The debate on firearms dominated the interviews today so major developments in the Russia investigation were subordinated to a brief end game conversation on today's "Meet The Press," but justifiably so.
David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network made the point that people in the heartland [of America] don't care about the Mueller probe and memos and convoluted talk of Russia oligarchs, which makes total sense. Fmr. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest lent the perspective that they may not care now, but when the investigation is finished and Mr. Mueller reports his findings then people will be listening. Basically, what they're telling you is that the American people aren't paying attention to the investigation and because it doesn't effect their daily lives, they don't care. Fair enough. It does remind me of how the American people came around on their collective opinion of the invasion of Iraq. At one point, many people were lead to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and that the dictator had weapons of mass destruction. When the heartland started really paying attention to things, it came to conclude that the Iraq War was a terrible decision. People will come around.
But for the readers of a blog such as this, the intrigue of the Russia investigation continues and this week saw the Special Counsel level more charges against Paul Manafort, a cooperation with Rick Gates, and the release of the Democratic memo, which refutes the political motivations of the FBI as outlined in the Nunes memo. (You can read the entire memo below):
U.S. HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MINORITY MEMO
It's also worth noting, American Enterprise Intitute's Danielle Pletka's point that the connection between Trump and the Russia investigation is constantly reinforced by Trump himself, and that the Special Counsel hasn't come forth with any such evidence. But given what the evidence that Mr. Mueller's investigation has presented, we know that the same Russian oligarch that we mentioned in last week's column, Yevgeny Prigozhin, that owns the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg is also running a mercenary army made up of Russian soldiers in Syria. As Chuck Todd flatly stated, these Russian mercenaries attacked American soldiers and American-backed troops.
This is a grave matter and the president has no stated position, opinion or plan in light of this revelation. Nor does he acknowledge any sort of need to protect our elections - more examples in an endless line of instances where presidential leadership is need and is absent from this Administration.
Despite the Administration's inaction, it's good to know that individuals in congress, like Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are putting legislation forward the puts some regulatory measures on advertising placed on social media, a minimal first step, but absolutely necessary. There are regulations for advertising in all other media spaces, why not on social media?
I don't even want to get started on the whole conversation about where Republican Congressional leaders have been in all this, which is nowhere to found.
But...
As Mr. Brody explained, the people of Peoria aren't concerned about the Russian investigation, and I guess by extension Russian soldiers under no flag attacking American soldiers or that a foreign power launched a cyber-war against the United States. (I know, that's not necessarily true, but...)
What they care about is the gun debate, Mr. Brody mentioned, and really it is no less important so understandably it took over today's conversation because we're witnessing the beginning of a political change in this country on guns. The biggest loser will be the NRA, whose own defensive rhetoric is working against itself.
As the panel noted, the NRA's rhetoric is outdated and tone-deaf [David Brody], showing little to no sympathy for the victims, and people are turned off by it as they should be. After so many mass shootings, the argument for every other factor except for the availability of the gun, assault weapons especially, no longer holds up.
When NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch says that the mainstream media loves mass shootings for the ratings and the organization's head, Wayne LaPierre, blames Democrats and their socialist agenda about eliminating the Second Amendment, there is no reason to take you seriously anymore because of its uncompromising extremism.
Corporations who had partnership deals with the NRA are now walking away. Apparently, many companies gave discounts to NRA members and by them walking away, NRA memberships are less enticing because you don't get all those discount benefits that are promised. The question is why did these companies have these discount programs with the NRA in the first place? You get a special discount because you own a gun? How American.
And hardening schools... What does that even mean? The big idea from the right is to arm teachers as President Trump suggested, nay - the NRA suggested and the president repeated. If teachers were armed then they could confront a shooter and protect students, hence needing more guns in the equation to solve the problem. Arming teachers is idiotic on so many levels.
For Mr. Trump, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) and anyone else who thinks it's a good idea to arm teachers, they have no idea what they're talking about. It's a terrible proposal. Teachers are at school to teach, not to be an armed guard. There really aren't enough columns one could write on why this is such a bad idea. The tragic hypotheticals are endless and the questions about how these guns would be handled in the school leave no one feeling comfortable, to say the least. But ludicrous ideas like this advocated by figures on the national stage like the president and Senator Toomey say leave it to the school districts and states to decide. That's what is called passing the buck so that you can stand by ideology without having to take responsibility.
Conversely, None of the proposed regulations such as raising the purchase age or prohibiting bump stocks or requiring universal background checks or banning assault weapons like Mr. Massie argued would stop a mass shooting unto itself, which is an effective argument that gun advocates make because it's true. However, each put the responsibility on a single segment of the society when we all have to be responsible. As a society we haven't been and several measures need to be taken. "Well regulated" doesn't impede "not infringed" which are two phrases used in the Second Amendment. So we should be able to accommodate both.
Panel: Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Josh Earnest, fmr. White House Press Secretary; David Brody, Christian Broadcast Network
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Sunday, February 18, 2018
2.18.18: From Parkland To St. Petersburg, America Under Attack
Sometimes one can just sit here undecided as to where to start the weekly column because of the unbelievably dire things that happened this week, namely the mass shooting in Parkland, FL at Majory Stoneman Douglas High School and the Special Counsel's filed indictment of a Russian company in St. Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency. Not to mention the God-awful responses by the president on both.
But gnawing fact: 14 year olds.
How many times can it be said in this column, we as a society have failed to act responsibly with our Constitutional rights so laws need to be enacted to protect Americans from gun violence.
Here's the Second Amendment verbatim from the U.S. Constitution:
(Never mind the fact that it's called an Amendment, meaning it can be changed; couldn't agree more with NBC's Carol Lee's opinion of conservative columnist for The New York Times Brett Stephens' call for a repeal of the Second Amendment, and that it was an academic exercise.)
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you fight for the Second Amendment, you have to fight for all parts of it, and "well regulated" we are not.
Extrapolating that out, the president and congress are derelict in their oath to protect the American people. As NBC's Carol Lee pointed out, in the wake of this latest mass shooting, the political response has been standard from all sides, with the noted exception of the student victims who are speaking up and shaming politicians on social media. And it is important to note that at the very end of the Mr. Todd's interview with Broward Country Superintendent Robert Muncie, Mr. Muncie said that he was going to support giving a platform to students to speak out on this issue. These students can make a difference if they're empowered by the adult community, and in Florida that certainly seems to be the case. So Rick Scott and Marco Rubio are definitely on notice. In all these mass shootings, the particular circumstances are all a bit different, but the underlying fact remains the gun. Republican politicians and the president, as evidenced by his 7-minute speech, not only do not account for guns in the equation but don't even acknowledge their existence.
As Emma Gonzalez succinctly and appropriately put it: We call B.S.
In Florida, you can buy an AR-15 at eighteen years of age, but you have to wait until you're 21 to buy a handgun. Despite Senator James Langford (R-OK) quoting statistics that outline how more murders are committed with handguns in an attempt to make sense of this law, it simply doesn't measure up. And let not forget that neither does Florida's Stand Your Ground law. It's commendable that Mr. Langford is working on fix the background check, but it's not enough. Mr. Langford was also very clear that there shouldn't be any changes in the ease to purchase firearms, including the AR-15 because according to him they are used for hunting. For the record, any self-respecting hunter doesn't use an AR-15, period. The Oklahoma senator also calmly pass the buck at one point saying that only the courts can change gun laws, which is not the case. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for his part, clarified that he is against such weapons being for public purchase.
CNBC's Rick Santelli said that gun laws need to be made on a local level, but the suggestion is short-sighted because it doesn't account for buying guns in one state and bringing them to another. He also suggested a point system as the background check where everything you've done is taken into account. Again short-sighted in conservative doctrine as it creates a national database registry system.
For those who say it's not the appropriate time to talk about policy, you would have to wonder whether they're waiting for these tragedies to occur with enough frequency that there is no appropriate time and space to speak about them. It's ridiculous.
As for the NRA... Here's where wish list gets tied to reality.
