Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-31/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The Republican National Convention wrapped up in Tampa, Fla., with speeches by GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. A federal court found evidence of discrimination in new Texas voting maps drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature. Consumer spending and personal income both rose in July. And astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, died in Cincinnati, Ohio. James Fallows of The Atlantic, Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal and syndicated journalist Steve Roberts join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
James Fallows
national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Steve Roberts
syndicated columnist and journalism professor at The George Washington University.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel discussed what it meant to have actor and director Clint Eastwood deliver a speech at the Republican National Convention. James Fallows, national correspondent for The Atlantic, called it a "surreal monologue." George Washington University professor Steve Roberts said Eastwood's speech was borderline vulgar and changed the tone of the convention. The Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler said the most remarkable part was that the speech came on during primetime television.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
This may be hard for you to understand, so I'll try to use small words. In Utah, the majority of people are LDS. Thus, if you have a business in Utah, you will likely hire a majority of LDS people. It's called demographics. (Oops, was that word too big for you?) And does the Catholic Church hire non-Catholics? Of course not. I mean, it does for its hospitals and universities, but guess what? So does the LDS church! Keep looking for a good conspiracy theory, though. Area 51 is a good one.
billtmore wrote:
"I grow weary of [Romney] talking about how he is a successful business man . I would like to know how much money he STARTED with. monies from his Father. "
False.
He started with zero. His inheritance was given to charity. You can look it up.
I am certain that your pundit this morning did not intend to display ageism in his commentary on Clint Eastwood's speech last nite, "scattered" and (heaven forbid!) "old"! It is wise, generous and compassionate to remember that all of us, should we live out our normal life span, will one day be old and not have the sharpness of mind we had in our youth...
Mobuy wrote:
Diane Rehm and her guests are such Democratic water carriers. Oh, they pretend to be all fair,
And right before this, they have their "attention drawn" to an article in Rolling Stone (a great journalistic source) about how Bain received a government bailout, and without vetting it or anything, they talk about it! What?
Honestly, NPR is almost as bad as MSNBC - worse in some ways, because at least MSNBC cops to what its agenda is.
-------------------------------------
That pretty much encapsulates the typical DR Show FNR. Diane always points out that government assistance to NPR is only 1%, but she squeals when anyone proposes to put an end to taxpayer funding of NPR. Which is it, Diane, you can live without the funding or you can't?
HonestAbe wrote:
Marcus,
"While I respect and admire Mr. Eastwood's film career, his choice of politics is highly questionable, along with his crude inference that Mr. Obama (whom YOU should respect as President) would ever tell anyone to inflict something onerous on oneself. "
-----------------------------------
You obviously have no clue to Eastwood's politics. But of course you would consider the politics "questionable" of anyone who has ever voted for a conservative. You are channeling too much David Axelrod and the harpy Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
"Clint Eastwood considers himself "too individualistic to be either right-wing or left-wing", describing himself in 1974 as "a political nothing" and "a moderate" and in 1997 as a "libertarian". "I don't see myself as conservative," Eastwood has stated, while noting in the same breath that he isn't "ultra-leftist" either. At times, he has supported Democrats in California, including liberal Representative Sam Farr in 2002 and Governor Gray Davis, whom he voted for in 1998 and hosted pricey fundraisers for in 2002 and 2003. A self-professed "liberal on civil rights", Eastwood has stated that he is pro-choice on abortion. He has endorsed same-sex marriage and contributed to groups supporting the Equal Rights Amendment for women, which failed to receive ratification in 1982. In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky."
geez Marcus did I touch a funny bone?
kathleen wrote:
"geez Marcus did I touch a funny bone?"
-----------------------------
Could you elaborate?
Church State wrote
Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?
I am United Methodist. We had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and the Lay Leader spoke up and said "He was tired of all of the separation of church and state talk. He said what was meant in the Constitution about church and state was not what it come to mean". I would love to see all these people that are for church and state being one to live by the rules of some of the middle eastern countries. Also somewhere I read about the Islam's not being a peace loving people when the Koran speaks of killing others. If they want to go there let's look at the Bible, stoning adulterers, cutting hands off, keeping slaves, etc.. We have a bunch of idiots walking around.
Church State wrote
Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?
