1.29.17: Q: Where Are We? A: President Trump's America

President Trump's executive order on Friday banning the issuance of visas and other immigration benefits from seven Muslim countries - Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya - caused spontaneous demonstrations at international airports across the country.

The executive order doesn't exclude green card holders, which is an I-551 visa giving you the right to travel freely to and from The United States.

From the executive order...
(source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/)

     I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

The green card visa is not included in the exemption, which hence denies people their rights. That's why White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was very careful to say "moving forward" it would not affect green card holders, but right now anyone outside of those exemptions is supposed to be turned back.

Is what President Trump doing lawful? Yes. Is it antithetic to American values? I'd say, "most certainly," and I'd add that it is counter productive to what Mr. Priebus said the executive order was designed to do, which was keep the American people safe. It actually puts us at greater risk. And to top it off, the president has said that in these countries, we'll give religious preference to Christians and other minority religions.

But as The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel pointed out, President Trump is fulfilling campaign promises.

Senator Tim Kaine's (D-VA) rhetoric seemed a bit over the top, or did it? He said it wasn't a coincidence that the executive order of visas and a Holocaust Remembrance statement from the White House that didn't mention Jews were issued on the same day.  Actually, I think it was a coincidence that they were issued on the same day but not that they had the same sentiment, which plays right into Steve Bannon's reputation and track-record - anti-Semitic and xenophobic.

It wasn't an accident that Donald Trump used the phrase "America First" in his inauguration speech, widely concluded that Mr. Bannon had a hand in writing it. That was the name of the American movement in the 30's that was opposed to involvement in WWII and advocated staying neutral between Britain and France vs. the Nazis.

And speaking of Nazis, here's the White House Statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day:

“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

“Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.‎ As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.

“In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”

And don't forget the major diplomatic rift we now have with Mexico, which is squarely the president's doing, but yet completely unnecessary. There's also a whiff of suspicion about the fact that not included in the executive order travel ban are any majority Muslim countries where the Trump Organization has business ties.

Mr. Priebus with regard to the executive order - "apologize for nothing here," and on not mentioning Jews in the Holocaust Remembrance statement, "no regrets." Not to mention the fact that he couldn't even bring himself to say during the interview (to clean this up) that Jews were killed during the Holocaust, saying insufficiently that "Jews suffered." Suffered. 

The New York Times's Thomas Friedman assessed that the executive order wasn't thought out enough, but it doesn't seem like it. It leaves one to alarmingly ask, "Where the hell are we?"

Panel: Kimberley Strassel, The Wall Street Journal; Doris Kearns Godwin, presidential historian; Thomas Friedman, The New York Times; Michael Steele, former RNC Chair

1.22.17: KellyAnne Conway Should Just Stop - Alternative Facts are Falsehoods

With all due respect to KellyAnne Conway, reciting that Donald Trump won the election over and over again has gotten old due to the childish nature of how it is used as a counter argument to every question from the press.

If she and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and their boss the president are upset at their treatment from the press on the first day, then "too damn bad," as they say because this isn't going to get any easier especially if Mr. Spicer intends to continue with giving 'alternative facts' as Ms. Conway outlined what he said.

Alternative facts? Alternative facts are, indeed, falsehoods. Ms. Conway's admission of the press secretary using alternative facts is as stupid as it is stunning.

Ms. Conway spoke defensively, so much so that she lost her cool, which clearly confirmed that she didn't have any adequate or acceptable answer to give Chuck Todd's single question of "What was the motivation of the press secretary to go out on his first day and state falsehoods? Why was that necessary?"  It really is ridiculous, which Ms. Conway took offense to, and said that Mr. Todd was laughing at her. At this point, Ms. Conway played the victim, which is another tactic that she needs to stop. Ms. Conway works in the White House, the ultimate bully pulpit so he attempts to illicit sympathy for being attacked really shows weakness of the Administration's character.

