Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-18/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
The Fed expects the U.S. economy to grow at 3.9 percent this year. A bipartisan group of senators considers a deficit reduction plan that could trigger new taxes. And protestors converge on the Wisconsin state capital over budget cuts. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
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."
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Jerry Seib
executive Washington editor, The Wall Street Journal.
Related Video
Diane and guests explore Wisconsin's intensifying budget battle which has brought thousands of public employees out to the state capital in protest of Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plan to cut public-worker benefits and pass legislation that would nullify collective-bargaining agreements:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Meritocracies are fascist. No wonder they've chosen institutionalized incompetence.
Since NPR gets 2 6% of their revenue from direct government funding and 10% of their revenue from federal funding, Juan Williams could sue NPR for firing him for arbitrary reasons. What happened to all these union supporters during the Williams firing? The silence was deafening.
hainc on February 18, 2011 @ 10:25 am wrote: “Democrats have no credibility when it comes to union issues.”
You never disappoint, sir. No facts, no reason, just an angry tirade based on partisan ideology.
Funny thing, Governor Walker exempted the Police, Firefighters, and State Troopers from his union assault. It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that they supported his election, could it?
Oh, and as for “leadership on budget issues”, let’s not forget that the first thing the Republi-Cons did after the election last year was filibuster until they could blow a hole in the budget, and increase the deficits, by insisting on keeping tax cuts for those poor, starving, wealthiest Americans.
P.S. - I am pleasantly surprised that an unneeded (and Pentagon opposed) military procurement was voted down, by a coalition of Democrats and Tea Party members I might add. As for Speaker Boehner? He showed his “leadership” by trying to save that piece of spending! It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the money was going to his district, could it?
cane on February 18, 2011 @ 10:16 am asked: "Where is the press to condemn this "loss of civility"?
Well, gee, let's see now. As you noted, the Tea Baggers were hardly models of civility, but their right to be a pack of loud-mouthed violent thugs was staunchly supported by Faux News and Squawk Radio (which engage in the same conduct themselves), and after the Giffords shooting calls for civil discourse were condemned and treated with mockery by these same groups. Sorry, but as Perry Mason used to say: you opened the door, we just walked through it. If you truly want more "civil discourse", start by telling Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc., etc., etc., that they should be civil. We will when they will.
Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates. In 2008, unions spent $74.5 million in campaign contributions, with $68.3 million going to the Democratic Party. source: AIER
There's a fact to counter your factless partisan ideology.
Nicholas Bodley on February 18, 2011 @ 11:16 am asked: “Do we have a national epidemic of retarded emotional development? One symptom is that we want services, but are not willing to pay taxes to get those services -- make that wanting something for, well, not quite nothing.”
That’s something I’ve asked myself for decades, and it all began with Reganomics, which truly promised you could get everything for nothing. I don’t know what excuses America for buying into that; Reagan (of course) can plead his inability to separate fantasy from reality (and Alzheimer’s).
hainc on February 18, 2011 @ 12:25 pm wrote: "There's a fact to counter your factless partisan ideology."
How so, sir? Does it negate the fact that the only unions Walker isn't attacking are the ones that supported him? No. Does it prove a "sinister conspiracy" to bribe Democrats? No.
Funny isn't it that when the issue is campaign finance reform Republi-Cons scream that generous corporate contributions, and corporate funded "independent" campaign ads, are just free speech, and not legalized bribery, but when unions engage in the same conduct it's an evil plot. Yes, unions tend to support Democrats because Democrats tend to support working men and women (who make up the unions). Just as the Chamber of Commerce tends to support Republicans because . . . well, you get the point.
Instead of engaging in sweeping generalizations (and slander), why not address the specific facts of the Wisconsin situation? I've pointed out Walker is "playing favorites" among unions - respond factually to that. Others have pointed out that any "budget crisis" in Wisconsin is entirely of his manufacture - respond factually to that. If all you have to offer is: "unions bad, Republi-Cons good", then it's just a case of "lather, rinse, repeat".
Stephen Cobb on February 18, 2011 @ 11:18 am wrote: “If a company were to make irresponsible pension commitments and go bankrupt, the damage would be limited to the shareholders' holdings. . . .”
Not quite. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation would step in to pay those pensions - a government created program.
