News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-14/news-roundup-hour-1
President Obama appeals for national unity at a memorial for shooting victims in Tucson. Debate heats up over political rhetoric and gun control. And former House leader Tom Delay is sentenced to three years in prison. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
John King
anchor of CNN's John King, USA, and chief national correspondent.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
White House correspondent, The New York Times.
John Dickerson
chief political correspondent for Slate.com and CBS political analyst and contributor. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I would like to plead with all liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats to PLEASE quit taking potshots at each other! Focus instead on Tucson itself! I lived in Tucson for 2 years, and they were the worst 2 years of my life! Tucson is a very violent city with over 10 times the crime rate of New York City (check the statistics yourself)! The shooting of the Congresswoman and the other victims only received national coverage because one of the victims was semi-famous. I remember shootings and other violent crimes taking place in that vicious city all the time for the most frivolous of reasons (e.g., "that was a young person and all young people are Commies!"). I wish I were making up what I just wrote, but I am being truthful.
I recall occasional television news programs using Tucson as a "baseline" for the rest of the U.S. In one example, the baseline was of affluent people wasting and throwing out food. Conclusion? Most Americans waste food. Another example involved a bicycle, the pretended owner asking someone to watch it, and then someone else "stealing" it. Most of the time, the people who noticed the pretend thief did nothing. Conclusion: Most Americans do nothing to apprehend thieves. From my own subjective viewpoint, most families in other cities I've lived in and visited do not throw out enough food to feed a small nation. Furthermore, most people, even urban northeasterners, would at least verbally protest and even call the police if not attempt to stop the theft themselves! Tucson is NOT the rest of the U.S. (nor for that matter is Arizona)!
While the whack-job Loughner wasn't an obvious politically motivated assassin, his pet obsession- personal currency (huh), and the need to return to gold and silver.. is shared by the new head of the House Financial Services Com. of Monetary Policy, Ron Paul, and has long been a fixation of anti-government types. According to On Point Radio, the gibberish about Government mind control through language comes straight from a militant-linked character David Wynn Miller http://loveforlife.com.au/node/3012 , and the solitaryl value of gold and silver come from Glen Beck's endless promotional sermons.
One argument for easy-carry laws is that other gun-toting people will take out a maniac like him (which probably has some truth)- where were they, and where were the other heroes while he unloaded 30 shots? It fell on some woman to rip away his new clip.
RADIO GAGA
The question is whether Obama will step up and put a stop to the sickness of right wing radio/TV threats by simply instructing Mueller or Holder to bust the next scumbag to publicly threaten any Government or public figure, or go to the tape- 5 of the worst offenders could be arrested tomorrow- Beck's lunatic demagoguery has already inspired one shooter to try to attack the harmless philanthropic Tides Foundation. There are clear and severe laws against this and the mystery is why they haven't been applied- all authorities have cringed in cowardice against the power of right wing hate-mongering broadcasting. Some prominent arrests would put a huge damper on RW hate speech.
There must be more strict screenings for mentally disturbed gun purchases- by simply using more anecdotal statements and testimony of insane, bizarre and antisocial behavior. And absolutely, permitting open guns (with "Blood of Tyrants" signs, no less) anywhere near national political gatherings should be instantly squelched.
Michael Hammerschlag
http://Hammernews.com
hainc wrote on January 14, 2011 @ 10:16 am wrote: “From his writings and videos now emerging, it appears the shooter was dramatically more left than right.”
Really? How many left-wingers do you know read Mein Kampf and works by Ayn Rand?
“However, the concept of not using rhetoric to incite violence is still a good one.”
At least we agree on that. Funny, however, how many supporters of Palin seem to disagree. They not only see nothing wrong with her rhetoric, but have actually said the rhetoric should get even worse!
And please note: the issue is not whether one intends the rhetoric to incite violence, but whether it can have that effect. Allow me to offer an analogy: the disgustingly violent and sexually demeaning “lyrics” that seem to pervade much of “rap”. We may never be able to prove they lead to sexual violence, and we certainly shouldn’t try to censor it, but is there anything wrong with asking that such language be avoided?
