Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate The Issues Straightforwardly, Pull Punches

DES MOINES, IOWA – With the exception of an increased focus on foreign policy, brought to the forefront from the escalating tensions with Iran, it was business as usual in Tuesday night’s CNN Democrat presidential debate, the final televised debate before the Feb. 3 Iowa Caucus.

While some fireworks were expected between the top progressive candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, after CNN reported on Monday that Sanders allegedly told Warren in a private meeting a couple years ago that a woman could not be elected president, none took place (at least publicly). Sanders denied he made that comment, and Warren went so far as to say that “Bernie is my friend and I’m not here to attack Bernie.”

After addressing it briefly, they and the rest of the candidates stuck with the pressing issues.

The candidates — who made up the smallest field yet after several other candidates either dropped out or failed to meet minimal eligibility requirements for the debate — were united in saying Iran must be prevented from having a nuclear weapon. They all called for more negotiations and greater diplomacy.  

Iran

Candidates were asked on how best to diffuse the current situation with Iran, which has long had an adversarial relationship with the United States, dating back to at least the 1979 embassy hostage crisis

Tensions ramped up more after President Donald Trump ordered the killing of a popular Irani general, Qasem Soleimani, who has been linked to the killing of hundreds of American troops during the Iraq War and was believed to have been plotting more attacks when he was killed by a drone near Baghdad Airport in neighboring Iraq.

Some Democrats have criticized the Trump Administration, questioning if the killing (Sanders previously labeled it an “assassination”) was necessary at the risk of adding proverbial fuel to the fire, and if the general posed an “imminent” threat. At least two Republican senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, have also questioned the administration’s rationale.

Many of the presidential candidates called for re-entering the United States into the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, which was negotiated under former President Barack Obama and helped restrict the Iran’s nuclear capability through inspections and various carrots and sticks.

President Trump pulled out of the agreement shortly after entering office, and Iran announced shortly after Soleimani’s death that it has restarted its uranium enrichment program. The U.S. responded by applying additional sanctions, which are believed to have already constricted much of Iran’s economy.

“It was working,” former Vice President Joe Biden said about the agreement. “We have lost our standing in the region.”

“By gutting that, they have made the region more unstable,” said former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg about Trump’s pullout from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). “Our security depends on Iran not having a nuclear (weapon).”

Troop Levels

Both Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have called on leaving a limited number of troops in Middle East for security purposes.

However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said it’s time for combat troops to come home, adding that the defense industry must stop “calling the shots” on the military interventions.

“No one has a solution and an end point,” she said about military strategy in the Middle East.

Sanders said he was current concerned the current crisis with Iran is a product of Trump’s lies. He added that the last two prolonged wars the United had been involved in Vietnam and Iraq were based on lies.

“The American people are sick and tired of endless wars,” he said.

All of the candidates agreed the president must seeking Congressional approval before taking military action. Both Trump and former President Barack Obama have signed off on various military actions without getting the green light from the legislative branch.

Trade

Trump had pledged to scrap the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement, which he, among others, have claimed caused many good-paying manufacturing jobs to be outsourced. His administration negotiated with House Democrats a replacement treaty, the United States Mexico-Canada Agreement. It enjoys bipartisan support and Congress is expected to pass it.

However, Sanders said he won’t support it because it does little to address environmental protection.

But many other candidates said it makes modest improvements over NAFTA, which is better than nothing.

Warren added that if elected president, she would repeal Trump’s tariffs that he imposed via executive order, which she said has devastated many Iowa farmers’ income.

Electability

Not surprisingly, all of the candidates believed they were the most electable. Sanders said he has the strongest grassroots movement. Biden said he has the “broadest coalition.” Buttigieg and Klobuchar both said they understand the needs of voters in the industrial Midwest, a region that helped deliver Trump the presidency.

Health Care

On the subject of health care, the candidates repeated stances from prior debates. Both Sanders and Warren support a single-payer, Medicare-for-All plan that calls for ending private health insurance and is projected to cost trillions of dollars.

The other candidates called for strengthening the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by adding a non-profit public option, or a government-run health plan. They also said the individual mandate, which was scrapped under the 2017 Tax and Jobs Act, should be restored.

Sanders was pressed about the specific cost of his plan. Outside of one detail — that a 4 percent tax would be applied on all income outside of the first $29,000 — he stuck to his general answer (it would cost less than the deductibles, co-payments and premiums policyholders currently pay).

“Health care is a human right. The time is long overdue.”

But Biden said Sanders’ s proposal “doesn’t even come close” to the actual cost of Medicare-for-All.

Klobuchar, who also favors an incremental approach, called for health insurance to cover long-term care, which most medical insurance polices don’t presently cover.

Warren added that she would reduce the cost of insulin, something that a president could do unilaterally.

Many of the candidates also called for the federal government to negotiate drug prices.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire climate change activist, opined on the current problem with the U.S. health care system.

“We’re spending too much because corporations own the system. This is cruelty for money.”