Oh, and why do you assume that when a company goes bust it must be due to “irresponsible pension commitments”? Is that what sunk Enron, AIG, Lehman Brothers?
To DavidBaltimore (writing on February 18, 2011 @ 11:19 am) and Pancake Rankin (writing on February 18, 2011 @ 11:29 am):
Are you listening to the same show I am? I heard plenty of discussion questioning the very things you are questioning. Maybe you only heard the statements from the Wall Street Journall’s editor, which support the conservative point of view. Wow! What a shock. Next you’ll tell me there’s gambling at Rick’s.
Indeed, at the 52 minute mark, didn't one of the commentators (John Dickerson) agree with a caller who said the problem is the rich aren't paying enough taxes? Since when is that one of "the Oligarchial talking points"?
hainc on February 18, 2011 @ 11:50 am wrote: "Meritocracies are fascist. No wonder they've chosen institutionalized incompetence."
Huh? That's so inane and irrelevant that it defies comprehension. What are you talking about, sir?
cicero on February 18, 2011 @ 12:05 pm wrote: "What happened to all these union supporters during the Williams firing? The silence was deafening."
How is that relevant? Was Williams a member of a union? I don't believe so.
Oh, and for everyone who keeps flogging the Williams firing - please remember the jerk who did the firing was also fired because of it!
@Etaoin Shrdlu
Reality check:
Inflation was at 12.5% when Reagan took office and was 4.4% when he left office.
Unemployment rate was at 7.1% when Reagan took office and was 5.5% when he left office.
@Eltaoin Shrdlu,
“The real story of bigotry and intolerance is the fact that it lives and thrives on the left. As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda.
“Think about what would happen if you did act up? If you dared to say you like Sarah Palin, or admire Margaret Thatcher, or think global warming is a hoax, or think Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, or that George W Bush isn’t to blame for everything, or that Barack Obama has absolutely no clue what he’s doing, you know there would be a price to pay. Odds are that your “liberal” friends would very liberally hate you. At the very least, being shunned would be your new experience, condemning you to suffer that horrific liberal malady called social death.” – Tammy Bruce, gay, reformed liberal, writing in The Guardian in Great Britain
@Etaoin Shrdlu ,
NPR news executive, Ellen Weiss, resigned. She was not fired. But you did get one thing correct. She is/was indeed a jerk.
And yet NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, who suggested Williams should confide his opinions to a publicist or a psychiatrist, is still employed by NPR. Not to mention Nina Totenberg, the legal affairs correspondent whose benighted opinions about Republicans/Conservatives are allowed to flow unimpeded, is still employed by NPR
Dear cicero:
When Reagan took office the deficit was almost 74 billion dollars, by the time he left office it had grown to over 155 billion dollars! Yes, you can live "high on the hog" by running up the national credit card!
Reality check indeed.
Source: The World Almanac of 2010, page 63.
Dear Cicero:
Oh, since Tammy Bruce says so it must be true. Sweeping generalizations are to be mistrusted whether from the left or the right. And speaking of "political correctness" - what about that spectacle we were treated to last year in which long-standing Republicans were defeated in primaries because they weren't "conservative enough". So much for that "big tent"!
Anyone who says " [they] like Sarah Palin, or admire Margaret Thatcher, or think global warming is a hoax, or think Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, or that George W Bush isn’t to blame for everything, or that Barack Obama has absolutely no clue what he’s doing. . . ." hardly qualifies as a liberal. They're entitled to their opinions, but they should be honest about which side of the political fence they're on.
Oh, and I don't believe George W. Bush is to blame for everything, but show me some conservatives who don't try to blame everything on Carter, Clinton, and Obama!
(And what the heck does any of this have to do with anything we're discussing?)
@Etaoin Shrdlu,
And you refer to the TPP using the pejorative "teabaggers." The very organization concerned about the enormous national deficit. Make up your mind. Are you in favor of running up the national credit card or do you support those who want to reverse the trend?
cicero on February 18, 2011 @ 1:24 pm wrote: "Ellen Weiss, resigned. She was not fired."
R-i-g-h-t, the same way Olbermann resigned. I'm sure pressure within NPR had nothing to do with it.
As for those other two: well, when Faux News fires Beck for (among other things too numerous to mention) slandering George Soros (a holocaust survivor) we can continue your little version of "Republi-Cons good, Democrats evil". Till then, it's all "lather, rinse, repeat"!
