Even though it's Memorial Day, "Meet The Press" was politics as usual Mr. Todd forget to ask Senator Sanders anything about this solemn holiday or ask Governor Schwarzenegger for that matter. Instead he discussed acquiescence to the respective front running candidates. That's all there is of the news cycle now with MTP towing the line - we get it - but there could have been at least one question to Senator Sanders, a person who aspires to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, what Memorial Day means to him.
Just saying.
Senator Sanders believes he has three paths to the nomination still: 1) bringing more pledged delegates into the convention, 2) convince super-delegates who are voting against their states' results switch over, and 3) have super delegates who have pledged their support Hillary Clinton before the primary began reconsider their support (given poll results showing Sen. Sanders doing better than Sec. Clinton in the general).
Let's play politics!
It's a good chance that Sen. Sanders could win in California, which would put him on the road to achieving his first path goal of bringing more delegates to the convention, but winning is a big "if." California is everything to the Sanders campaign right now because contrary to what he said in his interview today, if he doesn't win it really is over for him. The other two paths, if you would even call them that, are practically pointless if the first path isn't a success.
Also, to base one of the paths on favorable poll numbers in a head to head match up is ridiculous. The polls now show Sanders beating Trump, but if you want Republican big money all in for Trump then Sanders is your guy. That machine has been sitting on the sidelines because of its deep distrust of Donald Trump figuring that indeed Clinton would be better for the country and their interests. As evidenced from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R-CA) none answer on whether he would support Donald Trump or not, most remain uncommitted. Sanders, however, would be a disaster for big money interests so every smear that you could possibly imagine will be laid to bear, of this there is little doubt. Let's see where the polls numbers would be at that point.
Senator Sanders to this point in the race has not been the target of that many direct attacks comparatively to the other candidates still in the race. Donald Trump mostly attacks Hillary Clinton who is busy defending herself from a three-pronged attack. The three fronts: from Sanders on the left, from Trump on the right, and from herself (emails) right down the middle.
Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal, said that it sounded as though Bernie has already started negotiating eventual support for Sec. Clinton in the general. Though he has toned down the attacks on Hillary Clinton, we don't think he hit the negotiating stage of grief just yet. If he were anywhere in the cycle, it would be in denial, but the California primary hasn't taken place yet so that's not completely accurate either. One thing is for sure, June 7th is an elimination game for Bernie Sanders - win or go home.
Panel: Neera Tanden; President for the Center of American Progress; KellyAnne Conway, Republican Strategist; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Jerry Seib, The Wall Street Journal
Sunday, May 29, 2016
5.29.16: Memorial Day, Always Remember
2,852,901
Two million, eight hundred, fifty-two thousand, nine hundred and one.
Two million, eight hundred, fifty-two thousand, nine hundred and one.
The number of soldiers killed or wounded in United States conflicts since its founding.
Countless family affected.
This weekend, a small "thank you" and a brief thought of the families - not much to ask.
Enjoy your Memorial Day!
5.22.16: Let's Worry About All Three
This post comes late to comment on last week's "Meet The Press;" however, in our notes we had come away with three questions that we had planned to address given Hillary Clinton's interview and the subsequent events that happened during the week.
1. Is Bernie Sanders dividing the Democratic Party to a point that it is benefiting Donald Trump?
2. Is Donald Trump indeed qualified to be President of the United States?
and
3. Is Hillary Clinton any better a choice than Donald Trump?
As you can see, they're still relevant given the week's events so we thought we'd elaborate with some answers.
With regard to question number one, Senator Sanders is most certainly dividing the Democratic Party. However, in one way it was to be expected and in yet in another way, Senator Sanders is being a bit hypocritical in his attacks on Sec. Clinton, and here's what we mean. First, it was expected because the Democratic Party is not the Democratic Socialist Party, a political philosophy to which Senator Sanders subscribes. He has never really been a part of the Democratic Party and his views are far to the left of what the Democratic Party has become. That's not meant as a commentary on said views, just a note to the political fact. Just as Donald Trump is running in the Republican Party but is certainly not a conservative, Senator Sanders is running in the Democratic Party but isn't center-left, just simply left.
And then there's the hypocritical part - two words: Tax returns.
Where are they?
There's been a significant amount of discussion about Donald Trump's tax returns disclosure, or lack thereof, but what about Senator Sanders? One could argue that when Sec. Clinton releases transcripts of her "Wall Street" speeches, the Vermont senator will release his returns, but that's a false equivalent. Sec. Clinton has releases decades of returns, an pre-presidential act that has been in place for over 40 years. If Senator Sanders demands transparency then he must practice it as well.
Secondly, if Senator Sanders thinks the rules of nominating the Democratic candidate for president are unfair then, frankly, too bad. It is his adopted party and if he didn't know the rules going in then he didn't prepare well enough, or his staff didn't. But saying the system is "rigged" as Donald Trump does only furthers the notion of 'government for the people' as a whole being discredited. It starts the slippery slope.
In terms of the second two questions of whether Donald Trump is qualified or not and if perhaps Hillary is a better choice, it could be presumable implicitly that Bernie Sanders stands are reasonable alternative to the others. However, we're not so sure that's the case. Senator Sanders has run a great campaign, no doubt, but as far as accomplishments in the Senate, there has been little of substance. We keep coming back to an odd notion that we're not being leveled with in terms of how much of what is promised can be accomplished because a lot is being promised from the Sanders campaign. In today's political climate over-promising is disconcerting.
There are certainly better candidates than others, but the three remaining give all of us reason to pause.
May 22nd Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Draper, The New York Times Magazine
1. Is Bernie Sanders dividing the Democratic Party to a point that it is benefiting Donald Trump?
2. Is Donald Trump indeed qualified to be President of the United States?
and
3. Is Hillary Clinton any better a choice than Donald Trump?
As you can see, they're still relevant given the week's events so we thought we'd elaborate with some answers.
