Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-11/friday-news-roundup-domestic
White House sources say Vice President Biden apologized for declaring his support of same-sex unions ahead of President Obama. The president's announcement spurred a major spike in donations to his re-election campaign. J.P. Morgan Chase disclosed a $2 billion trading loss, giving supporters of tighter banking regulation new ammunition. Six-term U.S. Senator Dick Lugar's defeat to a Tea Party favorite could give Democrats a chance to hold onto a Senate majority. And the U.S. Postal Service dropped plans to close thousands of rural post offices. Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, Jeanne Cummings of Bloomberg News and syndicated columnist Steve Roberts join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Clarence Page
syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
Jeanne Cummings
deputy government editor, Bloomberg News.
Steve Roberts
syndicated columnist and journalism professor at George Washington University.
Related Video
The panelists discuss the social and political implications of President Obama's announcement of his support for same-sex marriage earlier this week, and explore the political calculations and risks for the president. Jeanne Cummings said that the announcement could possibly knock at least one important swing state out of play for Obama in the presidential election, but that ultimately the issue will likely be secondary to the state of the economy and job creation:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Arkus Duntov on May 11, 2012 @ 9:27 am wrote: “Your frustration is misplaced, Phil said he was OK with it, your beef is with the voters who do not agree with you and apparently that's most of them.”
Apparently you are incapable of separating out different parts of what Phil wrote. It’s very nice that he ended by stating he was “okay with it” (meaning gay marriage I suppose), but my Comment wasn’t addressed to that.
It was addressed to his charges of “Obama/democrat/media” dividing the country, and his overstatement of the significance of the North Carolina vote. I note you said nothing about that!
Arkus Duntov on May 11, 2012 @ 9:07 am wrote: “I thought you were talking about Libya for a second. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a thread of desperation runs through the above liberal commentary.”
Congratulations! You’ve won the award for the most inane and irrelevant response (so far today, anyway).
Care to explain how the “lead up” to our involvement in Libya is in anyway comparable to Bush’s invading Iraq because of an attack launched from Afghanistan?
That being said, I would agree if you had simply told Top of the Morning that it’s over and done with, Bush is out of office, and we have current issues to worry about.
maryland2012 on May 11, 2012 @ 11:01 am wrote: “People stop lying and confusing children of the world by teaching deviance from The Creator’s Laws is acceptable.”
You are entitled to your religious opinions. You are not entitled to impose them on others.
Beware of calling those of different beliefs “liars”. I’m a Jew, and you would not like to hear what my religion teaches about Christianity. Fortunately, most of us don’t believe in imposing our faith on others.
Just like to add that we are testing man-less vehicles. It is only time for post office to use these vehicles to deliver mails. In other words, the postman/woman are going to lose their jobs. It's just a matter of time, but not as expense of losing services.
We are moving to a different era for sure.
About the bullying incident:
I agree you can't judge the man by his actions as a thoughtless teenager.
On the other hand, Romney's mealy-mouthed "apology" (and claim of faulty memory) is significant. Like too many politicians, he is desperate to maintain an illusion of infallibility, thus he cannot bring himself to make the simple and forthright statement: "I am ashamed of my cruel and ignorant behavior as a teenager".
That would be the adult way to respond. Instead, he sounds like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Ciao.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: 'Sorry, but you wrote that these were comments made after the interview, so they fall in much the same category as Noonan’s memoir'
Your joking RIGHT! hours after the interview on national TV is the same as a memoir. Talk about desperation.
Everything else you write is equally off the mark.
.
Obama admitted to smoking pot and snorting cocaine, and he survived electorally. It could have worked its way into some narrative about brain-adled and addictive issues, but it didn't. Youthful indiscretion is all it is. Let's move on. There are so many more important issues. Moreover, the kid's family says he would be appalled at how this incident is being portrayed and used for political purposes.
Wow, the whole JP Morgan discussion was painful. It was trading its own money and the loss is only a book loss, not realized.
Romney must sell the notion he is like us.
Bashing the gay community will help with Christians.
But assaults on gays may not be popular with Independents.
I cannot recall the names of my bullys,but I do remember the events.
5:33 into the recording - this is quite possibly the worst Friday News Roundup panel ever. Not a single conservative to challenge Obama. The political correctness and groupthink here is just astounding. I'm sorry - I don't care if this is a NPR program, the press has a responsibility to be balanced and critical, and this show is anything but that. This is why the rest of the country keeps surprising and shocking Washington DC, and it is why the rest of the country loathes this town. Republicans and conservatives are NOT extremists - but it is so very tiresome to see these people apologizing for the indefensible, and expecting this great democracy of ours to just follow like sheep and lemmings. Bad job, people.
