What FBI Director James Comey did on Friday in releasing a statement that the agency is reopening the investigation into Sec. Clinton's emails because more have been found that may be pertinent was irresponsible and stupid, given that he doesn't even know what is the emails. To reopen the investigation, you need to have evidence of which he has none.
Mr. Comey, so protective of his own independence and seeming incorruptibility should resign immediately after the election as he has not served the American people in good faith - and let's be clear he has not done a valuable service to Democrats or Republicans. All he's done is set bad precedents and unduly undermined American democracy. He didn't follow proper procedure or precedent and hence put the FBI into the middle of a presidential election.
If not for anything, Mr. Comey gave a rhetorical, know-nothing bomb thrower, which Andrea Mitchell reported, more ammunition in a moment where clarity, and not ambiguity, is at a premium.
Republican vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence from what he said in his interview today thinks that Director Comey was pressured in July to not seek an indictment of Mrs. Clinton, but now is doing the right thing reopening the investigation. Again, our question is how do you reopen an investigation if you're not sure you have evidence to support that action? Dir. Comey doesn't know at this point what is contained in these emails. To opine, there are probably official emails on the laptop associated with Sec. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin that shouldn't be there but at the same time the FBI is already familiar with their contents. If they aren't then they didn't do a good enough job in the first place.
CNBC's Larry Kudlow said that the letter could have been more artfully done, to which Andrea Mitchell answered, "Ya think?" Great insight there Larry - you should just stick with your supply-side economics.
The panel also discussed that at this moment the reputation of the FBI is on the line. Larry Kudlow said that because of Comey's decision in July, the Bureau has been in large revolt, and so if Dir. Comey didn't send the letter to Congress that the information about the existence of new emails would have been leaked. Mr. Comey may have taken this step in an attempt to not appear political given this turmoil brewing internally at the FBI, 'correcting a mistake,' or something. In fact, the reputation of the FBI because of Mr. Comey's misguided statements from July until now has severely damaged its reputation, politicizing the agency.
As NPR's Audie Cornish explained, Mr. Comey created more smoke around Mrs. Clinton once again prompting the question of why there is always smoke around her and her husband, though there is never evidence of fire?
Republican politicians are happy that there is still an angle which they can exploit in the attempt to retake the White House and slay their white whale, Mrs. Clinton. And in the unfortunate event, for them, that she is elected president they'll take consolation in the fact that hearings will start immediately and the American people will go another full presidential term seeing one party completely obstruct the other, hence nothing will get done.
To give you an idea on what the effect a Trump presidency would have on the country, think about the fact that on Friday when Mr. Comey's statement was released the stock market dropped 50 points, because of the chances of Trump winning became better. For those who would say "good" because they some notion that the whole system should be taken down to better their lot in life are so misinformed that it's simply sad.
The candidates are who they are - good and bad respectively - so you have to judge. However, what Mr. Comey did as outlined at the top of today's program is that he gave Republicans down ballot a lifeline. We would add that the lifeline has also extended to the Trump campaign. With that, today's panel seemed to all agree that no matter what happens, who wins, gridlock in government will remain and perhaps get worse. Case in point:: Andrea Mitchell outlining how Republicans, hard right and moderate alike, are gunning to get House Speaker Paul Ryan to either bend to their will or get out.
In the presidential race, Americans have pretty much decided which candidate they're going to vote for - pick your poison with each and avoid accordingly - so Mr. Comey's actions won't ultimately have an effect on that contest. At least that's our read on it. Where his actions will truly be felt are down ballot, especially in House races. Basically, in an attempt to save his own reputation, even if inadvertently, he tipped the scale. It's just not the scale everyone thinks it is.
On the other hand, At least if Mrs. Clinton does win the presidency, Mr. Comey will have some friendlies around because you'd have to imagine that that working relationship will be somewhere very distant from one made in heaven.
And speaking of heaven - thank God - hopefully, this is almost over.
Panel: Mike Murphy, Republican Strategist; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Audie Conrish, NPR; Larry Kudlow, CNBC
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Sunday, October 23, 2016
10.23.16: Republicans Really Did Trump Themselves
With all due respect to Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway's explanation that when Mr. Trump sticks to the issues, he's a better leader for America. But Mr. Trump can not do that and never once has he given us the inclination that he will. Simply, Mr. Trump does not have the rudimentary knowledge to know what has to be done in order to run The United States of America. Thus, the only issues he can fully address are his own, not those that are of the American people's concern.
To Ms. Conway's credit, she did acknowledge that her candidate is behind but that he is still stating his case to the American people; however, Mr. Trump had three opportunities in front of tens of millions of people and all he did was illustrate how uniquely unfit he is for the office.
Conversely, there are two aspects of Ms. Conway's answers that we take strong exception to, the first of which is her and her campaign's use of the term 'rigged' in any context. Pushing the unjustified, irresponsible notion that the election is rigged in any form goes against the very foundation of American democracy. What good is it that 45 percent of Trump supporters think the election is rigged and therefore will not accept the outcome of the election. That's what the Trump campaign would have you believe, and Trump supporters make up 75 percent of the Republican party.
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman said that the Republican party has to be blown up and rise up from the ashes as something different. Republican strategist Stuart Stevens (who worked on Mitt Romney's campaign) added that if that were to happen it has to be "based in reality," which is in fact an admission that the Republicans' rhetoric to its base has not been based in reality.
That's not what is going to happen. Despite wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats, they are no going to win control of the House of Representatives. (Democrats will, however, gain enough seats to put pressure on the Republican majority to move some legislation.) Given that, Republicans in the House will try to move along as if nothing ultimately happened given the Trump candidacy. They'll ignore questions about the legitimacy of the election and simply say that it is over, a the while limping along crippled by internal bickering and revolt.
It makes us wonder about the future of the Trump supporter if he doesn't win. They can not remain just a movement because Trump himself, unable to stay the course especially if he doesn't win, will move on and go back to real estate where he can 'win.' But come 4 years from now, these same supporters aren't just going to come around in a practical sense to an establishment Republican candidate after Republicans in the House have surely stoked the fires with investigations into Mrs. Clinton over 'what ever they want,' frankly.
Forming a separate 'alt-conservative' type party is the only way to satisfy the extreme right base, and Republicans, as a party organization, have to decide whether or not that's the direction in which they want to go, but for the establishment we don't think so. Two conservative parties - one more so than the other. The actual viability of two conservative parties is another story all together.
The other exception, more a clarification, is when Ms. Conway says that Mrs. Clinton took money from foreign governments for access to the state department, for which there is no evidence of quid pro quo. However, was there close communication - most certainly. Preferential treatment - most definitely. Lack of transparency - absolutely. But, it wasn't Mrs. Clinton taking the money; foreign governments made donations to the Clinton Foundation, not Mrs. Clinton. That doesn't have to change your mind about the general notion of the donations themselves, but the distinction should be made because of sensible questions of legality. And before a Trump support gets all up in arms about this, do not cast the stone because the Trump Foundation, Mr. Trump's charity, has purchased items that now belong to the Trump Organization, his company, which is certainly not on the up and up, as it were.
With that said, we can in no way say that this election is over. Just as Cubs fans know, it's not a sure thing until the final out is put away. Despite the discrediting of Wikileaks as a whistle-blower organization since they are basically serving as the distribution arm of Russian state-sponsored cyber-espionage, there is always the possibility that some more damaging information could be released that is too big to ignore. Tim Kaine would not as easily be able to deflect revelations from the discredited source as he could today during his interview.