The other big story of course is the Special Counsel's indictment of 13 Russians. You can read the entire 37 pages right here:
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE INDICTMENT, FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S. vs. INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY, LLC
One of the indicted individuals is a Russian oligarch named Yevgeny Prigozhin, known as Putin's chef, who provided significant funding to the Internet Research Agency, all but implicating the Kremlin in the decision to undertake such an operation as outlined in the indictment.
As Chuck Todd outlined at the very top of the program, the week started out with the heads of all the U.S. intelligence agencies testifying to Congress that Russia committed a cyber attack against the United States, something Russian operatives termed 'warfare,' and it ended with the Mueller indictment confirming it. Yet, the president can only view this attack through a lens solely focused on himself, ignoring the larger implications of what this means for the country. Sadly, we've come to expect as much from Mr. Trump.
But damned if he does and damned if he doesn't comment on Russia, according to Mr. Santelli, who by the time we got to this point in the program should have just kept his mouth shut, spouting shallow opinions. The president shouldn't comment on an attack against the United States? OK, Rick...
As NBC's Hallie Jackson explained, the White House undercut the statement from National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and really has no coherent response to what to do about the actions of these Russian individuals. And no mention of punishment or prevention. This is something that everyone sees, with the lone exception of the president, or not... Cornell Belcher took us to that logical place, asking where are Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to take the lead? If these two can not do anything on gun regulation, they have to at least do something on this. If not, then what the point of them? They'd both prove themselves utterly useless by doing nothing on both.
As Ms. Lee explained, this indictment is very narrow, does not implicate or exonerate the president, and is only the beginning. If you've read the indictment and followed the investigation, you know that we haven't even gotten to the financial part of the investigation, which we're sure is coming from Mr. Mueller.
This financial part could include Russian money funneled through the NRA then contributed to the Trump campaign. (It's been out there in the press, from Axios: https://www.axios.com/report-fbi-investigating-whether-1516308991-1efd1e3d-3774-4e6b-abf2-39dff9d6f1d0.html). Name checking a Warren Zevon song, it's all about lawyers, guns and money, but if this is proven to be true there won't be enough of any of them for the NRA to salvage them.
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Carol Lee, NBC; Rick Santelli, CNBC; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Pollster
But gnawing fact: 14 year olds.
How many times can it be said in this column, we as a society have failed to act responsibly with our Constitutional rights so laws need to be enacted to protect Americans from gun violence.
Here's the Second Amendment verbatim from the U.S. Constitution:
(Never mind the fact that it's called an Amendment, meaning it can be changed; couldn't agree more with NBC's Carol Lee's opinion of conservative columnist for The New York Times Brett Stephens' call for a repeal of the Second Amendment, and that it was an academic exercise.)
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you fight for the Second Amendment, you have to fight for all parts of it, and "well regulated" we are not.
Extrapolating that out, the president and congress are derelict in their oath to protect the American people. As NBC's Carol Lee pointed out, in the wake of this latest mass shooting, the political response has been standard from all sides, with the noted exception of the student victims who are speaking up and shaming politicians on social media. And it is important to note that at the very end of the Mr. Todd's interview with Broward Country Superintendent Robert Muncie, Mr. Muncie said that he was going to support giving a platform to students to speak out on this issue. These students can make a difference if they're empowered by the adult community, and in Florida that certainly seems to be the case. So Rick Scott and Marco Rubio are definitely on notice. In all these mass shootings, the particular circumstances are all a bit different, but the underlying fact remains the gun. Republican politicians and the president, as evidenced by his 7-minute speech, not only do not account for guns in the equation but don't even acknowledge their existence.
As Emma Gonzalez succinctly and appropriately put it: We call B.S.
In Florida, you can buy an AR-15 at eighteen years of age, but you have to wait until you're 21 to buy a handgun. Despite Senator James Langford (R-OK) quoting statistics that outline how more murders are committed with handguns in an attempt to make sense of this law, it simply doesn't measure up. And let not forget that neither does Florida's Stand Your Ground law. It's commendable that Mr. Langford is working on fix the background check, but it's not enough. Mr. Langford was also very clear that there shouldn't be any changes in the ease to purchase firearms, including the AR-15 because according to him they are used for hunting. For the record, any self-respecting hunter doesn't use an AR-15, period. The Oklahoma senator also calmly pass the buck at one point saying that only the courts can change gun laws, which is not the case. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for his part, clarified that he is against such weapons being for public purchase.
CNBC's Rick Santelli said that gun laws need to be made on a local level, but the suggestion is short-sighted because it doesn't account for buying guns in one state and bringing them to another. He also suggested a point system as the background check where everything you've done is taken into account. Again short-sighted in conservative doctrine as it creates a national database registry system.
For those who say it's not the appropriate time to talk about policy, you would have to wonder whether they're waiting for these tragedies to occur with enough frequency that there is no appropriate time and space to speak about them. It's ridiculous.
As for the NRA... Here's where wish list gets tied to reality.
The other big story of course is the Special Counsel's indictment of 13 Russians. You can read the entire 37 pages right here:
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE INDICTMENT, FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S. vs. INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY, LLC
One of the indicted individuals is a Russian oligarch named Yevgeny Prigozhin, known as Putin's chef, who provided significant funding to the Internet Research Agency, all but implicating the Kremlin in the decision to undertake such an operation as outlined in the indictment.
As Chuck Todd outlined at the very top of the program, the week started out with the heads of all the U.S. intelligence agencies testifying to Congress that Russia committed a cyber attack against the United States, something Russian operatives termed 'warfare,' and it ended with the Mueller indictment confirming it. Yet, the president can only view this attack through a lens solely focused on himself, ignoring the larger implications of what this means for the country. Sadly, we've come to expect as much from Mr. Trump.
But damned if he does and damned if he doesn't comment on Russia, according to Mr. Santelli, who by the time we got to this point in the program should have just kept his mouth shut, spouting shallow opinions. The president shouldn't comment on an attack against the United States? OK, Rick...
As NBC's Hallie Jackson explained, the White House undercut the statement from National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and really has no coherent response to what to do about the actions of these Russian individuals. And no mention of punishment or prevention. This is something that everyone sees, with the lone exception of the president, or not... Cornell Belcher took us to that logical place, asking where are Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to take the lead? If these two can not do anything on gun regulation, they have to at least do something on this. If not, then what the point of them? They'd both prove themselves utterly useless by doing nothing on both.
As Ms. Lee explained, this indictment is very narrow, does not implicate or exonerate the president, and is only the beginning. If you've read the indictment and followed the investigation, you know that we haven't even gotten to the financial part of the investigation, which we're sure is coming from Mr. Mueller.
This financial part could include Russian money funneled through the NRA then contributed to the Trump campaign. (It's been out there in the press, from Axios: https://www.axios.com/report-fbi-investigating-whether-1516308991-1efd1e3d-3774-4e6b-abf2-39dff9d6f1d0.html). Name checking a Warren Zevon song, it's all about lawyers, guns and money, but if this is proven to be true there won't be enough of any of them for the NRA to salvage them.
Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC; Carol Lee, NBC; Rick Santelli, CNBC; Cornell Belcher, Democratic Pollster
Sunday, February 11, 2018
2.11.18: What Kinda Unit You Running Here, Soldier?
Lots of discussion on today's program was devoted to White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly and his performance. More importantly, what's President Trump's opinion of his handling a series of issues such as his statement about the wall contradicting the president or his 'DACA applicants are lazy' admission that complicated the administration's stance. Last but not least of the performance questions is General Kelly's handling of Staff Secretary Rob Porter's domestic abuse history, his comments from from day to the next, and Mr. Porter's subsequent firing/resignation.
Here's one obvious but neglected question that needs to be asked of General Kelly:
What kinda unit you running here, soldier?
Someone get Colin Powell in here to give him a dressing down.
