News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-11-05/news-roundup-hour-1
Following record-breaking losses for Democrats in Congress, House Republicans take aim at President Obama’s agenda. The Federal Reserve uses a controversial tool to stimulate an anemic recovery. And GM expects to show a profit. A panel of journalists joins guest host Frank Sesno for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
David Corn
Washington bureau chief, "Mother Jones" magazine; author of several books, most recently, "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War." He blogs at politicsdaily.com.
Lisa Lerer
politics reporter, Bloomberg News.
Byron York
chief political correspondent, Washington Examiner, and author of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy."
News Roundup Video
The panelists discuss the likely Republican agenda following Tuesday's midterm elections, including the chances that the party will be able to repeal the health care reform bill passed earlier this year:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
This is for the Friday News Roundup 1st hour. Having listened to various Democratic leaders (e.g., President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, etc.) comment on the results of the election, I was impressed with how tuned into and accepting of reality they are. Their grace and class stands in contrast to the attitude of the Republican leadership and the Tea Party (& others) who, in my mind, have been "sore losers", still not accepting the results of the 2008 elections and the political outcomes that ensued. Now they are making statements that demand that we accept these election results as a mandate to undo Health Care and other actions that resulted from that election. Many of them still question the nationality of the president and do not accept his legitimacy. It is as if only the results that they like that are to be accepted. I find the realism of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi quite admirable. This stands in contrast to the attitude of the Republicans, who refuse to face and accept any outcomes (of election) that they do not agree with.
What is said by politicians is mostly meaningless, Obama is a perfect case in point - reread his promises from 2007 and on. What they do is all that counts and I don't expect the dems to do anything close to cooperation now or ever. They must be powerless for the country to move forward.
I'm disappointed that the President remains so out-of-touch with the American public. One of the biggest shifts in power in American history, especially if you look all the way down to local elections, and all he can say is that he feels bad. To America, his elitest rhetoric has worn thin.
The President shows no interest in bipartisanship. Before he didn't need to and so he railroaded unpopular legislation through Congress. Now that he has been sent a clear message by the voters, he shows the same intransigence. Congress will force him to pay more than lip service to the ideas of others.
No one was expecting recovery in two years, but movement in the right direction would have been nice. Instead the President and Democrats focused on the exact opposite because they saw the 08 elections as their opportunity to expand government power and that's it.
His economic team is a shambles, his policy team has fled; time to hit the reset button!
Democrats have controlled Congress for 4 years and all we have to show for it is ballooning budget deficits and an economic collapse. No wonder the American people voted so overwhelmingly for change.
If you look at the popular vote for Democrats and Republicans for all House races across the country: the Democrats got about 36million or 47% of the votes compared to 53% for Republicans - this despite high unemployment (and many races where Republicans ran unopposed, especially in highly-gerrimandered Texas ). This is hardly the "landslide" reported by the media, the "mandate" that Republicans are claiming, or the "shellacing" that the overly-contrite President called it. For data see spreadsheet at http://fairsharetaxes.org
I voted for the President and the Democrats to fight for us, the bottom 95%. The top 5% have an army of lobbyists and the entire Republican party fighting for them. Why can't the Democrats push through the tax cuts for the bottom 95% (or 98%) in their lame-duck session? They have the votes in the lame-duck House and can maneuver in the Senate to circumvent the filibuster - that's the way the Republicans passed the original Bush tax cuts.
Then if the Republicans want to pass additional tax cuts for the top 5%, let them bring this to floor and explain it to the people in 2011.
With the Democrats suffering substantial losses in Tuesday's midterms, many journalists and pundits were offering a familiar diagnosis (Extra!, 7-8/06; FAIR Media Advisory, 2/3/09): The Democrats had misread their mandate and governed too far to the left. The solution, as always, is for Democrats to move to the right and reclaim "the center." But this conventional wisdom falls apart under scrutiny.