The National Review's Eliana Johnson described the Democrats' different positions on trade as a looming crisis, not equal to the Republicans' internal discord as she attempted, after the election because a Clinton administration are secret free-traders (our term) which goes against the Democratic base, confirmed by Yamiche Alcindor of The New York Times, who had followed the Sanders' campaign who explained that his core supporters, the far-left, don't trust Hillary Clinton.
Is it a crisis - no, but it will be a source of contention because as Chuck Todd assessed, and we agree, that progressives are more tolerant of incrementalism than base conservatives are.
Is Sec. Clinton's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership a flip-flop? Giving her a little bit of the benefit of the doubt because we've all witnessed so much worse, no. Was it a 'save face' move for political reasons? Of course. Our guess is that if the deal doesn't pass in the lame-duck session, some form of it will eventually go through that will be a little bit easier for the left to swallow, but there will still be scorn about it. Interestingly, what wouldn't have normally been a wild-card in such a deal, is the Republican-controlled House. In ordinary circumstances, a deal like this would get done and the Republican governmental minority (not controlling presidency or Senate) could claim victory. However, with a Trumpian-base firmly in place, who knows?
Lastly, this brings us to the down-ballot races, specifically the Senate because we've already outlined that the House will not go Democratic but will have more balance. The Senate, on the other hand, is another story and it couldn't be a vice-presidential tie-breaking situation where it's 50-50. Ultimately that is Democratic control, which will then move forward on Supreme Court nominations and hence confirmations.
Bottom line is that Trump will severely damage the down-ballot seats for Republicans but will not accomplish the inadvertent mission of completely destroying them. For example, Mr. Trump's candidacy has twisted Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R) reelection bid in New Hampshire into a knot that she can't untie. After saying that Mr. Trump was a role model for kids, she had to eventually cut the rope and disavow him but by then it was too late. This same phenomenon is happening in other Senate races, and Ms. Conway complained that her candidate and Republican Senate candidates are being hit with $66 million in negative ad buys by the Clinton campaign. Right, but if her campaign had that same money to spend, she wouldn't be complaining.
Who's fault is that?
Mr. Trump can't raise money because of his irresponsibly, outrageous, ill-informed rhetoric so that's on him. The rise of his candidacy and the subsequent shattering of the Republican party, that's on Republicans themselves.
Panel: Eliana Johnson, The National Review; Yamiche Alcindor, The New York Times; Thomas Friedman, The New York Times; Stuart Stevens, Republican Strategist
To Ms. Conway's credit, she did acknowledge that her candidate is behind but that he is still stating his case to the American people; however, Mr. Trump had three opportunities in front of tens of millions of people and all he did was illustrate how uniquely unfit he is for the office.
Conversely, there are two aspects of Ms. Conway's answers that we take strong exception to, the first of which is her and her campaign's use of the term 'rigged' in any context. Pushing the unjustified, irresponsible notion that the election is rigged in any form goes against the very foundation of American democracy. What good is it that 45 percent of Trump supporters think the election is rigged and therefore will not accept the outcome of the election. That's what the Trump campaign would have you believe, and Trump supporters make up 75 percent of the Republican party.
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman said that the Republican party has to be blown up and rise up from the ashes as something different. Republican strategist Stuart Stevens (who worked on Mitt Romney's campaign) added that if that were to happen it has to be "based in reality," which is in fact an admission that the Republicans' rhetoric to its base has not been based in reality.
That's not what is going to happen. Despite wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats, they are no going to win control of the House of Representatives. (Democrats will, however, gain enough seats to put pressure on the Republican majority to move some legislation.) Given that, Republicans in the House will try to move along as if nothing ultimately happened given the Trump candidacy. They'll ignore questions about the legitimacy of the election and simply say that it is over, a the while limping along crippled by internal bickering and revolt.
It makes us wonder about the future of the Trump supporter if he doesn't win. They can not remain just a movement because Trump himself, unable to stay the course especially if he doesn't win, will move on and go back to real estate where he can 'win.' But come 4 years from now, these same supporters aren't just going to come around in a practical sense to an establishment Republican candidate after Republicans in the House have surely stoked the fires with investigations into Mrs. Clinton over 'what ever they want,' frankly.
Forming a separate 'alt-conservative' type party is the only way to satisfy the extreme right base, and Republicans, as a party organization, have to decide whether or not that's the direction in which they want to go, but for the establishment we don't think so. Two conservative parties - one more so than the other. The actual viability of two conservative parties is another story all together.
The other exception, more a clarification, is when Ms. Conway says that Mrs. Clinton took money from foreign governments for access to the state department, for which there is no evidence of quid pro quo. However, was there close communication - most certainly. Preferential treatment - most definitely. Lack of transparency - absolutely. But, it wasn't Mrs. Clinton taking the money; foreign governments made donations to the Clinton Foundation, not Mrs. Clinton. That doesn't have to change your mind about the general notion of the donations themselves, but the distinction should be made because of sensible questions of legality. And before a Trump support gets all up in arms about this, do not cast the stone because the Trump Foundation, Mr. Trump's charity, has purchased items that now belong to the Trump Organization, his company, which is certainly not on the up and up, as it were.
With that said, we can in no way say that this election is over. Just as Cubs fans know, it's not a sure thing until the final out is put away. Despite the discrediting of Wikileaks as a whistle-blower organization since they are basically serving as the distribution arm of Russian state-sponsored cyber-espionage, there is always the possibility that some more damaging information could be released that is too big to ignore. Tim Kaine would not as easily be able to deflect revelations from the discredited source as he could today during his interview.
The National Review's Eliana Johnson described the Democrats' different positions on trade as a looming crisis, not equal to the Republicans' internal discord as she attempted, after the election because a Clinton administration are secret free-traders (our term) which goes against the Democratic base, confirmed by Yamiche Alcindor of The New York Times, who had followed the Sanders' campaign who explained that his core supporters, the far-left, don't trust Hillary Clinton.
Is it a crisis - no, but it will be a source of contention because as Chuck Todd assessed, and we agree, that progressives are more tolerant of incrementalism than base conservatives are.
Is Sec. Clinton's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership a flip-flop? Giving her a little bit of the benefit of the doubt because we've all witnessed so much worse, no. Was it a 'save face' move for political reasons? Of course. Our guess is that if the deal doesn't pass in the lame-duck session, some form of it will eventually go through that will be a little bit easier for the left to swallow, but there will still be scorn about it. Interestingly, what wouldn't have normally been a wild-card in such a deal, is the Republican-controlled House. In ordinary circumstances, a deal like this would get done and the Republican governmental minority (not controlling presidency or Senate) could claim victory. However, with a Trumpian-base firmly in place, who knows?
Lastly, this brings us to the down-ballot races, specifically the Senate because we've already outlined that the House will not go Democratic but will have more balance. The Senate, on the other hand, is another story and it couldn't be a vice-presidential tie-breaking situation where it's 50-50. Ultimately that is Democratic control, which will then move forward on Supreme Court nominations and hence confirmations.
Bottom line is that Trump will severely damage the down-ballot seats for Republicans but will not accomplish the inadvertent mission of completely destroying them. For example, Mr. Trump's candidacy has twisted Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R) reelection bid in New Hampshire into a knot that she can't untie. After saying that Mr. Trump was a role model for kids, she had to eventually cut the rope and disavow him but by then it was too late. This same phenomenon is happening in other Senate races, and Ms. Conway complained that her candidate and Republican Senate candidates are being hit with $66 million in negative ad buys by the Clinton campaign. Right, but if her campaign had that same money to spend, she wouldn't be complaining.