The Trump Administration is an utter mess. How many times can you say, "This was the worst week for the Administration?" Seriously. Chuck Todd used the words 'spinning out of control' while The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan repeated the phrase 'chaos and disorder' to describe the administration. What happened to the president hiring 'the best' people? Where's there even a sense of rudimentary professionalism? White House Communications Director Hope Hicks is dating Mr. Porter, and she is the one to write the official statement. White House Counsel Don McGahn has known about Mr. Porter perpetrating domestic abuse for a year. General Kelly we come to find knew about all this in November. All the while neither the president nor (of course) the vice-president knew anything about any of this.
Then...
Marc Short comes on today's program and says the president has 'confidence' in General Kelly. Mr. Short continued that the FBI clearance process for National Security has taken this long to complete, when it was the FBI who had informed Mr. McGahn back in January 2017, and essentially blaming the FBI for slow vetting and that's why they haven't acted until now. After all that, he say that he isn't blaming the FBI. Jared Kushner hasn't been approved for the highest security clearance and he is reading the president's daily briefing, Chuck Todd explained. Mr. Short doesn't, couldn't possibly, have a good answer for any of this.
NBC's Kristen Welker explained that the president isn't going to replace General Kelly because he 'doesn't want more drama' in the administration, which is laughable if it weren't so serious. Understandable questions of character brought by Mr. Gaude unavoidably have to be considered. Ms. Noonan pointed out that many qualified people just didn't want to get Trump's political cooties on them.
The Resurgent's Erick Erickson provided some consolation explaining that under General Kelly, the Administration did get tax reform done. Whether you agree with the policy or not, it's fine to agree that it's good the administration can function on some level. That's what he's really saying. Mr. Erickson said later in the program the President Trump is not a role model. Coming from him, that strikes a chord, be it a soft one.
But here's the rub. Given all the ridiculousness described above, there are more serious matters afoot, namely the Administration denying release of the Democratic rebuttal memo on the Russia investigation. There is no hypocrisy, as Mr. Short charged, in that the Democrats didn't vote for release of the Mr. Nunes's memo while both Republicans and Democrats voted for the release of the rebuttal memo. No... The reason Republicans members of the Intelligence Committee voted for the rebuttal's release is because they're all sick of Mr. Nunes's stupid, nakedly partisan antics, in a committee that shouldn't be partisan.
So when fmr. FBI agent Clint Watts comes on the program and discusses Russian meddling in our elections, of which the aforementioned memo release plays a part, there's little faith in anything being done. With the president trying to block the truth of the matter and his base going along with the notion of 'there's nothing to see here,' the two most important words Mr. Watts uttered: Paper ballot.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Eddie Gaude, Jr., Princeton University; Erick Erickson, The Resurgent
One More Thing...
At the end of Mr. Todd's Olympics segment, there was a coming together of which sport both liberals and conservatives could come together on. Without going back, I can't remember what it was because I didn't care. Point is, do us a little favor a do a profile on an athlete or an interview with a former Olympic great instead of having to feel the need to do tongue-in-cheek politicizing of everything. I know, what a Debbie Downer I am.
Here's one obvious but neglected question that needs to be asked of General Kelly:
What kinda unit you running here, soldier?
Someone get Colin Powell in here to give him a dressing down.
The Trump Administration is an utter mess. How many times can you say, "This was the worst week for the Administration?" Seriously. Chuck Todd used the words 'spinning out of control' while The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan repeated the phrase 'chaos and disorder' to describe the administration. What happened to the president hiring 'the best' people? Where's there even a sense of rudimentary professionalism? White House Communications Director Hope Hicks is dating Mr. Porter, and she is the one to write the official statement. White House Counsel Don McGahn has known about Mr. Porter perpetrating domestic abuse for a year. General Kelly we come to find knew about all this in November. All the while neither the president nor (of course) the vice-president knew anything about any of this.
Then...
Marc Short comes on today's program and says the president has 'confidence' in General Kelly. Mr. Short continued that the FBI clearance process for National Security has taken this long to complete, when it was the FBI who had informed Mr. McGahn back in January 2017, and essentially blaming the FBI for slow vetting and that's why they haven't acted until now. After all that, he say that he isn't blaming the FBI. Jared Kushner hasn't been approved for the highest security clearance and he is reading the president's daily briefing, Chuck Todd explained. Mr. Short doesn't, couldn't possibly, have a good answer for any of this.
NBC's Kristen Welker explained that the president isn't going to replace General Kelly because he 'doesn't want more drama' in the administration, which is laughable if it weren't so serious. Understandable questions of character brought by Mr. Gaude unavoidably have to be considered. Ms. Noonan pointed out that many qualified people just didn't want to get Trump's political cooties on them.
The Resurgent's Erick Erickson provided some consolation explaining that under General Kelly, the Administration did get tax reform done. Whether you agree with the policy or not, it's fine to agree that it's good the administration can function on some level. That's what he's really saying. Mr. Erickson said later in the program the President Trump is not a role model. Coming from him, that strikes a chord, be it a soft one.
But here's the rub. Given all the ridiculousness described above, there are more serious matters afoot, namely the Administration denying release of the Democratic rebuttal memo on the Russia investigation. There is no hypocrisy, as Mr. Short charged, in that the Democrats didn't vote for release of the Mr. Nunes's memo while both Republicans and Democrats voted for the release of the rebuttal memo. No... The reason Republicans members of the Intelligence Committee voted for the rebuttal's release is because they're all sick of Mr. Nunes's stupid, nakedly partisan antics, in a committee that shouldn't be partisan.
So when fmr. FBI agent Clint Watts comes on the program and discusses Russian meddling in our elections, of which the aforementioned memo release plays a part, there's little faith in anything being done. With the president trying to block the truth of the matter and his base going along with the notion of 'there's nothing to see here,' the two most important words Mr. Watts uttered: Paper ballot.
Panel: Kristen Welker, NBC; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Eddie Gaude, Jr., Princeton University; Erick Erickson, The Resurgent
One More Thing...
At the end of Mr. Todd's Olympics segment, there was a coming together of which sport both liberals and conservatives could come together on. Without going back, I can't remember what it was because I didn't care. Point is, do us a little favor a do a profile on an athlete or an interview with a former Olympic great instead of having to feel the need to do tongue-in-cheek politicizing of everything. I know, what a Debbie Downer I am.
Sunday, February 04, 2018
2.4.18: A Smoking Memo Unmasked As Dry Ice and the House Speaker's Agenda
If it's printed on a real sheet of paper, it must then be official. I see people on television with it in their hands. They point to paragraphs and specific words.
Regardless of the contents of the memo, which you can read by clicking below, the end result is that despite it being a dud in its explosiveness it accomplished its minimum goal, which was to add something else in the mix to further muddy and attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation.
Now that it's out, members of both parties are unhappy with the result. Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) once again proved his loyalty over reason in his defense of the president. Not only has he further whittled away at the reputation and our trust of the FBI and the Department of Justice, but of his own House committee of intelligence, a critical area that needs to remain nonpartisan. Yet now, we have to await a Democratic response memo to Mr. Nunes's memo. As the panel marveled, it's astounding how the party of supposed law and order is attacking the FBI and the Democratic party is the one coming to its defense. Pointing out problems in a institution and still having faith in it do not have to be mutually exclusive notions. However, for Mr. Trump unfounded conspiracy theories fuel unhinged paranoia.
The entire #releasethememo Twitter hype rally was just that. That people out there in the ether would by into such things is one thing, but for politicians to be influenced by Twitter trivia is another. This is akin to Senator Ron Johnson seeing the words 'secret society' in a text message and then actually believing there is one.
Or defensiveness due to the reality he's facing... There's something to the notion that a wounded animal backed into a corner is at its most dangerous. Because it's in its most desperate state. That's where Mr. Trump is with the Russia investigation and though this memo throws out another morsel to chew on, it's not enough to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein or Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Getting back to Mr. Nunes, we know he's a partisan sycophant of the president - not a very shrewd one - so the release of a memo that even White House Counsel Don McGahn called a political opinion piece. Congress Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who had a significant role in crafting the memo said the memo in no way diminishes his faith in the Mueller investigation. Former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, said in his interview that he's never seen anything this extremely partisan like from what's coming from the House Intelligence Committee now, and that is showed a lack of moral and ethically leadership. Still, we've come to expect as much from Mr. Nunes.
