Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-29/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
The White House shuffles its national security team. The U.S. economic growth rate slows. And the president releases his long form birth certificate. A panel of journalists joins guest host Susan Page for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Jerry Seib
Washington bureau chief, The Wall Street Journal.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Ronald Brownstein
political director and columnist for National Journal.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
ecgberht on April 29, 2011 @10:03 am wrote: “I can never understand why liberal Democrats don't understand the FACT that ever big-government, socialist state ever tried, fails, whereas our small-government republic did great for 150 years before Wilson and FDR messed it up.”
And I can never understand that conservative Republicans don’t understand the fact that support for social programs doesn’t mean support for a “big-government, socialist state”. Or that before Wilson and FDR (channeling Glenn Beck are we?) America had just as many problems as we have today. Study the history of the 19th Century sometime - the “golden age” of laissez-faire was called the “Gilded Age” for a reason, because it’s “glory” was only skin deep.
Oh, and how do you calculate those 150 years anyway? 1776 + 150 = 1926. 1789 + 150 = 1939. Wilson was President from 1913 to 1921, subtracting 150 gives us 1763 to 1771 before the U.S. even existed!
"We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers. We've got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there still looking for work... We do not have time for this kind of silliness." POTUS Obama
Right after POTUS Obama makes this declaration, he goes on Oprah. Well, I guess there is time for "silliness" after all.
monte on April 29, 2011 @ 9:32 am wrote: “If the United States government stayed within the confines of the Constitution it would be transparent to everyone what the role of the government is.”
I love it when conservatives make sweeping statements like that, but never bother to back them up with anything approaching specifics, much less references to provisions of the Constitution they claim support their ideology.
For example, from the rest of your post I assume you believe welfare programs (“social safety nets”) are unconstitutional. Consider Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States; . . . .”
By the way, that’s the section which gives Congress the power to create an Air Force, since the rest of the Constitution only speaks of an Army, Navy, and militia, and “land and naval forces” (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraphs 12 - 16). Funny how you never hear conservatives argue against the existence of an Air Force, even though that term is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Actually, I believe I first made that claim in a post to a Diane Rhem show where the conservatives outnumbered the liberals. But, since my point is that the whole exercise is a silly one, and I don’t have the time to go look for it right now, I’ll decline your invitation to repeat myself."
So you had another false memory. OK. Obviously, there has never been a DR Show, or any show on NPR, where conservative guests outnumbered the liberals and the liberal host. That just isn''t NPR's schtick. You may characterize this as a "silly exercise." but the amount of calories consumed by your lack of searching for any example(s) may not have contributed to your adiposty, it certainly hasn't detracted from it.
monte on April 29, 2011 @ 9:32 am wrote: “As far as the birther issue, Mr. Obama chose to use it a divisive tool as long as he could until more and more people were beginning to wonder why he refused to release the original B.C. and just settle it.”
Talk about “blaming the victim”!
No, it was all the work of the Master. That evil Timelord used his hypnotic powers to force Orley Taitz and Donald Trump to continue the birther nonsense long after the proof had been produced that Obama was a natural born citizen (the short-form certificate, which by law was proof, and those contemporaneous newspaper announcements). Of course, he also prevented Obama from requesting “special privileges” from Hawaii until now.
Thanks for demonstrating why no one should pay attention to what you say.
Karen Tummlty said that the issue of birth place is all about racism and that Senator McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone was not an issue in the 2008 election. Way to prepare for the Friday news Roundup, Karen.
McCain 'birthers': ABC, CBS, NBC, FactCheck, N.Y. Times:
On Feb. 28, 2008, Carl Hulse wrote a New York Times article, "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12/17219/6245/58/534894
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/02/28/4436045-oh-eight-r-born-...
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/28/does-john-mccain-have-a-birthplace-p...
cicero on April 29, 2011 @1:18 pm wrote: “So you had another false memory. OK. Obviously, there has never been a DR Show, or any show on NPR, where conservative guests outnumbered the liberals and the liberal host.”
I’ve never claimed to be infallible (unlike you conservatives), but clearly my memory is superior to your reading comprehension. I said I didn’t have the time to search for the place I made my original comment, not that I never made it.
On the other hand, look what I did just happen to find: the guest line-up for the second hour of the Diane Rhem Show of February 23, 2011 (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-23/state-public-pension-plans):
Rep. Devin Nunes: Republican U.S. congressman. (conservative)
Sen. Lena Taylor: Democratic state senator, Wisconsin's 4th Senate District. (liberal)
Ross Eisenbrey: vice president of the Economic Policy Institute. (liberal)
Sara Murray: economics reporter, The Wall Street Journal. (conservative)
Andrew Biggs: resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute. (conservative)
That’s two liberal guests and three conservative guests!
