Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-04/friday-news-roundup-domestic
This week’s economic figures suggested the U.S. recovery may have lost some steam. The Labor Department reported hiring in April slacked off for the second straight month. The unemployment rate dipped to 8.1 percent from 8.2 last month as more people dropped out of the labor market. Michele Bachmann formally endorsed her one-time rival Mitt Romney. The department of Justice charged more than 100 individuals with $460 million in Medicare fraud. And the DEA is under fire for its treatment of a detained college student. Greg Ip of The Economist, Susan Page of USA Today and Reid Wilson of National Journal join Diane for the domestic hour of the Friday News Roundup.
Guests
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor, The Economist, and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Reid Wilson
editor-in-chief of National Journal Hotline.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panelists answer a caller's question about how the unemployment rate is measured:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
According to multiple news outlets,Mitt Romney met yesterday with the Conservative media. The goal was to devise a strategy to defeat President Obama this fall. Maybe we can put this liberal media bias claim to rest,and inform us of where and when the liberal media had their anti Republican,anti Romney meeting?
It is equally illuminating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:
In 1964, 94% of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86% voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81% voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81% voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than for Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58% supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89% vs. 7%, in Clinton’s favor.
In a 2004 poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, DC supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.
The figures cited above are entirely consistent with how news-media professionals identify themselves in terms of their political party affiliations and ideological leanings:
In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54% of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9% as Republicans.
In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44% called themselves Democrats, 16% Republicans.
In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61% identified themselves as Democrats, 15% as Republicans.
In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans.
We see similar ratios in studies where news people are asked to rate themselves on the left-to-right political spectrum:
In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65% identified themselves as liberals, 17% as conservatives.
In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32% identified themselves as liberals, 11% as conservatives.
In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44% identified themselves as liberals, 22% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61% identified themselves as liberals, 9% as conservatives.
In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.
In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.
In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=207
You would think Eric Holder's contempt charges would make it into the show intro. But it should be obvious to anyone who frequents this show that anything that makes the Obama administration look bad is either downplayed or ignored. There is no better example of liberal media bias than NPR and the D.R. show in particular.
Why are the corrections for the jobs statistics for March and February so large? Thirty percent is a big error.
Just out of curiosity how do you know how individual journalists voted? If Rethuglicans were smarter, and more concerned with the needs of the majority if the people in this country who don't make a million dollars a year or more, then educated people might be more inclined to support them.
Romney should not also be questioned about his assertion that job growth should be three times what it is, he should also be questioned about how he would do it. I bet you he'll say tax cuts for the wealthy, i.e. the Bush plan. Been there, done that. It doesn't work. It can't work. It never worked and it won't work.
remember all the fear mongering and ginned up tough guy rhetoric from 2001-2008???? This administration does not resort to that tactic. BHO lets his ACTIONS speak. If you look closely the GOP spent a lot of time waging fear and DIVIDE during the primaries. WHY??? because that is all the have! Would anyone other than a low effort thinker really want to go back to that?
In 1992 Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush. The election was based on "IT`S THE ECONOMY STUPID".....Twelve years of the failure of "Trickle Down",and America had enough. It`s a shame these guests paint that 12 year nightmare recession as a success.IT WAS NOT !
"The strongest part of the US economy appears to be the revision sector. It just keeps adding jobs, as it has throughout the whole recovery."
-- Justin Wolfers, Wharton School of Business
https://twitter.com/#!/justinwolfers/status/198392967734628352
Diane, Love your show....
I believe that, in Texas, the lack of job growth is due to the austerity measures that republicans have applied to our state budgets. Cutting many teachers, many govt. jobs, and govt. funding for programs that republicans don't favor, etc. I believe its a measure they try to explain as a something that will counter act the loss of money in thier budget, but its really just taking the wind out of the sails of any stimulus put into our economy. Its like the republicans are trying to make Obama's stimulus look like its not working when its really People like Rick Perry who are cutting hundreds of teachers, and cutting program funding
and therefor hundreds are loosing jobs despite Obamas good intentions.
libertarians r us wrote:
"You would think Eric Holder's contempt charges would make it into the show intro. But it should be obvious to anyone who frequents this show that anything that makes the Obama administration look bad is either downplayed or ignored. There is no better example of liberal media bias than NPR and the D.R. show in particular."
Then why do you bother listening? I think you know the definition for insanity right? Mmmmmm maybe not.....
I do not believe that homeowners at risk for the loss of their home have necessarily brought their problems upon themselves. For me, that is not the issue. The issue is only whether my tax dollars should be used to help them stay in homes, when I myself am trying to buy my first. I do not want assistance to buy a home. I do mind helping my neighbor: I tithe, in fact. I do believe that I am and should be responsible for taking care of my own house first. How is it fair to take my substance away to just give it to somebody else?
Teece Bowman wrote: "Then why do you bother listening? I think you know the definition for insanity right? Mmmmmm maybe not....."
Because unlike yourself I can stand to be disagreed with. I don't need to wrap myself in a security blanket of lies to feel good about myself or my beliefs.
Really....
I think more of sound and fury signifying nothing.
RE: 'Some people find the term 'Obamacare' offensive.' Critics of the ACA use the term, so it must be supporters of it who are offended. Isn't it telling that those who supported it are now concerned/emarrassed by it being so closely tied to Obama. If it were something they should be genuinely proud of supporting, they should WANT it tied to the Pres. It's only because it is becoming ever so much more unpopular amongst Americans who are finally coming to understand what it is, that those who voted for it and those in the White House and those in the media are trying to distant it from Obama's name. He needs to wear it like a scarlet A, regardless. Frankly, more people would be rightfully offended by the legislation being called the Affordable Care Act. That's a gross minomer this show refuses to address.