When Chuck Todd asked the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter what she made of all this, I think she summed it up best with, "I'm confused."
What was to be a smoking memo turned out to be four pieces of paper on dry ice.
But the motivations and responsible individuals come into more focus when you think of things in the following terms. These shenanigans and the outward spiraling of chaos they cause rests at the feet of Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan (R-WI), plain and simple. No matter what twists and turns and turmoil the president causes or is caused by the Russian investigation, Mr. Ryan is going to keep moving his agenda forward while at least some people are distracted. If he wanted all this to stop, he could do it at any time by removing Mr. Nunes chairmanship. But he doesn't, and nor will he.
In fmr. White House Chief of Staff, Reince "I felt" Priebus's interview, he gave the simple explanation as to why. Since Mr. Ryan was twenty-one years old, he's been trying enact these kinds of policies and deregulation in line with his Ayn Rand philosophical inclinations. It's Mr. Ryan's ideological agenda is his motivation and for him, Russia and Nunes and memos and tweets all provide a smokescreen for things like the tax bill. Surely, if the president wouldn't keep sabotaging Republican policy efforts along the way, there would be more.
With that said, enough is enough and Mr. Ryan should remove Mr. Nunes from the chairmanship of the committee. From the House Intelligence Committee, there should only be one statement agreed upon by the members of both parties, but under Mr. Nunes that will never happen. He's gone so far that there's no possibility of ever coming back to a compromising position. In other words, the current state of the American politic writ large.
Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Amy Walter, Cook Political Report; Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post; Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio Network
One more thing...
I won't get into the the entire discussion of the NFL's rating and the problems with the game, of which there are many. The future of the game will be what it will be, but right now, it's pretty widely celebrated, which is good too. It's a good thing that Mr. Trump isn't doing the Super Sunday presidential interview. Football was something that always brought Americans together until Mr. Trump came along so it's good that my stomach won't be upset by an interview while I'm upsetting my stomach with too much food.
What was interesting about the Bryant Gumbel interview was that it was a true 'meet the press' moment as all members of the panel asked the guest a questions. That along with two in-studio interviews... Make someone is listening... or reading as it were.
Have great fun today on Super Bowl Sunday.... Go E-A-G-L-E-S, Eagles!
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
1.30.18: Notes and Thoughts from Mr. Trump's First State of the Union Address
Was having a bit of fun with the notes and thoughts; got a little snarky at times so don't take it too seriously... or take it very seriously.
Not that much clapping and applause... Subdued for sure.
Sitting behind Trump is the right nut and the wing nut, with him at the head.
(Maybe he'll make it short.)
It's scripted so he'll do well and his supporters will say he hit it out of the park.
(You better mention the first lady, buster.)
Is he going to start slurring his words again. That would be priceless.
Platitude and Applause...
Always like salutes to first responders and soldiers, as long as they don't get political.
Trying not to question the president's sincerity, but it's hard not to.
Set aside our differences, unity for the people we were elected to serve.
Nancy Pelosi had a look on her face like, "What a fucking bullshitter."
The state of our union is strong because our people are strong. (But she stood for this statement.)
Rising wages I think are due to how it dominates the social everyday working person conversation.
He's riding the economy that the previous administration cleaned up and got back on track, but Trump would be flunking politics 101 if he didn't take credit for it.
Repealed the core of the disastrous Obamacare. The individual mandate is now gone.
35% to 21% so US companies can compete and win.
This is our new American moment.
(Rah-rah really isn't what we need but so be it.)
How could he bring up the NFL, in not so many words, but standing for the National Anthem... How are we united in one moment when in the next he's reminding us of his dog whistle politics.
Ugh.
Wait what, empowering cabinet members to fire whomever they want?
We ended the war on clean coal! At least that's one war we've ended, right?
The terminally ill can experiment, they should have the right to try... (marijuana for the first time).
The whole prescription drug thing was a Republican policy that didn't allow the government to negotiate the prices. A giveaway in other words.
1.5 trillion for infrastructure, on top of the 1.5 trillion for the tax cut? 3 trill, all in?
(This speech is bizarro...)
Open vocational schools so people can realize their full potential...
Reforming our prisons...in Republican parlance that means further privatizing.
I wonder if the staff calls the president "The Extreme" like Bill Paxton in Twister. Because Trump always goes to the extreme example, extreme rhetoric. Never tempered.
His constant concern is our poor? Have you ever heard of Twitter?
Oh, and everybody matters.
Americans are dreamers too... hmmmm....
Calling for bi-partisanship on immigration, but for cryin' out loud, he had the Graham-Durbin bill in his hand!
Now, he's negotiating from the podium?
Building a great wall... Chinese anyone?
Merit-based immigration system. Statue of Liberty be damned!
Chain migration is the ugly term for family immigration.
Limiting it this immigration reform is good for the future of white America.. Weird dog whistles throughout this speech.
Bring immigration into the 21st century? Didn't you mention a wall? It was just a mention.
(Addiction, not eddiction.)
We have to stop the drug dealers and the pushers to stop the opiod epidemic? The pharma sales reps., the doctors, and the pharmacies better look out.
(He ain't making it short.)
Foreign policy...
Mr. Trump will ask congress to end the defense sequester and fully fund the military.
Who clapped when the president said that sadly we're not "there yet" on agreeing on eliminating nuclear weapons.
I want to know what really happened to Sgt. La David Johnson in Niger? Why were four US soldiers positioned in a place with no support? Among other questions...
This speech is getting like the book version of the "American Carnage" speech on Inauguration Day.
(Thank you General Mattis for keeping the president hand away from the button.)
We're keeping Guantanamo open. We're going after anyone we deem a terrorist anywhere they are? Anywhere? That sounds unconstitutional, don't you think?
UN voted against our right to make that decision. Pass legislation that money only go to friends of America, not enemies... like the Palestinians.
The Iranian nuclear deal - wants congress to look at the terrible deal. That would be dangerous to renege on that.
"Finally..."
(Finally.)
How many 'uplifting' stories can we endure?
In talking about Sung Ho, he's the exact type of person Mr. Trump wants to keep out of the country.
The Capitol is the monument to the American people... important cheer leading moment, I guess.
He actually looked back at the teleprompter in the middle of "God Bless... America."
One of the longest... but not in terms of word count.
Given the recalibrated the scale, and that he didn't kill anyone - jk, and that he didn't focus on himself which was refreshing, I give him a really generous B-, or a C++. Take your pick.
(But I'll be honest, I don't feel in anyway uplifted.)
From Fall River, MA - Rep. Joe Kennedy - Democratic Response
A town built by immigrants.
Fractured fault lines across our country.
A straight up counter-punch speech, putting forth the Democratic vision. Democrats choose both.
Well played; well delivered.
Not that much clapping and applause... Subdued for sure.
Sitting behind Trump is the right nut and the wing nut, with him at the head.
(Maybe he'll make it short.)
It's scripted so he'll do well and his supporters will say he hit it out of the park.
(You better mention the first lady, buster.)
Is he going to start slurring his words again. That would be priceless.
Platitude and Applause...
Always like salutes to first responders and soldiers, as long as they don't get political.
Trying not to question the president's sincerity, but it's hard not to.
Set aside our differences, unity for the people we were elected to serve.
Nancy Pelosi had a look on her face like, "What a fucking bullshitter."
The state of our union is strong because our people are strong. (But she stood for this statement.)
Rising wages I think are due to how it dominates the social everyday working person conversation.
He's riding the economy that the previous administration cleaned up and got back on track, but Trump would be flunking politics 101 if he didn't take credit for it.
Repealed the core of the disastrous Obamacare. The individual mandate is now gone.
35% to 21% so US companies can compete and win.
This is our new American moment.
(Rah-rah really isn't what we need but so be it.)
How could he bring up the NFL, in not so many words, but standing for the National Anthem... How are we united in one moment when in the next he's reminding us of his dog whistle politics.