With regard to question number one, Senator Sanders is most certainly dividing the Democratic Party. However, in one way it was to be expected and in yet in another way, Senator Sanders is being a bit hypocritical in his attacks on Sec. Clinton, and here's what we mean. First, it was expected because the Democratic Party is not the Democratic Socialist Party, a political philosophy to which Senator Sanders subscribes. He has never really been a part of the Democratic Party and his views are far to the left of what the Democratic Party has become. That's not meant as a commentary on said views, just a note to the political fact. Just as Donald Trump is running in the Republican Party but is certainly not a conservative, Senator Sanders is running in the Democratic Party but isn't center-left, just simply left.
And then there's the hypocritical part - two words: Tax returns.
Where are they?
There's been a significant amount of discussion about Donald Trump's tax returns disclosure, or lack thereof, but what about Senator Sanders? One could argue that when Sec. Clinton releases transcripts of her "Wall Street" speeches, the Vermont senator will release his returns, but that's a false equivalent. Sec. Clinton has releases decades of returns, an pre-presidential act that has been in place for over 40 years. If Senator Sanders demands transparency then he must practice it as well.
Secondly, if Senator Sanders thinks the rules of nominating the Democratic candidate for president are unfair then, frankly, too bad. It is his adopted party and if he didn't know the rules going in then he didn't prepare well enough, or his staff didn't. But saying the system is "rigged" as Donald Trump does only furthers the notion of 'government for the people' as a whole being discredited. It starts the slippery slope.
In terms of the second two questions of whether Donald Trump is qualified or not and if perhaps Hillary is a better choice, it could be presumable implicitly that Bernie Sanders stands are reasonable alternative to the others. However, we're not so sure that's the case. Senator Sanders has run a great campaign, no doubt, but as far as accomplishments in the Senate, there has been little of substance. We keep coming back to an odd notion that we're not being leveled with in terms of how much of what is promised can be accomplished because a lot is being promised from the Sanders campaign. In today's political climate over-promising is disconcerting.
There are certainly better candidates than others, but the three remaining give all of us reason to pause.
May 22nd Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Robert Draper, The New York Times Magazine
Sunday, May 15, 2016
5.15.16: The Conservative No Show
Not only is there no show this week, but what's also been a no show this week is courage on the part of Republican politicians for conservative principles.
In the light of Donald Trump not holding firmly on any kind of principle, Republican politicians are coming out in support of him this week after Mr. Trump being in Washington for a whole half of a day. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that he wasn't there yet. Yet. We've reached the stage where we have to commend someone in the party leadership for at least holding out this long, which is sad commentary. Incidentally, 'sad' is a word we heard repeatedly this week to describe Senator John McCain (R-AZ) due to his support of Mr. Trump, who disrespected the war hero because he got shot down and was held prisoner for five and half years. These past nine years prompt people to say, What on earth has happened to John McCain?
Former Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) called Mr. Trump a narcissist, egomaniac; Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said a speck of dirt is more qualified to be president (good one); Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) invoked cancer, and yet they are all endorsing him. Establishment Republicans question Mr. Trump's conservative principles because his views have veered to only the extremes on the right and left. And now the conservative electorate, not the bigoted constituency, has to question the principles of these 'conservatives' as well. What makes it pathetic (yes, a strong word) is that it's so nakedly obvious why they're doing it. McCain and Paul are running for reelection in November in states that Trump won and Jindal and Perry are looking for a spot in the administration or God forbid on the ticket.
Paul Ryan can not pull a Senator Kelly Ayotte and say that he's not endorsing anyone but will support the nominee, which means nothing. He's the Speaker of the House and eventually he's going to have to come down on this one way or another. Postulating, we suspect that Speaker Ryan will come out with an endorsement with reservation, citing conservative principles as the reason for reservation and that Mr. Trump embrace them. But the rub with that tact is that it reeks of a stance solely of self-preservation too much.
That seems like the only 'conservative' principle on display at the moment. Divided conservative will not only fall, but they will fail. However, united may render the same result.
Also...
As we've stated before, we do not subscribe to the "Hillary Clinton is in with the banks" argument. If you're the former U.S. Senator of New York or the Sec. of State those are people someone in that position has to deal with, fact. If it gets to the official point of Sec. Clinton facing Mr. Trump in the general, we'd say this about continuing to use that argument against her - Donald Trump is the bank. Along the way in his New York business building career, if he wasn't in bed with those people, those people were in bed with him. Either way, they're all in the same bed. He is the bank.
In the light of Donald Trump not holding firmly on any kind of principle, Republican politicians are coming out in support of him this week after Mr. Trump being in Washington for a whole half of a day. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said that he wasn't there yet. Yet. We've reached the stage where we have to commend someone in the party leadership for at least holding out this long, which is sad commentary. Incidentally, 'sad' is a word we heard repeatedly this week to describe Senator John McCain (R-AZ) due to his support of Mr. Trump, who disrespected the war hero because he got shot down and was held prisoner for five and half years. These past nine years prompt people to say, What on earth has happened to John McCain?
Former Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) called Mr. Trump a narcissist, egomaniac; Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said a speck of dirt is more qualified to be president (good one); Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) invoked cancer, and yet they are all endorsing him. Establishment Republicans question Mr. Trump's conservative principles because his views have veered to only the extremes on the right and left. And now the conservative electorate, not the bigoted constituency, has to question the principles of these 'conservatives' as well. What makes it pathetic (yes, a strong word) is that it's so nakedly obvious why they're doing it. McCain and Paul are running for reelection in November in states that Trump won and Jindal and Perry are looking for a spot in the administration or God forbid on the ticket.
Paul Ryan can not pull a Senator Kelly Ayotte and say that he's not endorsing anyone but will support the nominee, which means nothing. He's the Speaker of the House and eventually he's going to have to come down on this one way or another. Postulating, we suspect that Speaker Ryan will come out with an endorsement with reservation, citing conservative principles as the reason for reservation and that Mr. Trump embrace them. But the rub with that tact is that it reeks of a stance solely of self-preservation too much.
That seems like the only 'conservative' principle on display at the moment. Divided conservative will not only fall, but they will fail. However, united may render the same result.
Also...
