Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-29/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal members of the Supreme Court to uphold President Obama’s health care overhaul. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and other Republican leaders pledged to fight for repeal of the law. The House voted to make Eric Holder the first sitting U.S.Attorney General to be held in contempt of congress. New York Congressman Charlie Rangel and Utah Senator Orin Hatch survive hard-fought primary battles. Earlier in the week, the Supreme Court struck down several parts of Arizona’s immigration law, but upheld the controversial “show me your papers” provision. Ron Elving of NPR, Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post and John Harwood of CNBC join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
John Harwood
chief Washington correspondent for CNBC; reporter, The New York Times.
Related Video
John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC, responded to a listener's question about the power of the National Rifle Association to determine who runs for office. Harwood said the bipartisan vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress was a result of the NRA's political influence. Ron Elving, Washington editor for NPR, explained the purpose of the Fast and Furious policy and discussed its implications for U.S lawmaking. Karen Tumulty, national political reporter for The Washington Post, said this was the first time that a sitting attorney general had been cited for contempt of Congress.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
May I suggest that the Supreme Court ruling on Obama-care yesterday greatly strengthens the hand of all republicans in all elections this coming November. With the back drop of a flailing economy, massive debt and deficits and now the impending overreach of the federal government and massively increased taxes to pay for it. The contest for elected office has now been simplified to almost one question, do you or do you not support "the affordable care act". This bodes very well for the repeal of the law and the repudiation of progressive liberalism. No longer can the Obama campaign lie to the American people that the mandate was not a tax, it is a tax and a big one. By the fall no one will be fooled into thinking anything in the ACA is for "free", to the contrary many more will become aware that if left in place the ACA will be a threat to everything they like about the current system and that they will end up paying even more for less a lot less.
There were and are many better avenues to improve health insurance and coverage, just maybe if we can get past the constant drum beat of total government take over of everything from the left we can get something positive accomplished Post Obama.
May I suggest that the Republicans, for the most part have sold their souls to the Oligarchs. The Oligarchs will decide what the Republicans will say and what the Republicans will do. As Grover Norquist has said, the only skill that a Republican politician needs is the ability to hold a pen in their hand and support what ever bills the Oligarchs tell them to support. The Oligarchs have turned the Republican party into a bunch of political automatons. The Republicans are so well controlled that they have done everything in their power to deliberately suppress the economy in order to keep the jobless numbers up, even if it hurt their own constituents. The Romney camp even had the audacity to tell the Republican governors of Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Virginia to play down their respective states' economic gains in order to make the President look bad. In other words the Republicans want the American people to be as miserable as possible because that is the only way they feel that they have any chance of winning.
Unfortunately for Republicans, I don't think that the American people are that gullible. When they see that a casino owner like Sheldon Adelson gives 100 million dollars to a political campaign, they are smart enough to understand that he is expecting a return on his investment. As Robert De Niro said in the movie Casino "The House always wins".
Mitt Romney keeps bashing the Affordable Care Act and saying yesterday that the first day in office he will repeal it. Wasn't the ACA loosely based on his healthcare reform when he was governor of Mass.? Will the real Mitt stand up, please!
Mitt Romney keeps bashing the Affordable Care Act and saying yesterday that the first day in office he will repeal it. Wasn't the ACA loosely based on his healthcare reform when he was governor of Mass.? Will the real Mitt stand up, please!
susanbogard wrote: "Mitt Romney keeps bashing the Affordable Care Act and saying yesterday that the first day in office he will repeal it. Wasn't the ACA loosely based on his healthcare reform when he was governor of Mass.? Will the real Mitt stand up, please!"
It doesn't matter at this point, he is the only one that can repeal it and that is enough to motivate the millions that want it killed to vote for him.
I find it interesting that considering his actions as governor of Massachusetts
and his statements as the Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney is the text book definition of a two faced liar.
Republicans should think about the fact that Romney will say whatever he thinks he needs to say depending on who he is talking to. It makes me wonder if even his staunchest supporters know what he stands for.
Maybe the office of the President is just Romney's version of a trophy wife.