Re: Romney and the bullying, I read the WashPo article and looked at all the photos of Romney in high school, and what really struck me is the social sea change that occurred between when Romney graduated from high school (in '65 or '66) and when Obama graduated (in '79 or '80). I think to anyone under even the age of 50, those Romney/Cranbrook school photos look like a REALLY long time ago, vs. Obama as a teen with afro and puka shells. Combine that with Romney's statements on marriage equality and he just seems to be from another era altogether. I hope that Obama can find a way to highlight that difference.
Also, on Lugar's loss, though I would not be a supporter of Lugar by any stretch, his loss is really a symbol of how "bipartisanship" and "compromise" have become dirty words. Effective politicians have always been those who know that it is a game of give and take (think LBJ). Obama has given to a fault, expecting that the "take" will come his way. Not in the current environment that gives us a visceral, toxic climate and a stalled Congress. On the upside, I truly think the Dems might have a chance at taking Lugar's seat from the republican Tea Party candidate. . .
"baltimore ann wrote:
I can't even imagine ever voting for Mr. Romney, but in his defense high school is not necessarily the defining moment in his life. There are many other events to look at and form an opinion from. Let's not stretch events to make a point about his character.
Ann in Baltimore
May 11, 2012 - 10:28 am"
Not true, Annie.
School, particularly High School is the time when the Social, Economic, Racial Hierarchies are established in the minds of the Students, the Elites as well as the Commoners.
Of Course, the Teachers and School Officials have known since Kindergarten- where the Family lives, what Dad (and now Mom) does for a living, Parents educational level, etc, etc, etc.
The double standards of discipline, the extra opportunities like tutoring, advanced placement, which Parents are allowed to advocate for their kids.
The Son of the Head of a large Section of a prestigious government laboratory got a B in Art Appreciation, spoiling his straight A record. Dad stormed down to the School and demanded his boy get extra work (meaning extra attention) until his Grade was back up.
A retired Enlisted Airman working in the same laboratory, went to the same School, saying his Eurasion Son was struggling, getting further and further behind and begged for help. The School handed him a list of Tutors and bade him Adieu.
“Nancy Willard, of Embracing Digital Youth..." in the Washington Post, took the words right out of my mouth.
"Willard said she had a hard time fathoming that, according to the story, the attack did not result in discipline (for Romney) but that the victim was later thrown out of the prep school for smoking a cigarette."
Romney reminds me of GW "Twiggy" Bush who was claimed to have heated paper clips and branded the arms of Pledges, but whose most significant extracurricular activity was Cheerleading.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Arkus Duntov wrote:
Top of the Morning wrote: "Please discuss Colin Powell's revelation that there was never any discussion in the White House under George W. Bush about whether or not we should go to war with Iraq- the entire matter had been decided before 911 and the Vice President used lies and propaganda to justify an unprovoked attack. Is this treason? A more pressing concern is whether or not it could happen again if Romney wins, this time with Iran"
I thought you were talking about Libya for a second. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a thread of desperation runs through the above liberal commentary.
May 11, 2012 - 9:07 am"
Dear Mr Duntov:
Welcome to the DR Show Blog.
I suppose General and Secretary Powell ought to know what happened during the manufacture of consent to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq of which he was such an important part.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a thread of desperation runs through the above response to Top of the Morning. I find only 3 words not true, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out any other inaccuracies in TotM's statement?
And thank you for bringing up the apparently unrelated matter of Libya.
TotM, while the corruption of the Bush Administration and Iraq might call for firing squads as a bit of solace for the death and misery caused by the little Pervert, it does not qualify as Treason.
However the alleged collaboration of his Grandfather with the Nazis during WWII would.
As would the George HW Bush ordering Edwin Wilson to sell 20 Tons of C-4 to Ghadaffi(and probably used in the bombing of the American Airliner and G_d knows where else).
George W "Twiggy" Bush's year and a half disappearance would not qualify, that's called Desertion.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote: "It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a thread of desperation runs through the above response to Top of the Morning. I find only 3 words not true, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out any other inaccuracies in TotM's statement?"
I suggest you lay off the liquid lunch and then you might be able to understand the obvious and write coherently.
Arkus Duntov on May 11, 2012 @ 1:21 pm wrote: “Your joking RIGHT! hours after the interview on national TV is the same as a memoir. Talk about desperation. Everything else you write is equally off the mark.”
Now that doesn’t even make sense. We both condemn commentators and members of the media who take a “worshipful” view of the President. But while I ridicule such behavior whether from the left or right, you excuse Noonan (the “conservative”). So, which of us is engaged in “desperation”?
As for ‘everything else I wrote’: are you saying members of the media aren’t “full of themselves”?
hainc on May 11, 2012 @ 1:37 pm wrote: “Youthful indiscretion is all it is.”
We agree in part. Appalling as Romney’s behavior in school was (it constituted a criminal assault and battery, by the way, not just a ‘youthful indiscretion’), it is no basis on which to judge him as an adult.