As we've stated before, we do not subscribe to the "Hillary Clinton is in with the banks" argument. If you're the former U.S. Senator of New York or the Sec. of State those are people someone in that position has to deal with, fact. If it gets to the official point of Sec. Clinton facing Mr. Trump in the general, we'd say this about continuing to use that argument against her - Donald Trump is the bank. Along the way in his New York business building career, if he wasn't in bed with those people, those people were in bed with him. Either way, they're all in the same bed. He is the bank.
Sunday, May 08, 2016
5.8.16: The Broken Republican Establishment Unable To Tame The Tiger
There's little doubt from all the discussion on today's "Meet The Press" that the Republican party is in trouble and still doesn't know what to do with Donald Trump as their standard bearer. Chuck Todd even started the program with "Trump is tearing the party apart." Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan (R-WI) said this week of supporting Donald Trump that 'he's not there yet.'
When asked in his interview if Speaker Ryan should be the chairman of the convention in July even if he didn't support him, Mr. Trump didn't answer the question but it was clearly implied that the answer was no. In the face of Republican establishment figures who are supporting Trump and simply say that he needs to be surrounded by good [read: establishment conservatives] people and he'll come back into the Republican fold, the panel was rightly skeptical because Mr. Trump, indeed, can not be changed or 'coached up,' as Eugene Robinson put it. The tiger will not be tamed.
Sticking with that analogy for a moment, the Republican establishment has been riding that tiger hard since the Tea Party election year of 2010 and now its clawing and biting at it. Raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy are not Republican orthodoxy but they're the positions that Donald Trump espouses according to what he said today. In his interview, he explained that his tax policy is really only a proposal that still has to be negotiated, which is really a more on the level answer than what you'd hear from any ideologue on either side. In said negotiations, Mr. Trump said that he was less concerned about the wealthy and more focused on the middle class, in accordance to what he's been hearing from constituents on the campaign trail.
We're sure that he's also heard the complaint that it's unreasonable to live on $7.25 per hour as a minimum wage, to which Mr. Trump has also changed his position. This and the tax blasphemy have some Republicans calling him a fake conservative for such Democratic positions, namely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whom Donald Trump labels a 'light-weight.' For people like Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), both on the program today, we understand the conundrum their in, as also with Mr. Ryan. Give up your principles and support the nominee or stick with them and disregard the voice of the electorate.
However, consider that for a moment. The Republican constituency likes Donald Trump because he 'tells it like it is,' and the establishment accuses him of non-conservative values and viewpoints. You see where we're going with this... Donald Trump - not a Republican establishment politician - is giving people his agenda of which some parts coincide with Democratic policy points, it illustrates how the Republican constituency has been voting against its best interest all along, and Mr. Trump is waking them up to that. The awakening is rude, and powerful.
Panel: Kellyanne Conway, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Matt Bai, Yahoo News
One More Thing...
Yes, short post this week, but if you read this column you get it, and there's only so much we can say that hasn't already been said about the way Donald J. Trump is changing U.S. politics. The Republican party is in trouble and if the establishment puts forward a third party candidate, the trouble will be worse. There simply are enough powerful establishment voices on the same page to effectively rally around another candidate not named Trump.
When asked in his interview if Speaker Ryan should be the chairman of the convention in July even if he didn't support him, Mr. Trump didn't answer the question but it was clearly implied that the answer was no. In the face of Republican establishment figures who are supporting Trump and simply say that he needs to be surrounded by good [read: establishment conservatives] people and he'll come back into the Republican fold, the panel was rightly skeptical because Mr. Trump, indeed, can not be changed or 'coached up,' as Eugene Robinson put it. The tiger will not be tamed.
Sticking with that analogy for a moment, the Republican establishment has been riding that tiger hard since the Tea Party election year of 2010 and now its clawing and biting at it. Raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy are not Republican orthodoxy but they're the positions that Donald Trump espouses according to what he said today. In his interview, he explained that his tax policy is really only a proposal that still has to be negotiated, which is really a more on the level answer than what you'd hear from any ideologue on either side. In said negotiations, Mr. Trump said that he was less concerned about the wealthy and more focused on the middle class, in accordance to what he's been hearing from constituents on the campaign trail.
We're sure that he's also heard the complaint that it's unreasonable to live on $7.25 per hour as a minimum wage, to which Mr. Trump has also changed his position. This and the tax blasphemy have some Republicans calling him a fake conservative for such Democratic positions, namely Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) whom Donald Trump labels a 'light-weight.' For people like Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway and Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), both on the program today, we understand the conundrum their in, as also with Mr. Ryan. Give up your principles and support the nominee or stick with them and disregard the voice of the electorate.
However, consider that for a moment. The Republican constituency likes Donald Trump because he 'tells it like it is,' and the establishment accuses him of non-conservative values and viewpoints. You see where we're going with this... Donald Trump - not a Republican establishment politician - is giving people his agenda of which some parts coincide with Democratic policy points, it illustrates how the Republican constituency has been voting against its best interest all along, and Mr. Trump is waking them up to that. The awakening is rude, and powerful.
Panel: Kellyanne Conway, Republican strategist; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Matt Bai, Yahoo News
One More Thing...
Yes, short post this week, but if you read this column you get it, and there's only so much we can say that hasn't already been said about the way Donald J. Trump is changing U.S. politics. The Republican party is in trouble and if the establishment puts forward a third party candidate, the trouble will be worse. There simply are enough powerful establishment voices on the same page to effectively rally around another candidate not named Trump.
Sunday, May 01, 2016
5.1.16: A Gut Connection to Our New Political Reality
Republicans sewed this one good establishing a deep root that has now spawned the monster Venus Flytrap that is the Donald Trump candidacy, eating everything that comes close to it. The New York Times' Tom Friedman explained that voters are listening with their guts and not their ears and that they're making a gut connection with Donald Trump. Right... but for all the non-Trump supporters it's more of a gut-wrenching connection. However, after being complicit in so many promises broken and the zero-sum politics that has obstructed the passage of any meaningful legislation, what did the Republican establishment expect?
This was clearly, sadly, reinforced on today's program during the interview with Ted Cruz who doesn't even understand (or he does and that makes it deplorable) that he's the problem. He's the poster-child for zero-sum politics, and he's the zero in the equation.
