What's At Stake in the Midterm Elections
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-25/whats-stake-midterm-elections
Election campaigns are often reduced to sound bites and slogans, but the 2010 midterm could have far reaching consequences. A panel joins Diane to discuss how the results could redraw the political map for the next decade and what's at stake for the economy, health care, spending and other issues important to Americans.
Guests
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and coauthor of "The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."
William Galston
senior fellow, Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution and a former policy advisor to President Clinton and past presidential candidates.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Republican subpoena power? Isn't this a rather lame discussion considering the nature of 9/11, the Bush administration's perversion of the Constitution, and a rubber stamp Congress?
Please.....!
How many of your guests have actually had a conversation with people outside of the NYC/DC corridor? The things they mention are not what people I know in the Mid-west are talking about. Part of the big problem that is also exhibited in this conversation is the complete disconnect from the average American in the middle of the US. This is the problem my friends and I discuss in the mid-west. Many politicians and reporters seem to think that life in the East is all that is important and what everyone thinks about. This is what angers many of the people I know about politicians today. It does not matter if the politician is Republican or Democrat... they just don't seem to understand what the average American life is like in the middle of the country.
PS Learn to compromise.
What's at stake in these midterm elections is the essence of Democracy as we know it. We have a broken system, which has proven not to serve the needs of the population. Please address ways in which congress can be changed in order to work for the American People.
Age 55+ unemployed, a demographic likely to vote. Might this confluence significantly sway the election?
Everybody is screaming about too much government. And stimulus became a dirty word. But still people expect the president to do something about unemployment. What can the president do beside some government projects, which we do not want anyway, becaue this would be another stimuluts. Aren't these request contradictory?
Is there any chance that the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act will be passed in this session of congress? Thank you,
Michelle,
Raleigh, NC
It seems to me that people are voting for change to remind those in power that the people should be in power. And I say SHOULD because that is what our constitution says, however, as a country we have let BIG CORPORATIONS own us. BIG CORPORATIONS are now buying the elections thanks to the Republican majority Supreme Court (btw - Bush's biggest gift to Republicans) and the Citizens United case. Voting for change for change's sake is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's also all well and good to want smaller government but how can you say we didn't need a stimulus to pull us from the brink of total catastrophe. Do you really want to bring new people in who are going to try to repeal the minimum wage, work on getting rid of medicare, and cutting or privatizing social security? Honestly!! Cut off their noses to spite their faces....
Today's pro business panel has the same mantra. Corporations will only give us jobs if we bribe and plead with them to stop sitting on their money. No - It is time for corporations to put Patriotism ahead of profits, and do their fair share to help the country in these hard times. The real bottom line for these companies is not fear of the economy, it should be fear of loosing their customers when they turn away from them for their refusal to help out.
I pretty much despise all politics at the moment. Political parties cater to our worst fears and don't engage the minds of voters.
Candidates only spout talking points, they rarely speak off-the-cuff or say what they truly feel. Every election has the same promises, the same catch-phrases, the same money-intensive strategy. And the public falls for the same thing every time! Even the most thoughtful "swing voters" tend to go one way, then back again, then again, like a pendulum.
Things are going badly? Throw out the ruling party!
Things still going badly? Throw them out too!
(Oh, we're back where we started)
Evidently they've been putting something in our water because the public is so dumbed-down, they can't see beyond the superficial and partisan campaigns which are now ubiquitous.
I was on the fence as far as maintaining my republican affiliation in July of last year. While at a family gathering, a friend of the family who also is Republican, but is also wealthy and active in his party, quite the opposite of this blue collar worker. He was quite candid when he put his arm on my shoulder and said the Republican party will do everything it possibly can to ensure that that (ratial slur) will never be successful in the White house.
I am now a registered Democrat. He was right though, they have done exactly as he said they would.
Dennis Manske
Limerick Maine
All that people have to do to see which party's policies are more likely to improve economy, is take a few seconds to examine recent history.
If job creation IS the most important issue I wish in one of these election debates around country some one would ask "Do you think it's relevent that more jobs were created during during Clinton era (8 years) than in 20 years of Reagan, Bush Sr and Jr. combined." or to put it another way; on average 250% more jobs were created in each of Clinton years than each year of Reagan Bush SR, or Jr.
During Republican administrations "all boats" were not lifted. Average American worker's wages have remained the same since the late 70's, while executive compensations increased 10, 20 100, 400X the average worker in the same companies. The economy didn't grow for everyone, just for the wealthy. The average worker became more and more "expendable" in the eyes of upper mangement.
The richest couple percent of Americans and corporations presently have unprecedented cash reserves. Yet the product Republicans are selling is that if we extend tax cuts to the wealthy it will suddenly prompt hiring?
Republicans believe that there should be tax cuts for the wealthy when economic times are good (as when these cuts were enacted after W came to office following Clinton) and when economy is bad (now). What has happened to our economy since they were enacted SHOULD offer some clue as to which course is more beneficial. Republicans should be congratulated for their continued masterful ability as sellers of untruths.
As far as “socialism“, it seems that to many Americans all social programs are evil. Infrastructure (roads, water, etc.), education, health care, environmental protection, social security are all unnecessary. Apparently we should all hoard guns and go back to living like cavemen.