I am United Methodist. We had a meeting a couple of weeks ago and the Lay Leader spoke up and said "He was tired of all of the separation of church and state talk. He said what was meant in the Constitution about church and state was not what it come to mean". I would love to see all these people that are for church and state being one to live by the rules of some of the middle eastern countries. Also somewhere I read about the Islam's not being a peace loving people when the Koran speaks of killing others. If they want to go there let's look at the Bible, stoning adulterers, cutting hands off, keeping slaves, etc.. We have a bunch of idiots walking around.
pallas_athena wrote:
"This bears repeating because the facts are quite the opposite of the stereotype in voter's minds.
The majority of welfare recipients are white and hail from red states, not inner city blacks.
To further support Steve Robert's thesis that Republicans are using a subtext that tells the middle class their money is being taken away and used to support "welfare queens" and other undeserving people ... So Latinos in particular should be Republicans because they have a strong work ethic, as opposed to supporters of the Democrats and/or Obama. Who are those supporters who don't have a strong work ethic and are for Obama? The welfare queens, i.e. African Americans.
I'm surprised no one has picked up on it."
No one has picked up on it because it is all in your mind. NO ONE mentioned race except you and Schteve Robertsch. Some people (black OR white) do collect welfare because they have no choice. But many (black AND white AND Latino) do not have the work ethic of those who take "ordinary" jobs to support their families and get by. By the way, I could NEVER think in the terms you do because it simply doesn't play out in real life. In the area where I work I am always impressed (I'm sure you'll find racist overtones in this, becaue it's what you do) at the number of black people working fast food, retail, etc. in jobs that welfare recipients simply won't do because the gub'mint will take care of them. I work in a predominantly white area, so these people are likely coming a distance to work. The Republican party wants EVERYONE with a strong work ethic who wants a job to have one; white, black; Latino; pink, green, or blue. Those like you and IndieLady7 who try to project what is in "voter's minds" (to use your phrase) think you are mind readers?! YOU AND ONLY YOU MAKE THIS ABOUT RACE.
partisan politics wrote: "I'm fed up with people applying their twist on what Christianity means and looking down their nose at people that don't march to their dictatorial view. Who do you think you are, the spokeswoman of Christ? The arrogance! you would better suited as a Nazi not a christian."
So, you're attacking me for my observations? How am I twisting Christianity? You're attacking me because I don't think like you.
Christianity is about love and service--in short, imitating Jesus and how He lived while He was on earth. Jesus didn't live a dictatorial life on earth. Rather, He challenged servanthood and humility--which is something that is sore lacking with both parties...let alone individuals themselves.
If you don't believe me, then I encourage you to read the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
IndieLady7 wrote:
"Here's another interesting fact."
When we get to an actual "fact" and not your "opinion" I'll let you know.
"Now mind you, I'm an Independent ..."
No you aren't. You only like to think you are.
"Many Republicans claim to be Christians. As a follower of Christ myself, I am appalled by their actions. I'm fed up with Republicans using Christianity as a means for why they think they way they think. Christians are called to be loving and good stewards. How are they doing this when they don't seem interested in helping the poor and are constantly advocating oil and gas drilling and coal mining as energy sources--both which are polluting the air and water?"
Christians are called to be loving and good stewards toward their fellow man ... not toward their government. Repubicans are far more generous toward charities than Democrats - that's a statistical fact. Democrats like to be generous - just with opm. That's so they can feel good about themselves without actually dipping into their own pockets.
ecgberht wrote:
"IndieLady7 wrote:
"Here's another interesting fact."
When we get to an actual "fact" and not your "opinion" I'll let you know."
So, what you're not posting is your opinion? You VERY ANGRY opinion?
"Now mind you, I'm an Independent ...
No you aren't. You only like to think you are."
I was once a Democrat, but became disillusioned with the party in terms of morals, and YES continuous spending on projects that don't work (i.e. the current education systerm)...and became an Independent. Please do not patronize me because I don't think full Teabagger.
"Christians are called to be loving and good stewards toward their fellow man ... not toward their government. Repubicans are far more generous toward charities than Democrats - that's a statistical fact. Democrats like to be generous - just with opm. That's so they can feel good about themselves without actually dipping into their own pockets."