One last thing about Ms. Conway's interview... She said that the mere presence of President Trump at CIA Headquarters shows that he has respect for the intelligence community. Right. This magnanimous gesture was really just the president covering his butt on the fact that he compared CIA staff to the Nazis a week ago in a tweet. And if the intelligence community thinks that Donald Trump has respect for them, sympathetic to the scope of dangerous work they do, then they're not very, well... Intelligent.

Suffice to say that I've lost my patience with KellyAnne Conway because she's incapable of answering a question in a non-defensive tone and to give an answer based in verifiable fact aside from one, that Donald Trump won the election.

Mr. Todd went hard at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) about holding up confirmations, like for the prospective new CIA Director Mike Pompeo, accusing the senator of playing politics, trying to give equal tough treatment to both sides.  In this case it is unwarranted but Mr. Todd is hamstrung in taking this tact lest he be accused himself of favoring one side over another... again.

Even if Mr. Schumer is playing politics with the confirmations, so what. No president has ever visited CIA Headquarters on his first day and no CIA Director has ever been confirmed on the first day. The senate will vote Monday and Mr. Pompeo will be confirmed. Again, Ms. Conway lecturing anyone of delaying confirmations is disgusting Republican hypocrisy due to the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked the confirmation hearing of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

This isn't going to get any easier for the Trump Administration and nor should it. The administration has done this to itself. It's strange to me that the most powerful group of people in the world is incapable of collectively coming up with a single statement that is compassionate or magnanimous in tone.  President Trump has yet to say one thing in terms of outreach to the millions of Americans who didn't vote for him. Hence, bigger crowds than anyone expected showed up for women's marches all over the world.

And one more time, though the panel was pretty inconsequential in terms of their impact today, I have to draw exception with something that the ultimate cynical enabler aka Hugh Hewlitt said about Donald Trump's inaugural speech. Mr. Hewlitt said that most memorable (important) line for him was that the president said he was going to destroy Islamic terrorism completely.  First, that proclamation is incredible hyperbole. Never mind that Mr. Trump said the country is a disaster, "American carnage," is the term he used. Oh, and forget about the fact that he also used the phrase "America first," which is a phrase that isolationist Americans with Nazi sympathies like Charles Lindbergh used in the 30's to dissuade the public from helping England and France in WWII.  In 16 minutes, Mr. Trump disheartened Americans and scared our allies around the world. Way to go. Mr. Hewlitt would say that he wouldn't have done it that way or that he's not defending it, before going on to defend it.


Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC News; Eliana Johnson, Politico; Hugh Hewlitt, Salem Radio Network; Chris Matthews, NBC News


One more thing...
Is Tom Barrack a member of the administration? Does he speak for the president?

1.15.17: [NOTES] John Lewis, Reince Priebus, Dianne Feinstein and The New Abnormal

John Lewis, Reince Priebus, Dianne Feinstein and The New Abnormal

Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Rich Lowry, The National Review, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic Monthly

This Week:
Trump's nepotism hiring of son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Trump's 'bizarre' (Chuck Todd's word) news conference. Concede 'bizarre,' but it was definitely not presidential.

Inspector General opening an investigation into FBI Director James Comey's handling of Hillary Clinton's emails.

Senate Intelligence Committee opens investigation on Russia's interference in our election.

And then,
Congressman John Lewis (D-GA): Trump isn't legitimate. "I think the Russians participating in getting this man elected."
Finds the prospect of working with Donald Trump almost impossible.
The legitimate comment - understand that he said, but I would have advised against it.

John Lewis: Will never forget or forgive Donald Trump for saying Vladimir Putin is a better leader than Barack Obama.
A shameful statement from Trump, and yes, he did say that.

Trump's Reaction to Congressman Lewis's statement on 'legitimacy':
Your district is in horrible shape and crime infested. All talk talk talk, no action...
Again, not presidential - not even close.