Kristen Welker succinctly pointed to the reason why Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) will never be the president of the United States, ever, and that is the 2013 government shutdown that he engineered. It accomplished nothing with the exception of actually going against Republican principles because it cost us money and accomplished nothing - governmental wasteful spending. On top of that, it gave the Republican party a deep-bruise black eye that they've worn since then all the way up to the moment of the Trump candidacy announcement. Not good.
The National Journal's Ron Fournier counted nine times that Senator Cruz did not answer the question of whether he would support Donald Trump of not if he were the nominee. Mr. Fournier threw in that if Cruz can't even answer that question what about the tougher ones that come with being president. (Go back to the last paragraph. Ever.) We get it, Senator Cruz can not concede anything as he stated but the fact is that just as he has done with his colleagues, he's done with the electorate - alienated too many of them with extreme positions delivered with a prickly demeanor. Look past John Boehner's Lucifer in the fresh comment to what he said after, describe Cruz as a miserable son of a bitch.
And now, whether Senator Cruz will admit it or not, Donald Trump has wrapped up the primary and is going to be the party's nominee. Mr. Trump is going to win in Indiana on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz's last stand state, and then the Texas senator is going to have to give serious thought to that question he couldn't answer today. He's going to have to come to grips with something that most Americans already knew. Ever. Coming out in the press - which by the way, cudos to Mr. Todd for defending against Mr. Cruz lousy charge that the media is comprised of liberal partisan Democrats, something that Fox News contend with - is that the Republican establishment doesn't have the stomach for a contested convention.
So given the eye-opening new reality upon us, we pray that Mr. Friedman is way off in his postulation that we're one large October/November terrorist attack away from a Trump presidency because as he continued to opine that he thinks this is the worst time to conduct foreign policy. Suffice to say that there is so much nuance required that a thorough understanding of foreign policy is a necessity.
It's not ISIS that is the greatest danger, but weak and failing governments as CIA Diretor John Brennan mentioned in his interview that create the environment for terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS exist and thrive. But on this fifth anniversary, to the day, of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the thought of him makes us think of Abu Musab al-Zarquawi who founded Al Qaeda in Iraq and whose methods are still earnestly believed in and practiced by the organization that it spawned, ISIS. Zarqawi has been dead for ten years so it is a phenomenon as Mr. Brennan pointed out, not confined to the territory in Iraq and Syria. ISIS, as we know, has a presence in Libya, Europe, Philippines, among others so keeping that in mind along with the Zarqawi dynamic, we agree that killing ISIS' present leader Al-Baghdadi is important, but only symbolically, not as much in the practical sense we're afraid.
With not only ISIS because all the other challenges the U.S. faces in the world, one teleprompter speech from Mr. Trump is not reassuring. It didn't take Thomas Friedman to tell us that Mr. Trump hasn't done his foreign policy homework to know that fact, though we're glad he said it.
The thought of Donald Trump making such careful decisions makes us a little queasy, to be honest.
Our advice, from here to November we'd advise to not eat too much because there are going to be a lot of gut-wrenching and gut-clenching moments coming up on this roller-coaster ride of a general election, and you'll want to keep it down.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Good panel today, serious discussion, in which we appreciate the contributions of context that Dr. Goodwin provides such as the "American First" rhetoric in Donald Trump's speech, and that it was first a movement in American politics in 1939 that became tinged by Charles Lindbergh's anti-Semitism, yes that Charles Lindbergh. However, is it us or does Dr. Goodwin just have an awful sense of comic-timing. All her attempts were awkward to say the least.
This was clearly, sadly, reinforced on today's program during the interview with Ted Cruz who doesn't even understand (or he does and that makes it deplorable) that he's the problem. He's the poster-child for zero-sum politics, and he's the zero in the equation.
Kristen Welker succinctly pointed to the reason why Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) will never be the president of the United States, ever, and that is the 2013 government shutdown that he engineered. It accomplished nothing with the exception of actually going against Republican principles because it cost us money and accomplished nothing - governmental wasteful spending. On top of that, it gave the Republican party a deep-bruise black eye that they've worn since then all the way up to the moment of the Trump candidacy announcement. Not good.
The National Journal's Ron Fournier counted nine times that Senator Cruz did not answer the question of whether he would support Donald Trump of not if he were the nominee. Mr. Fournier threw in that if Cruz can't even answer that question what about the tougher ones that come with being president. (Go back to the last paragraph. Ever.) We get it, Senator Cruz can not concede anything as he stated but the fact is that just as he has done with his colleagues, he's done with the electorate - alienated too many of them with extreme positions delivered with a prickly demeanor. Look past John Boehner's Lucifer in the fresh comment to what he said after, describe Cruz as a miserable son of a bitch.
And now, whether Senator Cruz will admit it or not, Donald Trump has wrapped up the primary and is going to be the party's nominee. Mr. Trump is going to win in Indiana on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz's last stand state, and then the Texas senator is going to have to give serious thought to that question he couldn't answer today. He's going to have to come to grips with something that most Americans already knew. Ever. Coming out in the press - which by the way, cudos to Mr. Todd for defending against Mr. Cruz lousy charge that the media is comprised of liberal partisan Democrats, something that Fox News contend with - is that the Republican establishment doesn't have the stomach for a contested convention.
So given the eye-opening new reality upon us, we pray that Mr. Friedman is way off in his postulation that we're one large October/November terrorist attack away from a Trump presidency because as he continued to opine that he thinks this is the worst time to conduct foreign policy. Suffice to say that there is so much nuance required that a thorough understanding of foreign policy is a necessity.
It's not ISIS that is the greatest danger, but weak and failing governments as CIA Diretor John Brennan mentioned in his interview that create the environment for terrorist organizations like Boko Haram and ISIS exist and thrive. But on this fifth anniversary, to the day, of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the thought of him makes us think of Abu Musab al-Zarquawi who founded Al Qaeda in Iraq and whose methods are still earnestly believed in and practiced by the organization that it spawned, ISIS. Zarqawi has been dead for ten years so it is a phenomenon as Mr. Brennan pointed out, not confined to the territory in Iraq and Syria. ISIS, as we know, has a presence in Libya, Europe, Philippines, among others so keeping that in mind along with the Zarqawi dynamic, we agree that killing ISIS' present leader Al-Baghdadi is important, but only symbolically, not as much in the practical sense we're afraid.