For months, the problem for Democrats was correctly identified as the "enthusiasm gap"--the idea that the progressive base of the party was not excited about voting. The exit polls from Tuesday's vote confirm that many Democratic-tending voters failed to show up. How, then, does one square this fact with the idea that Obama and Democrats were pushing policies that were considered too left-wing? If that were the case, then presumably more of those base voters would have voted to support that agenda. It is difficult to fathom how both things could be true.
Perhaps Obama's policies simply did not live up to the sort of real change his progressive base was expecting hence the lack of enthusiasm in Democratic voters.
It was my fisrt time to vote as an American citizen. I've spent weeks of research on candidates and ammendments so I would make informed decision. I am so deeply disapointed by the results of election. Half of my friends didn't vote, and who voted didn't do their homework. Why are republicans so organized and democrats and liberals are not? I found tea party members' forums were they exchanged info on candidates they liked or didn't like. I have feeling that all this talk about American free spirit is lie and ilusion. In reality Americans (most of us, as this election shows) care about money. There is no freedom and democracy - it's plutocracy in the United States of America
With all of the problems facing the nation and world today, please comment on Mitch McConnell's initial #1 priority being to make Obama a one time President. If voters overwhelmingly said that we're tired of the gridlock and we want to see positive movement, how can the Republican party and the American voters support such a statement?
Now that the election is over and Republicans think they have a new mandate, what can individual citizens do to again remind Congress that we don't care if they're Democrat or Republican. We want to see collaboration and cooperation that will result in positive action forward?
I heard one of the news analysts comment the newly elected Republicans plan to reduce the deficit and stimulate the economy by eliminating recently passed regulations. Mine safety, wall street, and oil exploration were offered as examples. I hope that is not true and it sounded an awful like the typical political response from the opposition party. I'm an independent and have been voting for programs to cut the rate of government spending on Eric Cantor's website. Everyone of these proposals brought before the democratically controlled House of Representatives was voted down. Yet I've not seen anything in the news either pro or con about the measure proposed by the Eric Cantor website. Certainly not all of these government spending cut proposals are bad ideas.
on healthcare...just want to say we saved $3000 a year with the new health care plan because we can put our son back on our plan. Whoopie!!! I LOVE THE BILL!!!
Dear Folks,
I work for the not for profit sector. With the Bush Administration I lost my job and so did many others who worked in either Biodiversity Conservation or other important programs that contribute to society and help us either directly or indirectly.
People don't see that thanks to this model of government spending, funding is back in the not for profit sector, hundreds of jobs have been created. Programs that were about to collapse, see the light at the end of the tunnel now.
Both models, whether republican or democrat, SUPPORT Government Spending. The difference is where you want that funding to go: The not for profit sector or the Coorporations that only benefit a few...
The stimulus package brought $10million to the organization I work for to aid senior citizens receive training in information systems and be able to find a job.
I believe we would be in worse shape right now without this Administration.
thanks.
I can't understand how anyone who cares about the well-being of our country can support tax breaks for the wealthy. 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??? Right.
More jobs were created during Clinton era (8 years) than 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 W??
Republicans believe that there should be tax cuts for the wealthy when economic times are good (as when cuts were enacted by W following Clinton) and when economy is bad (now). What has happened to our economy since they were enacted SHOULD offer some kind of clue of which is better.
Since the 70's as economy was in general expanding, "all boats were not lifted"; while the wealthy and executive compensations income expanded 10, 20, 100, 400X the average American's income.
It's not just a matter of growing the economy- it's a matter of creating economy that works better for all- not just the fabulously wealthy. I'm not trying to demonize the wealthy- they are doing what they do best in the parameters that they are allowed to work with. Flooding the elections with undisclosed money and distorting the truth clearly works. You can't blame them for doing it.
I just wish the facts were expressed a little more often than they are in public debate. It can't hurt.
I can't understand how anyone who cares about the well-being of our country can support tax breaks for the wealthy. 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??? Right.
More jobs were created during Clinton era (8 years) than 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 W??