Reince Priebus Interview

Mr. Priebus: It's shocking he, John Lewis as historic as he is, would question the legitimacy of the election. What he said was irresponsible.

About Michael Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador 5 times on the day new Russian sanctions kicked in...
He's the national security advisor and he talks to our countries' representatives everyday, it's part of his job. But, it's not his job, yet! So did the White House Chief of Staff on "Meet the Press" just acknowledge that Michael Flynn violated the Logan Act?

Trump and his methods of communication...
Rich Lowry: Welcome to the new abnormal.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Trump is easily trolled. What happens when someone like North Korea or China say something he doesn't like?
His response to John Lewis was not an appropriate action.

Danielle Pletka, on John Lewis comment: Russia doesn't necessarily want Trump, but they want people to question everything. John Lewis didn't mean to help that cause, but he's in effect helping that.

Helene Cooper: Twitter tantums are not the way a president should respond.

Danielle Pletka: This is what the American people chose.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Interview
She regrets the president-elect's response [on John Lewis's comment] - not seeing the bigger picture.
Trump needs to step up and realize he represents the whole country.

Chuck Todd: Did Russia interfere with the election, and did it affect the outcome?
Senator Feinstein: Yes and yes. The aim was to bring down Hillary Clinton, a sophisticated two-year operation.

The senator is not ready to say that James Comey should be fired, yet.
The Wall Street Journal: Comey must resign.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Director Comey has united Republicans and Democrats - neither are happy with him.

1.8.17: [NOTES] McCain, Graham, Conway, Carter - Russia and Obamacare

On the subject of Russian interference in our democracy:

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - Joint Interview

Senator McCain: I believe our intelligence officers

Senator Graham: If President-elect Trump is still skeptical that Russia tried to interfere with our   elections after the briefing, that's deeply unnerving to me... If one party is compromised, we're all compromised... I want to give Donald Trump the opportunity for Russia to pay a price. I want more sanctions, more help for the Baltic states. If he's still unsure, that will shake me to my core.

KellyAnne Conway - counselor to the president-elect
Russia allegedly attempt to influence the election, but they did not succeed in embarrassing this country on the world stage. They did not succeed.
When Donald Trump is president, he will meet with his intelligence team and then decide what to do.

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
It's the attempt itself.
It's not just cyber, but also the propaganda wars.

David Brooks, The New York Times
Steve Bannon, senior advisor to the president-elect, wants a new world order of national populists against Islam. [read: Alliance with Russia]

Rick Santelli, CNBC
The timing of these intelligence briefings and release of the findings are politically driven.
[Congressional] hearings are kabuki theater.
You [NBC political reports] chose sides during the election. Impugning the integrity of reporters at his own network. Andrea Mitchell takes exception to this.

Ash Carter, Secretary of Defense
It's an aggressive act against our democracy.

On Obamacare:
Repeal and Replace
Clips of Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Bob Corker (R-GA), Tom Cotton (R-AR) saying that it must be done simultaneously.

Rick Santelli
No problem with repeal, but a problem with the replace, because it will cost to much money.
Analogy of comparing healthcare to cars, each having components.

Andrea Mitchell
A silly analogy [a shot for questioning her integrity earlier in the show].

Prediction: repeal for certain, replace will leave a lot of people without coverage but with more "choice," and the replace will cost a lot of additional money.

1.1.17: Whoa Is The Media in The Age of Trump/ (Sabbatical)

Only a dork who comments on "Meet The Press," wouldn't immediately raise his hands up and tune out when Mr. Todd introduced this week's program as a special examination of how the press should cover the news in the Age of Trump (capitalized because now it's an actual thing). Not exactly a ratings winner on New Year's Day and if Mr. Todd is in the studio by himself on what really isn't a slow news day given what happened in Instanbul last night (not mentioned), then just given everyone the day off.