One can speak without peppering a speech with obscenities. One can also debate politics without resort to violent language and imagery. We don’t need political candidates who say if they lose an election they’ll employ their “Second Amendment rights”. If you lose, you try again next election - period.
In the end, this is really a debate about good manners - a concept instituted precisely to prevent language from going too far!
Sharon52 on January 14, 2011 @ 10:20 am wrote: “Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" was absolutely correct. The idea is an unfair accusation of heinous behavior. Was that not EXACTLY what liberals did with the shooting in Arizona?”
Wrong on both points. The blood libel is an accusation of murder (specifically the slaughter of Christian children). Even if we extend the term to an accusation of any unlawful conduct, no one ever accused Palin of such a thing. The most that was said is that violent rhetoric and imagery used in politics creates an atmosphere that may lead to violence, and it would be better to avoid such rhetoric and imagery. That’s not a blood libel!
As for Palin’s “defense” - as others have noted it was filled with contradictions. On the one hand she insists that rhetoric and images (such as her “bull’s eye map”) have no effect, and cannot lead to violence, but then she complains that criticism of her can lead to violence. You can’t have it both ways!
And yes, madam, liberals and conservatives do inhabit a completely different world. You inhabit a world where you can hurl any invective you please against your opposition and not be called to account for it, but if anyone dares disagree with you, or challenge you on it - well then they’re “liars”, “socialists”, “traitors”, and guilty of “blood libels”. In short, in your world liberals are automatically culpable of everything evil, and their point of view can be disregarded without any consideration of the facts.
Oh, and as for who inhabits the “real world”? Remember which Administration mocked journalists for believing in “reality based” policies? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t liberal!
TO BE CONTINUED
Finally, Sharon52, in response to your comment of January 14, 2011 @ 11:16 am: Palin could have spoken at any time during the 3 days after the shooting (and before the day of the memorial service), or any time after the day of the service, but she chose to air her whining video on the day of the service itself. As always, she is a ruthless self-promoter who offers America nothing but her boundless ego and utter ignorance!
P.S. - What’s that? You resent my using such language and rhetoric? How dare you blood libel me!
Arny Watson on January 14, 2011 @ 10:36 am wrote: “As a result, both she and Obama look presidential as they strive for media attention.”
Oh please! As the reports and polls after that day show (including criticism of her from the right) Obama is the only one who came off as “presidential”. Palin came off as an ignorant, self-obsessed, defensive, graceless, self-promoter - a perception of reality!
Sadly, though, I must agree with you about the long-term impact of this terrible slaughter. We’ll have the usual round of meaningless blather, the proposals that go nowhere, the propaganda and exercise of raw political muscle by the NRA, and then on to the next headline grabber!
“should all politicians have shown up? I think we've seen enough false displays of emotion and enough politicians capitalizing on these events.”
If you mean should the Speaker have shown? No, I don’t think so. In the first place I don’t believe he was invited (I may be wrong, but I think the President was). On the other hand it is perfectly proper for a President to speak at such an event - it’s part of the job. Did you criticize Bush for speaking at Ground Zero? Would you condemn Lincoln for his Gettysburg address? (Don’t laugh, there were people who did precisely that!)
(Hmm, based on your Comment of January 14, 2011 @ 3:43 pm, you probably would have condemned Lincoln!)
Drew Kelly on January 14, 2011 @ 10:23 am wrote: “One thing that would help pacify some hateful debate is if word liberal was stricken from English language.”
Wrong, Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!
Been there, done that, doesn’t work. A number of misguided liberals decided to revive and adopt the word “progressive” to avoid the demonization the right-wing did to the word “liberal”. The result? Beck and company now demonize “Progressives”.