On the other hand, you can judge him by his actions now. His mealy-mouthed "apology" ('I don't remember, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone') doesn't cut it.
Like too many politicians, Romney tries to maintain an illusion of infallibility with his "non-apology, apology". He ends up sounding like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Why couldn't he have simply said: "I'm ashamed of what I did as a thoughtless teenager." That would be the adult and forthright response.
As for “the kid’s family”, I’d be more interested to hear what “the kid” actually thinks. Even then, had Romney committed rape would you argue that because the victim was ashamed and afraid to discuss it, that made it “off limits”? The issue is Romney’s character (something Republi-Cons are normally obsessed with), and his response to this true story speaks volumes about that.
P.S. - Note your own words. Obama voluntarily admitted his embarrassing conduct, and did so without the pressure of having his "youthful indiscretion" exposed by anyone. In contrast, even 'caught with his hand in the cookie jar', Romney really hasn't admitted tormenting and physically assaulting his victim.
"Phil me in," are you analyzing what you write?
"We all have seen the poles about the acceptance of gay marriage, you really got to wonder how much actual support there is for it when it fails in referendums in 32 states including the very liberal California."
You said that and it means something. What you said next means something --
"Personally I'm OK with it, would not go out of my way to vote for it but many will go out of their way to vote against it"
Why do I got to wonder why it fails in 32 states when you provided the answer?
How many millions of voters do you suppose would go out of their way to vote for it, were it not for fear of those workplace, church and other social interactions where someone might say:
"Heck, no, I didn't vote for deviant coupling of people and turtles or Jims and Jims, and only a sick person would. how about you, Phil-me-in my employee? You didn't vote to give them hellbound sodomites no rights, eh?"
Phil-me-in: "Heck, boss, I wouldn't go out of my way to do that!"
Thanks for answering the question you asked.
Bill_R on May 11, 2012 @ 2:18 pm wrote: “this is quite possibly the worst Friday News Roundup panel ever. Not a single conservative to challenge Obama.”
Oh please, not that chestnut: “There aren’t’ enough conservatives” blah, blah, blah.
Check out the May 9th program about the North Carolina vote, the conservative opponents to gay marriage on the panel outnumbered the liberal supporters. (And sure enough, someone posted a Comment complaining about that!)
Sorry, but that’s just a convenient way to avoid the merits of what’s being said.
Meanwhile, at 3 minutes and 9 seconds “into the recording” Steve Roberts (one of those “nasty liberals”) remarked that regarding the President’s announcement on gay marriage: “I think there are some political calculations here. He can raise a lot of money from gay groups, but there also political risks as well.” Hardly sounds like uncritical support to me.
As for “the rest of the country” - guess what? There are plenty of people there too who correctly think far too many Republican-Conservatives are extremists. But of course, a Republi-Con “sheep and lemming” like you can’t see it.
"Arkus Duntov wrote:
mchaun wrote: "It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a thread of desperation runs through the above response to Top of the Morning. I find only 3 words not true, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out any other inaccuracies in TotM's statement?"
I suggest you lay off the liquid lunch and then you might be able to understand the obvious and write coherently.
May 11, 2012 - 8:33 pm"
The three words not true were, "Is that Treason?", which it was not. The rest of his paragraph was accurate and to the point.
And you failed to accept my invitation to, "point out any other inaccuracies in TotM's statement?". Instead you said,"I thought you were talking about Libya for a second. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a thread of desperation runs through the above liberal commentary."
Libya did not have much to do with Powell's description of the Bush treachery and your clumsy attempt to change the subject seemed to arise from a thread of desperation that runs through all of your Comments today.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
E.S. your comparison is just dumb, you said you were a lawyer, you must lose a lot..
Mchaun you missed my point so badly I don't know where to start, too tired to even try. Why don't you just call me a "dumb SOB" and get it over with.
Bill Housden wrote: "Why do I got to wonder why it fails in 32 states when you provided the answer?" One person does not a consensus make. It's very possible there is a silent majority who do appose gay marriage, time will tell.
Agreed.
But "we" elect extremists because of partisan gerrymandering that not only results in extreme demographics in Congressional districts; it also result in protecting the long-term incumbents.
These incumbents end up being creatures of Washington and lose touch with their hoe states.
Witness Lugar - he stopped living in Indiana.
And his pals in the media decry his loss. Go figure!
Diane couldn't find a more left of center group of presstitutes masquerading as mainstream... disgusting! You hear their disgust in their voice for the Tea Party and the America First crowd!
To me Richard Luger like Sen. Hatch, McCain etc... are sellouts, to foreign financial interests and we need more like them to help the Democrats sell the county to other global interests too? You never hear these Democrat Socialist presstitutes advocating for Democrats to cross party lines to advance conservative America first agenda! Why?
