National Issues Outlook: 2012
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-02/national-issues-outlook-2012
Political strategists preview some of the key issues for 2012, including the U.S. presidential election, a Supreme court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and the outlook for the U.S.economy.
Guests
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and coauthor of "The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."
Katrina vanden Heuvel
editor and publisher of The Nation, writes a weekly column for The Washington Post.
author of "The Change I Believe In: Fighting for Progress in the Age of Obama"
David Keene
president, National Rifle Association
former chair, American Conservative Union
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Why an entire week of "rebroadcasts", is the funding not there or is it an example of a poor liberal/progressive work ethic. You mean you were unable to find any commie stooges to sit in and ply leftist ideology cloaked as centrist questioners to promote four more years of socialist outreach from the chosen one?
You are mistaken, I am a radical left liberal fanatic! at least that's what conservative political analysts call Ron Paul supporters these days.
Is this a serious news program or not? All the other shows I listen too have guest hosts or regular hosts keeping their shows current.
On the Ron Paul front, "conservatives" had better cool their vitriol for R.P's supporters. Personally I'm in for anyone but BO, but it is apparent that R.P. supporters are being insulted at every turn, if the mouthpieces for "conservative" change in 2012 are not careful the second choice might not be all that motivating for R.P.'s base to show up at the poles considering the fact they are not taken seriously and are laughed at, and that theory leaves out Gary Johnson. There is way too much war mongering going on in the republican primaries and so called "independents" and R.P. supporters are tired of it. Obama will do the same as any republican would if elected in regards to the middle east but he does not have to talk about it and his base will eat his war making excrement whole without complaint. It's an ugly truth that the "conservative" front runners are nothing more than big government progressives. At best they will only slow the cancerous growth of government, they won't stop it. R.P. supporters know he will not be the nominee but they want the front runners to take notice of R.P's small government agenda and respect for the Constitution. So far all conservatives offer to R.P.'s supporters is a sharp stick.
To the male guest who said that Ron Paul does not believe in a strong defense -- wrong! Paul says we must stop the "interventionism" and "militarism" all over the world which weakens us by bankrupting us and making people around the world hate us.
Even though Paul likely won't get elected, thank God for his "voice crying in the wilderness." He has awakened us to the need to audit the FED, and crony capitalism (which is the opposite of true capitalism), and blowback from our foreign policy blunders, and so much more.
TYVM Treas_Sh !
I listen as often as I can and have not heard this one. And, never fear, trolls and curmudgeons give themselves away. SOME of them, however, usually will spout so confusingly that their message, such as it is, is lost in the convoluted message; not to say 'too long.'
Thank you again.
AT Bo Jones . . .
Nicely stated. INHO your statements line up well with the facts.
Capitalism is not what is out there now.
Thank you for your remarks.
monte
I also like some (not all) of the things Ron Paul says, however he is un-electable in a national campaign because the people who actually run this country, the military industrial complex (and you can replace any term you want for military industrial here), do not like what he says. It threatens their control.
We as an electorate are controlled because we base our decisions on who to elect on 30 second media spots and yard signs, instead of actually looking into what each candidate stands for and their leadership. We have the government/society we deserve because we are too busy worried about gay marriage, abortion and the Jersey Shore not that the first two things are not important, they just are not , IMHO, not the dominion of government. The real concern of federal government should be the infrastructure, national security and making sure that the playing field is as level as possible.
The guest just said we are more polarized than ever before. It's because Obama is SO leftist that he spawned a backlash from the right. When the pendulum swings so far left, it's bound to swing real far right as a reaction.
Conservatives these days only want to conserve one thing - their ability to make a buck anyway they can regardless of the consequences! They are really selfatives: self-agrandizing, self-centered, self-righteous, self-serving, and plain old selfish - selfatives! The establishment, entitled, selfative Republicans fear Ron Paul because he would cost the defense industry megabucks, and I fear him because in spite of efforts throughout human history by greedy selfatives to cheat their neighbors, exemplified by Wall Street corruption culminating in the 2008 collapse, Ron Paul wants to eliminate most regulation to allow the selfatives to run amok! Class warfare has gone on in this country since the early settlers made it safe for the rich to come here to exploit the land and the people, but in earnest since FDR and LBJ leveled the playing field some. The last thirty years has seen the annual income and total wealth steadily shift to the top 5%, and many people posting here seem to think that is OK because they believe that if they con enough customers and cheat enough employees they too will become part of the financial elitests!
Ron Paul's news letter come up a lot. It takes quite a bit of digging to find quotes in context from it, mostly all that can found are comments about how racist Ron Paul is. All I was able to find were politically incorrect opinions expressed about black culture that in campaign mode would be unacceptable but when used to speak truthfully about current conditions within the black community are as usual from R.P., dead on accurate whether he wrote them or not.