Of course, you’ll probably object that the host (I assume it was Diane herself) is liberal. Again, I may be wrong, but I believe my original comment was restricted to the guests, and did not include the host, but let's go with your version. So, by way of comparison, tell me Cicero, how many Fox shows have you seen where (not including the host) the liberals outnumbered the conservatives, or (including the host) were even?
I repeat, this is a silly exercise, but it’s clearly your schtick.
(Don’t worry, sometime when I’m bored I’ll try to find my original Comment.)
Oh, and for an illustration of why this is a silly exercise, take a look at the show earlier this week about the Vermont health plan (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-27/vermont-debates-universal-h...).
As I pointed out in a Comment there, the NPR guest both agreed and disagreed with the liberal and conservative guests at various points in the show. If NPR is automatically biased, shouldn’t she have always agreed with the liberal statements, and never agreed with the conservative?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"On the other hand, look what I did just happen to find: the guest line-up for the second hour of the Diane Rhem Show of February 23, 2011. Of course, you’ll probably object that the host (I assume it was Diane herself) is liberal"
Diane is of course a liberal. She also never allows anyone but liberals to host her show. So that would make it 3 liberals to three conservatives. But wait, you count Sara Murray, economics reporter, The Wall Street Journal, as a conservative. Just because she works for the WSJ doesn't mean she is a conservative. What has she written or said that shows her conservative bias?
Still waiting for any evidence where conservatives have outnumbered liberals on the DR Show, or on any NPR show.
cicero on April 29, 2011 @ 1:50 pm wrote: “Karen Tummlty said that the issue of birth place is all about racism and that Senator McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone was not an issue in the 2008 election.”
I’m not sure she actually said that (I’ll have to review the transcript to be sure what she said), but I agree with the larger point: we shouldn’t be so quick to shout “racism”.
By the way, do you know who defended McCain and dismissed questions about his citizenship? Barack Obama.
As for the birthers: the motive a person has for criticizing Obama, and the way they go about it, are key factors in deciding whether or not they are racist. Personally, being unable to read people’s minds, or “see into their souls", I refrain from making a specific accusation of racism against a person. (Plus, it tends to sidetrack the debate from whatever the substantive issue was into whether the use of the word “racist" was justified.)
However, when it comes to the “birthers" there is certainly reasonable grounds to suspect that concern for this country or its laws (including the Constitution) has less to do with their obsession than malice.
Consider the following: by law, the original short-form Certification of Live Birth was prima facie proof Obama was born in Hawaii. That means those questioning his birth had to produce proof of at least equal weight and legal authority to rebut it. They never did. All they produced was suspicion, sophistry, semantics, and forged documents (whose validity they never questioned, despite the fact the forgery was obvious on the face of those documents).
This is the kind of conduct that has repeatedly gotten Orley Taitz (the birther-in-chief) sanctioned for frivolous conduct in court, for tens of thousands of dollars. As a lawyer, let me tell you it takes truly egregious conduct for that to happen, and in such amounts. I wonder if she won’t end up being held in contempt of court as well.
So, what explains such conduct? The inevitable suspicion is that she (and her followers) are deranged, and it is certainly reasonable to suppose race plays a part in their obsession. But I’m quite content to say they are merely (and obviously) full of malice, and deranged.
(Except for “the Don”. He’s just a shameless self-promoter.)
cicero on April 29, 2011 @ 2:14 pm wrote: “Still waiting for any evidence where conservatives have outnumbered liberals on the DR Show, or on any NPR show.”
And thanks for demonstrating (again!) both that you are incapable of comprehending standard English, and (like the birthers) are incapable of accepting any evidence that refutes your ideology (or even calls it into question) - another reason this is a silly exercise.
I never questioned that Diane is liberal, I only stated that (since the line-up didn’t list who the host was) I assumed it was Diane!
Oh, so now a representative for the Wall Street Journal is a liberal? What about those other guests? There are conservative Democrats. Maybe the line-up was actually 4 conservative guests to 1 liberal? Oh, wait, that “study” a few years ago (which claimed Diane’s show had a liberal bias) listed a member of the American Enterprise Institute as a liberal, so maybe it’s actually an even split!
Again, that’s why this is a silly exercise.
But now, Cicero, I don’t think I will bother to find my original Comment, until you provide a list of every “guest host” who has ever appeared on this show, and prove your claim that “She also never allows anyone but liberals to host her show.” Of course, “never” is a long, long time.
admandondraper on April 29, 2011 @ 9:52 am wrote: “I wonder how any sane person can consider Sideshow Don's behavior anything but racist, . . . .”
