Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-06/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The unemployment rate dropped to 8.5 percent – the lowest level in nearly three years; President Obama bypassed Congress and appointed Richard Cordray as consumer protection chief; plans for cuts to the Pentagon were unveiled; the Fed urged Congress to take more aggressive action on housing; the official Republican campaign for 2012 got underway; Mitt Romney got an unexpected win in Iowa and an endorsement from John McCain; Michele Bachmann announced an end to her campaign; and Rick Perry said he’s not giving up yet. The domestic hour of the Friday News Roundup.
Guests
Jeanne Cummings
deputy government editor, Bloomberg News.
Jim VandeHei
executive editor, "Politico."
Jackie Calmes
national correspondent, The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Here is a quote from Rick Santorum "conservative" candidate.
"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
I think this sums up what is wrong with both political parties. Control over our lives to protect us from ourselves because we are too dumb to know what is best for our own well being. Besides being truly un- American I find it disgusting. Rick Santorum rejects American exceptionalism and seeks a bible based control over us. While I have many doubts in my fellow Americans I would not impose my will upon others because of some sick minded superiority. Obama and the democratic party and this interpretation of conservatism are exactly what is wrong with this country. The sad reality is how many go along with this crippled view of a "free society" and vote for people who want to rule over us with the consent of the weak and easily manipulated.
American exceptionalism, for those unsure of it's meaning, it is the natural rights given to us by our own humanity and the limits placed upon government control over our lives through our Constitution.
Libertarianism is not anarchy but Constitutional government. One of governments basic constitutional roles is to uphold law and order in regards to property rights and the security of it's citizens from being harmed by others.
Concerning the idea of “American Exceptionalism”:
The right seems strangely unaware of the origins of the term "American exceptionalism." Ironically, this term….now so beloved by those in the American right…. was invented in Moscow in May 1929 by Joseph Stalin and his comrades in the Communist International, who denounced the leaders of the American Communist Party for believing that the "universal laws" of Marxist theory needed to be adapted to the specific conditions of the United States. This belief, the view that each country had to build its own path to Communism, constituted the heresy of "American exceptionalism." So serious was the offense that Jay Lovestone, then the head of the American Communist Party, was summarily expelled from the party, barely escaping from Moscow with his life.
Not until decades later did the phrase "American exceptionalism" move outside rather narrow Marxist circles, and not until the Reagan years of the 1980s did it first come to be used with anything like the meaning that the rightwing now takes for granted.
There is a trend developing that suggests a decline in the notion of American exceptionalism, at least as it has been widely accepted. According to a new Pew Research poll, 49 percent agreed either mostly or completely with the statement: "Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others." This is the classic definition of cultural imperialism.
In 2002, 60 percent agreed. In 2007, 55 percent agreed.
Claims of exceptionalism cannot be measured simply because they are asserted loudly and often. Shouldn't a true gauge of exceptionalism include how America deals with its challenges?
There are myriad reasons that America is exceptional, but beating one's chest declaring moral superiority and adherence to meaningless rituals are not among them.
I think reinhard nailed it. American exceptionalism is not about wealth redistribution, it is about removing the shackles of socialism/communism/totalitarianism from it's people and to allow it's citizens to live their lives to the fullest by benefiting from the fruits of their labor.
Wikipedia, American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."[3]
The specific term "American exceptionalism" was first used in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastising members of the American Communist Party for believing that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions
Wasn't it nice for president Obama to come back from his tax payer paid $4million dollar vacation and violate the separation of powers and appoint a guy to head an unnecessary agency that was created by Obama in response to the government created financial crisis, he is very generous that way! four more years, four more years, four more years.
Good for you Diane!! These so-called analysts want one thing only -- that is controversy which sells newspapers and makes the writers sound important.
The same thing holds true with the Republican priamaries The minute one candidate gets a few more votes, he is the new front runner. IN fact Romney has been the favoritde all along. But a boring winner does not sell papers.