Bo Jones,
The facts (you may not be familair with) don't support your theory of a "Leftist" President Obama. Leftists don't send additional troops to war, cut taxes on the rich, adopt a Heritage Foundation idea of mandatory personal insurance and propose a significant change to entitlement programs. Could it be that we have an intelligent pragmatic MAN in the White House and you and others fail to recognize it because you haven't seen anything like President Obama's intelligent and effective (Yea I said It!!) approach to the countries challenges. More work needs to be done in the next four years so get ready because he ain't (yea I said it!!) going no where.
The right's reaction is to what they fear Obama represents, a threat to their ability to give more advantage to the privilaged few, not "Leftist" policies by the President.
FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS!!
Mike Sergeant,
I share your disappointment with the electoral process, however Ron Paul is un-electable because his policy positions will not work in a global economy.
Your Quote:
"The real concern of federal government should be the infrastructure, national security and making sure that the playing field is as level as possible."
is a good statement. Ron Paul's positions would go against some of that.
Mike Sergeant,
I share your disappointment with the electoral process, however Ron Paul is un-electable because his policy positions will not work in a global economy.
Your Quote:
"The real concern of federal government should be the infrastructure, national security and making sure that the playing field is as level as possible."
is a good statement. Ron Paul's positions would go against some of that.
Wake up America! The biggest threat to this country is not ‘BO’ or even Ron Paul. It’s the superpacs that have been unleashed by Citizens United v FEC. These anonymous groups (influenced by the likes of the Koch brother) will lead to the moneyed interests and corporations taking control of the federal government and implementing their agenda. They won’t rest until their power is unrestricted and the flow of money uninterrupted. The superpacs that back Romney will steal the 2012 presidential election and that will be the end of the middle and working class as we know it.
nxm_wh wrote,"The biggest threat to this country is the superpacs that have been unleashed by Citizens United v FEC."
Can you explain why this is the threat you say it is and how it will undermine one man with one vote? It has been proven time and again that money does not necessarily win elections. How and why will superpacs "end the middle and working class as we know it." ?
After eight years of that mistake of Nature -- and the Supreme "Court" -- George W. Bush playing Mortimer Snerd to Edgar Bergan in the person of Richard B. Cheney, and with the nation (and the world) descending into a depression, we needed an actual leader with the qualities of FDR, TR, Harry Truman and Lincoln; instead, we got Barack Obama -- and the third term of Bush-Cheney.
To say that "Obama is SO leftist that he spawned a backlash from the right" is an overused and stale refrain from the "Right" (and others of their fellow travelers amongst America's Theo-Fascists) that is totally false -- not to mention absurd -- and proves the ignorance of those who spout that drivel.
Paul has a long record of being anti-Semitic, a racial bigot, anti-gay and anti-reproductive rights for women -- not mere assertions, but readily verifiable facts. Then there is Paul as featured speaker at the 50th anniversary of the John Birch Society -- http://www.jbs.org/birchtube/viewvideo/1007/constitution/ron-paul-at-the... -- which consistently gives him a 100% rating.
An actual progressive for president would be someone such as Elizabeth Warren or Russ Feingold -- manifestly NOT Obama.
Finally, "government of the people, by the people, for the people" of which Lincoln so eloquently spoke HAS indeed perished, replaced instead by government of, by and for the corporations -- and the fabulously wealthy; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010) MUST be nullified for the very survival of this republic.
"Ron Paul's Racism Isn't the Worst Thing About Him" (29 Dec 2011) -- http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/ron-pauls-racism-isnt-worst-t...
"Ron Paul's racist link" (21 Dec 2011) -- http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/21/opinion/la-ed-riots-20111221
"Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters" (20 Dec 2011) -- http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-story-behind-ron-pauls-rac...
"Citizens United Ruling Brings on “Tsunami of Sewer Money”" (3Nov 2010) -- http://jonathanturley.org/2010/11/03/citizens-united-ruling-brings-on-ts...
"Citizens United Decision Profoundly Affects Political Landscape" (5 May 2011) --- https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/05-6
"Citizens United: Democracy Realized—or Defeated?" (21 Oct 2011) -- http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/2011/03/symposia-2/
A Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the effects of Citizens United v. FEC -- http://www.slideshare.net/s_maccoll/effects-of-the-citizens-united-v-fed...
Ignorance is correctable; stupidity, zealotry -- and often denialism -- (which are not mutually exclusive) are not.
My hat is off to Diane Rehm for keeping the show from turning into a horse race show. This is one of the few shows on my NPR station WFAE that has not falling to that lazy news reporting of the horse race and the sound bite.
