Krauthammer on A Select Committee for Boston and Benghazi, Immigration Reform and Marco Rubio, and Bryce Harper v. Mike Trout, Plus Stephen Hayes and Mary Matalin on a Select Committee
One of the advantages of a radio show is that when I want to test out an idea —like whether House Speaker John Boehner should establish a Select Committee to investigate both the Boston bombings and Benghazi— I can test those ideas out against folks smarter and more experienced than I am.
I also managed to cover immigration reform and a fence on the border with Krauthammer (as well as Harper v. Trout) and the Bush Library opening with Matalin because they were both available for two segments. No bonus subject with Stephen Hayes.
Read all three interviews if you are using your time between draft picks for the Browns and Mel Kiper is driving you crazy.
Some key takeaways from all three:
Krauthammer on the southern border: “I’m with you, a fence from left to right, from east to west, except obviously the mountainous areas.”
Matalin on a Select Committee:
I think in this way, I’m not a big commission fan, because everybody works very hard on them, and then they just ignore the findings as was the case with the Debt Commission and all that. But in this case, something’s not right here. Those two yahoo brothers, there’s no way to do, I’m not going to add to any of the commentary that’s already been swirling around for a week, but I just know and you know enough about the subject matter to know that these cannot act independent. There needs to be an explanation for, and something we really need to know, what were they doing in, the big brother, when he went to Russia, and why didn’t we catch him when he came back? And what about all the other student visas, kids that are here not attending any kind of education institutions? So I think there needs to be something more than a commission. There needs to be a real, almost select committee open hearing.
Hayes on such a committee’s focus on Benghazi, and the MSM:
I think that’s probably a good idea, and that structure along the lines of what you’re talking about, it’s the kind of thing it can’t do damage. It’s not, there’s nothing wrong with doing that. At the very least, it would, as you say, I think, maybe elucidate some of the issues that still remain sort of in the shadows covered by darkness. I don’t have a ton of confidence, I must say, that even in the context of that kind of a deeper investigation, the rest of the news media would pay much attention to it. They just, they have, we’ve now gotten to the point where if you have a conversation with even a fair-minded reporter from a mainstream media outlet about national security, sort of the politics of national security, and you mention Benghazi, you will get eye rolls like oh, really, you people are still focused on Benghazi? The assumption was all along that Benghazi was just an election issue, and that those of us who took it seriously and spent a lot of time reporting on it and investigating what had happened there only wanted to do so because of the potential for political damage to President Obama. That was never the case. We were interested in the issue. And I think the vast majority of people on Capitol Hill, members of Congress who were interested in the issue, were interested in it for that reason. And they seem surprised and annoyed that we are still interested, here now six months later, in actually understanding what happened on the ground in Benghazi, because it matters.