@Etaoin Shrdlu,
POTUS Obama referred to the last election as a "shellacking" for Democrats. Somehow you interpret this to be a "spectacle." You sound like the caller on Diane's show who figured the government will be taken back by liberals as if they were entitled to it.
Show me a liberal who blames welfare reform or "don't ask don't tell" on Clinton?
Ex-Press Secretary Gibbs said the "professional left should be drug tested." It would appear that the Obama Administration has problems with those who share their own ideology and not just FOX News. of course POTUS Obama did just do an interview with Bill O'Reilly. That really got liberals knickers in a twist.
cicero on February 18, 2011 @ 1:31 pm wrote: "And you refer to the TPP using the pejorative 'teabaggers.' "
- Why not? They used it themselves first (until they discovered what the term meant).
"Are you in favor of running up the national credit card or do you support those who want to reverse the trend?"
- Yeah, and that's why the first thing the Republi-Cons did after their Tea Bagger victory was run the debt up further by insisting on tax cuts for the wealthiest. (And now, of course, they plan to make up for that by cutting benefits for the neediest.)
You know, I could eliminate the deficit almost entirely by zeroing out the budget for the military, or by eliminating the pension and other benefits the military and all other members of the Federal government receive. Will you support me? (I wouldn't.)
Yes, dealing with the deficit is an important issue. The question is: do the Republi-Cons and the Tea Baggers have realistic (and just) ideas of how to go about it? As I said earlier, Boehner's support for that military jet contract (which would benefit his home district, but which was unnecessary and wasteful) calls into doubt his claim to be "serious" about the problem. The fact that Tea Party members (along with those "evil" Democrats) voted it down was a very pleasant surprise. But excuse me if I don't trust this bunch until I see the actual budget they produce.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out already, your praise for the man indicates you don't mind running up that credit card when Reagan was doing it (or the two Bushes for that matter).
Nope, that ain't why they're walking around with a bowling ball bag between their thighs and a blunderbust in their belt. The P-tardy was formed when fascists were mobilized by oligarch money. Libertarians are riding it like Paul Revere's horse, but it ain't the horse they come in on. It's the New Coke of the right wing Republican party. They took out the white male middle class sugar and added corn. Fear provides the caffeine and race hatred the cocaine residue. Most people who support the planks are surrendering their own interests in hope of seeing their opponents suffer or to get the opportunity to torment them themselves. It is a sadistic debacle. Kardashians for President!
Observation: Take away the gun freedom thing and it all goes flat. That shows the mindset for what it is: suicidal.
@Etaoin Shrdlu ,
Except Olbermann had wanted out of his MSNBC contract for some time. But I suppose you favor the notion of an MSNBC conspiracy to fire their chief manure spreader more appealing.
FOX News does not receive government funding. Beck/Hannity etc, are pundits, not reporters or journalists. While Totenberg is actually a pundit as well, NPR considers her to be a bonafide journalist/reporter. Therein lies the hypocrisy of NPR. But why let that get in the way of your NPR good, FOX news evil
@Etaoin Shrdlu.
Since you rebuke my praising Reagan, I'm sure you also rebuke POTUS Obama for doing the same? I wonder what his motives could be?
"Obama now praises Reagan as inspiration; in '95, denounced his 'dirty deeds' "
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/new-op-...
cicero on February 18, 2011 @ 1:45 pm wrote: “Obama referred to the last election as a ‘shellacking’ for Democrats. Somehow you interpret this to be a ‘spectacle.’ "
- Obviously you have a problem comprehending English, I wasn’t writing about the November election. (February 18, 2011 @ 1:30 pm) I asked (in connection with “political correctness”): “. . . what about that spectacle we were treated to last year in which long-standing Republicans were defeated in primaries. . . ".
Get it? Primaries not election, or don’t you know the difference?
“You sound like the caller on Diane's show who figured the government will be taken back by liberals as if they were entitled to it.”
- Well, we agree on one thing, at least, any politician who believes they’re entitled to be elected deserves to lose! (Had I lived in Massachusetts, I might have voted for Scott Brown for that very reason: his Democratic opponent took the election for granted, and couldn’t be bothered to campaign properly, believing the seat would just fall to her by “divine right” I guess.)