Hearing the sounds bites and consequences both good and bad if they are carried out was refreshing.
My biggest concern with the Republicans is who are they going to blame if one of them becomes President. If you are going balance the budget since you will not raise taxes what programs in detail will you propose to cut or are you going to run the government like Bush just put it on the credit card until another Democrat becomes President.
Not much point in addressing people who do not think for themselves.
I have been given notice!
I'm writing to let you know that we deleted one of your posts today, the following, because it contained ad hominem attacks and other inappropriate material:
If you continue to re-post the comment, we will continue to remove it. Further, if you continue to write comments like the one above, we will ban you permanently from commenting on our site.
Sincerely,
The Diane Rehm Show
I was seriously disappointed to see the way you over reacted to a caller's criticism of the media for paying too much attention to the horse race in Iowa. He was clearly criticizing the media in general and not attacking you or your program--as it was quite obvious to all that you were entirely avoiding the horse race aspect of the race. Your reaction was so vehement the you ignored the caller's serious question about the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United Decision, although Norm Ornstein rescued the program's integrity by dealing with that part of the caller's questions. I think you owe the caller an apology.
The first hour was truly fascinating. The level of misinformation and distortion from the NRA guest was utterly predictable. KvH was brilliant.
The major and shocking disappointment was the reaction that Ms. Rehm had to the caller who raised the media-horserace connection - which was totally inappropriate. Why she would take this as a personal comment instead of recognizing the validity of the caller - that the MSM is only interested in the racehorse, because it creates ratings and sells ads - is blatantly obvious. Ms Rehm, you owe the caller - and all of us - an apology.
Finally - as to the citizens united comment by the NRA dude - of course big money/big money ads will sway voters. In a country where Bud Light (a truly awful product) is the best selling beer - indeed, where so much money is spent on advertising - it is well known that it will embed itself into many people's views and sway them significantly.
Our country is in deep, deep trouble....and if Republicans take the presidency, the horrors of the 8 Bush years will just be continued. Why do Republicans/conservatives hate our country so much that it promotes policies and ideas that take us backwards into the dark ages?
nctomatoman wrote:"The level of misinformation and distortion from the NRA guest was utterly predictable. KvH was brilliant."
Totally agree! how dare the D.R. show have a single panelist who does not agree with the herd.
Do you like me now?
Diane's response to the caller who complained about the media's economic dependence on "horserace coverage" was "by the way, did you actually hear us talk about the horserace this morning?" That reaction is inexplicable to me given Diane's statement within the first three minutes of the program: "Norm, I'm going to start with you. There's been so much about THIS HORSE RACE in Iowa. Frontrunners probably Mitt Romney, probably Ron Paul, and maybe, maybe a third. Give us in three sentences the differences between how each would govern if the final election came down to, say, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, or Ron Paul and Barack Obama" (approximately 2:25-2:56). Diane would seem to be splitting hairs to distinguish this question from the initiation of a "horse race" discussion. Also check out the podcasts of any of her Friday domestic week-in-review shows from this past year.
What is sad is that NPR talk shows like Diane Rehm and On Point, as well as the regular NPR news shows, feel they have to ape the newsmaking strategies of the cable news networks to flourish. This approach, while perhaps helping to pull in "sponsors," strengthens the arguments of Republicans who want to defund government support for public radio.
I just created an account to make a very similar comment. Diane owes Frederick from St. Augustine an apology. I hope one will be forthcoming on tomorrow's show. But, my objection is that Diane simply did not listen and/or understand his comment. He expressly stated that the media outlets that receive advertising money from these anonymous super PACS were conflicted in their coverage of the issue. To my knowledge the Diane Rehm show is not funded by political advertising. So, the comment was in no way directed towards the show.
That said, I concur in that the reaction was excessive and a bit bizarre--even if Frederick had stated what was wrongly inferred--perhaps a whiff of the lady protesting too much.
This is in reply to monte who wrote: "Can you explain why this is the threat you say it is and how it will undermine one man with one vote? It has been proven time and again that money does not necessarily win elections."
Maybe "it has been proven time and time again that money does not necessarily win elections." There are obvious examples supporting this, but they are the exception. In the real world, it has been shown (time and time again)x(10 or more) that money is heavily decisive.
Think of it this way. There's a $$$multibillion ecosystem involving advertising agencies, commercial media companies and businesses that have products and services to sell depending on the proposition that spending lots of money influences people's buying decisions. Of course it doesn’t work all the time, but it works well enough to support those who work in that ecosystem. Do you really believe that advertisers would spend all those billions if they didn’t expect to benefit?