Who's fault is that?
Mr. Trump can't raise money because of his irresponsibly, outrageous, ill-informed rhetoric so that's on him. The rise of his candidacy and the subsequent shattering of the Republican party, that's on Republicans themselves.
Panel: Eliana Johnson, The National Review; Yamiche Alcindor, The New York Times; Thomas Friedman, The New York Times; Stuart Stevens, Republican Strategist
Sunday, October 16, 2016
10.16.16: Warning Shots Everywhere
Warning shots flying all over the place.
First, we need to correct something. A few columns back when we commended Donald Trump for sedately wishing Sec. Clinton well with her health because he was really the only one to do it. We don't take the 'thank you' back and we will not delete the post, but we strongly retract the commendation for obvious reasons as Mr. Trump has shown no contrition in the face of ugly comments he made toward women and no common decency for American democracy since.
Of course Vice President Joe Biden is going to wax poetic about how Hillary Clinton is a better more compassionate candidate than Donald Trump, and if it isn't clear - she is, but there wasn't anything insightful there. However, that cannot be said for VP Biden's comment on foreign policy. As a matter of fact, it was news.
The vice president fired a clear warning shot at the Russians with regard to the hacking and seemed to say that the United States was prepared to respond in kind with its own cyber-attack and that it's an eventuality. Quite a bold statement but we think it's one that had to be said. Instead of sitting back and playing defense, VP Biden stated that the U.S. would not be passive essentially putting Russia on notice.
With cyber-warfare, if you concede that that is what it is, there is always going to be deniability - action never admitted to. Going by all evidence, the Russians are responsible for the hacking of our political institutions constituting the beginnings of a new Cold War. It's on and where it's hotly contested is in Syria where the United States and Russia are trying to exert their power to influence the outcome of the civil war. However, on the side of Assad, Russia is directly mired in the civil war bombing civilians in Aleppo while it's widely perceived the U.S. has been completely ineffective in providing an equal response. An equal response would be a military one namely a no-fly zone, which would likely devolve into a larger conflict - we've all seen how these thing go.
Vice President Biden said that the United States top priority is to defeat ISIL that poses a direct threat to the United States and explained that according to the defense community it cannot carry on operations to battle ISIL and institute a no-fly zone over Syria - both cannot be done at the same time.
Mr. Biden also posed an interesting scenario that Russia's foray into the Middle East this time could be opportunity for the U.S. again, just as it was when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He assessed that the Russians are overextended in foreign affairs and with their economy so weak that he sees a longer-term opportunity for the U.S. That could very well be the case.
However, not if Donald Trump is president, who has rhetorically questioned why it wouldn't be a good idea to get along with Russia seemingly admiring the Russian autocrat. But then again, who knows because Donald Trump's running mate Mike Pence have opposing views on Russian policy, inexplicable that the Republican presidential ticket is not on the same page when it comes to policy toward one of our biggest adversaries. Mr. Trump said as much in the last debate when he said that they had talked about it. That's ridiculous.
For Mike Pence's part, he suggested that because of mass media bias, the election is rigged as his Mr. Trump keeps saying. A profile in courage Mr. Pence is not. He said that the American people need to move beyond the issue of Mr. Trump's vile statements toward women (over half of the electorate by the way), and focus on the economy and the things the American people care about. He may want to focus on those things, but the guy who's actually running for president focuses on anything but policy, most recently proposing that the presidential candidates submit to a drug test before the next debate. (It's OK to shake your head in disgust.)
Addressing Mr. Pence's grievance that the media is biased because they're more focused on Donald Trump and are ignoring the Clinton campaign's leaked emails, specifically focusing on Haiti as he and Hugh Hewlitt (on the panel) brought up. The emails suggest that the State Dept. under Hillary Clinton reached out to friends of the Clinton Foundation first with regard to helping Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. There is no evidence that these 'friends' were given any preferential treatment (https://www.apnews.com/997308bef7e742e99f5ca16547b4241d/Q&A:-Did-the-Clintons-'cash-in'-on-Haiti's-earthquake?)
As Joy-Ann Reid pointed out, the electorate in general are not familiar with the players that are sending these emails and its a bit convoluted when picking all this apart. Chris Cillizza from The Washington Post said that Mr. Hewlitt's argument about the emails would be very effective if (a big 'if') Trump could make it, but he can't. Take all that to say that politically it doesn't resonate as loudly as Mr. Trump's actions. If you want to use a Republican rhetorical tactic in combating this, one could explain that Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton then became vice president and gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton once the U.S. invaded Iraq. That's not doing favors? Granted it doesn't make Democrats feel good to use a comparison to Dick Cheney in terms of their candidate but the point is that it happens on both sides.
Going into the upcoming debate, Kristen Welker said that Trump fired a "warning shot" that nothing will be off-limits, and nothing will be as this is Mr. Trump's last chance to air his grievances to the electorate writ large. What you'll see during the debate is Mr. Trump hardly talking policy and mostly talking trash, which will only reinforce his unfitness for office. And ask Joy-Ann Reid warned at a certain point if Mr. Trump falls too far behind in the polls, the down ballot Republican candidates will pay a price. However, with a Trump candidacy, win or lose Republicans have already paid a price.
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Kristen Welker, NBC News;
Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
First, we need to correct something. A few columns back when we commended Donald Trump for sedately wishing Sec. Clinton well with her health because he was really the only one to do it. We don't take the 'thank you' back and we will not delete the post, but we strongly retract the commendation for obvious reasons as Mr. Trump has shown no contrition in the face of ugly comments he made toward women and no common decency for American democracy since.
Of course Vice President Joe Biden is going to wax poetic about how Hillary Clinton is a better more compassionate candidate than Donald Trump, and if it isn't clear - she is, but there wasn't anything insightful there. However, that cannot be said for VP Biden's comment on foreign policy. As a matter of fact, it was news.
The vice president fired a clear warning shot at the Russians with regard to the hacking and seemed to say that the United States was prepared to respond in kind with its own cyber-attack and that it's an eventuality. Quite a bold statement but we think it's one that had to be said. Instead of sitting back and playing defense, VP Biden stated that the U.S. would not be passive essentially putting Russia on notice.
With cyber-warfare, if you concede that that is what it is, there is always going to be deniability - action never admitted to. Going by all evidence, the Russians are responsible for the hacking of our political institutions constituting the beginnings of a new Cold War. It's on and where it's hotly contested is in Syria where the United States and Russia are trying to exert their power to influence the outcome of the civil war. However, on the side of Assad, Russia is directly mired in the civil war bombing civilians in Aleppo while it's widely perceived the U.S. has been completely ineffective in providing an equal response. An equal response would be a military one namely a no-fly zone, which would likely devolve into a larger conflict - we've all seen how these thing go.
Vice President Biden said that the United States top priority is to defeat ISIL that poses a direct threat to the United States and explained that according to the defense community it cannot carry on operations to battle ISIL and institute a no-fly zone over Syria - both cannot be done at the same time.
Mr. Biden also posed an interesting scenario that Russia's foray into the Middle East this time could be opportunity for the U.S. again, just as it was when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He assessed that the Russians are overextended in foreign affairs and with their economy so weak that he sees a longer-term opportunity for the U.S. That could very well be the case.
However, not if Donald Trump is president, who has rhetorically questioned why it wouldn't be a good idea to get along with Russia seemingly admiring the Russian autocrat. But then again, who knows because Donald Trump's running mate Mike Pence have opposing views on Russian policy, inexplicable that the Republican presidential ticket is not on the same page when it comes to policy toward one of our biggest adversaries. Mr. Trump said as much in the last debate when he said that they had talked about it. That's ridiculous.
