Speaker boehner he will have to take that message back and he gets a little bit more behind him. Week and a shop with a meeting between the leaders and the white house. What is the dynamic . It will be very interesting to see. Hopefully we will hear from them exactly what their conversation was with the president. It is unlikely that were going to see a detailed agreement on specific issues. Are we going to hear about tax breaks or how entitlement reform is going to happen in the deal . On not sure. These figures are going to be out there. Theyre all going to be scrambling to set the tone in the way that they want to set it. Of they will have discussions like the Democratic Leaders also say let these are the areas where we made clear to Republican Leaders where we are not going to budge. Thank you for your time. The country is changing and changing. But that is i think not the reason the president won reelection. The American People think about what the president was offering. In terms
221,000 new cases yesterday. 209,000 is the average, and new daily death record as well, 3,124 covid19 deaths recorded wednesday. The cdc forecast says the american death toll will top 360,000 just into the new year. Economic fallout is getting more painful today. 853,000 unemployment claims last week. Pandemic assistance runs out after christmas for millions. You hear lots of talk, little evidence yet of compromise. The president s schedule reminds us he cares more about his power than your health. Later this hour, a white house lunch with the attorney general of texas, the leading latest republican, leading the latest republican appeal for judges to toss out the 2020 Election Results. 17 Republican Attorneys general signed on to that Supreme Court petition. All the proof you need that what was once the party of federalism and constitutional conservatism is now the party of trump, period. The fda decision could alter the american timeline to recovery. We have yet to see the full post
Mind if i give away the ending, which is that he concludes that by demonstrating the parallel between kennedys quest for peace and our generations quest for Sustainable Development. And that is why it is so fitting that we are hosting an here today at the world bank. In his book, professor sachs shows how president kennedys 1973 peace speech was up metal turning point in the cold war, but we should note that the time some critics dismissed it as rhetoric. But it showed that rhetoric mannered and could help us imaginative possible, help change counterproductive use such as the one at the time of his speech that the United States and the soviet union were on an inescapable path to war. The book makes a compelling case for the importance of translating rhetoric into action starting with your achievable goals, by dividing your goal more clearly, making it more manageable, and we can help all people to see it, draw hope from it, and move irresistibly toward it. I think we see todays leaders
Into the international spotlight with an oped published last night by the New York Times. Certainly the most discussed oped i have ever seen. A lecture to the American People, peppered with an artful rewriting of history. Putin writes, from the outset, russian has advocated peaceful dialogue, enabling syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the syrian government, but International Law. The law is still the law and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Putin then claims without any supporting evidence and in direct opposition to the United Nations, the u. S. Intelligence and Human Rights Watch, to name a few, that it was rebels who used chemical weapons last month, writing, no one doubts that poison gas was in used in syria, but there is every reason to believe that it was not used by the syrian army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patron. And he ends with a rebuttal to the president s assertion
Putin, who has gleefully jumped into the international spotlight with an oped published last night by the New York Times. Certainly the most discussed oped i have ever seen. A lecture to the American People, peppered with an artful rewriting of history. Putin writes, from the outset, russian has advocated peaceful dialogue, enabling syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the syrian government, but International Law. The law is still the law and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Putin then claims without any supporting evidence and in direct opposition to the United Nations, the u. S. Intelligence and Human Rights Watch, to name a few, that it was rebels who used chemical weapons last month, writing, no one doubts that poison gas was in used in syria, but there is every reason to believe that it was not used by the syrian army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patron. And he ends with a rebut