Republicans believe that there should be tax cuts for the wealthy when economic times are good (as when cuts were enacted by W following Clinton) and when economy is bad (now). What has happened to our economy since they were enacted SHOULD offer some kind of clue of which is better.
Since the 70's as economy was in general expanding, "all boats were not lifted"; while the wealthy and executive compensations income expanded 10, 20, 100, 400X the average American's income.
It's not just a matter of growing the economy- it's a matter of creating economy that works better for all- not just the fabulously wealthy. I'm not trying to demonize the wealthy- they are doing what they do best in the parameters that they are allowed to work with. Flooding the elections with undisclosed money and distorting the truth clearly works. You can't blame them for doing it.
I just wish the facts were expressed a little more often than they are in public debate. It can't hurt.
Again I am disappointed with the MEDIA. Whenever I saw an interview with a Tea bagger, or Republican, and they would go on about the deficit or taxes, no media person called them out on the facts. The Republicans were in charge and drove up the debt (2 wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare Part D) and on taxes - they haven't increased, so the Tea baggers are FACTUALLY wrong.
Someone also needs to point out that the tax cuts for the wealthy were made possible through deficit spending, if they truly want to deal with the deficit why would they extend those??
Robinwest - Please let your elected officials know about your savings with the new health care plan - they need to hear it.
A nice discussion as always; but (and there is always a but, right?) I am left with a bit of whiplash that unfortunately seems to be the MO for the media. Have left and right on and present their views without any sort of objective observations to educate. For example, the deficit is where it is because of what? The right says Obama. The left says Bush. The information presented was in no way helpful to understanding the facts of the situation--most likely just reinforcing whatever perception the listener already has. Although I must admit that calling the contributor on his snarky conclusions was entertaining but would have been better coming from the moderator.
And there are facts, I am sure. But listeners are left with no better understanding of what they are. Misperceptions are persistently alive. Voids of knowledge are also reinforced. No context or perspective provided. Truth through repetition prevails and the media is just sitting on the sideline.
Someone has to do the homework and I just wish it would be the true journalists out there. Follow the money and follow the facts rather than approaching everything from a left right presupposition. And then provide a context. Wealthiest Americans make a lot? Sure they do. They also pay a lot of the taxes--the top 1% pays 43% of all tax revenue. And should it be an us/them dialogue or is part of the problem that there aren't a lot of "middle class" jobs being created in our economy? Again, I don't know and providing one commentator from the left and one from the right doesn't provide balance or perspective. Just the loudest and most consistent voice makes the biggest impression.
Hello,
The biggest problem for our President is that many people out there aren't educated enough about issues and they are traditional blind followers which makes them an easy target for Republican/Tea-Party sharks to brain washed them and manipulate them for personal interests. What shocks me is that an average person who is sick does not see how health-care will really work to his benefit. Yet, he falls for Republican manipulation and helps the rich get richer because he is scared of big words like Socialism, etc. which the foxes on the opposite side know how to use to their own advantage. We are constantly told about bad health care in other Western countries, which is the biggest lie, but when you have people who haven't even heard of these countries let alone been there, how can you convince them in anything different than what evil and manipulative mouths are telling them. And that is fear tactic that uneducated people fall for. People need to educate themselves, read and not listen to evil and destructive language of Limbaughs. Becks, Sarahs, and only then will we get out of this hatred filled situation. Unfortunately, we do not see any "healthy" Republicans like Mr. Powell getting in front rows and leading because this is a great time for a lot of junk to start floating in political rivers mostly seeking personal gains. And yet ordinary citizens do not see farther than their noses. That is what scares me the most - ignorance and stupidity in action! Thank you,
Belma
As an Independent voter and frequent listener to the Diane Rehm Friday weekly news roundup I was appalled having to listen to David Corn. It's great to get a variety of viewpoints on the weekly news events, but a full hour of his laying blame for everything that's broken at the feet of George Bush is too much. If I want to listen to that kind of hopelessly biased trash I can turn on MSNBC. Maybe screening guests with an "objectivity" tool of some sort would help NPR avoid the tag of being too liberal-leaning.