Get a life you so-called journalists!!
I, for one, am very happy that our President finally had the backbone to stand up to the congressional republicans who are trying to keep our country down. They've been using one of their usual cheap tricks to keep the President from using his Constitutional powers & they're hurting the country but they don't care. It's their policies that got us into the mess we're in & they're doing everything they can to keep us in the mess. They don't want citizens to have any power, only corporations & the wealthy. I don't know how they can look at themselves in mirror. Shame, shame, shame.
I hear everyone talking about 100,000 jobs added every month but I also hear everyday of companies laying off thousands of workers. Are we really growing? Also unemployment claims being down doesn't mean much. The figures are askewed. The stats do not reflect the actual reality. I'm unemployed for 13 months, I know what I'm talking about.
reinhard
Correction, it was Congress that created this agency, not Obama. He may have suggested it, pushed for it and even drafted the legislation for it, but it was Congress that created it.
The improvement in the jobs numbers is all the more amazing considering that the Republican Party is doing everythinng it can to hurt the economy. Millions are still out of work because of GOP obstruction. It is a scandal the the press choose to ignore. Until the media starts to call them out and they have to pay a political price they will continue to hurt the economy in an effort to hurt the President.
What's wrong with protecting the rights of consumers so that they don't get ripped off by the rich & greedy? Only the rich and greedy are not in favor of this move.
Mike Sergeant wrote:
reinhard,"Correction, it was Congress that created this agency, not Obama. He may have suggested it, pushed for it and even drafted the legislation for it, but it was Congress that created it."
Wrong Sir
The law was initially proposed by the Obama Administration in June 2009, when the White House sent a series of proposed bills to Congress. A version of the legislation was introduced in the House in July 2009. On December 2, 2009, revised versions were introduced in the House of Representatives by Barney Frank, and in the Senate Banking Committee by Chairman Chris Dodd. Due to their involvement with the bill, the conference committee that reported on June 25, 2010,[1] voted to name the bill after the two members of Congress.[8]
After watching the proceedings on Thursday when the Senate was called to order and then dismissed less than a minute later. Once that gavel hit the desk the second time Senate was in recess and Obama can, by the Constitution, appoint anyone he wants to to any post he wants regardless of if the Senate was going to reconvene the next day. Get over Repubs, you finally got outmaneuvered!
reinhard - You just proved Mike correct. Great job!
RE: Recess Appointments
Sure wish the DR pundits would get a little more thorough in their “ explanations.”
Yes, the Democrats invoked “pro forma” sessions several times under Bush — but this was in final, direct and utterly frustrated response to President Bush’s nasty habit of making LOTS of recess appointments, especially during his second term -- and this sometimes even without first presenting the nominees to the Congress at all. Bush made ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN recess appointments.
By contrast, President Obama’s handful of recess appointments certainly appear in a completely different light.
It would be nice if your media folk would bother to make the distinction.
soundpam wrote:
"I, for one, am very happy that our President finally had the backbone to stand up to the congressional republicans who are trying to keep our country down. They've been using one of their usual cheap tricks to keep the President from using his Constitutional powers & they're hurting the country but they don't care."
Get your facts straight.
Congressional Republicans have always been willing to vote on these appointments all along. The President's problem is, he's never had enough votes to get them through so he could not bring them forward while Congress was in session. This is an end-run around the Constitution ... quelle suprise!
soundpam wrote:
"reinhard - You just proved Mike correct. Great job!"
Sorry wrong again!
cre·at·edcre·at·ing
Definition of CREATE
transitive verb
1: to bring into existence
2a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior
3: cause, occasion
4a : to produce through imaginative skill b : design
intransitive verb
1: to make or bring into existence something new
2: to set up a scoring opportunity in basketball
Correct me if I am wrong but:
Barney Frank was (is?) a member of Congress
Chris Dodd is a member of the Senate
Barack Obama did not create this the Legislature did. Barack Obama did not vote for or against this bill. Again he may have proposed it, and pushed for it and even signed it into law, but the Legislature ultimately could have done any number of things to prevent it from being brought before the President, including voting it down.
