The Cartier Report: The pendulum of events in Washington, DC, continue political drama |

The Cartier Report: The pendulum of events in Washington, DC, continue political drama

The Blue have begun celebrating their victory of 2018, just as the Red did in 2016; the pendulum swings both ways. The political parties are often cocky after a win, as if America has given them carte blanche to rule like unencumbered royalty. In reality, most Americans are busy living their own lives, and outside of a few key issues, could care less about the craziness that has become commonplace in Washington.

The hottest issues these days involve “the wall” and “Russian collusion” and each party shares in the guilt because both are the result of life on a global platform. Security in the digital age involves constant monitoring because major powers abroad always try to design the stage to their own best interest. There isn’t a major country that hasn’t at one point tried to influence another country in their favor, and it’s not just limited to Russia or China, even allies keep track of one another.

The NSA regularly spies on 193 countries across the world along with 20 international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union. In a global economy, it is in every country’s best interest to keep on top of developments that may have an adverse effect on their own.

Campaigns at the presidential level must also monitor events and financial markets, particularly as it impacts our nation, as they prepare to assume the most powerful position in the world. In securing information, primary sources are best, yet care must be taken that the data obtained is not compromised. Even the most brilliant people can be fooled by those whose profession it is to deceive. Spies are not just in Tom Clancy novels, sometimes, disruption comes from misinformation delivered as fact, as well as in scenarios staged to look like something other than its intended purpose.

If we eliminate political spin, we can view some of the most controversial issues from a different perspective.

Hillary Clinton had deleted emails, uranium deals, financial transfers and other nefarious-looking dealings, but in the context of her position, supporters felt that these were justified.

President Donald Trump’s people met with someone connected to Russia, yet, in the context of information gathering, very little was actually delivered. As the underdog of 2016, few even from his own party were sharing information, and unlike a former Secretary of State, he had no credible sources of information on international affairs.

After an embarrassing debate on foreign policy, where Trump, with no political experience, claimed expertise because of his negotiations with Moscow on the Miss Universe pageant, it was clear he needed more. In truth, he had negotiated with governments across the world on behalf of his hotel collection, but that is quite different than negotiating nuclear treaties or terrorist deterrence. He must do better.

His staff knew he needed untainted primary source material for credibility on foreign policy issues, and it is common for staff to make independent decisions on gathering and vetting information, prior to approaching their candidate. This happens all the time with both parties. In this race, even the opposition met with a foreigner to create the Trump “dossier,” as they dug for dirt. We know this is politics at the presidential level; why do we act shocked?

Obama in 2012, during his reelection campaign in a meeting with Russia President Medvedev on missile defense, said: “This is my last election … after my election I have more flexibility.” Yes, it could have been a sinister plot, or simply stating that he could not make promises prior to winning a second term.

“The wall” — such a fuss about something that has been part of nearly every nation’s definition of sovereignty since before the Roman Empire, and which has always received bipartisan support. Borders are established by countries, states and even homes. Whether we choose to fence or leave it open depends on whether the boundaries must be defined to identify and protect property.

If we think of an open border like keeping the door open to your house (not just unlocked) for anyone to enter at any time, we begin to see the problem, even in the best of neighborhoods — unidentified strangers are not welcome. In a family home, we close and sometimes lock the door to our room — and we love those people. Both sides have previously voted for border fencing, today is no different.

Message to Washington: Cut the drama and get on with the work we elected you to do.

Jacqueline Cartier is a political and corporate consultant in Colorado and Washington, D.C. For further information, visit She may be contacted at

Write a column

What’s on your mind? Share your insights with the rest of the community. What’s going well, not so well? Send your submission to By submitting a column, you are granting permission for the Daily to publish it on the paper’s website. Email Nate Peterson at for more information.

Support Local Journalism

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User