Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-03/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney opened up a 20-point lead over Newt Gingrich in the upcoming Nevada caucus; the Obama Administration unveiled a new homeowner refinancing plan; and Senate Democrats formally introduced a "Buffett Bill" that would tax millionaires at a minimum rate of 30 percent. Naftali Bendavid of the Wall Street Journal, Jackie Calmes of The New York Times and syndicated columnist Steve Roberts join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Jackie Calmes
national correspondent, The New York Times.
Steve Roberts
syndicated columnist and journalism professor at George Washington University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I’ve recently overheard a couple of Republicans talking about finding someone “good” who can lead the party at the last minute. Something of an overarching theme I suppose. I’ve heard that some conservatives recently met in Texas for that very reason. It must be pure agony for these people to be looking at the list of all of their candidates….present and recent past and seeing “was that the best we could come up with?”
But the sorry truth is, that this pitiful list of GOP candidates is NOT, “the best they could come up with” simply because there are no good people left, willing to run. The group that is running and ran, did so because this is really who the Republican Party has allowed itself to become.
For the past three years, through every outlet, through every conduit that the Republican Party controls, it has pounded and pummeled its constituents. Not with a message to “do something positive”, or of delivering a positive solution to what ails America. Rather, it was constantly screaming that the President is a Nazi… Socialist…. Commie…. terrorist devil. He’s a lot of flawed things but these he ain’t. It has worked, slaved and voted….near-unanimously, on a coordinated agenda of making the president fail. Their obsessively single-minded, systematic attacks have included prolonging a depressed economy and doing absolutely nothing to help the American people. It has courted the most radical of the Far Right and folded the “Tea Party” corporations into the GOP. Creating an uber-New Right.
It has convinced its base that healthcare is bad for them and after driving the economic car off the road, into a ditch, and out into a pasture…. that the very forces that destroyed the economy in the first place are the only forces capable of putting it back on the road? Seriously?
And they expect America to believe them?
Is it any wonder who the Republican party ended up with as its presidential candidates?
One thought for consideration on the domestic roundup: I've heard lots of analysis on why Romney lost in SC and won in Florida, and it's been chalked up to a.) dislike of him by "red-blooded" conservatives or b.) mistrust of him as a Mormon by evangelical Christians, but I think both of these miss the point. Mitt seems to lack real personal appeal (much like Kerry in '04) to, I believe, most voters. This really hurts him with "real" Southern voters. They see not just a guy with whom they have little in common, but a Yankee with whom they have little in common - a guy born wealthy and connected, with Michigan roots, who spent most of his adult life in the Northeast. Note that he did poorly in the only part of Florida that could still be considered "culturally" Southern: the panhandle.
If my idea holds, he could have a problem driving turnout on the right in a few swing states: NC, VA, MO, maybe IA.
(I'm saying this as a SC native who's lived all over the Southeast and worked on a campaign in the Southeast in '04.)
Kevin
Seems like they got together over a weekend and put George Bush forward back in the day. It was all arranged, as long as Cheney was the puppet master. They are trying to do it again. Who is puppet master this time?
Teece: "... prolonged a depressed economy..." come on now?
Obama lacks any independent power, but to give this heroin addict economy the big shot between the toes it needs would have required a massive shift to state capitalism. And instead what we have is a crony capitalist run state. When the bidness-heads say too much focus on short term gains is the main malady they are not far wrong, because in a collapsing Empire all that remains (under the current structure) is short term. What scared me in your post was that the next step would be to Tweet Barack a $20 or a $50.
Crony corporate capitalism is a global scourge, and the worldwide gaming table in derivatives proves that. We are fighting big concentrated money and power everywhere. Low wages in the soon to be re-colonized Phillipines drives down the standard of living here, as does Haiti, as Vietnam, as does every sector of wage slavery. Notice how idealogues hesitate to post on the international board while this big easy talking points plug-in fills up. We have difficulty getting our minds around the expansive, stateless concentration of abstracted electronic money power and therefore lack any answers, even a clue. My uncles and I talk it up, but we remain in a quandry. Party politics is like the toy steering wheel on an old fashioned carseat, and we are yet babies in this new demise. Listen to economists babbling like one year olds, trying to talk.
I'm gonna let it go today, because I can see most voters agree, all the candidates suck. (Not worried about the poor, indeed!)