You don’t win a fight by running from it (something Democrats have yet to learn). The answer to Republi-Con lies is to speak the truth, loudly and often. Point out (tirelessly) that most of the things Americans approve of and take for granted were produced by liberals (and/or with our support): Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Worker’s Compensation, Child Labor Laws, Pure Food and Drug Laws, Workplace Safety, the TVA, the GI Bill, the list is endless. Then ask Americans how they’d like it if, as part of the drive to “downsize” government, all these things were repealed!
You, yourself noted the good liberals (or “progressives”) have done. That’s the approach to take, not “badge engineering”!
Silota on January 14, 2011 @ 10:32 am wrote: "It does not change the tone to refer to Sarah Palin as "that beautiful monster". Is that a respectful way to speak of another human being. I find her actions reprehensible at times, but we ALL need to change our choice of language."
I agree, but remember: neither Palin or her supporters agree that they need to refrain from such language. Look at the double-talk she engaged in herself ('My words cannot inspire violence, but your criticism of me will.') Indeed, after this disgusting display on her part, her fans were urging her on and insisting that the violent rhetoric get even worse. I see nothing wrong with treating them to their own medicine - provided it's done expressly to demonstrate how wrong and hypocritical they are.
d-Arcy on January 14, 2011 @ 5:43 pm wrote: “I found Pres. Obama referring to Rep. Griffords as “Gabby” last Saturday afternoon objectionable. Where I his respect? He also could have gone to Tucson and said nothing. That would have shown real respect to the victims.”
That was a nickname, a term of endearment, used between friends (and I’m sure Obama is one of her friends). I note her husband was sitting right there, and he apparently didn’t object. Why should you?
As for saying nothing, I think he was invited to the event precisely to make a speech. That’s a standard part of a President’s job. Let me ask you the same question I asked another: would you have objected to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address?
mkham11 on January 15, 2011 @ 10:30 pm wrote: “One argument for easy-carry laws is that other gun-toting people will take out a maniac like him (which probably has some truth)- where were they, and where were the other heroes while he unloaded 30 shots? It fell on some woman to rip away his new clip.”
Apparently you didn’t hear that there was was someone who appeared on the scene ready to “take out” the maniac. One trouble, by the time he arrived the actual shooter had been disarmed (and was on the ground) and the guy holding the gun (who would have been shot) was actually one of the people who had disarmed the maniac.
Imagine what would have happened had the newcomer not been told by the others that the guy with the gun was not the “maniac”? Not only would an innocent man possibly had been killed, but when the second round of shooting began people might have thought there was a second assassin present. Things would have gotten infinitely worse!
There’s a reason law enforcement officers have to receive training in the proper use of firearms. Just because one can aim and pull a trigger doesn’t prove you can use a gun responsibly, especially in a chaotic situation such as this. I think it’s high time Congress exercised its authority to discipline the militia and mandate such training (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 16 of the Constitution). Justice Scalia notwithstanding, the Founders clearly intended guns should only be used by a “well regulated militia”, not by a disorganized mob (which is what we’ve got today). Mandatory and rigorous training for all gun owners!
mkham11 on January 15, 2011 @ 10:30 pm wrote: “The question is whether Obama will step up and put a stop to the sickness of right wing radio/TV threats. . . . There are clear and severe laws against this and the mystery is why they haven't been applied. . . .”
There’s no mystery. The answer is simple: the First Amendment. Read Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 39, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed. 470 (1919).* There must be a “clear and present danger” that the speech will cause violent and illegal conduct for the speech to be prosecuted. The fact that it might lead someone, somewhere, sometime, to commit violence isn’t enough.
* Possibly the most mis-quoted decision of the Supreme Court. You can cry fire in a theater (crowded or not), provided there is a fire!
Etaoin Shrdlurpt.
You have to take classes to be certified that teaches you how to be responsible. Your logic is way off base.
Hey Shrdlrupt:
You heard some really ugly things from the Dem-arses as well. Remember all the things they said about Bush. That they wish he was dead as well.
You want to start pointing finger, be fair and look at your side. Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton and even Obama have said some nasty things.
In 2008 at a campaign rally, Obama was telling his support "get in their faces", referring to let people know what the speech was all about. Sound aggressive, doesn't it?