Other takeaways from the debate:

*Candidates agreed more action is needed to provide affordable childcare. Warren mentioned her 2 percent wealth tax for those with at least $50 million in wealth and providing higher salaries to child care workers. Biden proposed an $8,000 child tax credit and spending more on afterschool programs.

*Free college is not a concept that’s popular outside of the progressive circles. Buttigieg said the proposal would unintentionally benefit kids from wealthy families at the expense of kids from lower-income households. Klobuchar said it’s more important to make education compatible with the jobs that are out there or in demand, particularly those in the trades.

*Several candidates are U.S. senators and are expected to participate in the U.S. Senate impeachment trial focusing on Trump’s alleged collusion with Ukraine. That is expected to take them off the campaign trail. Just about all the affected candidates said that it was worth having the trial, even if the Republican-led Senate is not expected to vote to impeach and remove the president.

“Some things are important than politics,” Warren said.

Klobuchar added that if Republicans don’t allow witnesses to be called, they “might as well hand Trump a scepter and a crown.”

“Last I checked, the American people did not want a king.”  

With The Mid-Term Elections Over, Mystery Awaits For Both Parties

A divided government is the ultimate result of the long-awaited, long-promoted 2018 mid-term elections that mostly concluded on Tuesday, November 6 (a few races are still undecided).

Come January, Democrats will have majority control of the House of Representatives, after winning 25-plus seats. And, Republicans will continue leading the Senate, though with a bigger margin.

Sounds like a recipe for gridlock, right? In these hyper-partisan times, sure. That would be the conventional wisdom. But there could be some proverbial wrenches that can be thrown in the mix. Here are a few takeaways from the competitive, hard-fought mid-term elections.

Florida remains an albatross for Democrats:

While former Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, a Democrat, put up a spirited campaign against the far-right victor, former Rep. Ron DeSantis, Gillum falling short of winning proved to be a major disappointment. This is the same state that ultimately cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election, due to a handful of votes and “hanging chads.” Both DeSantis and GOP Senate candidate, Rick Scott, a former governor, appear to have eked out wins (Scott’s is still technically too close to call in his race against Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson). Even the passionate advocacy from survivors of the mass shooting at a Parkland high school failed to help Democrats sufficiently on Election Day.

Mitch McConnell’s A Genius: 

When Barack Obama became president, the Kentucky senator’s single-minded goal was to make Obama a one-term president. He ultimately failed on that front, but he succeeded in putting up a nearly impenetrable GOP firewall that limited many legislative and political gets for much of Obama’s term, including getting Merrick Garland, a moderate Republican, a hearing for the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia. Looking back, it looks like McConnell had incredible foresight. After Trump got elected, McConnell’s other main goal of getting more conservative judges on the bench has worked, with the ultimate prizes of Neil Gorsuch and most recently, Brett Kavenaugh, appointed to the country’s highest court, not to mention a bunch of federal judges in the lower courts. With a bigger GOP cushion in the Senate, there will be less need to negotiate or dicker, weakening the power of Democrats further in the Upper House and leaving such moderates as the Tuesday Group and Blue Dog lawmakers less influential.

Opportunism Works: 

Whether it was Ted Cruz embracing former foe Trump, Joe Manchin voting for Kavenaugh, Trump’s incessant demagogury, or seemingly misleading ads about immigrant caravans posing a threat, integrity is a value best left for a bygone era. Now, it’s all about results and expediency, and if that means having no shame, so be it. Those who voted their conscience on Kavanaugh’s nomination, particularly Democratic North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitenkemp, ultimately suffered the consequences.

Democrats Regain in the Rust Belt and in Governor’s Offices:

The big example here was in Wisconsin, where it looks like Gov. Scott Walker, a once-rising conservative hero, will be unseated. Also, Democrat Tammy Baldwin won the Senate seat. Wisconsin was one of the the so-called Rust Belt states that went Republican in the last presidential election, something it hadn’t done since Ronald Reagan’s re-election landslide way back in 1984. Also, Connor Lamb, a conservative Democrat was able to secure a redrawn Congressional seat in Pennsylvania, a state that hadn’t gone red in the presidential election since 1988. Democrats also enjoyed other nice victories, winning some unlikely governorships in Kansas, Colorado and in Maine, which most recently was led by conservative Gov. Paul LePage.

Republicans, however, made their own stands in being elected chief executives in reliably blue states, such as Vermont, home to Bernie Sanders, and Connecticut, where residents had grown exhausted with tax-and-spend Gov. Dannel Malloy and the Nutmeg State’s ailing economy. Perennial Connecticut office seeker Ned Lamont falls short…again.

Trump Could Be The Ultimate Dealmaker

There were hints he could be an unlikely ally for Democrats early in his presidency, when Republicans were all over the place on immigration, and Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi provided a somewhat sensible plan. Trump ultimately balked, but now with the Democrats having real powers, and Trump ultimately being more pragmatic than ideological, the trite phrase of politics makes strange bedfellows may be reinforced….again.

Tariffs Didn’t Hurt 

 

For months, media have been focusing how Trump’s protectionist-like trade policies, particularly in the form of higher tariffs on everything from soybeans to Chinese-made steel, were driving up their operational costs. But as with most things involving Trump, conventional wisdom need not apply. Rural America embraced Trump’s Republicanism overwhelmingly. The $12 billion bailout for farmers who were negatively impacted by his trade policies probably helped the decision-making process.