Your last caller of the hour tried to make a point about "press and language" citing phrases like "death tax" etc. I've long been frustrated by this same point, and I think your panel missed the caller's questions.
Phrases like "death panel", "drug king-pin", "climate change" are simple tags applied to complex matters. In some cases, they are created to radiate a political message, "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" for example; in some cases, I have no idea where they come from, what on earth is a "king-pin" anyway!? The panel's response was that the press must to report on these messages, and I agree -- by all means explore the notion of "death tax", but please don't adopt the language. In the same way that pre-verdict crimes are "alleged crimes", these phrases ought to be "so called Obama-care" or "referred to as Obama-care".
Applying a simple tag to a complex matter short-cuts critical thinking. Stereotyping groups of ideas (wordism?!) may be less insulting than stereotyping groups of people (racism, sexism), but it may be more dangerous to a civil society .. reducing debate to slogans increases polarization and decreases options for compromise. Increased polarization, decreased compromise? Hmmm .. sound familiar?
I'm wondering from the caller or anyone how he could be dissapointed that Obama made the process of healthcare bill review more transparent than it's ever been. Also, I am seriously concerned at uninformed people are about the costs incurred from health as is stood prior to Obama's healthcare bill... a major cost is from uninsured people who thought they were "too healthy to need healthcare" and then incurred thousands of dollars that the rest of us pay for. Working in public health is enlightening and has taught me a great deal of that information. And I agree, please STOP referring to it as Obamacare...
When I took Economics in college, the instructor said that high unemployment was good for business (and hence, the economy) since it took the pressure off wages and discouraged unionization. I understand unemployment as an election issue, but the election is over. Why do they still keep beating that dead horse?
To bwstrauss, hainc, and the rest of the Republi-Con cheering section:
Remember how, after they lost the Congress in the 2006 elections, the Republi-Cons recognized they were "out-of-touch" with the American people, and resolved to support the policies of the Democrats? Remember how, after their disastrous trouncing in the 2008 election, the Republi-Cons vowed to work with Obama and help him succeed?
No? I don't either. I remember them vowing to destroy him, to produce "his Waterloo", and choosing to become "the party of NO!".
So, why should the Dems do any different? (Aside from the fact that they have no backbone.)
I say the Republi-Cons should be forced to do what they forced the Democrats to do: scramble for every vote they need to pass their policies. And if they can't accomplish it? Well, then, it's obviously all the Republi-Cons fault!
Oh, and hainc, part of the reason the economic collapse took place was because of policies Bush had supported for six years (2001 - 2006), and the Republi-Con Congress supported for 12 years (1995 - 2006). Nice try blaming it all on the Democrats, just another lie Republi-Cons excel at spreading.
And by the way, the Republi-Cons could have stopped Democratic policies during 2007 - 2008, both by using their 49 Senate seats to filibuster (as they did with just 40 seats for the last two years), and by sustaining vetoes in either house of Congress(except Bush didn't use the veto). So your attempt to claim Democratic "control" for the past 4 years ignores these facts too.
To jdgwmiller (writing on November 5, 2010 @ 11:16 am):
One good place to go for information on deficits is page 63 of the World Almanac of 2010. There you will find a chart of Federal Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits from 1941 - 2009 (it comes from the Treasury Department and the Congressional Budget Office if you want to look the information up on-line).
I put the chart into Excel and did an analysis. Guess what? Outlays (spending) grew under Reagan (57%) and Bush II (60%), faster than under Clinton (27%). The Deficit grew under Reagan by 97%, under Bush the First by 90%, and under Bush the Second by 458%! Anyone remember what happened to the deficit under Clinton?
Oh, and before someone claims this was all the fault of "big spending" by the Democrats, you should check the table showing the membership of Congress during those years (page 439 of the Almanac). The years of the greatest growth in spending under Reagan were the ones when the Republicans controlled the House. The ones with the smallest growth were when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. (Those were also the years with the smallest growth in the deficit.)
Of course economics is more complex than this. But that's the raw data, and the plain facts.