Mr. Todd has focused on this very topic many times leading up to this point and it seems that he just doesn't know, asking as many people on-air as he can in an attempt to find out or passive aggressively trying to get everyone on the same page. The latter, I admit, is pretty dismissive, but more dismissively, one could say, "You what Mr. Todd - Media - get your act together and get over yourselves." But I wouldn't say that.

Hal Boedeker of the Orlando Sentinel said that journalists have to keep doing their jobs. In its simplicity, it's still the most insightful. He also pointed out that when you cite the specific press source, people take it more seriously. I think that Mr. Todd conflates what he does as a television political reporter with the established print media too much because they really are different animals, as it were. Editor-in-Chief of The Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker, and the Executive Editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet, showed complete faith in the journalistic mission. There is an obligation to the local community to disseminate information about the more practical matters in life - school and road closings, etc. - so there is that base-level trust. For political media, digitally and on-air, the audience is making values judgements. That local level of trust is one reason that makes the press the most likely of institutions to have the ability to regain public trust.

The other reason, and here is where the networks prove their profound relevance as well, is access to confidential sources with the government or administration.

Anyone who works for a government institution, to some degree still believes in the notion of the institution, no matter how ever 'seized upon' you think said institution is. There is also the believe in like institutions, a predisposition of trust to present the truth. People like that don't just go to anyone who will listen, not how it works. And when the stark reality of tragic events - a mass shooting or hurricane/flood - slap an administration in the face there's no shading the actions taken and how the American people react to to those actions.

Did the press completely screw up the coverage of the election and the national mood? Totally. Did they give Donald Trump a free pass on a lot of things - maybe, maybe not - but he definitely duped them all, on any given day.

If I had my two cents, I'd say to cut quickly through the bullsh*t, and stick aggressively to the substance. As noted on today's program, the press needs to find out more about Mr. Trump's businesses, no one even knows all of what he owns exactly. And more ominously, who or what government he's indebted to.


Panel: No panel, really.

A couple more things...
I want to take this opportunity on the very first day of the year to thank you for reading the column. We are, in fact, optimistic for the coming year of 2017 and I wish you all good health and fortune.

With the above said, I'm taking a sabbatical from writing the column for a couple of reasons. One, it has been a crazy and tiring election year and everyone needs a break to recharge. Plus there's still a lot of unsettled business to attend to: an inauguration, cabinet hearings, the first legislative priority out of the gate. I thought I'd wait until all the smoke clears to really have any inclination of how the future will come into focus.  Plus, there's some other writing I'd like to focus on, the time for which is long overdue. How long a sabbatical exactly? Not sure, honestly.

In the meantime, I'll be active on twitter: @MTPOpinion

Thanks again.

12.18.16: Looking In The Mirror / Russian Hacking a Test for Republicans

When you ruminate for a moment on the entire Russian hacking and interference of the U.S. election, it's a real challenge for Republicans officials because as it was happening they must have been feeling uneasy about what was happening but let it ride because they were also the beneficiaries. But now that the election is over, they have to do something about it, but these cyber attacks are inevitably turned toward them.

More on that in a minute, but first, Jeff Greenfield used the word "fantasy"in terms of the electoral college vote doing anything but confirming Donald Trump as president. Democrats have face facts and work through it.

But here's two biggies that should be considered:

1. When Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic primary to Barack Obama in 2008, everyone knew she would be running in 2016 and like clockwork... too telegraphed. After two decades before that had Mrs. Clinton faced attacks and criticism and then her political opponents had 8 years to really focus on the target. The fact is that Mrs. Clinton, though a respected and effective public servant was a deeply flawed candidate, and she failed to come up with 89,000 votes that she needed in WI, MI and PA collectively. John Podesta had nothing adequate to say about the failure in Wisconsin, every panelist agreed on this. Mrs. Clinton should have been there at least ten times. It was a state that Democrats consistently won, yes, but symbolically it was also where the Republican power structure was based with both the Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and RNC Chair Reince Priebus being from the state. Ultimately, the loss is on Secretary Clinton - hard, plain and true.