DWS namedropper: It's Icarus Ron Paul: flew too near the Sun, fell like a stone, was eaten by the fishes. Goldbugs always fly on waxwings.
And I thought you lampshade manufacturers were pro-abortion.
John McCain lost to Obama's "skin color" because he chose an air head as a running mate. Guess there was not much choice in '08 either.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"I'm gonna let it go today, because I can see most voters agree, all the candidates suck. (Not worried about the poor, indeed!)"
Thank you for making my point. You know damn well that was not his point!
freedomrocks76 wrote:
John McCain lost to Obama's "skin color" because he chose an air head as a running mate. Guess there was not much choice in '08 either.
No republican could have won, many republicans were tired of republicans in 08. The democrats had it all and then proceeded to throw it in the trash with a ridiculous candidate.
Unemployment rate drops! OK, so if no one is "looking" for a job the unemployment rate would be ZERO. If the same percentage of workers that were looking for jobs in 2008 were looking now the unemployment rate would be around 10%. Liberal media at work here. If they were talking about a republican president you could bet the farm this would be pointed out.
Obama created more jobs than Bush in hist two-term presidency.
I am concerned about the tenor and course the Republican nomination race is taking. With all the candidates talking about how American they are and the responses by the electorate talking about getting "Obama out of the White house and jeers about helping the less fortunate and physically infirm, this seems more like a race for the "Great White Hope" than one based on policy, belief or any type of ideology.
Conrights2003 -
I agree. The base of Republican Party are mostly white southerners. Some other poor rural areas are in there too. Its agenda is that of a third world party, not a modern party we need.
That party relies on ill-informed, religiously devout, confused base which is manipulated by cynical leaders.
Some of its agenda is taken straight from Machiavelli's Prince.
Correction to below: I see that you do have a "Flag as offensive" option and have marked the offending e-mails. Let's please have an intelligent and relevant discussion here, as befits the character of Diane's show.
TGIFNR!! I look forward to the Friday News Roundup every week. Discussion on the program is great as usual. However: someone please monitor the e-mail comments here. The site is being taken over by 2 or 3 disturbed people flinging non sequitur babble and personal, abusive attacks. They are not abiding by the Code of Contact and should be blocked.
Suggest you add a "Report Abuse" button to the e-mail comments section
Thanks & Peace!
Just heard a caller use the code words about home owners" If they had 'done the right thing' (i.e. been responsible" then they would not be in trouble. If they had 'done the right thing' and "put 20% down" then they wouldn't be in the mess they are in.
Voila! Voila! "I think he has got it. I think he's got it" If only they had "friends and family" who could pool the 20% together, they wouldn't be in the mess "They have brought down on themselves" If only Newt, or another insider who is on the money teet was their "friend" they could have gotten a 'personal loan' demanding loyalty. If only they had come from 'good family" been born on "the right side of the tracks", had attended "the right church."
But, Since they 'are the poor who are always with us", and may be worn down, and have swallowed the kool-aid the marketing class was selling, 'bought a home', and then lost their job 'from they own damn fault." What do you expect of 'them."
Man, maybe all of their friends and family are in the same stew, and they just tried to keep gas in the car and the lights on, as they 'were 'believers in the rabble rousing' talk of Freddie Mac, as advised by the rabble-rouser in chief, Newtie-Toot-Toot. What do you expect? He is out their pied-piping right now. A new fairy tale? No, just an up-dated, socially acceptable one to kool-aid drinkers.
Terri Williams Ring, I agree! But I suspect that means you want to ban apposing views.
Yes, I was one of those persons who could never have saved 20% down. My landlord kept raising the rent. I lived there for 10 years until I finally decided to invest in my own home. I have had no problem paying my mortgage and my life has been infinitely better in my own home where I have more incentive to improve the property. I love the way people scapegoat anonymous groups of theoretical populations.
That a property would never lose its value was a common myth which allowed the legitimacy of absurd property values.
I don't understand the mentality that feels that they won the game only because the played the right cards and that those who were dealt a bad hand are morally reprehensible.