With not only ISIS because all the other challenges the U.S. faces in the world, one teleprompter speech from Mr. Trump is not reassuring. It didn't take Thomas Friedman to tell us that Mr. Trump hasn't done his foreign policy homework to know that fact, though we're glad he said it.
The thought of Donald Trump making such careful decisions makes us a little queasy, to be honest.
Our advice, from here to November we'd advise to not eat too much because there are going to be a lot of gut-wrenching and gut-clenching moments coming up on this roller-coaster ride of a general election, and you'll want to keep it down.
Panel: Tom Friedman, The New York Times; Kristen Welker, NBC News; Ron Fournier, The National Journal; Doris Kearns-Goodwin, presidential historian
One more thing...
Good panel today, serious discussion, in which we appreciate the contributions of context that Dr. Goodwin provides such as the "American First" rhetoric in Donald Trump's speech, and that it was first a movement in American politics in 1939 that became tinged by Charles Lindbergh's anti-Semitism, yes that Charles Lindbergh. However, is it us or does Dr. Goodwin just have an awful sense of comic-timing. All her attempts were awkward to say the least.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
4.24.16: Coffee Talk with Don and Bernie
Chuck Todd's comment on the Bernie Sander's interview made it seem reminiscent of Mike Meyers' old Saturday Night Live skit, "Coffee Talk."
Linda Richman: Was that Bernie's exit interview? I'm verklempt. Discuss.
We wouldn't quite call it an exit interview, but it was definitely one in which in so many words Senator Sanders was saying, "I know where the door is, but I'm not going to leave until I'm ready." And that's what Senator Sanders should do because as improbably as his nomination for the general is, his message is one that needs to be heard more and more so that it really sticks all the way through to California. What we're referring to specifically is the issue of income inequality, which has gotten to the point of strangling the country. We would not include in that message Senator Sanders' demand for Sec. Clinton to release the transcripts of speeches she has made as a private citizen, as we stated before. But campaign finance - yes. Taxation - yes.
The other key take away from the senator's interview was that he said he was behind in votes and wins because the sad reality is that poor people in the United States do not vote. It is a sad truth as the senator called and we agree that if perhaps more poor people voted, they would vote for Senator Sanders and he could have very well been ahead. So knowing this, why didn't his campaign make a more concerted effort to get that vote out? There hasn't been any talk from the Sanders campaign that mass voting drives in poor areas of the country have been taking place so to simply state that 'sad fact' without the revolutionary attempt to enfranchise these people, you can't use that as an excuse for being behind. So in a way, Ms. Reid was correct in her assessment of that statement.
Perhaps Senator Sanders should have made the voter registration process in this country a bigger issue. With all the turmoil on the Republican side of things and all the talk of delegates voting opposite of the electorate, we were reminded that the Republican and Democratic parties are private organizations. So when someone wants to register to vote, a process that Republican state officials legislate up the degree of difficulty, they have to declare what private organization they belong to. If they do not, that person has no say in a closed primary. There just seems to be something off about that. Surmise to say that registration should be made easier. Hard stop.
This kind of leads to the other topic of the program, the inevitability of the nomination of the chameleonic Donald Trump who said that it's easy to act presidential, which begs the question - but is it easy to be president? The answer is no, by the way. But as Mr. Todd outlined at the top of today's program, Republicans have fully gone through those five stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. That's not to say that there are still more than an influential few who are pounding on the proverbial door to get the hell out, but for the most part...
RNC Chair, Reince Priebus, is urging the Republican establishment to get behind the nominee, of the private organization. But they don't have to because that pesky word keeps popping up. Most likely, the big donors are going to sit it out if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee - it really is a sad state of affairs for the Republican party and unfortunately for them, with Mr. Priebus running the RNC good things are not on the horizon.
But getting back to the 'evolving' of Mr. Trump as a candidate, the controversy is that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's convention manager, told the RNC brass down in Hollywood, FL that Mr. Trump was playing a part during the debates and on the stump and that's not how he really thinks. So all the things that he's been saying all along don't really mean anything. Two ways to read that: 1) That sounds like a typical politician, saying things you don't mean, which is what Mr. Trump rails against; or 2) Being the complete wildcard with his statements also makes him a complete wildcard with his actions and that's dangerous.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jose Diaz-Balart, Telemundo; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Nicole Wallace, NBC Political Analyst
One more thing...
28 redacted pages. These pages from the 9/11 report should be declassified, most certainly because Americans have the right to know. We understand that in those pages, some unflattering shades of gray seen on the Saudi government and there a key ally and source of oil for us, but so be it. Yes, the continued alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is necessary, but this is where we think President Obama has it correct. We're allies, but we ain't friends. The Saudi royal family has one motivation and that is to persist, no matter what they have to do so the days of them having us over a barrel of oil have to end.
Linda Richman: Was that Bernie's exit interview? I'm verklempt. Discuss.
We wouldn't quite call it an exit interview, but it was definitely one in which in so many words Senator Sanders was saying, "I know where the door is, but I'm not going to leave until I'm ready." And that's what Senator Sanders should do because as improbably as his nomination for the general is, his message is one that needs to be heard more and more so that it really sticks all the way through to California. What we're referring to specifically is the issue of income inequality, which has gotten to the point of strangling the country. We would not include in that message Senator Sanders' demand for Sec. Clinton to release the transcripts of speeches she has made as a private citizen, as we stated before. But campaign finance - yes. Taxation - yes.
The other key take away from the senator's interview was that he said he was behind in votes and wins because the sad reality is that poor people in the United States do not vote. It is a sad truth as the senator called and we agree that if perhaps more poor people voted, they would vote for Senator Sanders and he could have very well been ahead. So knowing this, why didn't his campaign make a more concerted effort to get that vote out? There hasn't been any talk from the Sanders campaign that mass voting drives in poor areas of the country have been taking place so to simply state that 'sad fact' without the revolutionary attempt to enfranchise these people, you can't use that as an excuse for being behind. So in a way, Ms. Reid was correct in her assessment of that statement.