2. Judging from Chuck Todd's change in body language and tone of voice when talking about criticism of the press, he doesn't like it, for understandable reasons because it's on him. And by extension, the media complains about fake news and no agreed upon set of facts, which is scary because of how people will exploit. However, here's the thing - one could argue that fake news came to be when the networks decided to start profiting from news, which gave it an agenda - eyeballs, clicks, comments. Fox News covers political events differently than NBC covers those same events, different from CNN, and then the internet and ad words...

Donald Trump told Chuck Todd once that he got his information "from the shows" which was mocked on "the shows," but isn't that what they want?  Ah...but not by our leaders. Well, as Donald Trump has now proven, you can not have it both ways.

Looking into the mirror sometimes can lead to profound insight.

But back to the "thinly-veiled cyber-espionage" as fmr. Sec. Robert Gates described the Russian cyber-attacks. The U.S. intelligence community and Mr. Gates himself confirm that Russian did interfere with our elections and worked against Hillary Clinton in favor of Donald Trump.  Instead of eroding confidence in our intelligence agencies through twitter, Donald Trump should have said something to the effect that if that's the case, the Russians will still be sorry for interfering and that he didn't need their help anyway. Bravado a la Trump style but at least it would get everyone on the same page. Actually, everyone is on the same page except the president-elect, which is inexplicable.

What's also inexplicable is that Chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign John Podesta's had his emails hacked and released on October 7th, got a call from the FBI on the 9th and hasn't heard from them since. Just another reason in a long line of them why FBI Director James Comey has to go.

Between the generals Mr. Trump has nominated for his cabinet and Senate Republicans with no love for Russia, hopefully there will be appropriate action taken in the form of an independent investigation - there has to be one. If we do as Senator Mitch McConnell suggested and do it solely through the intelligence committee, which he chairs then we'll essentially be giving Vladimir Putin as 'a pass' on his actions.


Panel: Katty Kay, BBC America; Yamiche Alcindor, The New York Times, Jeff Greenfield, Politico; Rick Santelli, CNBC

12.11.16: The Alternate Reality of The Most Self-Interested Administration in U.S. History

Chuck Todd and Reince Priebus got 'into it' on today's "Meet The Press," a contentious back and forth about whether he and the Trump transition team believe that Russian agents were responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta. The incoming White House chief of staff said that there isn't any 'sourced' evidence that indicates that Russians were involved concluding with "I don't know." However, in a shrill defensive tonality Mr. Priebus disputed the CIA-sourced report that the RNC was hacked as well, but the information wasn't released, flatly saying that wasn't true according to the FBI. He went on to explain that given this part of the story isn't true the entire premise of the story and its contents are false as well.

The Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.d4ddc9257ac5

Yet, seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Russian agents did indeed hack email systems with the intent of damaging the Clinton campaign. Furthermore, the CIA report was presented to the Congressional Intelligence Committee members of the House and Senate, and Senate Majority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was not convinced of the evidence and blocked the release of the CIA report this past September.

There isn't any surprise that Mitch McConnell would block the release of such a report given the possibility of increasing his own power, putting self-interest over party, and party over country. Senator McConnell got a two-for in Trump's election win. He's the Senate Majority leader and his wife is a member of the cabinet. This is obviously a man who will do only what is politically advantageous for himself. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) are getting ready an investigation of the Russian hacking while McConnell will sit on the sideline until he has to move. Mitch McConnell is no leader, just a Machiavellian politician in the classic sense.

[An aside: This may be Senator John McCain's last term in the Senate (speculation on my part), but combating this Russian cyber-meddling (some would say 'warfare') in our system and the Trump Administration's denying/enabling of it will be his swan song. Ultimately, as Senator McCain is wont to do throughout his career is put country over party. If this is his last political battle, he's going to go out with a win.]