I was very surprised to hear Steve Roberts comment on this morning's Domestic News Roundup that "class" is an arbitrary term ( my paraphasing). As a sociologist I take issue with that. My field has a metric for class that has been refined over decades. Although demography is not my area of specialization there is a very simple definition taught to Introductory Sociology students: Class position is represented by an INDEX or SES (Socio-Economic Status). Composed of three variables:
1. Income
2. Completed Education
3. Job (categorized using "occupational rankings" through national sample surveys readministered and reanalyzed at designated yearly intervals.)
The metrics involved in this index have been refined over decades. I am presenting a simple conceptutal frame of reference that would be made much more accurate and current in a program devoted to the issue of "class". The journalists on your panels and the NPR listening audience would benefit from such a program. It should include demographers (and other Sociologists specializing in stratification) who can provide a much more definitive and timely explanation of class and the current metrics used to determine class than noted here.
Your guest who tries to explain away Israel's nuclear capability by citing Arab "leaders" fails to divulge that those "leaders" he cites are themselves the despots of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen etc.. The truth is that they don't fear Iran's "lack of predictability", but Iran's championing of the causes of the oppressed Shia minorities/majorities in their countries. Iran is in fact a very rational and stable nation. Your guest could not credibly claim the same for the "leaders" of Iran's neighbors.
Jackie Calmes mimics CNN White House correspondent Dan Lothian. Both are POTUS Obama water carriers posing as actual reporters. Calmes baselessly claimed that expensive Obama-care is actually a money-saver, claiming GOP candidate Mitt Romney was false to assert otherwise.
Calmes is also an Occupy Wall street cheerleader. Her softball question to POTUS Obama rivals that of Lothian's .
"Do you think Occupy Wall Street has the potential to be a tea party movement in 2012?" Jackie Calmes
Lothian after a GOP debate commented that several candidates said in their view waterboarding is not torture.
“I’m wondering if you think they’re uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible.” Dan Lothian
Dian Rehm has a fascinating show and no segment is more fascinating than the domestic politics hour on Fridays.
Several times, including during Diane's opening comments, reference was made to a comment from republican candidate Mitt Romney in which he supposedly said he doesn't care about poor people.
Not once did I hear either Diane or anybody on the panel give the actual quote, which was in stark contrast to how it is being characterized.
When Juan Williams distorted Newt Gingrich's words Newt went after him with fists flying. If Romney wants to get conservatives onboard he needs to develop that same fighting spirit toward the media because whatever he says between now and November will be distorted and mischaracterized.
Keep up the good work, and Diane has my condolences on the loss of her friend and former frequent guest Tony Blankley. I didn't always agree with him but I always enjoyed his commentary.
A little sloppy on that post about unemployment. The percentage of workers who have stopped looking for work and are no longer on the unemployment roles if added to current unemployment rates would raise current unemployment to approximately 10%. In other words they are still unemployed but are not counted because of the way these figures are calculated, government deception? I also should have said 2009, so in reality Obama has to torture the truth about job growth numbers to come up with figures that make it look like real progress is happening.
I am a owner of a home in California in Oakland, Like most people, the homes here are well over $500,000 I resent the fact that people don't feel its their responsibility to help people who have bought into homes that they could never afford. Like my husband and I we came out of college with two student loans, and never had the chance to save money like most people. Now that we are in a home that is upside down, we wanted to get into a better loan, but since we are not with Freddie Mac, and through a private bank, they say we are unable to refi, since our home is upside down. Who's isnt???
We hope that we will not have to go into foreclosure, as we are still up with our payments, and our credit is excellent so far?
What can we do?
Pancake wrote:
"What scared me in your post was that the next step would be to Tweet Barack a $20 or a $50."
Not to worry, I am not endorsing BO....I have no party affliation or "skin in the game" and thus wouldn't advocate helping either the Democrats or Republicans.
I'm pretty sure that it is all a waste no matter which "party of the landed gentry" we are talking about at the moment.
My point was simply that while the GOP likes to give the illusion that they are for the American way, they are doing everything under the sun to make sure that it doesn't happen.
There has been significant data recently which contradicts Steve Roberts statement that "class is not the same in America as in Europe because in America there is mobility between classes." While that may have been true in the past. The opposite is more accurate today. Numerous studies have shown that there is far greater upward mobility in Europe now than in the United States.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-upward-mobility-in-the-...