Perhaps Senator Sanders should have made the voter registration process in this country a bigger issue. With all the turmoil on the Republican side of things and all the talk of delegates voting opposite of the electorate, we were reminded that the Republican and Democratic parties are private organizations. So when someone wants to register to vote, a process that Republican state officials legislate up the degree of difficulty, they have to declare what private organization they belong to. If they do not, that person has no say in a closed primary. There just seems to be something off about that. Surmise to say that registration should be made easier. Hard stop.
This kind of leads to the other topic of the program, the inevitability of the nomination of the chameleonic Donald Trump who said that it's easy to act presidential, which begs the question - but is it easy to be president? The answer is no, by the way. But as Mr. Todd outlined at the top of today's program, Republicans have fully gone through those five stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. That's not to say that there are still more than an influential few who are pounding on the proverbial door to get the hell out, but for the most part...
RNC Chair, Reince Priebus, is urging the Republican establishment to get behind the nominee, of the private organization. But they don't have to because that pesky word keeps popping up. Most likely, the big donors are going to sit it out if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee - it really is a sad state of affairs for the Republican party and unfortunately for them, with Mr. Priebus running the RNC good things are not on the horizon.
But getting back to the 'evolving' of Mr. Trump as a candidate, the controversy is that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's convention manager, told the RNC brass down in Hollywood, FL that Mr. Trump was playing a part during the debates and on the stump and that's not how he really thinks. So all the things that he's been saying all along don't really mean anything. Two ways to read that: 1) That sounds like a typical politician, saying things you don't mean, which is what Mr. Trump rails against; or 2) Being the complete wildcard with his statements also makes him a complete wildcard with his actions and that's dangerous.
Panel: Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Jose Diaz-Balart, Telemundo; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Nicole Wallace, NBC Political Analyst
One more thing...
28 redacted pages. These pages from the 9/11 report should be declassified, most certainly because Americans have the right to know. We understand that in those pages, some unflattering shades of gray seen on the Saudi government and there a key ally and source of oil for us, but so be it. Yes, the continued alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is necessary, but this is where we think President Obama has it correct. We're allies, but we ain't friends. The Saudi royal family has one motivation and that is to persist, no matter what they have to do so the days of them having us over a barrel of oil have to end.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
4.17.16: NC HB2 Law Helps No One/ The New York Primary, Act Accordingly
In 2017, Joe Smith and his partner are getting tired of driving so they pull off the highway in North Carolina and proceed directly to the check-in desk of the local Motel 6 franchise and they are going to be refused a room because of their sexual orientation. They sue Motel 6 and lose, but they appeal until in 2018 the case, Smith v. the State of North Carolina overturns the state legislation HB2 that does not protect citizens from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. And why? Because federal law overrides state law, just as state law (NC) overrode municipal (Charlotte) law in this case; and federal law says that the Constitution applies to all U.S. citizens equally.
So to use NBC reporter Perry Bacon's summary, the governor didn't really think it through. Governor McCrory's position on this law is indefensible on both the discriminatory nature and the bathroom stipulation, or should we say ridiculousness. Just reeking of politics, Gov. McCrory is endorsing a law that helps no one. Chuck Todd quoted a figure of 39.7 million dollars of lost revenue to the state, which will surely go up as time passes. State revenue gains through corporate hubs being located there is an easy and big political win for Republicans. That's gone. The country perceives the state legislature as an intentional discriminatory body. Reputation shot. And that's after you've unleashed a ton of potential suffering for a lot of individuals in your state who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. As Mr. Todd rightly asked, "Where was the dialogue?" And the answer is that there was none.
When are Republicans going to learn that these discriminatory social issue battles are always going to be losers for them. The reason they're always going to be losers is because society evolves to become more tolerant and understanding. Despite what Donald Trump may tell you or what law the North Carolina state legislature may pass when social norms and views evolve there is no going backward. Ever.
So why did they make this law? Because of religious beliefs? No one would admit that because taken to extremes it can head toward some very dark corners. And there's the fact that it is a Constitutional no-no; it's against the rules. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Those are the rules so we're just asking why.
Speaking of which, the freshly pleasant weather has also brought on a very minor miracle in that this column agrees with something RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put forth, which was that if you didn't know the rules before the game started and now you're complaining about them, too bad. The rules are the rules and they have to be followed. And while we understand that the rules may be considered arcane, silly, and unfair, but they only suck for Donald Trump because they're not working for him. If they were, then everything would be fine.
But shouting into a microphone that the RNC system is rigged is great politically for specifically Donald Trump because he's going to win New York big, then there's Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut coming up so with likely wins in all those states, Mr. Trump can say that he won in spite of the game being 'tilted against' him making it more significant in the eyes of Republican voters.
It plays even bigger when you consider the percentages outlined above when you consider that it's looking likely that Mr. Trump will win the vote total but that Mr. Cruz is likely to win the delegate vote if Trump doesn't reach the threshold of 1,237 prior to the convention. The business that gets done at the convention goes largely unnoticed, but not this year, as Mr. Priebus explained. And while you're watching this business transpire over four days in July on television, you'll be holding your nose or just shaking your head in disgust (no matter who you support).
Conversely, sorry to say for some, the Democratic race is going pretty much how a primary normally goes. There is a moderate, usually the front runner and someone else running to the base flank of the party, who pulls the moderate more toward the base.
That's what is happening but it doesn't speak to personalities, and it's clear that Sec. Clinton's and Sen. Sander's grate up against one another. Thursday's Democratic debate in Brooklyn was a heated affair but would you expect anything else, especially from Sec. Clinton who absolutely needs to win the state she represented as senator. When Senator Sanders argues that Sec. Clinton is not transparent the crowd roars, which is a great blow to the secretary even though Senator Sander's answers are just as vague on things. Senator Sanders is capitalizing on the Republican narrative that Mrs. Clinton always has something to hide, etc. as he should because she seems to always put herself in an awkward situation where in hide sight the 'something' wasn't such a great idea, and that's being kind. However, we think that Sec. Clinton should not have to release the transcripts of her speeches to financial firms et al. because she doesn't have to, being a private citizen when she gave them. More importantly, she has released her tax returns for the past twenty-two years, yet no one else running for president, including Bernie Sanders, has disclosed them at all.