Etaoin Shrdlrupt said
Been there, done that, doesn’t work. A number of misguided liberals decided to revive and adopt the word “progressive” to avoid the demonization the right-wing did to the word “liberal”. The result? Beck and company now demonize “Progressives”.
You don’t win a fight by running from it (something Democrats have yet to learn). The answer to Republi-Con lies is to speak the truth, loudly and often. Point out (tirelessly) that most of the things Americans approve of and take for granted were produced by liberals (and/or with our support): Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Worker’s Compensation, Child Labor Laws, Pure Food and Drug Laws, Workplace Safety, the TVA, the GI Bill, the list is endless. Then ask Americans how they’d like it if, as part of the drive to “downsize” government, all these things were repealed!
So Etaoin, "you been there". Sounds in your response to the person you were criticizing that you had been a Conservative.
You right about what liberals created but you forgot to mentioned what they did wrong and how that is effecting our standard of living.
Who started borrowing from SS to create all these government program to end poverty in 1966 and where are we at in 2011. Answer, SS outlays is 29 Billions out than what is currently coming in (Payroll & SS tax). There is more poverty now than in 1966. A million more people are in poverty since Obama has been in office..
TVA. yea liberal created it. But they are one of the biggest polluters.
Let me add on Medicare, another program created by the Dem-arses. By 2017 the program is projected to be in the red. Etaoin you need to read more and be more objective.
To meangreen, writing on January 17, 2011:
PART ONE
@ 7:03 pm: Since I haven’t the faintest idea what this Comment is supposed to mean, I’ll just remark that you could try to get my name right.
@ 7:13 pm: I never said Democrats were perfect, or that there weren’t extremists in the party (Sharpton is a perfect example). But you won’t catch me defending him, nor do I recall even that “gentleman” responding to criticism by calling his critics “socialists” or “traitors”. (Racists? Well, you got me there! He does tend to overuse that word.)
I don’t recall prominent Democrats “wishing” Bush was dead. Nor do I recall Democrats rushing to defend anyone who did. But, boy, do the Republi-Cons rush to defend “Saint Sarah of Alaska” for almost any mindless thing she says.
As for that “get in their face” remark (assuming Obama actually said that - I’m having trouble finding an authentic source as distinct from someone else’s commentary), it’s hardly comparable to “bull’s eye targets”, “lock and load”, and remarks about “Second Amendment” rights or “bullets instead of ballots”. Besides, isn’t that exactly what the Tea Baggers did at those Town Hall meetings, along with silencing anyone who took the other side?
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
@ 7:32 pm: This one is almost too inane to respond to, but I’ll try. Re-read the context of what I wrote (which is why I quote from and refer back to the specific Comment I’m replying to). “Been there, done that” referred to the suggestion of Drew Kelly (on January 14, 2011 @ 10:23 am) that we should avoid the word “liberal”. Some liberals tried that and it backfired. By the way, I never did that. I’m no mealy mouth “Progressive”, but a proud liberal!
“Who started borrowing from SS to create all these government program to end poverty. . . .” Actually, both parties have been robbing Social Security. How do you think the Reagan tax cuts were paid for (since “voodoo economics” doesn’t work)? And remember who wanted to stop this by putting SS in a “lockbox”? It wasn’t a Republi-Con!
(Ditto for the other problems you mention. I’d love to know where you get your poverty figures from. As for your assumption about causation - gee, you think the recession that started under Bush might have something to do with the current poverty levels, to say nothing of other Republi-Con policies. I’m not claiming liberals or Democrats are perfect, just that they’re not the source of all evil, and that the Republicans should shoulder a share of the blame.)
But go ahead, live in a dream world in which all the things I previously cited never were created (Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Worker’s Compensation, Child Labor Laws, Pure Food and Drug Laws, Workplace Safety, the TVA, the GI Bill), and pretend everything would be perfect (when in this Universe nothing is). Just don’t lecture me about being “objective”. You certainly aren’t!