All legislation and economic data is fair political game from now until November, I guess. By using the positive employment report as a number that reflects favorably on Barack Obama’s tenure, champions are really only validating Republican claims that the state of the economy is a referendum on his presidency, which, in the first place, is ridiculous, in that no president could or should be expected to undo thirty years of failed neo-conservative economic policy that has taken the world to the edge of financial collapse; and in the second place, because—progressive credentials and rhetoric notwithstanding—Barack Obama’s policies have really only been a passive extension of conservative policies, which ultimately focus on propping up the financial industries and privatizing all industries and workforces. Public sector employment went way down in the last quarter of 2011, and January’s numbers do not reflect the quality of jobs created, nor the number of unemployed who have become statistically invisible. All mainstream politics aside, the worst thing that can happen is for anybody and everybody to get the idea that “we’re on the right track.” Actually, it’s true: we are on the right track; the same right-wing track we’ve been on for thirty+ years. We need to be on the left track, and we clearly are not.
The housing refinancing reform bill sounds like a good deal; it is restricted to those whose home is their primary residence, and it “allows” for a reduction in principle (which is not only what would keep people in their homes but bring down housing prices to Main Street levels, rather than buoy them up to Wall Street expectations). But banks aren’t going to do that, even if the legislation passed. Volunteer to cut their own throats? Please. “Keeping people in their homes” is a noble gesture, but . . . oh, and by the way, we’re still feeding a securitization process that means to reflate the housing bubble and rationalize two trillion dollars of toxic assets at Fannie and Freddie, not to mention a $708 trillion global derivatives market. (The student loan bubble is pumping up; workers are forced into temp. jobs; remittances to Mexico are increasing; homeowners are shackled to their albatrosses; the stock market is booming; people are forced into the health care market; WE’RE OUT OF THE RED!!!) I’m excited.
Homeowners didn’t invest irresponsibly in this investor-led boondoggle, as seems to be the general consensus (at least here); they invested rationally, within a totally corrupted “originate to distribute” loan origination model. In short, they jumped on the bandwagon. Nevertheless, to continue to bail them out is to continue to bail Wall Street investors out and prop up a totally dysfunctional housing market. Wages are going down, and rents, up. How about those “responsible” renters who refused to jump on the bandwagon? Proposed legislation calling for a mandatory reduction of principle to current market value, and ONLY for those whose homes are their primary places of residence, coupled with a write down of (toxic) assets at Fannie Mae ($1.2 trillion; which, unlike Freddie, were only implicitly guaranteed by the government), AND a government program that allows tenants to occupy already foreclosed properties as renters, for less than market value, in exchange for improvements to the property, would be fair, effective, and progressive. Now that would be something to crow about. Glass-Steagall should be restored to prevent this sort of speculation from ever happening again, and the affordability of housing (and for renters) should be the focus of any government intervention. Don’t count on Mitt for any such proposal, though. He’ll hand the whole mess over to Wall Street AND taxpayers, gut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it, give investors 100 cents on every fraudulently invested dollar, and call it laissez-faire capitalism. Social Democratic Party candidate, anyone?
Yes, they still do 'white man talk' as if it is still a wide open territory, and everyone is free to take a conestoga wagon and settle the west. Never mind that the land belongs to my brothers and sisters. But, they keep evoking the 'fairy tale' and their kool-aid drinkers keep following them 'over the rainbow.' The mobility they would get wouldn't be as romantic as the hobos riding the rails. That would be considered 'offensive' to the Marketing majors now graduating from formerly important universities of the South. Now those universities are all hauling water for Bob Jones University graduates of the eighties who have totally colonized our nations capitol. from their 'C' street Frat house. Newt is their Historian and passes on this history to those who will pay his expenses, and those expenses are Bravo Channel rates.
What would Lafayette and Kosieskou have to say about this mess, let alone Mr. Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. I don't think the men and women who are paying the price for the present wars or "expeditions of the oil companies' , will get much respect from Newt the Toot, or Mitt the Flipt, do you?
I listen to the drshow for intelligent discourse on important topics; I think this show is one of the best at this. I appreciate listener comments that are made in the same spirit & am frustrated that some of the commenters here are obviously just "trolls" who don't want to talk about the issues, but merely rant & insult. There are many thoughtful posts here, but there are also some who only want to bait & argue. What a shame, disappointment & waste of a valuable public forum.