“Show me a liberal who blames welfare reform or "don't ask don't tell" on Clinton?”
- Present! I’ll go further, and blame him for his whole handling of the DADT mess. He should have made that the bottom of his “to do” list, rather than putting it near the top. (Oh, and for the record, I thought his half-baked “affair” with Monica was disgusting. But that didn’t make it an impeachable offense.)
“Ex-Press Secretary Gibbs said the ‘professional left should be drug tested.’ "
- And your point is . . . .? Mr. Gibbs is entitled to his opinion (or to be more exact, his moment of frustration induced cattiness). Guess what? I don’t think my side of the political spectrum is composed entirely of geniuses. Can you say the same about yours?
TO BE CONTINUED
“of course POTUS Obama did just do an interview with Bill O'Reilly. That really got liberals knickers in a twist.”
- Not mine. All I thought was: Gee, I wonder when we’ll see Republi-Cons submit to an interview with an unfriendly commentator. Will their candidate for President be interviewed by Maddow?
P.S. - Full disclosure, I don’t think being interviewed by either O’Reilly or Maddow would necessarily be productive. My own choice would be Diane Rehm, Bill Moyers, the staff of All Things Considered or PBS’s Newshour.
P.P.S. - Since I may have to “sign off” (I do have things to do), let me add: thanks for a lively debate.
@Pancake Rankin,
What can one say about someone who characterizes the 2nd Amendment as the "gun freedom thing."
BTW:
“‘The reality shows "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" and "Jersey Shore" tend to be favored by Democrats.." The Hollywood Reporter
cicero on February 18, 2011 @ 1:59 pm wrote: “Except Olbermann had wanted out of his MSNBC contract for some time. . . . FOX News does not receive government funding. Beck/Hannity etc, are pundits, not reporters or journalists. . . . But why let that get in the way of your NPR good, FOX news evil”
1) Yeah, and I’m sure the warm, friendly, relationship he wasn’t having with MSNBC played absolutely no part in his decision.
2) Since the issue you originally raised was the “injustice” of Mr. Williams’ firing - what does government funding have to do with it?
By the way, I thought his firing was a dumb idea too. Mainly because it was based on taking one part of his conversation out-of-context, thereby distorting what the man said. Of course, right-wing media and politicians never do such a thing, just ask Justice Sotomayor or Shirley Sharrod!
3) Beck/Hannity use that excuse every chance they get, but it’s funny how their followers still believe they are the source of all truth in the universe. Again, sir, your basic complaint is that NPR has a “liberal bias”, and that Totenberg should be fired for expressing it (two propositions I find dubious, but I don’t feel like debating it either so I’ll accept them “for the sake of argument”). Well, if she deserves to be fired for some things she’s said, Beck et. al. have said a lot more, and a lot worse, that should get them fired. (Except, of course, for that pesky “freedom of speech” idea.)
4) I don’t believe NPR is necessarily good, or that Fox is necessarily evil (though they do a great imitation of it). I prefer NPR (and PBS) because they are the one place in the media universe where you can consistently get a thoughtful, informed, and rational discussion of all sides of an issue - instead of the mindless drivel and shouting matches the rest of the media usually provide.
cicero on February 18, 2011 @ 1:58 pm wrote: "Since you rebuke my praising Reagan, I'm sure you also rebuke POTUS Obama for doing the same?"
The article you cite shows Obama praising Reagan's political and communication skills. That's not the same thing as praising his policies. (Or don't you know the difference between substance and appearance?)
I've merely pointed out that the "benefits" you claim Reagan showered upon us were paid for by racking up massive debt - something you claim to oppose.
As for Obama, there's far more important things I could rebuke him for, among others: his continuation of Guantanamo, his support for extending many parts of the Patriot Act, his unwillingness to investigate possible crimes committed by the previous Administration, the idiotic way he mishandled the whole debate on the healthcare law. In other words, if you think I worship the ground he walks on, sorry to disappoint you.
cicero on February 18, 2011 @ 2:14 pm wrote: "The reality shows 'Keeping Up with the Kardashians' and 'Jersey Shore' tend to be favored by Democrats.."
Which makes me an exception, since I've never seen the former, and can't stand the latter.
By the way, I do hope you notice I've criticized some things "Pancake" has said. I may be a liberal and a Democrat, but I don't hew to any "party line".