Ugh.
Wait what, empowering cabinet members to fire whomever they want?
We ended the war on clean coal! At least that's one war we've ended, right?
The terminally ill can experiment, they should have the right to try... (marijuana for the first time).
The whole prescription drug thing was a Republican policy that didn't allow the government to negotiate the prices. A giveaway in other words.
1.5 trillion for infrastructure, on top of the 1.5 trillion for the tax cut? 3 trill, all in?
(This speech is bizarro...)
Open vocational schools so people can realize their full potential...
Reforming our prisons...in Republican parlance that means further privatizing.
I wonder if the staff calls the president "The Extreme" like Bill Paxton in Twister. Because Trump always goes to the extreme example, extreme rhetoric. Never tempered.
His constant concern is our poor? Have you ever heard of Twitter?
Oh, and everybody matters.
Americans are dreamers too... hmmmm....
Calling for bi-partisanship on immigration, but for cryin' out loud, he had the Graham-Durbin bill in his hand!
Now, he's negotiating from the podium?
Building a great wall... Chinese anyone?
Merit-based immigration system. Statue of Liberty be damned!
Chain migration is the ugly term for family immigration.
Limiting it this immigration reform is good for the future of white America.. Weird dog whistles throughout this speech.
Bring immigration into the 21st century? Didn't you mention a wall? It was just a mention.
(Addiction, not eddiction.)
We have to stop the drug dealers and the pushers to stop the opiod epidemic? The pharma sales reps., the doctors, and the pharmacies better look out.
(He ain't making it short.)
Foreign policy...
Mr. Trump will ask congress to end the defense sequester and fully fund the military.
Who clapped when the president said that sadly we're not "there yet" on agreeing on eliminating nuclear weapons.
I want to know what really happened to Sgt. La David Johnson in Niger? Why were four US soldiers positioned in a place with no support? Among other questions...
This speech is getting like the book version of the "American Carnage" speech on Inauguration Day.
(Thank you General Mattis for keeping the president hand away from the button.)
We're keeping Guantanamo open. We're going after anyone we deem a terrorist anywhere they are? Anywhere? That sounds unconstitutional, don't you think?
UN voted against our right to make that decision. Pass legislation that money only go to friends of America, not enemies... like the Palestinians.
The Iranian nuclear deal - wants congress to look at the terrible deal. That would be dangerous to renege on that.
"Finally..."
(Finally.)
How many 'uplifting' stories can we endure?
In talking about Sung Ho, he's the exact type of person Mr. Trump wants to keep out of the country.
The Capitol is the monument to the American people... important cheer leading moment, I guess.
He actually looked back at the teleprompter in the middle of "God Bless... America."
One of the longest... but not in terms of word count.
Given the recalibrated the scale, and that he didn't kill anyone - jk, and that he didn't focus on himself which was refreshing, I give him a really generous B-, or a C++. Take your pick.
(But I'll be honest, I don't feel in anyway uplifted.)
From Fall River, MA - Rep. Joe Kennedy - Democratic Response
A town built by immigrants.
Fractured fault lines across our country.
A straight up counter-punch speech, putting forth the Democratic vision. Democrats choose both.
Well played; well delivered.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
1.28.18: If The President Wanting To Fire Mr. Mueller Didn't Actually Happen, Does It Still Matter?
The irony isn't lost on anyone that what once brought Donald Trump so much success and the presidency, which would be firing people, now puts him in political and legal peril. The firing of then FBI Director, James Comey set off a chain of events, well-documented now, that has put the United States in a very precarious position.
We found out this week via The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html) that the president wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but White House Counsel Don McGahn ultimately threatened to resign rather than give that order. To be clear, the president initially did give the order to fire Mr. Mueller, but rescinded it due to the circumstances and we can only think cooler heads prevailing.
While certainly newsworthy inasmuch as it raised the questions of whether the president once again obstructed justice and if there should be legislative protections enacted to keep Mr. Mueller's investigation in place. Ultimately, you'd have to agree with Tom Brokaw who said that it's really a nonissue for the country at this point - six months ago the president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller but it ended up not happening. Also, fmr. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the point to question whether such legislative protections could even be done legally as the special counsel is an executive branch decision. How it goes is that the president, heading the executive branch, is going to do what he's going to do, and then Congress will act accordingly. That's where the real doubt comes in.
Chuck Todd posed the question to Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that aren't Republicans going after the investigators instead of really paying attention to the investigation itself? Republicans don't like the way the facts are shaping up so they are going after the investigators' integrity. The House majority leader said that he had confidence in Mr. Mueller, but that there were some things that have been less than transparent, and that is what is most important. He said that he wanted government to be 'fair and open.'
This is laughable. Mr. McCarthy is providing cover to a president who hasn't been transparent since the day he declared his candidacy for office, never having publicly released his tax returns. The president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller and the question, same as it's always been, is why. The president says Russian collusion is a hoax, and maybe there was no collusion on his part. But what's there that the president feels he has to cover up, prompting all these indemnifying actions? Michael Wolff, in his book Fire and Fury, quotes fmr. Senior White House Strategist Steve Bannon as saying it was all about money laundering. The speculative short answer: most probably.
[Show Note: Good to see Mr. McCarthy in studio. Get more of these people in there, live. Literally being under the lights with the interlocutor right there in your face puts people on the spot, in a good way. More of that, please.]
With that said, Mr. McCarthy's comments and actions are tepid compared to the likes of Congressmen Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and ringmeister Devin Nunes (R-CA) whose comments and actions carry the obstruction buckets of water for the administration. Not to mention Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and his utterly stupid comments about a 'secret society' against the president. Actually Ron, I'm part of the society, what do you want to know?
What a goofball. But in all seriousness, these people are acting unseemly in their efforts to undermine this country's institutions, specifically the FBI in this case. Sadly, we've come to expect it from our president but not from members of Congress, particularly not a senator, who should always yield to facts and law.
Also, Devin Nunes is like a Leatherman, he's a multi-tool. He previously recused himself from the Russia investigation for making ill-conceived statements about the wiretapping Trump Tower, from in front of the White House no less. We come to find out that he's been causing trouble for the House Intelligence Committee by running side meetings putting together a memo that is rumored to discredit Mr. Mueller's investigation. It is also said that the memo in question cherry picks content from the classified documents and is misleading. Either way, Mr. Nunes has been a completely counterproductive individual for both sides of the aisle. In fact, he's a tool so big there isn't a shed to hold him.
Heather McGhee was correct when she said that these people, in twenty years, will find themselves on the wrong side of history for putting party over country.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said that Mr. Nunes had 'neutered' the House Intelligence Committee's integrity and that the Senate's investigation will have to be the one that people should trust more. And though I didn't delve into immigration at all, Mr. Manchin in his response to a question about it and another used phrases like 'New York talk' and 'West Virginia talk' and that he didn't understand the former. Let's just say that this is the kind of rhetorical regionalizing that Senators should avoid because it just reinforces hopeless misunderstanding where there shouldn't be any. Beside, what the hell is he talking about anyway?
I could go on...
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
A couple more things...
The least of Steve Wynn's problems is that he lost his gig as RNC Finance Chair. As Kasie Hunt said, Steve Wynn is at 'Harvey-level' type numbers. This story is only going to grow in attention so watch out. For those hoping for Republican political repercussions, stop.
As for the immigration debate, the current deal is not acceptable if you are anywhere from the center-right leftward. It limits legal immigration and prohibits family reunification which is counter intuitive if you want the people that immigrate here to succeed.
Oh, and the State of the Union is in 2 days!
Not sure what I'm doing for this... Definitely watching!... most probably a short column of some sort. Check back.
And it's revving up - @mtpopinion on Twitter.
We found out this week via The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html) that the president wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but White House Counsel Don McGahn ultimately threatened to resign rather than give that order. To be clear, the president initially did give the order to fire Mr. Mueller, but rescinded it due to the circumstances and we can only think cooler heads prevailing.