The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel, who said "everyone agrees" that the Russians were responsible for hacking, to which Mr. Todd corrected her because it's everyone except the incoming administration. However, she explained that the problem with the report is that concludes that the Russians were specifically helping Mr. Trump win, which gives the air of political bias on the part of the CIA and The Washington Post.  She said that doesn't seem to be the case, but then her argument gets a little twisted. She explained that the Russians hacking was designed to damage what they thought would be a Clinton Administration, to delegitimize her presidency before taking office. But to say that and then say it wasn't at the same time designed to help Mr. Trump makes no sense. The degree to which it worked was underestimated by the Russians so they got an even better result.

The Trump Administration hasn't even taken office yet and they've already caused a rift between them and the CIA, and between the CIA and the FBI.Also, their denying of Russian hacking is siding with a foreign government over the U.S. intelligence community, according to Chuck Todd, and how can you not agree with him?

And Mr. Trump continually reinforces his bromance with Vladimir Putin, at every turn. Now, he's set to nominate CEO of Exxon-Mobil Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Mr. Tillerson is a personal friend of Vladimir Putin and received the Order of Friendship from Mr. Putin and the Russian government. All this on top of the fact that Mr. Trump wants another billionaire in his cabinet. Lacky Priebus, of course, defended Mr. Tillerson as "one of the preeminent people in the world," after self-correcting that he was only one of the most preeminent business people in the world.

Because of all this, fmr. U.S. Russian Ambassador Michael McFaul called it 'initially disturbing' of the nomination. The program also quoted Senator Graham with "unnerving." Most Republicans, still giddy with unfettered power, are in the wait and see mode because no one's even been sworn in yet so legally no damage has been done. Little consolation.

Right now we're trending generals and billionaires and friends with Putin so welcome to the alternate reality of the most self-interested administration in U.S. History.


Panel: Kimberly Strassel, The Wall Street Journal; Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian; Rick Stengel, fmr. Time magazine; Michael Steele, fmr. RNC Chair

One more thing...

John Glenn, pilot, astronaut, senator, American hero (not close to summing it up).
I'll just say that when I think of John Glenn, remembered of course for being the first human to orbit the earth, 3 times, I think how important the exploration of space is because of all the science and imagination that goes into it. That's amazing... and hopeful.

click NY Times for obituary

12.4.16: The Trump Transition Team's Amateur Matinee

Instead of starting with the "Post-Truth Trump Presidency," we'll first tackle how we got here, hence the back and forth with the rival campaign managers. You can look at the myriad of reasons, factors and influences as to why Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won, but what it came down to was that Donald Trump was a better campaigner than Hillary Clinton, deeply flawed as they both were.  Joel Beneson, for the Clinton side, couldn't admit that the candidate herself bears a lot of the responsibility for the loss. On the other hand, despite what KellyAnne Conway actually said, she and the Trump team have not been gracious in the win at all, but their prerogative. President-elect Trump's "Thank You" tour is, let's face it, a victory lap.

Is the press to blame? No, but it bears responsibility for not pressing the candidates on policy specifics more, as Andrea Mitchell mentioned. Unlike any election in all of our lifetimes, the shear chaos of things overwhelmed the press but of its inability to focus on anything with detail. There were a few excepts like David Fahrenthold's reporting in The Washington Post. Between offensive videos and countless, tasteless, bigoted, subtly racist, ignorant, non-factual statements from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton's 'deplorable' comment, stupid email practice, email leaks and FBI intervention all with Benghazi echoing in the background and no one knows which way to go.

[Side Note: Democrats telegraphed their candidate so blatantly and pushed every other contender out the day after President Obama was reelected, and from that moment Republicans were pushing hard on Benghazi and spent a lot of our money to smear Hillary Clinton through the next four years. They didn't know that their investment would ultimately pay out so 'bigly' but that's what it was - one big continually negative campaign against Hillary Clinton who would inevitably get the nomination despite this, and Republicans could it do because they controlled the House.]