For Mike Pence's part, he suggested that because of mass media bias, the election is rigged as his Mr. Trump keeps saying. A profile in courage Mr. Pence is not. He said that the American people need to move beyond the issue of Mr. Trump's vile statements toward women (over half of the electorate by the way), and focus on the economy and the things the American people care about. He may want to focus on those things, but the guy who's actually running for president focuses on anything but policy, most recently proposing that the presidential candidates submit to a drug test before the next debate. (It's OK to shake your head in disgust.)
Addressing Mr. Pence's grievance that the media is biased because they're more focused on Donald Trump and are ignoring the Clinton campaign's leaked emails, specifically focusing on Haiti as he and Hugh Hewlitt (on the panel) brought up. The emails suggest that the State Dept. under Hillary Clinton reached out to friends of the Clinton Foundation first with regard to helping Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. There is no evidence that these 'friends' were given any preferential treatment (https://www.apnews.com/997308bef7e742e99f5ca16547b4241d/Q&A:-Did-the-Clintons-'cash-in'-on-Haiti's-earthquake?)
As Joy-Ann Reid pointed out, the electorate in general are not familiar with the players that are sending these emails and its a bit convoluted when picking all this apart. Chris Cillizza from The Washington Post said that Mr. Hewlitt's argument about the emails would be very effective if (a big 'if') Trump could make it, but he can't. Take all that to say that politically it doesn't resonate as loudly as Mr. Trump's actions. If you want to use a Republican rhetorical tactic in combating this, one could explain that Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton then became vice president and gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton once the U.S. invaded Iraq. That's not doing favors? Granted it doesn't make Democrats feel good to use a comparison to Dick Cheney in terms of their candidate but the point is that it happens on both sides.
Going into the upcoming debate, Kristen Welker said that Trump fired a "warning shot" that nothing will be off-limits, and nothing will be as this is Mr. Trump's last chance to air his grievances to the electorate writ large. What you'll see during the debate is Mr. Trump hardly talking policy and mostly talking trash, which will only reinforce his unfitness for office. And ask Joy-Ann Reid warned at a certain point if Mr. Trump falls too far behind in the polls, the down ballot Republican candidates will pay a price. However, with a Trump candidacy, win or lose Republicans have already paid a price.
Panel: Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Joy-Ann Reid, NBC News; Kristen Welker, NBC News;
Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
Sunday, October 09, 2016
10.9.16: Policy No Longer Matters/ Debate Preview
Wow.
What else could possibly happen with a month to go until the election?
Rudy Giuliani, the only living person who is still willing defend Donald Trump, is arguing that we need to get to the issues while accusing fmr. President Bill Clinton of being a rapist.
The issues? The issues are gone.
What issues? If you agree with only a fraction of how veteran Republican strategist Steve Schmidt described Donald Trump as a candidate, you would fully agree that the issues don't matter anymore. Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton knows policy better, if this election was ever about that, and the electorate writ large is not making its decision on it, if it ever was.
Giuliani's most entertaining defense, which Chuck Todd called him out on, was that it was anything that mattered because he wasn't running for president at the time.
From Steve Schmidt:
This, this candidacy, the magnitude of its disgrace to the country is almost impossible, I think, to articulate. But it has exposed the intellectual rot in the Republican Party. It has exposed at a massive level the hypocrisy, the modern day money changers in the temple like Jerry Falwell Jr. And so, this party, to go forward and to represent a conservative vision for America, has great soul searching to do. And what we've seen and the danger for all of these candidates is over the course of the last year, these, these candidates who have repeatedly put their party ahead of their country, denying what is so obviously clear to anybody who's watching about his complete and total manifest unfitness for this office.
Not only a dagger to the Republican candidate but also large swathes of the Republican party, not to mention a slap upside the head to Giuliani.
And with that said, as much as Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), guest today, would like Donald Trump to think about his legacy and step away now, it's not going to happen, and it can't happen. It's not going to happen because Donald Trump in his faux apology video also attacked Bill Clinton's dalliances and then in a later statement said there was no way he was quitting. However, he cannot be replaced because ballots have already gone out, early voting is already happening so it's too late. Though Senator Lee's calling is well intended and from the gut, the logic isn't thought through; "Republican Candidate on Ballot Quits Race" is not a headline the Republican party could withstand.
Where does that leave us?
Well, we appreciated the sensibleness of Heather McGhee's explanation that politicians run for office and we elect them. In other words, politicians are going to do what they're going to do (like tell half truths and withhold admissions) so we have to take that in totality and make a decision. Someone like Steve Schmidt can take heart in what Ms. Ghee also said, which was that in a political moment Mrs. Clinton will tack to the center. But instead of that making us all somewhat happy because we all get something, it makes everyone extremely disappointed (and that's putting it mildly).
However, take consolation in this: We're making history, bizarre and twisted, but we're making it.
And more is going to be made tonight as Mr. Trump faces a nation, of whom he objectified and grossly offended over half with his 'bus comments.' Ruth Marcus said that Mr. Trump would most likely start out contrite but then eventually melt down. We would add that the meltdown if it happens will be severe - the stress of what's happening in the press due to his statements and the lack of preparation - and hence embolden more Republicans to pull support, among other things.
For Sec. Clinton's part, she just needs to be her somewhat predictable self and an effective counter-puncher because inevitably that's what she's going to need to do. We suspect, however, not as much as everyone thinks because of the town hall, two moderator, format where the candidates are fielding questions for 'undecided' voters. As scripted as Sec. Clinton's critics say she is, she is more natural in address voters and showing empathy in a one on one situation. Not the best but definitely more natural than Mr. Trump. For him, this debate is all about saving some of his dignity, not the Republican party's but his. If he's not contrite at all or tries to brush his own comments aside, Mrs. Clinton will go on the offense, bait him, and succeed in setting him off then it's all over.
But maybe, just maybe Mr. Trump can make show business history, pull it all together, and deliver a performance that lifts the speeding train and puts it back squarely on the track. But if you believe that, you're thinking is really off the rails.
Panel: Steve SchmidtRuth Marcus, The Washington Post; Sara Fagen, fmr. White House Director - Bush Administration; Heather McGhee, progressive think tank SEMO, Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist
What else could possibly happen with a month to go until the election?
Rudy Giuliani, the only living person who is still willing defend Donald Trump, is arguing that we need to get to the issues while accusing fmr. President Bill Clinton of being a rapist.
The issues? The issues are gone.
What issues? If you agree with only a fraction of how veteran Republican strategist Steve Schmidt described Donald Trump as a candidate, you would fully agree that the issues don't matter anymore. Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton knows policy better, if this election was ever about that, and the electorate writ large is not making its decision on it, if it ever was.
Giuliani's most entertaining defense, which Chuck Todd called him out on, was that it was anything that mattered because he wasn't running for president at the time.
From Steve Schmidt:
This, this candidacy, the magnitude of its disgrace to the country is almost impossible, I think, to articulate. But it has exposed the intellectual rot in the Republican Party. It has exposed at a massive level the hypocrisy, the modern day money changers in the temple like Jerry Falwell Jr. And so, this party, to go forward and to represent a conservative vision for America, has great soul searching to do. And what we've seen and the danger for all of these candidates is over the course of the last year, these, these candidates who have repeatedly put their party ahead of their country, denying what is so obviously clear to anybody who's watching about his complete and total manifest unfitness for this office.