While certainly newsworthy inasmuch as it raised the questions of whether the president once again obstructed justice and if there should be legislative protections enacted to keep Mr. Mueller's investigation in place. Ultimately, you'd have to agree with Tom Brokaw who said that it's really a nonissue for the country at this point - six months ago the president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller but it ended up not happening. Also, fmr. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the point to question whether such legislative protections could even be done legally as the special counsel is an executive branch decision. How it goes is that the president, heading the executive branch, is going to do what he's going to do, and then Congress will act accordingly. That's where the real doubt comes in.
Chuck Todd posed the question to Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that aren't Republicans going after the investigators instead of really paying attention to the investigation itself? Republicans don't like the way the facts are shaping up so they are going after the investigators' integrity. The House majority leader said that he had confidence in Mr. Mueller, but that there were some things that have been less than transparent, and that is what is most important. He said that he wanted government to be 'fair and open.'
This is laughable. Mr. McCarthy is providing cover to a president who hasn't been transparent since the day he declared his candidacy for office, never having publicly released his tax returns. The president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller and the question, same as it's always been, is why. The president says Russian collusion is a hoax, and maybe there was no collusion on his part. But what's there that the president feels he has to cover up, prompting all these indemnifying actions? Michael Wolff, in his book Fire and Fury, quotes fmr. Senior White House Strategist Steve Bannon as saying it was all about money laundering. The speculative short answer: most probably.
[Show Note: Good to see Mr. McCarthy in studio. Get more of these people in there, live. Literally being under the lights with the interlocutor right there in your face puts people on the spot, in a good way. More of that, please.]
With that said, Mr. McCarthy's comments and actions are tepid compared to the likes of Congressmen Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and ringmeister Devin Nunes (R-CA) whose comments and actions carry the obstruction buckets of water for the administration. Not to mention Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and his utterly stupid comments about a 'secret society' against the president. Actually Ron, I'm part of the society, what do you want to know?
What a goofball. But in all seriousness, these people are acting unseemly in their efforts to undermine this country's institutions, specifically the FBI in this case. Sadly, we've come to expect it from our president but not from members of Congress, particularly not a senator, who should always yield to facts and law.
Also, Devin Nunes is like a Leatherman, he's a multi-tool. He previously recused himself from the Russia investigation for making ill-conceived statements about the wiretapping Trump Tower, from in front of the White House no less. We come to find out that he's been causing trouble for the House Intelligence Committee by running side meetings putting together a memo that is rumored to discredit Mr. Mueller's investigation. It is also said that the memo in question cherry picks content from the classified documents and is misleading. Either way, Mr. Nunes has been a completely counterproductive individual for both sides of the aisle. In fact, he's a tool so big there isn't a shed to hold him.
Heather McGhee was correct when she said that these people, in twenty years, will find themselves on the wrong side of history for putting party over country.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said that Mr. Nunes had 'neutered' the House Intelligence Committee's integrity and that the Senate's investigation will have to be the one that people should trust more. And though I didn't delve into immigration at all, Mr. Manchin in his response to a question about it and another used phrases like 'New York talk' and 'West Virginia talk' and that he didn't understand the former. Let's just say that this is the kind of rhetorical regionalizing that Senators should avoid because it just reinforces hopeless misunderstanding where there shouldn't be any. Beside, what the hell is he talking about anyway?
I could go on...
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
A couple more things...
The least of Steve Wynn's problems is that he lost his gig as RNC Finance Chair. As Kasie Hunt said, Steve Wynn is at 'Harvey-level' type numbers. This story is only going to grow in attention so watch out. For those hoping for Republican political repercussions, stop.
As for the immigration debate, the current deal is not acceptable if you are anywhere from the center-right leftward. It limits legal immigration and prohibits family reunification which is counter intuitive if you want the people that immigrate here to succeed.
Oh, and the State of the Union is in 2 days!
Not sure what I'm doing for this... Definitely watching!... most probably a short column of some sort. Check back.
And it's revving up - @mtpopinion on Twitter.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
1.21.18: As For The Parents Of DACA Americans, Just Say 'Thank You'
Shutdown, Day 2...
The entire day leading up to the exact date of one-year anniversary clearly illustrated the impeccably clear leadership of the Trump Administration, and at exactly midnight eastern time in Washington, the United States government shutdown to honor the mark. Lovely.
Now that it's here, the question at the top of the program was whether this is a Schumer Shutdown or a Trump Shutdown. Obviously, it depends who you ask, and thanks to "Meet The Press's" producers, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) both appeared in separate interviews. This gets right to the center of the president's 'shit hole' comment, pardon the phrase.
In this instance not having been in the room, you have to take the word of the people who were. When asked, Senator Durbin said that he 'amplified' it, using Chuck Todd's term, because the president lied about ever having said it. Senator Lindsey Graham 'said his piece' to the president in the very meeting, to which Mr. Cotton said was part of Mr. Graham's overall conversation about policy. But apparently, Trump owned it by bragging about the comment to people close to the president, according to conservative journalist Erick Erickson.
In terms of the shutdown and the deciding factor of what the to do with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in terms of making a deal to pass a budget, today's panel consensus was that this is a pretty easy deal to make. Chuck Schumer gave the president $18 billion for a border wall in exchange for DACA.
President said 'yes,' then president said 'no.'
Like negotiating with Jell-O...
Which gives a bad name to Jell-O by the way, but I'm sure the company is enjoying the product placement.
The president said on Tuesday that he would sign anything the bipartisan group of Senators put together. Mr. Durbin and Mr. Graham give him that compromise and the president says no. Schumer gives what he wants and the Mr. Trump says no. The Senate Majority leader said publicly that he was waiting to know what the president wanted. And on and on and on.
Mr. Trump, with various networks, is on video record that a shutdown is on the president. Well he's the president. And there's the little fact that Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.
The president rescinded the executive order from the last administration on DACA and threw it to congress with a March 5th deadline, which is soon close in congress's time frame that it's like yesterday. There is no more road.
As stated in this column before, DACA recipients are Americans, productive ones at that so give them a passport.
Mr. Cotton would not agree with something so definitive but would concede a path to citizenship. He's concerned about the parents and giving them legal status, which they should not be granted because they're the ones who broke the law. So he's saying that you twenty-something DACA recipient can stay but we're going to break up your family and mom and dad have to go back.
How about this instead since the onus of border security is on us,we didn't like that you broke the law, but thank you for the great productive American you contributed to our country. Thank you. Here's your legal status.
You can have understanding about the Republican position of limiting family migration, derogatorily referred to as 'chain migration' and not feel too bad about it, but it shouldn't be tied to the DACA recipients. It's called compromise where everyone loses a little. Senator Cotton is hard right on immigration so much so that he's the fringe in his own caucus who according to Senator Lindsey Graham should be blocked as a credible voice on the issue. He give him the 'sit-down-rook' verbal swat, but despite Mr. Cotton not copping to it in the interview, he did 'get' to the president on immigration and changed the president's mind... again.
Lastly, Stephanie Cutter was on the mark for calling out White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short on his duplicity when it comes to immigration at once sounding conciliatory and then endorsing a video that the says Democrats are complicit in the murders of Americans by illegal immigrants, which is something else that should be censured by the Republican-controlled congress but frankly, they're too complicit.
Here's that exchange from the transcript...
CHUCK TODD: Is that ad -- let me ask you this, is that ad helpful to you today?
MARC SHORT: I think it's helpful to continue to raise awareness of what the--
CT: The tone of that ad, you find the tone of that ad helpful?
MS: I think that the data in that ad continues to remind people that there are people coming across--
CT: The data, not tone.
MS: --our border--
CT: Is the tone wrong?
MS: I'm telling you, the data of the ad shows that there are people coming across our border that pose threats to our country. Yes.
Does Mr. Short sound like he works for the Trump Administration, or what?
And if there was any doubt, the president owns the 'shit hole' comment and he owns the shutdown.
Panel: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Communications Director for President Obama; Al Cardenas, fmr. Republican Strategist; Peter Alexander, NBC News
Sunday, January 14, 2018
1.14.18: This Is How Far We've Come. This Is How Far We've Come? Executive Time.