After all that bitterness and rancor, it seems like were into the amateur hour matinee of the country's presidential programming because right at this moment that's what the Trump team is giving us. And it's an embarrassment. And Vice President-elect Mike Pence didn't make it any better in his interview.
Donald Trump hasn't even taken office yet and he's already endangering the most complicated but indispensable relationship with China by committing a mistake that clearly shows that the Trump team doesn't do its homework. Donald Trump tweeted that the Taiwanese leader called him, essentially saying that it wasn't his 'fault.' And then when Mike Pence dismisses it as just a courtesy call from the "President of Taiwan," as Andrea Mitchell explained is a serious diplomatic mistake in terms of the China, do you think the Chinese will wonder where's the courtesy to them? The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter explained that at this point there should already be a China policy in place which has considered a position in Taiwanese relations to avoid missteps, in light of these statements. However, during this transition such positions are still foggy at best.

It was refreshing to see Chuck Todd stick up for the press and say that the Trump team uses 'blaming the media' as a crutch because it does. And words do matter. This 'making excuses' tactic on the part of the Trump team is going to get very old very quickly if it continues into the Trump Administration.

In the call with the president of Pakistan, Mr. Trump called him a terrific guy and looked forward to visiting his country, also saying that he'd help end Pakistan's problems [reading: border disputes with India over Kashmir]. You can imagine that the Indian parliament loved hearing that.

President-elect Trump, post-call, disputes what the Pakistani's say what was said - a he-said, he-said thing. After a while, our countries will cut back relations with the U.S. because they'll never know where they stand with the Trump Administration. That's not how it is or necessarily will be, but this is what's trending now.

Rich Lowry described a rude awakening that Congressional Republicans are going to get when they realize that Trump isn't just going to go along with their agenda and sign bills. Republicans and Mr. Trump seem to be on the same page in terms of tax cuts, which will be a massive windfall for the wealthy, needless to understate that it will much less positive for the middle class, but many conservatives, including Rich Lowry didn't love this Carrier deal that saved 1,000+ jobs, but still over half of all of the jobs will in fact move to Mexico. Conservatives didn't like it because it was government intervening in the free market and given that it was in Gov. Mike Pence's Indiana, it reeked of crony-capitalism, that according to Sarah Palin. But dare I say that she has a point. The other sent message is that a company can threaten to move to another country in an attempt to exhort the state and/or federal government for tax concessions. Sure, be glad for the people who kept their jobs, but it's clearly how the business of creating American jobs should be done.

Lastly, there's one more job to comment on, and it's that of House Minority Leader. Nancy Pelosi was reelected to lead the Democratic caucus in the House, but the party should have gone in a different direction. The party needs a different type of leadership energy and for those paying attention who had that feeling of - OK, we got beat but I'm invigorated and motivated by the anger of the loss - just had their motivational bubble popped. Because with Nancy Pelosi back in the leadership position after so many Congressional losses (she's the House messenger of the Democratic platform), there's no avoiding the same stall energy, and hence disappointment.


Panel: Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President Demos Action; Rich Lowry, National Review

11.27.16: Day Two And Fidel Castro Is Still Dead; and The Defensive Transition

KellyAnne Conway should stop saying that Donald Trump didn't have to run for president, as she did today on the program. Because before you know it even more people (his supporters) are going to be asking, "Then why did you?"

More on that in a minute, but first Fidel Castro (1916-2016).
Time is the vanquisher of history and it will do its work on Fidel Castro, and with his death the end of the Castro regime, and hopefully system of government as the panel discussed, in Cuba is seeing its final days. Make no mistake, Castro was an A-List dictator, meaning he was unmercifully brutal to his people and a murderer of his political enemies. He was only, distinctly outdone by Che Guevara who laid the foundation for that brutality. (If you read Jon Lee Anderson's definitive biography you would come to agree.) The mistake that Che made was that he left the country in pursuit of leftist military revolution and got caught in Bolivia by the CIA.