To chemeng (writing on November 5, 2010 @ 11:27 am):
I was appalled having to listen to Byron York. It's great to get a variety of viewpoints on the weekly news events, but a full hour of his laying blame for everything that's broken at the feet of Barak Obama is too much. If I want to listen to that kind of hopelessly biased trash I can turn on Fox. Maybe screening guests with an "objectivity" tool of some sort would help NPR avoid the tag of being too conservative-leaning.
See, sir, I can write a comment as mindless as you. In case it escaped your notice (which it did) Mr. Corn backed up his statements with facts, York mostly indulged in ideology and rhehtoric.
To gavineadie (writing on November 5, 2010 @ 11:37 am):
Very well said!
One final point.
I just loved the way all the panelists agreed that Bush didn't get enough credit because "nobody notices when nothing happens". Oh really? How many times were we told that "he kept us safe" because there were no further terrorist attacks after 2001? I'd call that noticing nothing happened.
The real problem, of course, is that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. In this case, the fact that no planes were flown into buildings from 2002 through 2008 (seven years) isn't proof Bush did a good job. How many of those same Republi-Cons who cheered Bush ever gave Clinton credit for the fact that no planes got flown into buildings under his watch, or that it was 8 years between the first attack on the World Trade Center (by truck bomb) in 1993 until the 9/11 attack in 2001? Answer: none. Why weren't we told about the good job Clinton had done "keeping us safe"?
(And before anyone replies "he failed to kill Bin Laden when he had the chance", let me point out Bush did the exact same thing. Praise or condemn them both!)
I am registered as a independent , tend to vote liberal in national elections and a bit more conservative in the local ones. I am among those who feel that the healthcare did not go far enough. I imagine a great many of those unemployed would feel a lot better, if they knew that they would be covered in the case of a medical emegency, if all Americans had medical coverage which was independent of their employment. Those who speak of "cobra" are perhaps unaware how expensive the premiums are, especially when one is unemployed. It is a shame that so many American are woefully ignorant of what what was in the healthcare bill. But listening to the clamor around the healthcare bill, I totally understand the old adage "Empty vessels do make the most noise"
Thank you David Corn for hitting the nail on the head. It will take more than 18 months to recover from a period of greed among many many American which brought our country to this state. And we seem to be a people who want everything yesterday!
Bush-Cheney and the New American Century neocons favored the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (A new Pearl Harbor). That was their first sucker punch and they followed by moving us toward a police state in perpetual war. Their strong right fist, the Meltdown, followed in 2008, utterly obliterating job security and the prospect for labor rights. Meanwhile a Supreme Court was installed to permanently plutocrize politics. At best now, the Obama administration could hope to be a Peronist Regime, but they placate and compromise. That (and the unpunished crimes I described) makes me angry and depressed, feeling hopeless. The next 2 years will witness a declining quality of US life, and that didn't have to be. We gave the Oligarchs record productivity, they took the money, and gave us the shaft. Obama can't change that under the current rules. Hank Greenburg (AIG) said it well,"All I ask for is an unfair advantage." The USA is a highly rigged game, and the news commentators understand that so well. They speak for their masters in hope of trickledown.
Etoah:
It was Obama that did not want to work with the Republicans. Remember the first meeting after he took office he told the Senate Minority leader, "We Won".
This arrogant Obama had no intention of working with Republicans. The Dem's in the Congress during committee meeting for health care vetoed any proposals that fellow Republican committee members proposed.
They the Dem's did not even allow a 72 hour waiting period fearing that once the public found out what was in the bill, they would have been madder than hell. That is one of the reasons they got slaughtered Tuesday.
Etaoin:
Once again you do not have facts straight. The reason the deficit went up under Reagan was that Carter had cut defense spending and we were still in the Cold War. Reagan increased the budget on Defense and thank goodness he did.
Does your World Alamanic state that?
During the Reagan years, the Republicans never controlled the House, they controlled the Senate which they lost in 1985. It is the Congress that controls the purse strings.