This is how far we've come. This is how far we've come?
We have to have the discussion on whether the president is a racist or not. Whether you think so or not, the president does provoke this on himself with irresponsible, bigoted, bastardizing, unpresidential and __________ (fill in the blank for yourself) statements about race, ethnicity, countries of origin and, frankly, most all non-whites. Fmr. advisor to Rand Paul and aide in the Bush White House now MSNBC political analyst, Elise Jordan said it best that there is no reason at all to go out of your way to alienate and antagonize people. As president, that shouldn't be that difficult. But we did get Norway in return. Roughly 54 countries in Africa plus Haiti and El Salvador makes 56 traded away and one in return. Not a good deal, wouldn't you say, and now we learn that Norway is an unwilling draft pick and refuses to report to the president's call.
Here's how Donald Trump should defend his latest example of stupidity in calling Haiti, El Salvador and the entire continent of Africa shit holes...
(Aside: The television analysts and anchors and press writ large are giddy to say the word "shit" on live air. You can see it in the faces, which is pretty hysterical in and of itself. We're glad that "Meet The Press" rightly didn't indulge in this TV candy because it's not necessary, and it got tiring of watching them one by one eat the candy. Like you just want a break from it if you follow these things or live an everyday life. But President Trump has lowered the bar another three rungs yet again, teaching our children by example.)
He should defend this untrue statement like he defended himself on his "Putin and Russia kill people" defense. Include us into the group. Like Mr. Trump said, "You think our country's so innocent?" Instead, "You think our country's not a shit hole too?" The president has said that other countries' airports are much nicer than others. He also said our FBI is in tatters. He declared a state of emergency on our opioid crisis so... Isn't that what's he's saying? What everyone is thinking, as some explain....
But we actually don't want to say what "everyone's thinking." It wasn't acceptable when he used this defense the first time, and it shouldn't be now.
The biggest disappointment isn't how Mr. Trumps disgraces the office of the President of the United States on a daily basis and trivializes the overall awesome responsibility it truly carries where lives are in the balance. Donald Trump has never internalized this concept. No, bigger than that is that we voted for the guy or not enough of people showed up to vote for his opponent. Anyway you look at it, it's on us, really.
But there's an out here, be it a slight one, and that is that Americans were sold a hyped product that ended up not being made of the quality we were promised. We expected sturdy bolts in components of stainless steel construction, but instead we got something plastic and one of the knobs has already broken off.
The Out: Where are the individuals who represent us?
Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) said what the president said unfortunate and unhelpful. Mr. Ryan is so preoccupied and focused on his personal crusade to fulfill every Ayn Rand wish list item that when he says 'unfortunate,' he means he doesn't care all that much and when he uses the word 'unhelpful,' he means to his agenda. The deal that seems to have really been struck was with Republican leadership and Mr. Trump, which was 'let us carry out our agenda and we'll kiss your shit hole no matter what you say.'
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said in his interview that what the president said wasn't 'constructive.' That was forceful, no psychache in Mr. Paul's back, apparently. He then defended the president, as did David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network, with making distinctions between what the president says in public versus what he does or what people close to him say. The latter of which is hardly a comforting method of reassurance. Mr. Paul said that we should give the president the benefit of the doubt, but what doubt is he talking about? Ms. Jordan, said this is what happens when you 'hitch your wagons' to Trump, and then without addressing it to her former boss directly, eviscerated every excuse or notion of logic in defending Mr. Trump.
All that said is the reason we have wiser men and women such as fmr. Ambassador Andrew Young and Andrea Mitchell. Mr. Young explained that you shouldn't call an alcoholic a drunk if you want the person to remain sober and cure the disease. Ms. Mitchell reminded us that compassion and a sense of humanity should be qualities that our presidents have, which Mr. Trump does not have. She importantly noted that 20 people have perished in California mudslides and the president has mentioned one time.
The troubling question is why these concepts would have to be explained to the president in the first place. If this is the case then take all the "executive time," without Twitter, that you need Mr. President.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Elise Jordan, MSNBC; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
One more thing...
Hawaii... A ballistic missile warning that turned out to be a false alarm. Not only does Mr. Trump have us thinking about the possibility of nuclear war with North Korea, but he's also got the military paranoid to the point of making these types of mistakes, as well?
We have to have the discussion on whether the president is a racist or not. Whether you think so or not, the president does provoke this on himself with irresponsible, bigoted, bastardizing, unpresidential and __________ (fill in the blank for yourself) statements about race, ethnicity, countries of origin and, frankly, most all non-whites. Fmr. advisor to Rand Paul and aide in the Bush White House now MSNBC political analyst, Elise Jordan said it best that there is no reason at all to go out of your way to alienate and antagonize people. As president, that shouldn't be that difficult. But we did get Norway in return. Roughly 54 countries in Africa plus Haiti and El Salvador makes 56 traded away and one in return. Not a good deal, wouldn't you say, and now we learn that Norway is an unwilling draft pick and refuses to report to the president's call.
Here's how Donald Trump should defend his latest example of stupidity in calling Haiti, El Salvador and the entire continent of Africa shit holes...
(Aside: The television analysts and anchors and press writ large are giddy to say the word "shit" on live air. You can see it in the faces, which is pretty hysterical in and of itself. We're glad that "Meet The Press" rightly didn't indulge in this TV candy because it's not necessary, and it got tiring of watching them one by one eat the candy. Like you just want a break from it if you follow these things or live an everyday life. But President Trump has lowered the bar another three rungs yet again, teaching our children by example.)
He should defend this untrue statement like he defended himself on his "Putin and Russia kill people" defense. Include us into the group. Like Mr. Trump said, "You think our country's so innocent?" Instead, "You think our country's not a shit hole too?" The president has said that other countries' airports are much nicer than others. He also said our FBI is in tatters. He declared a state of emergency on our opioid crisis so... Isn't that what's he's saying? What everyone is thinking, as some explain....
But we actually don't want to say what "everyone's thinking." It wasn't acceptable when he used this defense the first time, and it shouldn't be now.
The biggest disappointment isn't how Mr. Trumps disgraces the office of the President of the United States on a daily basis and trivializes the overall awesome responsibility it truly carries where lives are in the balance. Donald Trump has never internalized this concept. No, bigger than that is that we voted for the guy or not enough of people showed up to vote for his opponent. Anyway you look at it, it's on us, really.
But there's an out here, be it a slight one, and that is that Americans were sold a hyped product that ended up not being made of the quality we were promised. We expected sturdy bolts in components of stainless steel construction, but instead we got something plastic and one of the knobs has already broken off.
The Out: Where are the individuals who represent us?
Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) said what the president said unfortunate and unhelpful. Mr. Ryan is so preoccupied and focused on his personal crusade to fulfill every Ayn Rand wish list item that when he says 'unfortunate,' he means he doesn't care all that much and when he uses the word 'unhelpful,' he means to his agenda. The deal that seems to have really been struck was with Republican leadership and Mr. Trump, which was 'let us carry out our agenda and we'll kiss your shit hole no matter what you say.'
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said in his interview that what the president said wasn't 'constructive.' That was forceful, no psychache in Mr. Paul's back, apparently. He then defended the president, as did David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network, with making distinctions between what the president says in public versus what he does or what people close to him say. The latter of which is hardly a comforting method of reassurance. Mr. Paul said that we should give the president the benefit of the doubt, but what doubt is he talking about? Ms. Jordan, said this is what happens when you 'hitch your wagons' to Trump, and then without addressing it to her former boss directly, eviscerated every excuse or notion of logic in defending Mr. Trump.
All that said is the reason we have wiser men and women such as fmr. Ambassador Andrew Young and Andrea Mitchell. Mr. Young explained that you shouldn't call an alcoholic a drunk if you want the person to remain sober and cure the disease. Ms. Mitchell reminded us that compassion and a sense of humanity should be qualities that our presidents have, which Mr. Trump does not have. She importantly noted that 20 people have perished in California mudslides and the president has mentioned one time.