As a means of listening to what the enemy is saying I subscribe to a lot of rightwing newsletters. Here is what one has to say regarding Romney....
http://personalliberty.com/2012/06/27/dumb-and-dumber/?eiid=
Maybe the reason that Romney sees us little peons the way he does whether we be democrat, republican or independent might be, to paraphrase that great philosopher George Carlin, Mitt is a member of the Oligarch club and you and I a'int in it.
nohoplophobe wrote:
There were and are many better avenues to improve health insurance and coverage, just maybe if we can get past the constant drum beat of total government take over of everything from the left we can get something positive accomplished Post Obama.
Uh-huh, there certainly are, it's just that Repuglicans only offering is "don't get sick" and "if you get sick die quickly". Simply saying "NO" is not offering an option.
Arkus Duntov wrote:
It doesn't matter at this point, he is the only one that can repeal it and that is enough to motivate the millions that want it killed to vote for him.
No, president can change or repeal a law without a majority of the House of Representatives and sixty Senators. Remember, there are also millions that will vote FOR Obama. Most of those voting the Repuglican ticket will not be voting for Romney, they will only be voting their hatred of Obama. When you're motivated by hatred, it only weakens you.
I think healthcare should be both affordable and accessible, but I am very concerned with such a large, federal approach. When we were in school we had our 2 year old on Medicaid. He needed an MRI, but the Doctor put it off telling me, "I'm not sure how to code this so medicaid will pay." The test was put off for weeks, and only came about when I cried to a sympathetic secretary to process paperwork and get him scheduled. We went in for the test, and he did not leave the hospital until after a serious brain tumor was removed and weeks of therapy. Additionally, our bill was significant after the Medicaid program, and I will always be thankful for the Charity branch of the Arkansas Children's Hospital that gave us additional financial assistance during this difficult time. I hope to be generous in the future and give when I can, so that all can have healthcare, I don't think this law will work-it will still take the goodwill of others to really give each of us quality care.
The Contempt charge by T-Party Republicans yesterday is consistent with their racist and bigoted history during the Obama administration. President Obama,Van Jones,Shirley Sherrod,and now Eric Holder....BLACK PEOPLE....BOOOO!
This T-Party Congress has an 11% approval rating,who isn`t in contempt of these goofs? Where is the Contempt Charges against those traitors who disavowed their oath of office,in favor or the Grover Norquist pledge to drown our government in the bathtub?
SteMar wrote: "When you're motivated by hatred, it only weakens you."
That is exactly why Obama won, and your right it has weakened you.
I suspect the republicans will have both houses of Congress, and they are equally capable of the tricks that brought the ACA into existence out of existence.
The entire healthcare debate boils down to the implications of mass un-insurance.... not as emotional manipulation, but to force you to decide what forms of material deprivation ought to be morally acceptable. This question has become, at least at the moment, the primary philosophical divide between the parties.
Democrats will confine the unfortunate to many forms of deprivation, but not deprivation of basic medical care.
Republicans will. The GOP is the only mainstream political party in the advanced world cruel enough to hold this stance.
It would be amusing if it weren't so sad. There at the top we see an Obama official who is probably complicit in the murder of hundreds of people, now found in contempt of Congress and doing everything possible to hide his crimes. The president also involved and probably complicit as well, halts the investigation with "executive privilege" and you people think with your made up stories about Romney that you are some how morally superior! It does not take a genius to figure out that this and all the other scandals and divisiveness that surrounds the Obama administration that something is terribly wrong.
Teece Bowman wrote: "deprivation, cruel"
If the entire defense budget was eliminated, it would still not be enough to pay for the social welfare programs and the projected growth we have now let alone the ACA, which I guess we do have for the time being. Explain to me why it's not "cruel " to allow the never ending expansion of unsustainable programs into the future. These democrat party jewels that you love so much are doomed to fail miserably and in the end far more will be taken away than would have been if we have some limits now.
A side note, every major war of the twentieth century had democrats at the helm. It could easily be argued the democrat party is responsible for the "military industrial complex" the democrat party talks about military downsizing but when push comes to shove they are right there with the check book.
Who mentioned anything about defense spending? I think you are attempting to bring more things into the argument.
But while we are on the subject....the entire defense budget should be eliminated. Why on earth should we purport to be the worlds cop? As if our way of life is sooooooo eminently desirable? That's rich....