Not only a dagger to the Republican candidate but also large swathes of the Republican party, not to mention a slap upside the head to Giuliani.
And with that said, as much as Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), guest today, would like Donald Trump to think about his legacy and step away now, it's not going to happen, and it can't happen. It's not going to happen because Donald Trump in his faux apology video also attacked Bill Clinton's dalliances and then in a later statement said there was no way he was quitting. However, he cannot be replaced because ballots have already gone out, early voting is already happening so it's too late. Though Senator Lee's calling is well intended and from the gut, the logic isn't thought through; "Republican Candidate on Ballot Quits Race" is not a headline the Republican party could withstand.
Where does that leave us?
Well, we appreciated the sensibleness of Heather McGhee's explanation that politicians run for office and we elect them. In other words, politicians are going to do what they're going to do (like tell half truths and withhold admissions) so we have to take that in totality and make a decision. Someone like Steve Schmidt can take heart in what Ms. Ghee also said, which was that in a political moment Mrs. Clinton will tack to the center. But instead of that making us all somewhat happy because we all get something, it makes everyone extremely disappointed (and that's putting it mildly).
However, take consolation in this: We're making history, bizarre and twisted, but we're making it.
And more is going to be made tonight as Mr. Trump faces a nation, of whom he objectified and grossly offended over half with his 'bus comments.' Ruth Marcus said that Mr. Trump would most likely start out contrite but then eventually melt down. We would add that the meltdown if it happens will be severe - the stress of what's happening in the press due to his statements and the lack of preparation - and hence embolden more Republicans to pull support, among other things.
For Sec. Clinton's part, she just needs to be her somewhat predictable self and an effective counter-puncher because inevitably that's what she's going to need to do. We suspect, however, not as much as everyone thinks because of the town hall, two moderator, format where the candidates are fielding questions for 'undecided' voters. As scripted as Sec. Clinton's critics say she is, she is more natural in address voters and showing empathy in a one on one situation. Not the best but definitely more natural than Mr. Trump. For him, this debate is all about saving some of his dignity, not the Republican party's but his. If he's not contrite at all or tries to brush his own comments aside, Mrs. Clinton will go on the offense, bait him, and succeed in setting him off then it's all over.
But maybe, just maybe Mr. Trump can make show business history, pull it all together, and deliver a performance that lifts the speeding train and puts it back squarely on the track. But if you believe that, you're thinking is really off the rails.
Panel: Steve SchmidtRuth Marcus, The Washington Post; Sara Fagen, fmr. White House Director - Bush Administration; Heather McGhee, progressive think tank SEMO, Steve Schmidt, Republican Strategist
Sunday, October 02, 2016
10.2.16: Suspending Belief Is Dangerous
It's difficult to listen to Rudy Giuliani talk.
The former District Attorney and Mayor of New York now sounds like a sleazy celebrity defense attorney in every answer he gives. You're talking about something offensive? Let me tell you something more offensive. Completely devoid of fact.
He's throwing stones at the Clintons for extramarital affairs then turns around and self-righteously condemns Chuck Todd for asking if he is qualified to level such a charge due to his own affairs.
In terms of Donald Trump and his taxes, or more accurately the lack of his payment of them, everyone is going to put his or her own spin on it. Whether you think he's smart because he legally avoided paying any taxes over an 18 year period or you think he should be disqualified because it shows that he's clearly not being honest about his finances, this much is clear:
He's running on his business acumen and he's a businessman that lost $916 million.
Why would I hire him to run my company? Or run my country? We don't equate the two because anyone who says that the federal government should be run like a business doesn't know enough about government. And point in fact is on foreign policy, to which Mr. Giuliani equally offensively said that Mr. Trump "displayed a better understanding of radical Islamic terrorism," with which wee would strongly object. Not only has Sec. Clinton shown a better understanding of terrorism in general, but the most comprehensive knowledge on all things that comprise international relations. Love her or hate her, you have to conclude that she's far superior in this field than her opponent. For Mr. Giuliani's part, he just doesn't understand that there is more to foreign policy than terrorism. We know he's made his living on it, but for him to even imply that Donald Trump would be better representing United States' foreign policy than Hillary Clinton is demented thinking.
Now having said that, we would concur with what Michael Moore and Glenn Beck agreed upon today that in middle America, voters are really angry with politicians and they feel that Donald Trump is their voice. One must point out that the anger comes from politicians promising things and not delivering, e.g. the repeal of Obamacare. But the irony is that Donald Trump represents the very Republican party that made these promises and didn't keep them.
Donald Trump is dangerous because he would have you suspend belief on all things and think that only he alone can fix what ails our country, like the tax code that he admits to expertly exploiting for his own enrichment, when we all know that's not how it works in the United States.
But all no matter, right?
Today's panel basically concluded that Trump's unhinged reconkulous (beyond 'ridiculous') 3AM Twitter rant or his completely unfounded accusations that Mrs. Clinton herself had an affair to the revelations about his incredible income tax facts (all just this week) will have no effect on how people will vote and that he still has a chance of being elected president of the United States. The scary and sad part for us is that we don't disagree.
They discussed how the party elites and the media no longer hold sway over the masses yet have only themselves to blame, which is mostly true. Think about it for half a second. On the conservative side, Fox News told their viewers that Mitt Romney was ahead and going to win - he didn't and about Obamacare repeals which never happened. On the liberal side of things, we would agree with Samantha Bee of Comedy Central that NBC has been an enabler of Trump's legitimacy as a candidate. Let's face it, those Jimmy Fallon interviews were like, "Wow, look at how my funny racist uncle can behave well on television."
With regard to the declining influence of newspaper's editorial boards, this column is fine in respecting what they have to say and thinking seriously about it. It's not our problem if other people have a problem with that. However, when a number of noted conservative newspapers (The Arizona Republic, New Hampshire Union Leader, The Dallas Morning News, and The Cincinnati Enquirer) are not endorsing the Republican candidate for president, in more than 100 years for a few, and in some instances endorsing the Democratic candidate who is Hillary Clinton then you listen. Gary Johnson, whose running mate Bill Weld said that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified to be president (not Gary Johnson), has more newspaper endorsements than Donald Trump.
If you suspend belief and disagree, fine, but unqualified Trump's on you.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Mark Halperin, Bloomberg News; Maria Teresa Kumar, President of Voto Latino; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One More Thing...
Glenn Beck has said many things that this column strongly disagrees with, opinions and what not - one that is unforgivable, which was calling President Obama a racist. However, today he did say that in a way we're losing our neighbors and family because we're not focused on reconciliation just winning, a seemingly clear shot at Donald Trump. Whatever his particular motivations are behind that don't matter for the sake of that on it's face, we agree with the sentiment.
Weird times...
The former District Attorney and Mayor of New York now sounds like a sleazy celebrity defense attorney in every answer he gives. You're talking about something offensive? Let me tell you something more offensive. Completely devoid of fact.
He's throwing stones at the Clintons for extramarital affairs then turns around and self-righteously condemns Chuck Todd for asking if he is qualified to level such a charge due to his own affairs.
In terms of Donald Trump and his taxes, or more accurately the lack of his payment of them, everyone is going to put his or her own spin on it. Whether you think he's smart because he legally avoided paying any taxes over an 18 year period or you think he should be disqualified because it shows that he's clearly not being honest about his finances, this much is clear:
He's running on his business acumen and he's a businessman that lost $916 million.
