difficult to take Mr. Rubio seriously when he accuses Ted Cruz of just saying anything to get a vote. Also, Mr. Rubio said that he went to Washington to solve the immigration problem and the fact is, he hasn't. He instead walked away from legislation that he was instrumental in crafting.  This contradiction is strictly his, but he insists on casting blame elsewhere. Not to mention that Mr. Rubio has completely abdicated his world view to the neo-conservatives in the Republican party and that's the kind of foreign policy of foolish hegemony. Mr. Rubio is essentially the shadow-establishment candidate.

For Mr. Cruz's part, he is the front runner in Iowa without a doubt, but it's going to be tight if as predicted the turn out is high. Plus, the way that the caucus is set up for the Republicans, as Mr. Todd helpfully explained, is that it is basically a firehouse primary because people drop in a secret ballot, which benefits Donald Trump's potential first-time voters. Ultimately, Mr. Cruz gets in trouble with Iowa voters on the ethanol issue because while what he says about ending all subsidies of any kind for energy production may sound good to Republicans, Iowans' ethanol economy is going to get squeezed because they don't peddle the influence that oil and gas do. That's the part that Mr. Cruz isn't telling them but it is what they know and they're not crazy about it, to say the least. And because it is convenient, we'll read into Mr. Cruz's description of the only way he runs a political race, "scared," was his quote. Why would you vote for someone who readily admits that?

Interestingly, what also makes it a tight race for Republicans is the fragmentation of the evangelical vote, which David Brody described. The nuance, he said, between the evangelical Cruz voter and the evangelical Trump voter is that for Mr. Trump, they represent traditional Christian cultural mores where the Cruz voter is more dedicated - the Wednesday night church goer. If that's the case then Mr. Carson's support (He should not still be in the race.)  along with Mr. Huckabee's would fall to Mr. Cruz. Mr. Brody also explained that the evangelical voter is tired of being played like a political pawn for so long, like Karl Rove masterfully did for George W. Bush, and boy (!) is he correct. No block of voters has been deceived like evangelical Republican voters. Evangelical voters want their religious choices legislated on to the rest of the population and not in an incremental way, which is very difficult to get done in the United States, but politicians promise this anyway. It's easy to see why they're upset.

For the Republicans in Iowa, it's a question of who comes in third? This position will speak to what is the main argument on the Democratic side, which is practical electability. For Republicans, that comes down to the aforementioned Mr. Rubio, Mr. Bush, Mr. Christie, and Mr. Kasich. Of this group, it comes down to Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. Given this lackluster choice, in our humble opinion, no Republican in their right mind would vote for Marco Rubio.

"Practical Electability" is not a phrase that we would use to describe Senator Bernie Sanders, on the Democratic side of things. For his part, he would use the term 'bold,' and fighting for single payer healthcare while - let's face it - Obamacare is still being fought over is quite daring. Mr. Sanders' broadest appeal is among younger voters, which we'll be a great benefit to him if they show up. Conceding that they do, the way the Democrats caucus supports more of the 'herd mentality,' for which a younger voter is more susceptible, hence benefiting Mr. Sanders. However, there is no question that in a general election Hillary Clinton will fair much better than Mr. Sanders in terms of wider support, yes, the notion of having a woman president - a wave not to be underestimated. Now, is it good to denounce Mr. Sander's plan on the basis of practicality as Mrs. Clinton did? No because on the campaign trail you don't want to come across as adverse to great and bold ideas.  On a more detailed note, Mr. Sanders did mention that a main factor driving increased healthcare costs is the price for prescription drugs, but know that to curb those costs it is not a necessity to have single payer healthcare.

After all this talk, we're just glad that people are starting to vote - time to put up or shut up for the candidates... finally.  


Panel: Tom Brokaw, NBC News; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jennifer Jacobs, The Des Moines Register; David Brody, the Christian Broadcasting Network