What is interesting to me, and maybe I'm just imagining it, is that with the Supreme Court ruling, the usage has already changed: no one on the right is using the term "Obamacare" as of 10:30 a.m. yesterday. Everybody is now calling it by its proper name, to avoid associating Obama with this critical win. Even though the Obama administration was willing to own the name Obamacare.
Fascinating.
The venom on the board following the decision yesterday tells me clearly that liberals are scared. And well they should be.
Study the Roberts ruling. It may have two consequences; it may propel Republicans to sweeping victory in November (Romney took in 800K in a few hours yesterday and by last night 2M), and, longer term, it may break the back of the FG with regard to its stranglehold on the states - starting with Medicaid, but then extending to Education, Agriculture and many other areas.
When I first heard the ruling I was disappointed in the reasoning of Roberts (still am), but I am not ready to throw him under the bus. He is a smart dude and I believe at heart a Conservative. That's the most important quality in my book.
jimc wrote:
"What is interesting to me, and maybe I'm just imagining it, is that with the Supreme Court ruling, the usage has already changed: no one on the right is using the term "Obamacare" as of 10:30 a.m. yesterday. Everybody is now calling it by its proper name, to avoid associating Obama with this critical win. Even though the Obama administration was willing to own the name Obamacare."
Some of us who oppose the law still called it by its proper name all along and some of us, even though we oppose the President's policies, still show him the respect due the office by using his proper title.
TB, that's were the argument always ends up, a false dichotomy.
I don't know what your listening to jimic, I am hearing "obama-care" as much as ever, right now as I write actually.
You aren't even communicating in complete sentences....or complete thoughts.
I use both Obama-care and affordable care act, I gotta tell ya it's sickening to me to use the word "affordable" discussing this issue. My stomach turns equally saying the "patriot act"
This is some kind of psychological arm twisting that I do find offensive.
From the Constitution:
"Article. I.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
The Mandate was declared Unconstitutional as a Commerce instrument but declared OK as a tax. But the Mandate originated in the Senate. It is, therefore, Unconstitutional as well.
There WILL be lawsuits.
totally a theory?
....and it's fiction that Holder has been quoted as saying the U.S. government needs to continually brainwash citizens until we get it through our heads that guns are BAD......right!
About states rejecting 'non-free' Federal dollars for health care.
I believe good reporters should note that a majority of those [probably a very large majority?] who don't want their state to receive Federal dollars for health care for the poor already have their own health care & feel threatened at both the real and imaginary up front costs of such health care for others than themselves.
Under the watchful eye of Fox News, class warfare has been nationalized and the mainstream media, for whatever reason, usually looks elsewhere to the 'interesting' "political story." As NPR does not get [most] of its $'s from political parties or corporations, I would like to see your reporters get at the underling equalities which feed many received 'notions'
Lon Clay Hill ("Deep Autumn Flowers")
Well, like it or hate it, ACA is not going anywhere:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/why-romney-wont-r...
As the article contends, conservatives figured that their best hope of getting rid of the affordable care act lay with the court.....and they were correct.
That's done now.
"total fiction" Isn't it something these "journalists" can draw conclusions on operation "fast and furious" while the majority of evidence is being hidden from the American people and Congresses oversight responsibilities have been unjustly thwarted. I have drawn conclusions as a private citizen based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. They have drawn conclusions as so called objective journalists based on incomplete and biased facts. Is there any doubt that the entire panel hates gun rights and supports Obama.
If the Chief Justice could uphold the health care law based on it being a tax, why couldn't the justices who dissented do the same? It seems pretty straight forward. I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to be "apolitical".
Please note that Federal firearms statutes require, as part of a successful criminal prosecution, an ability to PROVE the intent of the purchaser to re-sell illegally the weapon(s). Therein lies the difficulty in proving whether a purchaser is, in fact, a straw-purchaser or not.
The inability of the ATF agent, the US Attorney, or anyone else for that matter, to prove the mental INTENT of the individual is what allows the transfer of these weapons.
Solution? Congress can tighten the elements within the statute to ensure that transfers such as occurred in Fast and Furious do not occur again.
To have the NRA and the GOP accuse AG Holder of not enforcing gun-trafficking federal laws proves the point of politics making strange-bedfellows...