Why would I hire him to run my company? Or run my country? We don't equate the two because anyone who says that the federal government should be run like a business doesn't know enough about government. And point in fact is on foreign policy, to which Mr. Giuliani equally offensively said that Mr. Trump "displayed a better understanding of radical Islamic terrorism," with which wee would strongly object. Not only has Sec. Clinton shown a better understanding of terrorism in general, but the most comprehensive knowledge on all things that comprise international relations. Love her or hate her, you have to conclude that she's far superior in this field than her opponent. For Mr. Giuliani's part, he just doesn't understand that there is more to foreign policy than terrorism. We know he's made his living on it, but for him to even imply that Donald Trump would be better representing United States' foreign policy than Hillary Clinton is demented thinking.
Now having said that, we would concur with what Michael Moore and Glenn Beck agreed upon today that in middle America, voters are really angry with politicians and they feel that Donald Trump is their voice. One must point out that the anger comes from politicians promising things and not delivering, e.g. the repeal of Obamacare. But the irony is that Donald Trump represents the very Republican party that made these promises and didn't keep them.
Donald Trump is dangerous because he would have you suspend belief on all things and think that only he alone can fix what ails our country, like the tax code that he admits to expertly exploiting for his own enrichment, when we all know that's not how it works in the United States.
But all no matter, right?
Today's panel basically concluded that Trump's unhinged reconkulous (beyond 'ridiculous') 3AM Twitter rant or his completely unfounded accusations that Mrs. Clinton herself had an affair to the revelations about his incredible income tax facts (all just this week) will have no effect on how people will vote and that he still has a chance of being elected president of the United States. The scary and sad part for us is that we don't disagree.
They discussed how the party elites and the media no longer hold sway over the masses yet have only themselves to blame, which is mostly true. Think about it for half a second. On the conservative side, Fox News told their viewers that Mitt Romney was ahead and going to win - he didn't and about Obamacare repeals which never happened. On the liberal side of things, we would agree with Samantha Bee of Comedy Central that NBC has been an enabler of Trump's legitimacy as a candidate. Let's face it, those Jimmy Fallon interviews were like, "Wow, look at how my funny racist uncle can behave well on television."
With regard to the declining influence of newspaper's editorial boards, this column is fine in respecting what they have to say and thinking seriously about it. It's not our problem if other people have a problem with that. However, when a number of noted conservative newspapers (The Arizona Republic, New Hampshire Union Leader, The Dallas Morning News, and The Cincinnati Enquirer) are not endorsing the Republican candidate for president, in more than 100 years for a few, and in some instances endorsing the Democratic candidate who is Hillary Clinton then you listen. Gary Johnson, whose running mate Bill Weld said that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified to be president (not Gary Johnson), has more newspaper endorsements than Donald Trump.
If you suspend belief and disagree, fine, but unqualified Trump's on you.
Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Mark Halperin, Bloomberg News; Maria Teresa Kumar, President of Voto Latino; Rich Lowry, The National Review
One More Thing...
Glenn Beck has said many things that this column strongly disagrees with, opinions and what not - one that is unforgivable, which was calling President Obama a racist. However, today he did say that in a way we're losing our neighbors and family because we're not focused on reconciliation just winning, a seemingly clear shot at Donald Trump. Whatever his particular motivations are behind that don't matter for the sake of that on it's face, we agree with the sentiment.
Weird times...
Sunday, September 25, 2016
9.25.16: On the Eve of The First Presidential Debate, Don't Forget About Policy
Hugh Hewlitt said that he admires Ted Cruz for endorsing Donald Trump, after Senator Cruz is on the record calling Mr. Trump a bully, a sniveling coward and a narcissist among other things. Surprise, surprise; it turns out that Ted Cruz gave up his principles and is just another politician. That's almost forgivable compared to Hewlitt saying he admired him for it.
It's just another example of why we have no respect for anything he in particular says. He's a complete cynical, political opportunist who referenced the very fact that he worked for Richard Nixon, which goes to show that when it comes to political courage he'll duck, run, and save his own skin. Is this the kind of commentary he gives his listeners, really?
Conversely, Republican strategist Mike Murphy is sitting across the table exemplifying what it is to be a principled Republican, who accurately rebutted Hewlitt's entire Supreme Court argument because the very premise relies on trusting Donald Trump.
Our trust deficit with Donald Trump doesn't necessarily have to do as much with Supreme Court choices as it has to do with everything else - foreign policy, immigration, security, the economy on down the line - all of which are a probable conflicts of interest for Trump unless it can be verified to the contrary with the release of his tax returns.
Let's be clear, neither candidate can take the high road when it comes to transparency, but Mr. Trump not releasing his tax returns is particularly problematic, especially since he's based his entire campaign on being a successful businessman. If voters are judging him on the simple fact that he has a lot of money therefore he must be successful, but having no interest in knowing how he makes that money and the amount of taxes he probably doesn't pay seems at the very least negligent in your responsibility as a voter.
Publicly undisclosed personal financial motivations, in this context, could dictate Trump's decisions on policy, policy that may not be in the best interest of The United States.
And that's what tomorrow night's debate is going to come down to - little talked about policy. Today's "Meet The Press" basically served as the kick-off of pre-game political festivities for the debate, and with all the talk about gamesmanship and attacks and temperament, detailed policy prescriptions and how the candidates command them will be the most telling for us.
We would presume in this column to give advice to candidates on what they should or shouldn't say/do during the debate, nor will we speculate what will happen. However, what we will say is that in a 90-minute debate, knowledge of policy is going to dictate which candidate gets the upper hand, which one attacks more effectively, and which one passes the commander in chief test.
Given that, we also agree with Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter when she explained that the candidates need to put forth something positive, especially in an election such as this with a celebrity candidate who incidentally is quite negative. It's a crucial point that gets overlooked in political discussions because it's not as entertaining, frankly, but during the debate it's what viewers really respond to the most, and remember.
In the run-up to the World Series of politics that are these debates, with game one tomorrow night, there was one point that Republican strategist Steve Schmidt made with regard to gamesmanship that we thought was quite telling. On the news that the Clinton campaign was going to invite Mark Cuban to the debate, the Trump campaign, Mr. Trump himself, responded that Gennifer Flowers would be invited. Mr. Schmidt explained that the Clinton campaign tried to bait Mr. Trump and he went for it, it worked. Easily, we might add.Will Sec. Clinton be able to do the same to Mr. Trump, in the moment? Can Mr. Trump in response to an attack from Sec. Clinton not come off sounding sexist? We're excited to find out!
We'll be commenting.
Panel: Doris Kearns Godwin, presidential historian; Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network
One More Thing...
In reference to the panel, we want to firmly state that Gwen Ifill should be moderating one of the debates. With all due respect to the other moderators, Ms. Ifill is head and shoulders above the rest. Not to mention the fact that the 'P' in PBS stands for public. PBS should be hosting one of the debates.
It's just another example of why we have no respect for anything he in particular says. He's a complete cynical, political opportunist who referenced the very fact that he worked for Richard Nixon, which goes to show that when it comes to political courage he'll duck, run, and save his own skin. Is this the kind of commentary he gives his listeners, really?
Conversely, Republican strategist Mike Murphy is sitting across the table exemplifying what it is to be a principled Republican, who accurately rebutted Hewlitt's entire Supreme Court argument because the very premise relies on trusting Donald Trump.
Our trust deficit with Donald Trump doesn't necessarily have to do as much with Supreme Court choices as it has to do with everything else - foreign policy, immigration, security, the economy on down the line - all of which are a probable conflicts of interest for Trump unless it can be verified to the contrary with the release of his tax returns.
