Face the Nation

Sunday morning I watched the CBS show “Face the Nation.” I stopped my channel switching on this show because the host John Dickerson was just starting an interview with Hillary Clinton. John noted this was Hillary’s first appearance on “Face the Nation” in four years. Frankly I thought Hillary did an excellent job in the interview and appeared to have facts and figures to back her contentions.

Monday morning I revisited the Hillary “Face the Nation” interview and realized that key issues like the server in her home and using her personal e-mail address for government business weren’t really answered. For example when John asked her about the server she claimed, “It was authorized by the U.S. State department. I realized John did not ask the logical follow up question; who at the State department authorized the server in your home? In fact as I thought about it there were no follow up questions that could have put Hillary on the spot, why not?

While I feel John Dickerson is a weak replacement as a host for “Face the Nation” I never thought of him as less than a aggressive reporter/host. Then I found out why there were no follow up questions. On the MSNBC “Morning Joe” show Steve Rattner, billionaire supporter of Obama and the democrat party launched an attack on Carly Forina and her business failings saying that “everyone” knew she was a business failure.” Joe responded’ how do you know what everyone thinks.” This lead to Steve using Hillary as an example of standing on a record that was solid and referencing her appearance on “Face the Nation.” To my total surprise Mika and Joe attacked the “Face the Nation” show pointing out that there were no follow up questions to Hillary. Steve said that was the fault of the host and Mika and Joe attacked Steve again. Mika said that they knew what happened because they were exposed to the same set of problems with Hillary’s people in preparing for an interview on MSNBC. The said that Hillary’s people insisted on certain amounts of time for each question with limited number of follow up questions. Suddenly I remembered that Hillary was not asked about the Clinton foundation and donations associated with favors from Hillary in exchange for those donations. It makes sense that Hillary both feels that she can limit the questions and the follow-ups in order to avoid unpleasant exchanges. To John Dickerson and CBS I say shame on you for ducking your responsibilities to your viewers by not pursuing tough follow up questions and asking questions of Hillary about the Clinton fund. Sooner or later the questions about the Clinton fund and favored nation treatment by Hillary of those who did donate to the fund will be asked.

Too much noise

Trumps polling growth, Ben Carson’s spurt in popularity, Hillary’s fall in the polls and Bernie’s large audience turnouts along with the uncertainness of Joe’s decision to run or not run is making lots of noise and little sense. Media pundits are coming unglued by their own uncertainty about why all of this is happening. The only thing that seems certain is the publics has had it with a discombobulated set of government policies and practices and they attribute the problem to politicians.

I was listening to a voice from the not too different past, former senator Tom Colburn who chose not to run for re-election. He was being interviewed by CNN about the unique Trump/Carson poll performance. Interestingly Tom said that he was particularly impressed by Carly Fiiorina’s performance [full discloser I’ve endorsed Carly as my choice for the party’s nomination] and thought she had a good head on her shoulders. He said he wasn’t endorsing any candidate at this point but thought she should perform well in tomorrow night’s Republican debate on CNN.

Tom explained in this CNN interview that he choice to not run because he believed based on his experience in the senate that the administration and the congress were incapable of making tough decisions to address the country’s huge debt and the pending failure of so many “essential” programs like veterans benefits, Medicare, etc. He attributed this failure to politicians who looked at decisions that would get them re-elected rather than be the best thing for the country. Tom has proposed calling on article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Tom worked hard while he was in congress to expose waste [the $100 wrenches, etc] and was ignored by fellow members of congress. The one exception was the VA exposing pain for the vets and huge waste by the government. Among the things he wants to do is impose term limits on members of congress and some cabinet members. This sounds good because it might cause elected officials to vote for what is in the best interest of the country as opposed to the elected member looking for support in his/her re-election bid. The problem is where term limits have been imposed the power has passed from the elected officials to civil servants who have the same motive for manipulating election outcomes to feather their bed which does not have a term limit. I’ve seen it in Michigan and the elected officials work “for” the civil servants and with good cause because when the term in office is over they will become lobbyist and they will need access to the elected officials via their civil service support staff, the real power. There are other things Tom would like to restrict via the proposed convention but I don’t believe it will work. The idea of getting three fourths of the states to agree to any major changes is very unlikely.

Tom is right about the public’s attitude toward politicians and the failure of both parties to put the good of the country in front of the ideologies of their parties or party leaders. There is so much cover available to elected officials and both political parties are prone to cover up for their own that ferreting out wrong doing and making changes in personal is almost impossible. The truth is we need men and women of honor who will at all costs to their own respective parties vote for and implement laws, polices and procedures to achieve these lofty goals. Have you found them yet, I’m inclined to believe that the upheaval in public polling is a direct fear of the “great unwashed” saying “enough all ready” we are going with our gut feel and political correctness been damned, full speed ahead for the guy or gal who most closely reflects what we care about for ourselves and our families not what the media or politically correct organizations desire.

Give them credit

Hillary and the democrat operatives have been flustered by the drip, drip of emails impugning her honesty. The operatives have been searching for a plan to respond. There is no question the emails have a demeaning affect on Hillary’s campaign. Just witness the number one word assigned to her by the public in a recent survey, liar! But as my friend in NYC is prone to say, not so fast!

Today, just two days after the most recent Hillary email dump from State Department the mainstream media has found a plan. They have found a way to deflect the serious charges against Hillary emerging from the emails. The mainstream media {NBC, MSNBC, CBS so far] are concentrating on the human interest aspects of the e-mail released. For example, the gefilte fish email, questions about how to charge her I pad, press releases on fashion, etc. By addressing social issues the press deflects from the serious issues in the emails and the impact will be less threatening to Hillary’s campaign for President of the United States.

Old saw

There is a claim by many conservatives that the mainstream media is supportive of the liberal left, to a fault. It is an “old saw” and yet it is understandable when you see how the press handles democrat administration programs that are unpopular with the public as indicated in national polls.

Obamacare leads the list of unpopular programs pushed through the congress when democrats controlled both the house and the senate. Today there is a story by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press [AP] titled “Cadillac healthcare tax could hurt middle class.” This lengthy article rehashes the key issues that the “Cadillac tax” has two purposes; to act as a brake on healthcare spending and to raise money for covering the uninsured. Most so called Cadillac plans are employer provided but due to the tax structure set up under Obamacare many or most employers must pass on the costs of these plans to the employee in essence causing them to drop said plan. There is nothing new in this reporting other than the fact that the full affects on U.S. citizens who have the Cadillac plan will feel the new, higher costs in 2016. It is an important fact that highlights a costly aspect of Obamacare and something that the liberal press doesn’t really want to bring to the public’s attention. And so this four-column story appeared on page 16 of my local paper and further back on major market newspapers. Interestingly Hillary Clinton says she would re-examine the tax if elected President, not even that statement could get this story on the front page where it belongs.