Commercial advertising is one thing. Unrestricted political advertising by wealthy groups works against MY interests as a citizen. Equal to the right of free speech is also the right to be heard; otherwise some speech is rendered useless. If MY speech is drowned out by THEIRS to the extent that it cannot be heard, then MY speech (and YOURS) is devalued - and along with it, my vote.
This is in reply to monte who wrote: "Can you explain why this is the threat you say it is and how it will undermine one man with one vote? It has been proven time and again that money does not necessarily win elections."
Maybe "it has been proven time and time again that money does not necessarily win elections." There are obvious examples supporting this, but they are the exception. In the real world, it has been shown (time and time again)x(10 or more) that money is heavily decisive.
Think of it this way. There's a $$$multibillion ecosystem involving advertising agencies, commercial media companies and businesses that have products and services to sell depending on the proposition that spending lots of money influences people's buying decisions. Of course it doesn’t work all the time, but it works well enough to support those who work in that ecosystem. Do you really believe that advertisers would spend all those billions if they didn’t expect to benefit?
Commercial advertising is one thing. Unrestricted political advertising by wealthy groups works against MY interests as a citizen. Equal to the right of free speech is also the right to be heard; otherwise some speech is rendered useless. If MY speech is drowned out by THEIRS to the extent that it cannot be heard, then MY speech (and YOURS) is devalued - and along with it, my vote.
Thank you for your time.
I agree with your main point about the power of advertising. The trouble as far as I see it is WE can see through the facade of false advertising but others are too stupid and thus need government regulations to be saved from themselves. I can easily envision situations where every personal thought process is deemed by some to be inadequate to cope with campaign propaganda. I myself have nothing but contempt for public labor unions, should I be able to cut off their ability to influence elections?
No apologies were made to Frederick of St. Augustine on January 3 shows.
"What is sad is that NPR talk shows like Diane Rehm and On Point, as well as the regular NPR news shows, feel they have to ape the newsmaking strategies of the cable news networks to flourish."
The writer's comment is one with which I could not agree more; having worked as paid staff at two NPR sister stations during college and graduate school, I find it greatly saddening to see public radio morphing into the commercial dross provided by corporate-owned media (perfectly depicted by Sidney Lumet's exceptional film "Network," 1976, from Paddy Chayefsky's brilliant screenplay).
Those who wish to listen to in-depth reasoned discussions and impartial analysis of issues here in the United States (not to mention those of the entire world) would do well to investigate two networks of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC): ABC News Radio -- http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/ and ABC Radio National -- http://www.abc.net.au/rn/default.htm (both archive numerous programs long-term as streams, podcasts and written transcripts), the BBC World Service -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ (who frequently make programs available for later streaming, and sometimes as podcasts, for at least seven days after original broadcast) and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) --http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ . The ABC, BBC and CBC also have superb programming on health, science and technology (amongst other topics).
Monte, I’m afraid you missed the point. “We” are not gullible but “others” are, you say; therefore, let the big spenders take advantage of their gullibility to shape society the way they want.
I don’t believe most people are gullible, rather they are uninformed and misinformed for any number of reasons, many of which they have no control over. If you are not well-to-do or, like myself, retired, you may be too busy making ends meet to pay more than cursory attention to the “news”, such as it is; without a considerable investment of time, which is one thing you are short of, you have to rely the news you get in your monopoly local newspaper, or on your electronic media who somehow manage to provide a smaller and smaller spectrum of information over more and more outlets – which is what comes naturally when a cozy oligopoly ownership is in place. The net result is that you and I, supposedly capable of seeing through the façade, are victimized just as much as the “gullible”, because we have to suffer the consequences.
Some individuals and groups have far more financial ability to influence elections than others if they are allowed to spend without limit. If you don’t accept that, it either puts you into a gullible group, or it implies that you approve of the kind of society this plutocracy has in mind. Labor unions’ spending is a red herring; they aren’t in the same league.
And don’t forget, an entire society fell victim to information that was managed by Dr. Goebbels – which was no comfort to the well-informed and cultured who knew in their hearts they were being manipulated (though plenty of the smart people didn’t want to admit it). You might want to read up on Edward Bernays (“the father of public relations”), who in the last century laid down of the principles and practices of today’s advertising. It’s no accident that Dr. Goebells designed his propaganda around Bernays’ work.
I was disappointed to hear Diane get so upset with the caller's use of "Horse Race" in this program. This was a term that both Diane herself and one of her guests used earlier in the same program to refer to the Iowa primary. The caller used to term Horse Race to refer to the general campaigning processes, including the Iowa primary. The caller used the term in the same fundamental manner as the host and I feel the caller deserves an apology from the host.
I have always appreciated the fact that Diane often keeps her guests and callers 'in check', but in this case she was wrong.