Let's be clear, neither candidate can take the high road when it comes to transparency, but Mr. Trump not releasing his tax returns is particularly problematic, especially since he's based his entire campaign on being a successful businessman. If voters are judging him on the simple fact that he has a lot of money therefore he must be successful, but having no interest in knowing how he makes that money and the amount of taxes he probably doesn't pay seems at the very least negligent in your responsibility as a voter.
Publicly undisclosed personal financial motivations, in this context, could dictate Trump's decisions on policy, policy that may not be in the best interest of The United States.
And that's what tomorrow night's debate is going to come down to - little talked about policy. Today's "Meet The Press" basically served as the kick-off of pre-game political festivities for the debate, and with all the talk about gamesmanship and attacks and temperament, detailed policy prescriptions and how the candidates command them will be the most telling for us.
We would presume in this column to give advice to candidates on what they should or shouldn't say/do during the debate, nor will we speculate what will happen. However, what we will say is that in a 90-minute debate, knowledge of policy is going to dictate which candidate gets the upper hand, which one attacks more effectively, and which one passes the commander in chief test.
Given that, we also agree with Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter when she explained that the candidates need to put forth something positive, especially in an election such as this with a celebrity candidate who incidentally is quite negative. It's a crucial point that gets overlooked in political discussions because it's not as entertaining, frankly, but during the debate it's what viewers really respond to the most, and remember.
In the run-up to the World Series of politics that are these debates, with game one tomorrow night, there was one point that Republican strategist Steve Schmidt made with regard to gamesmanship that we thought was quite telling. On the news that the Clinton campaign was going to invite Mark Cuban to the debate, the Trump campaign, Mr. Trump himself, responded that Gennifer Flowers would be invited. Mr. Schmidt explained that the Clinton campaign tried to bait Mr. Trump and he went for it, it worked. Easily, we might add.Will Sec. Clinton be able to do the same to Mr. Trump, in the moment? Can Mr. Trump in response to an attack from Sec. Clinton not come off sounding sexist? We're excited to find out!
We'll be commenting.
Panel: Doris Kearns Godwin, presidential historian; Gwen Ifill, PBS News Hour; Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network
One More Thing...
In reference to the panel, we want to firmly state that Gwen Ifill should be moderating one of the debates. With all due respect to the other moderators, Ms. Ifill is head and shoulders above the rest. Not to mention the fact that the 'P' in PBS stands for public. PBS should be hosting one of the debates.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
9.22.16: Why Do The Police Shoot People?
Why do the police shoot people?
Seems like a pretty simple question, but through this perhaps naive query comes a myriad of answers, we guess.
However, we keep thinking that the base reason as to why police shoot people is because they are afraid of being shot themselves. Doesn't that make too much sense?
As we've said before in this column, we as an American society have been completely irresponsible with gun ownership. The senseless gun violence of individual on individual and of course police on civilian, especially African-American males is out of control. It is certainly not what we would consider advanced citizenry.
America is in complete gun denial. Instead of doing anything to stem the tide, we have forty-five states that allow open carrying of handguns. For what purpose is this necessary? Protection? Seems like when you shoot someone with a handgun, you're either going to jail or you'll be shot and killed yourself. Some protection.
The can be no dialogue when shots are being fired so saying that we need to have a dialogue is a sadly futile exercise.
Some would say that it is their God-given right to own a gun. To that we would remind that killing another person is a mortal sin; we read that somewhere. If that is the case then why would God put in your hand the instrument to commit that mortal sin?
With regard to Second Amendment, the phrase that rings out is "well-regulated militia." We've allowed our society to become militarized, hence we are the militia, but we are certainly not well-regulated. It has to change or it will only get worse, which you can take as fact.
Lastly, well-regulated doesn't necessarily mean denying people ownership, and we're not for that. But what it should mean is that you have to jump through hoops to get one just like there are certain requirements to own a car.
But who are we kidding? Sensible and fair gun laws in this country are just a fantasy just like it's fantasy that individuals and police will stop shooting.
This one base answer is right in front of our faces, so big that we can't even see it.
Seems like a pretty simple question, but through this perhaps naive query comes a myriad of answers, we guess.
However, we keep thinking that the base reason as to why police shoot people is because they are afraid of being shot themselves. Doesn't that make too much sense?
As we've said before in this column, we as an American society have been completely irresponsible with gun ownership. The senseless gun violence of individual on individual and of course police on civilian, especially African-American males is out of control. It is certainly not what we would consider advanced citizenry.
America is in complete gun denial. Instead of doing anything to stem the tide, we have forty-five states that allow open carrying of handguns. For what purpose is this necessary? Protection? Seems like when you shoot someone with a handgun, you're either going to jail or you'll be shot and killed yourself. Some protection.
The can be no dialogue when shots are being fired so saying that we need to have a dialogue is a sadly futile exercise.
Some would say that it is their God-given right to own a gun. To that we would remind that killing another person is a mortal sin; we read that somewhere. If that is the case then why would God put in your hand the instrument to commit that mortal sin?
With regard to Second Amendment, the phrase that rings out is "well-regulated militia." We've allowed our society to become militarized, hence we are the militia, but we are certainly not well-regulated. It has to change or it will only get worse, which you can take as fact.
Lastly, well-regulated doesn't necessarily mean denying people ownership, and we're not for that. But what it should mean is that you have to jump through hoops to get one just like there are certain requirements to own a car.
But who are we kidding? Sensible and fair gun laws in this country are just a fantasy just like it's fantasy that individuals and police will stop shooting.
This one base answer is right in front of our faces, so big that we can't even see it.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
9.18.16: Trump Winning Strategy - Manipulate TV Media (And They're Letting Him Do It.)
We say without any 'chest pumping' that the explosion in Manhattan with not bring fear or alter New York life, and it is in these instances where the public has complete trust in the NYPD and its terrorism task force to bring justice to this latest high profile act of terror.
The other acts of terror should be noted in St. Cloud, MN and in Seaside Park, NJ because if there is any connection we see if as a coordinated call for random acts on that day that, thankfully, didn't go as planned.
More to come...
As it relates to the presidential candidates, both answered true to their nature with Hillary Clinton taking the more cautious approach - wait and see - holding for more information whereas Donald Trump declared it a bomb before NYC officials identified it as such. In this instance Donald Trump could say he was right, but this isn't about being right. More it shows that Mr. Trump is quickly to draw a conclusion and vocalize it without all the facts. It's not a presidential approach.
Chuck Todd asked VP candidate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) why the race is so close, bringing up the trust and transparency issues dogging Sec. Clinton. Sen. Kaine cited a divided country and acknowledged that their campaign always thought the race would be close. A weak answer so we'd like to expand on it a bit. It is true that we are a divided country, in which for the exception of a large and significant soft middle [read: swing/independent voters] a respective 40 percent on either side will not vote for the other, but this year is different with Mr. Trump as a candidate. First establishment Republicans are quiet but ultimately will not vote for Donald Trump. Secondly, millennials and Bernie Sanders supporters overall right now are not enthusiastic for Hillary Clinton.
The general loathing of both candidates has been exacerbated by the major media outlets that is completely confused as to its role. Major media's, including Fox News - yes, general consensus is that Hillary Clinton is the more qualified and better person to be president, despite deep distrust between the two parities. But at the same time, they can't take their camera'ed eyes off of Trump and in turn his message gets amplified, like at Friday's 'birther' announcement that completely TV media for a bunch of chumps.