Oh that’s easy. “Sideshow Don” is a liar, a shameless self-promoter, and a disgrace. But I doubt he cares enough about anyone but himself to be a racist!
hainc on April 29, 2011 @ 10:16 am wrote: “I love anybody who stirs up these stuck 'n the mud ideologues, . . . .”
Except, of course, when you’re in a love affair with them!
(Still can’t be bothered explaining what “hainc” means, or where it comes from? In the words of the “birthers”: what have you got to hide?)
;-)
RLMercer on April 29, 2011 @ 10:18 am wrote: “However, I do not understand why he expended large sums of money to defend lawsuits that requested the release of his birth certificate.”
Maybe because there was no legal requirement that he do so, since (in fact) he already had released it? The short-form Certification of Live Birth is the legal proof of his birth in Hawaii. It is the birth certificate!
Probably, the only reason he went to the trouble to get a special exemption from Hawaiian law (which, apparently, doesn’t normally allow release of a copy of the long-form) is because it finally became clear to him that in the “court of public opinion” rumor, gossip, slander, and paranoia count more than facts!
ecgberht on April 29, 2011 @ 10:27 am wrote: “Were you forgetting about the Bush years? Have you ever seen Daily Kos (I'm betting daily). Do you remember the Alfred E Newman images of Bush, Bush as an ape, etc., etc?”
I was going to make the same point, but I figured you’d do it for me. Thanks.
See, we can agree on some things!
Lee Wright on April 29, 2011 @ 11:10 am wrote: “If you're not persuaded by the importance of following our nation's Constitution, . . . .”
Please see my earlier Comment on how the Constitution authorizes the creation those “domestic activities” you so disparage.
Meanwhile, a question. Did you show such respect for “following our nation's Constitution” when the issue was Bush’s warrantless wiretaps (violating both FISA and the Fourth Amendment), or his claim (in signing statements) that (like a good dictator) he could ignore any laws he didn’t like (and as we now know, he did), or the way he violated the Constitution with his Guantanamo tribunals (for which the Supreme Court “slapped him down” three times!)? I ask because if the answer is no, as it appears to be for most conservatives, I find your newly expressed reverence for that document a little suspect.
(Of course, Norman Ornstein and Bruce Fein, both of the American Enterprise Institute, did condemn Bush for all that. I suppose that proves they’re liberals!)
Lee Wright on April 29, 2011 @ 11:10 am wrote: “Indeed, many of us have tremendous confidence in the positive impact of the tens and tens of thousands of smaller public and private institutions--not in every single one, of course, but in a competitive marketplace of ideas and programs to respond the important needs we face.”
Too bad that doesn’t actually describe the American or world economies, and certainly not the health insurance or health care industries. But hey, don’t let the fact that our economy is heavily composed of oligarchies disrupt your laissez-faire dream.
“turning those over the Federal government will be no more effective in the future than it has been in the past.”
Yeah, because the ability of Social Security to help decrease poverty in old age is so poorly documented. And the ability of Medicare to help enable the elderly to obtain health care they could never have without it is so open to question. And because, left to itself, the “pure, perfect, sacred and holy” free market always does what’s best. Just ask the women who died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, or the men who died in the explosion on BP’s oil rig, or the children who took Thalidomide because government health agencies didn’t stop the marketing of that drug. (Except in the U.S., where the nasty, evil, big government FDA did prevent mass marketing. The reason there were so few “thalidomide babies” here compared to the rest of the world.)
I'm not claiming the government can or should do everything. I'm just rejecting the conservative ideology which seems to proclaim that in the realm of economics (especially social programs) the government shouldn't do anything!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote
"Oh, so now a representative for the Wall Street Journal is a liberal? What about those other guests? There are conservative Democrats. Maybe the line-up was actually 4 conservative guests to 1 liberal? Oh, wait, that “study” a few years ago (which claimed Diane’s show had a liberal bias) listed a member of the American Enterprise Institute as a liberal, so maybe it’s actually an even split!'
Where did I say she was a liberal? If she keeps her political ideology to herself then she is not counted in either category. Too bad Rehm doesn't rely on more of these type guests who do not provide analysis that is first processed through their political prism. But then it wouldn't be NPR.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"But now, Cicero, I don’t think I will bother to find my original Comment, until you provide a list of every “guest host” who has ever appeared on this show, and prove your claim that “She also never allows anyone but liberals to host her show.” Of course, “never” is a long, long time."