With all that said about both sides, of course right now it's nasty with rhetorical ripping and tearing as it could be no other way. At stake you have the primary contest for the state that contains the media and financial capital of the world. Act accordingly.
Panel: Chris Matthews, NBC; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Perry Bacon, NBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator
So to use NBC reporter Perry Bacon's summary, the governor didn't really think it through. Governor McCrory's position on this law is indefensible on both the discriminatory nature and the bathroom stipulation, or should we say ridiculousness. Just reeking of politics, Gov. McCrory is endorsing a law that helps no one. Chuck Todd quoted a figure of 39.7 million dollars of lost revenue to the state, which will surely go up as time passes. State revenue gains through corporate hubs being located there is an easy and big political win for Republicans. That's gone. The country perceives the state legislature as an intentional discriminatory body. Reputation shot. And that's after you've unleashed a ton of potential suffering for a lot of individuals in your state who wanted nothing more than to be left alone. As Mr. Todd rightly asked, "Where was the dialogue?" And the answer is that there was none.
When are Republicans going to learn that these discriminatory social issue battles are always going to be losers for them. The reason they're always going to be losers is because society evolves to become more tolerant and understanding. Despite what Donald Trump may tell you or what law the North Carolina state legislature may pass when social norms and views evolve there is no going backward. Ever.
 |
| Reputation Shot. |
Those are the rules so we're just asking why.
Speaking of which, the freshly pleasant weather has also brought on a very minor miracle in that this column agrees with something RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put forth, which was that if you didn't know the rules before the game started and now you're complaining about them, too bad. The rules are the rules and they have to be followed. And while we understand that the rules may be considered arcane, silly, and unfair, but they only suck for Donald Trump because they're not working for him. If they were, then everything would be fine.
But shouting into a microphone that the RNC system is rigged is great politically for specifically Donald Trump because he's going to win New York big, then there's Pennsylvania, Maryland and Connecticut coming up so with likely wins in all those states, Mr. Trump can say that he won in spite of the game being 'tilted against' him making it more significant in the eyes of Republican voters.
It plays even bigger when you consider the percentages outlined above when you consider that it's looking likely that Mr. Trump will win the vote total but that Mr. Cruz is likely to win the delegate vote if Trump doesn't reach the threshold of 1,237 prior to the convention. The business that gets done at the convention goes largely unnoticed, but not this year, as Mr. Priebus explained. And while you're watching this business transpire over four days in July on television, you'll be holding your nose or just shaking your head in disgust (no matter who you support).
Conversely, sorry to say for some, the Democratic race is going pretty much how a primary normally goes. There is a moderate, usually the front runner and someone else running to the base flank of the party, who pulls the moderate more toward the base.
That's what is happening but it doesn't speak to personalities, and it's clear that Sec. Clinton's and Sen. Sander's grate up against one another. Thursday's Democratic debate in Brooklyn was a heated affair but would you expect anything else, especially from Sec. Clinton who absolutely needs to win the state she represented as senator. When Senator Sanders argues that Sec. Clinton is not transparent the crowd roars, which is a great blow to the secretary even though Senator Sander's answers are just as vague on things. Senator Sanders is capitalizing on the Republican narrative that Mrs. Clinton always has something to hide, etc. as he should because she seems to always put herself in an awkward situation where in hide sight the 'something' wasn't such a great idea, and that's being kind. However, we think that Sec. Clinton should not have to release the transcripts of her speeches to financial firms et al. because she doesn't have to, being a private citizen when she gave them. More importantly, she has released her tax returns for the past twenty-two years, yet no one else running for president, including Bernie Sanders, has disclosed them at all.
With all that said about both sides, of course right now it's nasty with rhetorical ripping and tearing as it could be no other way. At stake you have the primary contest for the state that contains the media and financial capital of the world. Act accordingly.
Panel: Chris Matthews, NBC; Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post; Perry Bacon, NBC; Hugh Hewlitt, conservative commentator
Sunday, April 10, 2016
4.10.16: Everyone's Got a Gripe, The Operatives At Play
Everything is being 're-litigated in the negative' in the 'Byzantine system,' in which 'Gestapo tactics' are being used to 'disenfranchise the base of the party.'
In other words, everyone's got a gripe, and every gripe is recorded. The above phrases in quotes all came from today's commentary and the outlook from all sides doesn't seem to be good. We've gotten to a point that in our personal lives when given the choice we expect to get what we want when we want it and if not, why bother? Our politics reflects that notion instead of a more professional stance of putting the small differences aside in order to move forward. In politics, like life, you really can not have it all. That our politics have become a futile zero-sum type of game, without compromise, the result is extreme or unpopular or unrealistic candidates.
Where this has left us on the Democratic side of things is with the unpopular (Sec. Clinton) and the unrealistic (Sen. Sanders). In the senator's interview today he once again walked back the 'unqualified' comment about Sec. Clinton but immediately pivoted to question her judgement citing the former secretary's support for trade deals, fracking and Super PACs that support her. We confess that we're not experts in trade deals, but we can say this about them: They're inevitable and they'll obviously never be perfect so we have to consider them in that frame of mind. In terms of fracking, it's great that we can lead the world in natural gas production but the cost is the great possibility of permanently damaging large supplies of our clean drinking water - a resource that is becoming more scarce worldwide. Also altering our geology so quickly and drastically in some regions that it has precipitated an increase in seismic activity, in Oklahoma for example where earthquakes are now a common occurrence. Fracking is fair game as an issue. However, we find Sen. Sanders's argument that Sec. Clinton's judgement should be questioned because of Super PACs supporting her not all that compelling. Remember that Super PACs came into existence because of the Supreme Court's decision on the Citizens United case fought because of a film that a corporation made about Hillary Clinton, hence giving us the illogical 'corporations are people.' You can equally make effective arguments for rejecting them or using them. The fact is that the other side, unless you're a billionaire, are going to use them to their fullest capacity. This column comes down on the side of Citizens United being one of the worse decisions by the high court in our lifetimes, but it's the reality.