Perfectly staged, Mr. Trump showcased and promoted his new Washington DC hotel, which he'll have to sell to honestly establish a blind trust for his business interests. Included in the presentation were statements of endorsement from high-ranking veterans to claim the high ground like Kellyanne Conway did in today's interview. He capped off the 30-minute infomercial with the 5-year series conclusion, "Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."
Disgraceful on so many levels only made even worse by saying that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign started the conspiracy theory of 'birtherism,' which we agree with Cornell Belcher as described as a 'soft place for racism,' that Mr. Trump took comfort for 5 years. Despite all Ms. Conway's effective deflecting of the question, there is no excuse or adequate answer she can give. Obviously Mr. Trump will not give an apology to the president, or anyone for that matter, but what about to 60 percent of his supporters who incorrectly believe that the president was not born in this country? What does he say to them? "I lied to your face, but it's no big deal, right? Believe me." And his supporters seem to simply reply, "OK."
Oh, brother.
Not to mention that Alex Castellanos said that there is an 'otherness' to Barack Obama's presidency, which just reinforces these racist dog whistles. Mr. Castellanos talks smoothly but what comes out is garbage.
All this despite Mr. Trump changing his position on the following issues that Mr. Todd correctly outlined.
But Upper West Side supporters (a liberal area of Manhattan), as Mr. Todd noted, are freaking out, and for good reason because as election day gets closer, Republicans are becoming more fired up and Sec. Clinton's candidacy hasn't inspired the same. They're freaking out so much that Maureen Dowd, no Clinton lover by any stretch, described how they'd like Trump censored and Mrs. Clinton's message promoted. She also explained that the resume argument doesn't always mean that the individual will make the right decision, a la Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and Clinton's hasn't excited the base. Where her campaign is really relying on that experience is at the 'vote moment,' where an individual is at the ballot box and has a moment of pause. It's mostly applicable to prospective Gary Johnson/ third party supporters. But it's not anything you can count on. It's an uphill climb for Clinton's message to inspire when your opponent is handed the media megaphone more often.
Throughout the Republican primary and now in the general, Mr. Trump has effectively controlled and played the media like no other candidate in modern history, and it's this kind of manipulation that's attractive to people like Steve Bannon from Breitbart.
The saving grace for Sec. Clinton could be the debates, but only if she soundly wins the first one. Right now for her, it's the key to the whole race.
Panel: Katy Tur, NBC News; Maureen Dowd, The New York Times; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Cornell Belcher, President of Brilliant Corners
The other acts of terror should be noted in St. Cloud, MN and in Seaside Park, NJ because if there is any connection we see if as a coordinated call for random acts on that day that, thankfully, didn't go as planned.
More to come...
As it relates to the presidential candidates, both answered true to their nature with Hillary Clinton taking the more cautious approach - wait and see - holding for more information whereas Donald Trump declared it a bomb before NYC officials identified it as such. In this instance Donald Trump could say he was right, but this isn't about being right. More it shows that Mr. Trump is quickly to draw a conclusion and vocalize it without all the facts. It's not a presidential approach.
Chuck Todd asked VP candidate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) why the race is so close, bringing up the trust and transparency issues dogging Sec. Clinton. Sen. Kaine cited a divided country and acknowledged that their campaign always thought the race would be close. A weak answer so we'd like to expand on it a bit. It is true that we are a divided country, in which for the exception of a large and significant soft middle [read: swing/independent voters] a respective 40 percent on either side will not vote for the other, but this year is different with Mr. Trump as a candidate. First establishment Republicans are quiet but ultimately will not vote for Donald Trump. Secondly, millennials and Bernie Sanders supporters overall right now are not enthusiastic for Hillary Clinton.
The general loathing of both candidates has been exacerbated by the major media outlets that is completely confused as to its role. Major media's, including Fox News - yes, general consensus is that Hillary Clinton is the more qualified and better person to be president, despite deep distrust between the two parities. But at the same time, they can't take their camera'ed eyes off of Trump and in turn his message gets amplified, like at Friday's 'birther' announcement that completely TV media for a bunch of chumps.
Perfectly staged, Mr. Trump showcased and promoted his new Washington DC hotel, which he'll have to sell to honestly establish a blind trust for his business interests. Included in the presentation were statements of endorsement from high-ranking veterans to claim the high ground like Kellyanne Conway did in today's interview. He capped off the 30-minute infomercial with the 5-year series conclusion, "Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period."
Disgraceful on so many levels only made even worse by saying that Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign started the conspiracy theory of 'birtherism,' which we agree with Cornell Belcher as described as a 'soft place for racism,' that Mr. Trump took comfort for 5 years. Despite all Ms. Conway's effective deflecting of the question, there is no excuse or adequate answer she can give. Obviously Mr. Trump will not give an apology to the president, or anyone for that matter, but what about to 60 percent of his supporters who incorrectly believe that the president was not born in this country? What does he say to them? "I lied to your face, but it's no big deal, right? Believe me." And his supporters seem to simply reply, "OK."
Oh, brother.
Not to mention that Alex Castellanos said that there is an 'otherness' to Barack Obama's presidency, which just reinforces these racist dog whistles. Mr. Castellanos talks smoothly but what comes out is garbage.
All this despite Mr. Trump changing his position on the following issues that Mr. Todd correctly outlined.
But Upper West Side supporters (a liberal area of Manhattan), as Mr. Todd noted, are freaking out, and for good reason because as election day gets closer, Republicans are becoming more fired up and Sec. Clinton's candidacy hasn't inspired the same. They're freaking out so much that Maureen Dowd, no Clinton lover by any stretch, described how they'd like Trump censored and Mrs. Clinton's message promoted. She also explained that the resume argument doesn't always mean that the individual will make the right decision, a la Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and Clinton's hasn't excited the base. Where her campaign is really relying on that experience is at the 'vote moment,' where an individual is at the ballot box and has a moment of pause. It's mostly applicable to prospective Gary Johnson/ third party supporters. But it's not anything you can count on. It's an uphill climb for Clinton's message to inspire when your opponent is handed the media megaphone more often.
Throughout the Republican primary and now in the general, Mr. Trump has effectively controlled and played the media like no other candidate in modern history, and it's this kind of manipulation that's attractive to people like Steve Bannon from Breitbart.
The saving grace for Sec. Clinton could be the debates, but only if she soundly wins the first one. Right now for her, it's the key to the whole race.
Panel: Katy Tur, NBC News; Maureen Dowd, The New York Times; Alex Castellanos, Republican Strategist; Cornell Belcher, President of Brilliant Corners
Monday, September 12, 2016
9.12.16: Thank You Mr. Trump, Sincerely
"I hope she gets well soon... I hope she gets well, gets back on trail and we'll see her at the debate."
Analysts would say that Mr. Trump showed discipline and just got out of the way of the story, but when he said the above on "Fox and Friends" in the manner in which he said it; sincere or not so much you decide, he was the only one to wish Sec. Clinton well.
He repeated it and expanded on this during the course of the day, probably because Mr. Trump took note of the positive reaction in the press from the positive gesture. And maybe perhaps because of that it become more sincere.
What evs... He's the highest profile politician to say so.
Deplorables aside, thank you Mr. Trump.
Analysts would say that Mr. Trump showed discipline and just got out of the way of the story, but when he said the above on "Fox and Friends" in the manner in which he said it; sincere or not so much you decide, he was the only one to wish Sec. Clinton well.
He repeated it and expanded on this during the course of the day, probably because Mr. Trump took note of the positive reaction in the press from the positive gesture. And maybe perhaps because of that it become more sincere.
What evs... He's the highest profile politician to say so.
Deplorables aside, thank you Mr. Trump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)