Most the public/corporatist media are part of Team Obama and it shows in their propaganda stories! After Obama announced his change on opinion on homosexual marriage he took a hit on his poll numbers. Romney 50% Obama 42% hmmm... not one of these presstitutes mentioned this. Why?
Arkus Duntov on May 12, 2012 @ 1:56 am wrote: “E.S. your comparison is just dumb, you said you were a lawyer, you must lose a lot..”
Actually, I won quite a bit (no one wins all the time), and my specialty was dealing with “smartass” opponents who were sure they were right, until I successfully turned their argument against them.
For example, I demonstrated both why your original comment was “just dumb”, and why my comparison is apt.
You, on the other hand (like most ideologues) simply repeat conclusory utterances as if they were revealed truth, without bothering to provide either facts or reasoning in support. Which is one reason what you write is “just dumb”.
To Arkus Duntov, writing on May 12, 2012 @ 1:56 am:
PART ONE
As for “missing the point”, you clearly missed the point Housden made (assuming I understand it). He was arguing that one reason gay marriage fails in the states where it’s been put to a popular vote (despite the fact that polling shows increased support for gay marriage) is that the opponents are more strongly motivated to get out and vote than the supporters. To the extent he was trying to say polling doesn’t matter, only voting does, I agree.
That’s the point I was making when I mentioned that only 34% of the registered voters in North Carolina even bothered to vote. The majority of those voting (about 62%) voted against gay marriage, but that meant the State Constitution was changed by a mere 21% (34 x 62%) of the registered voters. Again, I’d hardly call that an “overwhelming” expression of opposition to gay marriage. (Of course, it’s not an expression of support either. Mostly it’s an expression of lethargy.)
That’s one of the reasons the Founders favored representative democracy (a republic) over direct democracy. It’s also one of the reasons they made it very difficult to amend the Constitution: requiring super-majorities in both the Congress and among the States to do it. Even if we judge by the standards of normal legislation, which require a quorum for anything to be done (50% + 1 of the legislators must be present before a vote can be taken) the North Carolina amendment would have failed to pass since only a minority of the registered voters bothered to do so. There wasn’t even a quorum voting!
(By the way Housden also implied that intimidation might have played a part. I don’t agree.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
In short, your reply about “consensus” and the supposed “silent majority” was completely irrelevant to what Housden said. But that’s “par for the course” for you!
(One could just as easily argue that the 66% of North Carolinians who didn’t vote were a “silent majority” for gay marriage. The point being: silence doesn’t count, polling doesn’t count, only voting counts!)
However, I do agree that "time will tell", as it does on all political matters. At one time monarchy was the accepted form of government, defended by the conservatives of the day. At another time slavery was acceptable, even declared to be divinely ordained by the conservatives of the day. Segregation, religious persecution and tyranny, censorship, the subjugation of women, were once all accepted practices, hailed by the conservatives of the day.
Guess what else they all have in common? Time does indeed tell.
Michael David on May 12, 2012 @ 2:09 pm wrote: “Diane couldn't find a more left of center group of presstitutes masquerading as mainstream... disgusting! . . . . You never hear these Democrat Socialist presstitutes advocating for Democrats to cross party lines to advance conservative America first agenda!”
Ah, vituperation instead of facts and reason - the hallmark of the ideologue.
A few counterpoints:
Many of the things in “Obamacare” were ideas originated by Republicans: including the “dreaded” individual mandate. Furthermore, instead of proposing a government run, single payer system (such as Medicare), it operates through and keeps intact the current private insurance system. You can hardly be more “conservative” than that.
Even on budget matters it’s worth noting that Democrats are calling for shared sacrifice, and a proposal that includes both increased taxes on those who can best afford it, and cuts in spending. They were even willing to accept a ratio that favored cuts ($3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases). But Republi-Cons rejected it. Indeed, when asked during the debates, the GOP candidates even rejected a 10:1 ratio!
No, like Lugar’s Republi-Con opponent, the conservatives define “compromise” as “capitulation”. Which is why they won’t compromise with liberal Democrats (there are conservative Democrats by the way), and instead insist Democrats capitulate to conservative demands.
When you’re ready to deal with reality, try again.
P.S. - As for those poll numbers you cited (without giving a source), remember two things:
1) Polling doesn't count.
2) It's a long way to Election Day.
Oh, and for those who believe it's Socialism! to have the wealthy (those who can afford it) pay more than the poor (who can't) check out Federalist Paper #36. There you'll find Alexander Hamilton (one of the founders of American conservatism, and a Founding Father of the nation) stating this is how taxes should be imposed.
"Happy is it when . . . a proper distribution of the public burden . . . guards the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"
- The Federalist Papers, (Signet Classic Edition, 2003), page 219 (emphasis added).
Who knew the Founders were a bunch of Commies?!
Ciao.