I can understand why you want to abandon your "search" for your claim and why you failed to pony up any evidence for it. If you wish to use another cop out so be it. While NPR does provide the names of guests for every DR Show, they do not want to draw attention to Rehm's frequent absences, which are indeed staggering. Her guest hosts are inevitably Susan Paige, Katy Kay, Steve Roberts, or his wife. If Rehm ever had a conservative host take her place she would have jumped at the chance to provide evidence of this when this article, CPB Liberal Bias Study Flawed, Critics Say, appeared back in 2005.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR200506...
"Rehm called Mann's findings "unprofessional and simplistic." She added, "I've been booking shows for 25 years. I don't think they have any idea what it takes to achieve the professionalism and expertise and the right people to express a variety of points of view. . . . What he's doing, I think, is trying to scare public broadcasters" into presenting a more one-sided and favorable view of the administration."
Sure Diane. You mean the way that your show voluntarily presents a "more one-sided and favorable view of the (current) administration." And in all those 25 years, now 31 years, why have you never booked a conservative host during those countless times when you failed to show up?
monte on April 29, 2011 @ 12:01 pm wrote: “. . . only clarifies the cynical nature of President Obama. To facilitate an apparent racial divide in our country is the opposite of what a true leader is supposed to do. . . . And both sides are performing for a sick puppet master.”
Again, thanks for demonstrating why no one should take seriously a word you write.
Oh, and the “sick puppet master” in this case is “the Don”, and you are clearly his “sock puppet”!
cicero on April 29, 2011 @ 3:07 pm wrote: “Where did I say she was a liberal? If she keeps her political ideology to herself then she is not counted in either category.”
As nice a bit of evasion or sophistry as your namesake ever produced. You questioned her “conservative credentials” for the purpose of my “survey”, and now claim she is merely a “neutral” (even though she works for the Wall Street Journal, a well known “neutral rag”).
Thanks again for demonstrating why this is a silly exercise. I quite agree that you can’t throw a label (liberal or conservative) on someone merely because of who they work for, or what they may occasionally say. (Which makes “count the guests” a pointless activity.) But that’s exactly what you keep doing!
I, on the other hand, repeatedly state that I like public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) because that’s where you will find a full, informed, and intelligent discussion and debate on the issues, without the mindless shouting matches that comprise most of the “punditocracy” and “commentariat”. And that’s why so many conservatives have no problem appearing on public broadcasting, and on this show. To repeat: just because NPR may lean towards the left, doesn’t mean its reporting is biased!
(Maybe it’s neutral. After all, I’ve seen plenty of people complain about its supposed “conservative bias”.)
"monte wrote:
As far as the birther issue, Mr. Obama chose to use it a divisive tool as long as he could until more and more people were beginning to wonder why he refused to release the original B.C. and just settle it.
April 29, 2011 - 9:32 am"
"Facts and truths" are cherry picked to fit all agendas."
Yeah, and here is an excellent example of a coming and going cherry pick.
If one of the bare faced lies that you slimy, Dog Crap, Right-Wing Rats dream up fails, proving again what Fools you are, then the President was exploiting it!!!
Pathetic Fool!!!
Change your user name-Creep!
The one and only factually credible Monte on the Net-
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
PS As you should well know, Miss Constitutional Expert Monty, the States are obliged to give full Faith and Credit to the Acts of Hawaii.
cicero April 29, 2011 @ 3:08 pm wrote: “I can understand why you want to abandon your "search" for your claim and why you failed to pony up any evidence for it.”
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, THANK YOU!
I believe that article you linked to discusses the very “report” I’ve cited so many times before - the one where Norman Ornstein and Bruce Fein were listed as “liberals”. (Thus demonstrating how subjective this all is.)
Of course, you’re so busy trying to “score points” with “cheap shots” that you don’t even notice you’re doing my work for me!
Oh, by the way, if I remember correctly, after that “study” appeared, Byron York (or was it Brit Hume?) came on this show and defended Diane. I guess that proves they’re liberals too!
Oh, and speaking of “cop outs”: you’re the guy who insists I have to go back and spend hours looking for one particular Comment in one particular show, but apparently you can’t be bothered to spend hours cataloging (and proving) the liberal or conservative “bias” of all the guest hosts!
Sorry, cicero, but the only point I seek to make is how silly this all is. And you keep proving it for me!
mchaun on April 29, 2011 @ 3:30 pm wrote: "As you should well know, Miss Constitutional Expert Monty, the States are obliged to give full Faith and Credit to the Acts of Hawaii."
Thanks. When I was mentioning that the short-form certificate was sufficient proof by law, I didn't bother to mention the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because I thought that was obvious.