The troubling question is why these concepts would have to be explained to the president in the first place. If this is the case then take all the "executive time," without Twitter, that you need Mr. President.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Elise Jordan, MSNBC; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
One more thing...
Hawaii... A ballistic missile warning that turned out to be a false alarm. Not only does Mr. Trump have us thinking about the possibility of nuclear war with North Korea, but he's also got the military paranoid to the point of making these types of mistakes, as well?
Sunday, January 07, 2018
1.7.18: What To Believe? Political Sense or Common Sense...
To believe or not believe? That is the question. Michael Wolff, author of the new, controversial and sold-out book, Fire and Fury: Inside The Trump White House, appeared as Chuck Todd's first guest today to discuss not only its contents but the more importantly, at least to a journalist, the process in which the information was obtained.
Admittedly, I haven't read Mr. Wolff's book yet. As an ordinary consumer, the bookstore was already sold out by the time I went to pick up a copy so it's on order. However, that aside and focusing on the interview and the panel conversation afterward, Mr. Wolff portending himself to be less than forthcoming on his explanations on how he got staffers in the White House to speak about the president with the noted exception of fmr. senior strategist advisor Steven K. Bannon who is on the record in the book. As New York Times Magazine's Mark Leibovich described asking questions of Republicans about the president, it's sort of a two-for. Journalist asks what someone thinks of the president and in turn that someone asks if it's off the record. Danielle Pletka said of the book that there wasn't anything in there that people familiar with the president, including journalists and politicians, didn't already know. Believably, Mr. Wolff said that the president flattered him, saying "he's great," which stands to reason due to prior reputations in of both in New York City. It's gossipy journalism.
Pretty dismissive, all things considered.
But here's the rub. If the book doesn't tell us things that people already know then one would have to be alarmed at conclusions such as: Staffers desperately trying to contain the president or that the 25th Amendment is part of the everyday conversation around the White House. How bad it must be that Steve Bannon would go on the record earning himself less powerful friends in Washington, a much lighter wallet and the new monitor, Sloppy Steve. It goes to show that in Mr. Trump's world, you're great until the day you're not, until you are again. It's a significant break, as Mr. Leibovich described on the merit that it does make the Breitbart/ Trump base have to choose sides in a way.
Also, if the book is filled with falsehoods, the president's reaction to it is grown-up schoolyard kind of stuff in nature. He threatens a lawsuit and complains about weak libel laws, really? That the president has felt the need to come out and state that he's a "very stable genius" doesn't inspire any confidence. On the other hand, it confirms how thin-skinned the president is, and as a president that's something you simply can not be. One thing that Mr. Wolff explained made perfect sense with regard to the president's chief of staff John Kelly and his not having seen the president's tweets, to which Mr. Wolff said there was no way in hell (paraphrasing) that he didn't see him. A man like John Kelly doesn't go into a day or situation not knowing or having a good idea of what's coming at him.
Refer to Senator Bob Corker (R-TN): It's like adult daycare in the White House.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions hasn't done anything to help calm things down to let all us know that the adults have any control in the Administration with Freedom Caucus Republicans calling for his resignation over his recusing himself in the Russia investigation. However, Mr. Sessions is ideologically stubborn in wanting to play out the pursuit of his obsessions - as Joy Reid described them - the evils of marijuana and immigration in that there are too many immigrants in The United States. So much for Republican dogma of leaving things for the states to decide. Not to mention there was a New York Times report this week that Mr. Sessions instructed staffers to get dirt on fmr. FBI Director James Comey to discredit him.
Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) clarified for us the difference between political sense and common sense.
According to Senator Graham, we need special investigators investigating other special investigators on the motivations of their investigation. This makes perfect political sense, which is the same as saying it makes absolutely no common sense.
What's that old Steven Wright joke? The opposite of progress is congress.
Lindsey Graham admitted that he's cozied up to the president because he's the president, and that with North Korea, Iran and immigration on the table, Mr. Graham wants a seat at it. However, there have to be ways to achieve that other than the sad inexcusable criminal recommendation he's submitted with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) against fmr. British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele and the dossier he wrote on Mr. Trump. Mr. Graham needs to take a step back and have some ant-acid, or start giving out free sample packs to us. The first part of his statement today made sense in that Robert Mueller and his investigative team should be empowered and allowed to finish its work. He should just leave it at that. Period, hard stop.
Panel: Joy Reid, MSNBC; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; David Brooks, The New York Times
Admittedly, I haven't read Mr. Wolff's book yet. As an ordinary consumer, the bookstore was already sold out by the time I went to pick up a copy so it's on order. However, that aside and focusing on the interview and the panel conversation afterward, Mr. Wolff portending himself to be less than forthcoming on his explanations on how he got staffers in the White House to speak about the president with the noted exception of fmr. senior strategist advisor Steven K. Bannon who is on the record in the book. As New York Times Magazine's Mark Leibovich described asking questions of Republicans about the president, it's sort of a two-for. Journalist asks what someone thinks of the president and in turn that someone asks if it's off the record. Danielle Pletka said of the book that there wasn't anything in there that people familiar with the president, including journalists and politicians, didn't already know. Believably, Mr. Wolff said that the president flattered him, saying "he's great," which stands to reason due to prior reputations in of both in New York City. It's gossipy journalism.
Pretty dismissive, all things considered.
But here's the rub. If the book doesn't tell us things that people already know then one would have to be alarmed at conclusions such as: Staffers desperately trying to contain the president or that the 25th Amendment is part of the everyday conversation around the White House. How bad it must be that Steve Bannon would go on the record earning himself less powerful friends in Washington, a much lighter wallet and the new monitor, Sloppy Steve. It goes to show that in Mr. Trump's world, you're great until the day you're not, until you are again. It's a significant break, as Mr. Leibovich described on the merit that it does make the Breitbart/ Trump base have to choose sides in a way.
Also, if the book is filled with falsehoods, the president's reaction to it is grown-up schoolyard kind of stuff in nature. He threatens a lawsuit and complains about weak libel laws, really? That the president has felt the need to come out and state that he's a "very stable genius" doesn't inspire any confidence. On the other hand, it confirms how thin-skinned the president is, and as a president that's something you simply can not be. One thing that Mr. Wolff explained made perfect sense with regard to the president's chief of staff John Kelly and his not having seen the president's tweets, to which Mr. Wolff said there was no way in hell (paraphrasing) that he didn't see him. A man like John Kelly doesn't go into a day or situation not knowing or having a good idea of what's coming at him.
Refer to Senator Bob Corker (R-TN): It's like adult daycare in the White House.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions hasn't done anything to help calm things down to let all us know that the adults have any control in the Administration with Freedom Caucus Republicans calling for his resignation over his recusing himself in the Russia investigation. However, Mr. Sessions is ideologically stubborn in wanting to play out the pursuit of his obsessions - as Joy Reid described them - the evils of marijuana and immigration in that there are too many immigrants in The United States. So much for Republican dogma of leaving things for the states to decide. Not to mention there was a New York Times report this week that Mr. Sessions instructed staffers to get dirt on fmr. FBI Director James Comey to discredit him.
Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) clarified for us the difference between political sense and common sense.
According to Senator Graham, we need special investigators investigating other special investigators on the motivations of their investigation. This makes perfect political sense, which is the same as saying it makes absolutely no common sense.
What's that old Steven Wright joke? The opposite of progress is congress.
Lindsey Graham admitted that he's cozied up to the president because he's the president, and that with North Korea, Iran and immigration on the table, Mr. Graham wants a seat at it. However, there have to be ways to achieve that other than the sad inexcusable criminal recommendation he's submitted with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) against fmr. British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele and the dossier he wrote on Mr. Trump. Mr. Graham needs to take a step back and have some ant-acid, or start giving out free sample packs to us. The first part of his statement today made sense in that Robert Mueller and his investigative team should be empowered and allowed to finish its work. He should just leave it at that. Period, hard stop.
Panel: Joy Reid, MSNBC; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; David Brooks, The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)