The Democratic debate has gotten testy (or whatever equivalent adjective you want to use) for sure but at least it's been mostly centered on policy and the means to achieve goals. This obviously contrasts what's going on with the Republicans who it clearly seems are headed for a contested convention. How do we know this? Hmmm... Maybe because one today's guests was Paul Manafort whose title in the Trump campaign is convention manager. Mr. Manafort was an advisor for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes George. Now he works for Mr. Trump, which just goes to show how much some serious Republican power brokers hate Ted Cruz. It's like one of those blind hates like Republicans have for Sec. Clinton and President Obama.
Also, it seems like there are Republican power brokers, as we called them, on both sides of the Trump/ Cruz nomination argument, but here's how it lines up. Republicans who have been or who have worked with politicians seem to side with Trump whereas the conservative establishment press tends to back Cruz - the practical versus the ideological. Political operatives are backing Trump because he's always talking deals where conversely Senator Cruz speaks of ideology.
The National Review's Rich Lowry, whose publication devoted an entire issue about being against Trump, said that the nominee from the Republican party is going to be either Trump or Cruz so you can easily conclude who Mr. Lowry backs. It's the same with Glenn Beck who is a Cruz supporter, but who is also convinced that he'll be the nominee as well because he's a 'never Trump' guy. Where Mr. Beck and Mr. Lowry also agree is that anyone else as the nominee was effectively blow up the GOP. But as we've previously said, Mr. Trump is in the race until the end so he's either the Republican nominee or he's the third party.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
We're not sure what's going on with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) but we don't like it. First, he didn't want to be Speaker of the House unless he was the consensus pick, in his mind riding in to save the day. Well, what is up with the "White Knight" complex and the campaign ad that he put out this week? He says he doesn't want the presidential nomination but these not so subtle signals and the weaselly "I'm-not-campaigning" campaigning indicate otherwise and as you can tell, it's really rubbing us the wrong way.
In other words, everyone's got a gripe, and every gripe is recorded. The above phrases in quotes all came from today's commentary and the outlook from all sides doesn't seem to be good. We've gotten to a point that in our personal lives when given the choice we expect to get what we want when we want it and if not, why bother? Our politics reflects that notion instead of a more professional stance of putting the small differences aside in order to move forward. In politics, like life, you really can not have it all. That our politics have become a futile zero-sum type of game, without compromise, the result is extreme or unpopular or unrealistic candidates.
Where this has left us on the Democratic side of things is with the unpopular (Sec. Clinton) and the unrealistic (Sen. Sanders). In the senator's interview today he once again walked back the 'unqualified' comment about Sec. Clinton but immediately pivoted to question her judgement citing the former secretary's support for trade deals, fracking and Super PACs that support her. We confess that we're not experts in trade deals, but we can say this about them: They're inevitable and they'll obviously never be perfect so we have to consider them in that frame of mind. In terms of fracking, it's great that we can lead the world in natural gas production but the cost is the great possibility of permanently damaging large supplies of our clean drinking water - a resource that is becoming more scarce worldwide. Also altering our geology so quickly and drastically in some regions that it has precipitated an increase in seismic activity, in Oklahoma for example where earthquakes are now a common occurrence. Fracking is fair game as an issue. However, we find Sen. Sanders's argument that Sec. Clinton's judgement should be questioned because of Super PACs supporting her not all that compelling. Remember that Super PACs came into existence because of the Supreme Court's decision on the Citizens United case fought because of a film that a corporation made about Hillary Clinton, hence giving us the illogical 'corporations are people.' You can equally make effective arguments for rejecting them or using them. The fact is that the other side, unless you're a billionaire, are going to use them to their fullest capacity. This column comes down on the side of Citizens United being one of the worse decisions by the high court in our lifetimes, but it's the reality.
The Democratic debate has gotten testy (or whatever equivalent adjective you want to use) for sure but at least it's been mostly centered on policy and the means to achieve goals. This obviously contrasts what's going on with the Republicans who it clearly seems are headed for a contested convention. How do we know this? Hmmm... Maybe because one today's guests was Paul Manafort whose title in the Trump campaign is convention manager. Mr. Manafort was an advisor for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes George. Now he works for Mr. Trump, which just goes to show how much some serious Republican power brokers hate Ted Cruz. It's like one of those blind hates like Republicans have for Sec. Clinton and President Obama.
Also, it seems like there are Republican power brokers, as we called them, on both sides of the Trump/ Cruz nomination argument, but here's how it lines up. Republicans who have been or who have worked with politicians seem to side with Trump whereas the conservative establishment press tends to back Cruz - the practical versus the ideological. Political operatives are backing Trump because he's always talking deals where conversely Senator Cruz speaks of ideology.
The National Review's Rich Lowry, whose publication devoted an entire issue about being against Trump, said that the nominee from the Republican party is going to be either Trump or Cruz so you can easily conclude who Mr. Lowry backs. It's the same with Glenn Beck who is a Cruz supporter, but who is also convinced that he'll be the nominee as well because he's a 'never Trump' guy. Where Mr. Beck and Mr. Lowry also agree is that anyone else as the nominee was effectively blow up the GOP. But as we've previously said, Mr. Trump is in the race until the end so he's either the Republican nominee or he's the third party.
Panel: Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Molly Ball, The Atlantic; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One more thing...
We're not sure what's going on with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) but we don't like it. First, he didn't want to be Speaker of the House unless he was the consensus pick, in his mind riding in to save the day. Well, what is up with the "White Knight" complex and the campaign ad that he put out this week? He says he doesn't want the presidential nomination but these not so subtle signals and the weaselly "I'm-not-campaigning" campaigning indicate otherwise and as you can tell, it's really rubbing us the wrong way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)