I agree with the called who labeled Romney a fraud. As far as I can tell he does not stand for anything different that the typical republican supply side corporate economic policies. He won't even stand up and support his record as govenor.
He has five sons, not one has been in the service. He has absolutely no understanding of how most people are affected by the weak economy.
And as far as foreign policy he sounds just like alll the other chicken hawks.
For the first "TWO YEARS" Obama focused on his stupid Obama-care, little else. He did not focus on the economy that most people were worried about. Further it is true that job creators and people with money that drive economic growth are holding back because of out of control government spending, over regulation and the constant threat of exploding taxation. The latest revelations with the EPA proves that government is a threat to the private sector. Anyone who has had the displeasure of dealing with government at any level can tell you that the government is not there to help, it is there to trip you up and make your life miserable. The government is filled with tinpot dictators top to bottom that take pleasure in pushing people around and abusing their power.
You are right on. It is the same story in Ohio and other repbulican led states. The public sector has been hammered and for what good. Partially to privatized anf profitize educaiton and infrastructure. The republican agenda is anti-American.
My reply was to CG in Texas.
I find it very interesting that Mrs. Rehm will demean very intelligent guests and find it so offensive if they use the term Obama Care but has never corrected a guests for using, The Bush Tax Cuts. If consistency is her goal should she not also use the legislative language for these two acts as well? Make you wonder how objective she is?
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"According to multiple news outlets,Mitt Romney met yesterday with the Conservative media. The goal was to devise a strategy to defeat President Obama this fall. Maybe we can put this liberal media bias claim to rest,and inform us of where and when the liberal media had their anti Republican,anti Romney meeting?"
--------------------------------------------
Since you have multiple sources, could you provide just one? The lame stream media doesn't need to have meetings since reporting pro Obama/anti Romney stories is a reflexive action for them.
sandymush wrote:
" Make you wonder how objective she (Rehm) is?"
------------------------------------------
There is no wonderment involved. DR's liberal ideology leaks through every broadcast. That she actually had the temerity to claim she keeps her personal bias out of her show is a sign of how oblivious she is to reality.
For weeks and weeks,Republican talking heads on the Sunday shows say,Obama can`t run on his record. When the media actually LOOKS at the record,like alQiada and Bin Laden,out comes the whining towels,crying it`s politicizing.
Never do Republican pundits address President Obama as President . They simply can`t bring themselves to credit his successes,or even acknowledge that he IS the President.
libertarians r us wrote:
"For the first "TWO YEARS" Obama focused on his stupid Obama-care, little else. He did not focus on the economy that most people were worried about."
Actually, lrus, I think he THOUGHT he did.
I was listening recently to his quote on the Today show right after the election - “Look, I’m at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
I think the "a year from now I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress" part was referring to the stimulus package that was being proposed. I think President Obama was so ignorant (and I don't mean that in the pejorative sense, but in the sense of simply not knowing any better) about economics that he thought he could just throw a trillion dollars at the economy and it would turn around.
part deux:
Most economists agree that the stimulus was a big waste of money. Then you have the likes of the Krugman's and the Reich's who think we didn't waste ENOUGH money! i.e., the stimulus wasn't big enough! (And I don't want to hear the "Krugman Nobel Prize" song. The man is a buffoon). Obama was ignorant - can't help that. Doubling down on stupid is just more stupid.
Of course the rest of us knew that this was the WRONG KIND of stimulus. There were some tax cuts, but not enough. There was infrastructure spending, but not enough. Cash for clunkers? A waste and a stupid idea that only moved car sales up a few months. Cash for refrigerators or whatever the h... it was? Another waste and again, doubling down on stupid. And when I saw the piece of the stimulus that gave money to funeral homes and cemetaries, I knew they had jumped the shark!
Fiscal sanity is coming and will be here November 7th when President-elect Romney begins implementing his transition strategy. We will have a man who will not be popular with everyone, to be sure, but at least he will understand business and economics. The community organizer can go back go handing out pamphlets.
"Teece Bowman wrote:
libertarians r us wrote:
"You would think Eric Holder's contempt charges would make it into the show intro. But it should be obvious to anyone who frequents this show that anything that makes the Obama administration look bad is either downplayed or ignored. There is no better example of liberal media bias than NPR and the D.R. show in particular."
Then why do you bother listening? I think you know the definition for insanity right? Mmmmmm maybe not.....
May 4, 2012 - 10:48 am"
Tell that dumb SOB, that Holder ain't been charged yet!!! Also tell him that his paranoid illusions to a Media Cover-up of the Issa Hearings again demonstrates his tenuous hold on reality.
Furthermore, Holder ain't gonna be charged because he is sitting on enough evidence of the Bush Gang Crimes to put all you Dog Cr_p Traitors in Guantanamo for Life.
The Republican Convention is going to allow the Delegates and Hangers-on to bring concealed firearms. Worried about a Communist Takeover, I guess.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchuan wrote:
"to put all you Dog Cr_p Traitors in Guantanamo for Life."
But wait ... Obama is going to close Guantanamo!
BBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
mchaun, yes I know actual charges have yet to be brought on Holder but they are forth coming. I should have been more specific. As for "Bush Gang Crimes" what do ya got?