There are thousands of bills that are proposed and never make it to Presidents desk. Why because the Legislature prevents it. Go back and watch the "I'm Just a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock and you will understand what I am talking about.
Hey Mike,
Get a grip.
Regardless of who "created" the Dodd-Frank legislation, it WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS into LAW many, many months ago.
Your handful of minority GOP Senators are obstructing that law. Seems less than legal to me to block a law from being implemented just because they don't like it.
As a Canadian I am appalled by the corruption in the U.S. political system. I fear that your nation will never get back on the right track with all this money which completely corrupting the political system. This precisely why we do not allow private money in our politics.
With all due repect to your panelists this morning, I think remarks made that today's Boston Globe's endorsement of GOP candidate Jon Huntsman will hurt him in NH, the media ignores the fact that there are more Independents registered in New Hampshire and they can vote in the open primary process in NH. By the way, I recall that the WSJ said earlier on that Huntman's economic policy was the best among all GOP candidates.
reinhard - Once again, GREAT job!! It was the congress that brought it into existence (see def. #1). It didn't "exist" until they passed it. The President merely proposed & backed it.
embo,
not sure what is meant by "get a grip".
You have just reiterated my original point. Barack Obama did not create this agency Congress did. I am sick of the American people blaming the President for things that the Legislature does or doesn't do. The Legislature is the real reason this country is as a stand still not the President.
It seems that no one anymore cares about original intent. I don't know why we even bother with a Constitution anymore. It's all political technicality and gamesmanship. Wiki puts it best on Recess Appoinments:
"It has been argued that as the clause was originally understood, it was expected that if the Senate was in session when an office became vacant, the president would make a standard advice-and-consent appointment at that time. The argument further maintains that recess appointments were only to be made during intersession recesses, which during the early days of the country lasted between six and nine months, and were therefore required to prevent important offices from remaining unfilled for long periods. The current interpretation, this view holds, allows appointments to be made during recesses too brief to justify bypassing the Senate".
This is an end-run around the Constitution - I don't care who's doing it.
No johnny - it's the President beating them at their own game. The majority would confirm but the Senate republicans have been abusing the filibuster in "an end-run around the Constitution" & have been play-acting a farce of a session in "an end-run around the Constitution". The President is just beating them @ their own game!!
soundpam, I will go with Merriam Webster if that's OK with You.
"to make or bring into existence something new"
Just because congress put the clothes on the baby does not mean they gave birth to it. The concept of the Consumer Protection Agency is a "creation" of the Obama administration.
This hair splitting is nonsense, Obama owns it!
It's John.
I have posted an objection to this message.
Please read my second post, and ... thanks for making my point.
There needs to be a way for the filibuster to be an actual filibuster, where somebody has to be up there and actually be speaking. Enough of the "virtual" filibuster.
soundpam wrote:
"The majority would confirm but the Senate republicans have been abusing the filibuster in "an end-run around the Constitution" & have been play-acting a farce of a session in "an end-run around the Constitution". "
I won't go into detail with respect to the origin of this practice, but you can educate yourself here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14
You credit Congress with creating the position, but then argue that they won't fill it?! That's nonsense. Senate Republicans object to the President's choice. That's their right under the Constitution. President Obama should pick someone whom he knows will be approved - as most Presidents would do, rather than make an "end-run around the Constitution".
Many apologies, Mike!!! It was REINHARD I was reacting to.
YOU are the voice of reason . . .
I have to agree with the caller regarding the host and guests ignoring Ron Paul in their conversations until the caller pointed it out. The Congressman finished a not-so-distant third yet Gingrinch, Bachmann and even Huntsman none of whom came close to the top three received more attention than Dr. Paul. Why?