Chuck Todd was talking about 'feel' and kept posing the past hypothetical that if this were ten years ago. In other words, he doesn't feel as significant as it should be because he's been out of the picture since 2008. Understandable, but it seemed a bit dismissive, and if you believe that the United States is on the right side of history then Castro's death no matter when it came was history's justice.

My opinion, as The New York Times Helene Cooper would point out, is from an Americo-centric perspective and I can live with that. But this is exactly why Ms. Cooper is an important voice in our media because without acknowledging and seriously considering that broader perspective, your argument demands less respect. At least that's my take.

Finally, it's a good day because Fidel Castro is responsible for some of the worst U.S. policy over the last 50 years, as Mr. Todd outlined. Black eye after black eye, and let's not forget Castro as parcel for near nuclear annihilation.

So...
As Ms. Conway was saying about Mr. Trump that this is an unprecedented time with a business man becoming President of the United States, but as we all know that's not all it is. Staying on topic with the conflicts of interest that this particular presidency poses are endless. Chuck Todd, thankfully, called out Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) on that fact that we don't know about all his business dealings.

Sure, it's easy to agree with The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan in her call to put patriotism of country over his business interests and liquidate the company. But here's the rub: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Donald Trump will never liquidate his assets, no matter how hard or easy it is. Never. Not to mention that it would probably involve a measure of disclosure, to which the president-elect has a famous aversion. Ms. Conway said that the kids would have 'very senior positions' in the company but that doesn't constitute President-elect Trump giving up control. The children shouldn't even be running his business of course, but we Americans fell for it.

Also, I have to mention that when Ms. Conway says that she's 'astonished' by the media reporting on the rumored in-fighting about making Mitt Romney Secretary of State, it's laughable. Frankly, I could care less if she thinks it's astonishing or not. I would say the same of John Podesta admonishing people about his email leaks.  Ms. Conway's whining defensiveness is tiresome. Her candidate is going into the White House and you want sympathy? Equally laughable. She was so reflexively defensive that she mentioned the pointless recount in WI, PA, and MI without even being asked about it.

And speaking of falling for things, the 'backing away' on positions such as waterboarding and climate change, the Affordable Care Act, Hillary Clinton's prosecution, whatever... it's simply confirms what both Democrats and Republicans already knew which is that President-elect Trump's political principles and convictions are all negotiable. And contrary to what Ms. Conway would say, it's near impossible to imagine that Donald Trump's businesses aren't still most important to him, easily over the presidency. 


Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Matt Bai, Yahoo News; Mark Murray, NBC News; Danielle Pletka, ,

A couple more things...
Senator Rubio said that he wouldn't retroactively revoke any of the 'Dreamers' permits, but he also said that he wouldn't support renewing any of them when they expire. I suspect, hope, that he'll refine or revise that statement that he wouldn't support issuing more, at the very least. But really, we're going to tell these kids that after your permit expires that we don't want you here. These kids weren't the ones who broke the rules, but they've had to follow the rules ever since. And then they'll have to get out? Some would argue that they've earned it. And if you consider that then it goes against what we represent as a country. I would contend that Dreamers understand that it's a privilege to live in the U.S., more so than thinking its a right to be taken for granted.

Tim Ryan (D-OH), represents Youngstown, OH - conservative Democrat
Why couldn't he be the guy? He made a very frank, critical, and encouraging point, which was that Democratic policy positions are the way to go, but the messaging was bad. Accurate. Is he too inexperienced for such a high-profile gig, most probably but Nancy Pelosi has to go. The Democrats need a new energy, a vocal energy, for their leadership. Congressman Ryan's been in since 2003, he's vocal and he wants to win all over the map instead of Dems. simply being a coastal party. So again, why couldn't he be the guy?