Silly me! (Especially given that here in Arizona my "beloved" Legislature is attempting a massive violation of that clause.)
Ciao everybody.
"monte wrote:
Both parties in actual decision making support a huge interventionist military.
"Facts and truths" are cherry picked to fit all agendas.
April 29, 2011 - 9:32 am"
Wow, another one.
The Democrats were strongly against the Iraq "War", but the Current Generation of Bush Family Traitors told a bunch of whoppers, that the Democrats were unable to dispute.
Now slimy Bush's slimy Secretary of War suggests drastic cuts in the Military and when the President agrees, slimy Secretary denies it and resigns, leaving Obama to deal with the unofficial Marine and Army Blogs and Republican's rage and assassination threats.
Just like they did to Carter!!
It was the Democrats who insisted that the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, "War on the Cheap" approach to Iraq, that was killing our Troopers, be fixed!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"(Maybe it’s neutral. After all, I’ve seen plenty of people complain about its supposed “conservative bias”.)"
Those people, i.e. liberals, only make noises that NPR has a conservative bias when NPR's federal funding is threatened to be cut off. They actually think this tactic would get conservatives in Congress to change their minds. But if NPR had this supposed conservative bias, why would liberals object to the defunding?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"I quite agree that you can’t throw a label (liberal or conservative) on someone merely because of who they work for, or what they may occasionally say. (Which makes “count the guests” a pointless activity.) But that’s exactly what you keep doing!"
Actually, you can indeed identify the guests'' politics on Friday News Roudup by what they say. Unlike you, those whom I identify as liberal or conservative on NPR reveal their politics by what they actually say, not by their affiliation with a newspaper, magazine, TV/cable show. Karen Tumulty again revealed her personal politics when she stated that McCain's birth place was not an issue raised by liberals in the 2008 campaign.
"cicero wrote:
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"But now, Cicero, I don’t think I will bother to find my original Comment, until you provide a list of every “guest host” who has ever appeared on this show, and prove your claim that “She also never allows anyone but liberals to host her show.” Of course, “never” is a long, long time."
I can understand why you want to abandon your "search" for your claim and why you failed to pony up any evidence for it. If you wish to use another cop out so be it. While NPR does provide the names of guests for every DR Show, they do not want to draw attention to Rehm's frequent absences, which are indeed staggering. Her guest hosts are inevitably Susan Paige, Katy Kay, Steve Roberts, or his wife. If Rehm ever had a conservative host take her place she would have jumped at the chance to provide evidence of this when this article, CPB Liberal Bias Study Flawed, Critics Say, appeared back in 2005.
April 29, 2011 - 3:08 pm"
Part of Diane's absences may be due to medical problems.
Rabe Roberts is definitely Conservative and the Rebazin is not that Liberal anymore. Steve Roberts and his Girlfriend Mara Liason used to kick Bill Clinton all over the place.
Terry "Patty" Gross introduced Cokie to an audience and said Cokie's Brother was a Lobbyist. Cokie jumped all over Patty, "MY BROTHER IS AN ATTORNEY"!!! Not long after, her Brother was busted for Baiting Waterfowl for his Clients. A Crime more likely to be found on Tangier Island than Gucci Gulch.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
RLMercer, you are misinformed. Obama did not spend "large sums of money to defend lawsuits that requested the release of his birth certificate." This has been well-covered by news outlets (at least those that actually cover news). It was even in the local newspaper here.
The statement "Donald Trump claims Obama has spent $2 million in legal fees defending lawsuits about his birth certificate" has been evaluated and rated as false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/12/donald-tr...
When you get your "facts" from the likes of Donald Trump, Fox News, Limbaugh, etc., you will be misinformed.
thanks35 wrote:
"RLMercer, you are misinformed. Obama did not spend "large sums of money to defend lawsuits that requested the release of his birth certificate." This has been well-covered by news outlets (at least those that actually cover news). It was even in the local newspaper here."
From your link:
"It's clear to us that the WND story has been twisted to wrongly assume that every dollar the Obama campaign spent on legal fees went to fight the release of Obama's birth certificate. The evidence shows that's simply not true. It's a huge, unsubstantiated leap to assume that all, or most, of that was related to lawsuits about Obama's citizenship."
Where does it say that "large sums of money" were not spent? If POTUS Obama spent any amount of money on not releasing his birth certificate it was money poorly spent.
thanks35 wrote:
"When you get your "facts" from the likes of Donald Trump, Fox News, Limbaugh, etc., you will be misinformed."
Not to mention the likes of NPR where Karen Tumulty stated that McCain's place of birth was not an issue raised by liberals in the 2008 campaign when it in fact they did raise the issue.