Ultimately…This WASN’T a wave election

Unlike in 1994, when a huge tax increase by Democrats under then-President Bill Clinton brought about Newt Gingrich and the Contract of America, and in 2006, when Democrats took over both houses of Congress after voters became exhausted with George W. Bush’s cowboy diplomacy and the war in Iraq, Democrats only gained partial power this time around. Yes, it’s a big victory taking over the House, which will supply them with subpoena and investigative powers. But Trump’s loyal constituency, coupled with his ability to dwarf the rudimentary news cycle with his Wag-The-Dog like Tweets and dog whistles, remain alive and well. He might be slightly dinged, but the armor is still strong enough to withstand whatever is thrown at him. Democrats have to be careful with not getting too immersed in things that future voters could deem as self-serving fishing expeditions.

Here starts a two-year campaign for the 2020 presidency ….for both sides.

Trump Demands Congress to Embrace Immigration Reform in Primetime Speech

In his first State of the Union speech, President Donald Trump sounded more restrained than usual, but no less different in his determination to see major policy changes. That was particularly the case in regards to the long-standing, controversial issue of immigration, a subject that helped him win the presidency but also contributed to the recent, short-lived government shutdown.

 

In his nearly 90-minute primetime address, which also included the usual laundry list of self-congratulatory accomplishments similar to past speeches from other presidents, Trump eventually touched on the hot-button immigration issue, saying that “glaring loopholes” had led to dangerous undocumented immigrants, including members of the notorious Latino MS-13 gang, to cross the American border, bringing along with them violence and drugs. The president used this example as the rationale to change immigration laws.

 

“My duty is to defend Americans, to protect their safety and families….because Americans are dreamers, too,” Trump said, appearing to use the word dreamers in a different way than how it’s been used by many Congressional lawmakers.

 

In the current political lexicon, “dreamers” is the shorthand for children of undocumented immigrants who came to the United States at a very young age and have practically lived much of their whole lives in America, working and going to school here.

 

Many of these dreamers are facing deportation unless Congress can enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. That’s because one of the programs that was implemented by former President Barack Obama, the Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is set to expire shortly. DACA is estimated to be protecting some 800,000 people.

 

Democrats and some moderate Republicans have been debating legislation and scenarios where many or all of the dreamers, among other young undocumented immigrants, can remain in the states.

 

Trump last week introduced immigration reform legislation and reiterated it during his speech, describing it as “a down-the middle compromise.” Along with providing a “path to citizenship” to some 1.8 million dreamers over a 12-year period, contingent on them completing various education and work requirements, Trump’s plan also calls for his signature proposal of a full-length wall on the Mexican border, ending the visa lottery program, and accepting more immigrants based on skills and professional qualifications rather than family connections (derisively referred to in some circles as chain migration).

 

The president said that the present “outdated immigration rules,” particularly the visa lottery program, have outlived their usefulness, and oftentimes counterproductive, given some recent domestic attacks.

 

“In the age of terrorism, these programs present risk,” Trump said.

 

He implored Congress to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform, something that last happened some 30 years ago, when Republican President Ronald Reagan signed legislation that provided amnesty to some three million undocumented aliens.

 

“This Congress can be the one that finally makes it happen…that puts America first,” Trump said.

 

In presenting a human face on the dangers of immigration laws remaining unchanged, Trump mentioned and introduced a Long Island family whose kids were brutally murdered by MS-13.

 

“Three-hundred-and-twenty-million hearts are breaking for you,” he said.

 

Trump then implored Congress to “close the deadly loopholes, fix our immigration laws” and provide more reinforcements to border guards and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

 

While immigration illicited some of the strongest responses from both sides of the aisle, GOP lawmakers enthusiastically applauded the litany of accomplishments that Trump citied.

 

Among the things Trump mentioned include:

 

*Creation of 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 in the manufacturing sector.

 

*Passage of the $1.5-trillion Tax Reform and Jobs Act that will yield to bigger paychecks starting in February and has already lead many employers to issue bonuses to employees (no Democrats voted for the bill, citing that it would add considerably to the deficit and federal debt)

 

*Relocation of corporate funds to the United States, from companies like Apple and Exxon, which enables the federal government to collect tax repatriations;

 

*Record-low unemployment rates among the African-American and Hispanic populations;

 

*The up-until-recently red-hot performance of the Stock Market, which has increased the value of many retirement and investment portfolios;

 

*Deregulation;

 

*Appointment of conservative judges on Circuit Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Norman Gorsuch;

 

Still, Trump pointed out some other areas where he wants to see results. They include:

 

• a $1.5-trillion infrastructure bill

 

• Streamlining the permitting process to move forward on construction projects

 

• More vocational education, workforce development, and job training programs

 

• Paid Family Leave

 

In the meantime, Congress faces a Feb. 8 deadline to adopt a budget. If both parties don’t come to an agreement, the federal government could shut down again.