When have Republicans in the last 40 years have shown themselves charitable? I'm sorry, but just because you give money--which is fine and good, that's a cop out. It's like they're helping from a distance. How about interacting with the people? To me, money means nothing. Interacting and truly getting to know people who may not have the means that you do means more. Granted Mitt Romney may have helped people, but these people were like him.
The Diane Rreem Show is the most respected of all news shows. Yet a lady called in this morning and said she had been a Democrat but was voting for Romney because Obama was responsible for the economy and job problem. None of the reporters on the show responded with the truth! It took another caller to respond - he said Obama was dealing with a Republican congress that vetoed all of Obama's job bills and declared unequivocally they would not support anything by Obama because they wanted him out. The party of "NO". This is what is wrong with the media. They sit there like a lump and do not correct an incorrect premise. They are part of the lie!
@ecgberht--it's interesting that you criticized part of my post. I had a beef with the Dems as well. It's interesting you didn't say anything about that.
Mishcka wrote:
"The Diane Rreem Show is the most respected of all news shows."
--------------------------
Gotta love your spelling of "Rreem." Respected? Why? Because Diane and her frequent guest hosts can be counted on to promote their liberal ideology? Nobody on the show is a journalist/reporter. They are all pundits.
-------------------------
Mishcka wrote
"The party of "NO". This is what is wrong with the media. They sit there like a lump and do not correct an incorrect premise. They are part of the lie!"
--------------------------------
Are you hallucinating? One truth to power caller managed to get past the liberal screener and you complain that the caller's opinion does not mirror that of Diane, NPR or the lame stream media in general? POTUS Obama has had nearly four years to get it right. He can't. Still blaming Bush 43 for his problems in 2012 is why he will be defeated in November.
IndieLady7 wrote:
"So, what you're not posting is your opinion? "
Correct. I am, for the most part. But I do not characterize my opinions as "facts".
"do not patronize me because I don't think full Teabagger"
I would take you at your word, IndieLady, but your posts don't represent that:
1) In another post, you place all the blame on Republicans and none on President Obama (I'll find it if you want). As the leader of the Executive branch, it is the job of the President to LEAD in bringing both sides together in compromise. He's never done that ... to the extent that parliamentary tricks and bribes had to be used to pass his signature piece of legislation. "We won the election, we write the bills" is not the spirit of compromise. In fact, from 2008 to 2010, with full control, Democrats could have sealed a hold on both houses and the Presidency, and by extension the Judiciary for a generation or more with just a little bit of give - instead we got Republicans locked out of conference rooms and a Health Care law nobody likes. They paid the price in 2010.
2) The use of the term "Teabagger" is a pejorative. If you were truly interested in "spending on projects that don't work" you would support the Tea Party. That's where they're coming from too.
3) When was the last time you voted for someone who wasn't a Democrat?
As for your change of heart with regard to moral questions, I applaud you. I do not want to see us become Rome ... and that is where we are headed I'm afraid.
Part deux
"When have Republicans in the last 40 years have shown themselves charitable? I'm sorry, but just because you give money--which is fine and good, that's a cop out. It's like they're helping from a distance. How about interacting with the people?"
Many Conservative people give of their time and talents through their churches to help those less fortunate. The point is, Jesus did not call us to help through the government. He called us to help ... period. I don't expect to be called to account for the fact that I did not want to shuffle my responsibility to my fellow man off on the government.
Sorry if I was harsh on you IndieLady. It is apparent that you are struggling with where to turn. But, at the same time, you've apparently made up your mind in this election. Based on what you claim, however, I just can't figure out why.
Actually, that Janesville plant was producing cars up until April 2009. President Obama was in office - or on the golf course. You should fact check your fact checker.
"Teece Bowman wrote:
kathleen wrote:
"How does that go "you can have your own opinions but not your own facts" How many of Ryan's alleged facts are being proven to be lies?"
Because someone has discovered a "technicality" that the plant was still open in April. Thus Ryan is vindicated. How absurd.
August 31, 2012 - 10:25 am"
WTHIWWY??? Don't even give the Rats that much credit!!! That claim was a slippery, slithery slimy obfuscation. If GM wants to use space in their CLOSED FACTORY, to assemble starters, so what??
Haven't you noticed, they are being hammered from every direction and do they give a C_ap?? NO!
Also in case you haven't noticed, they are stone walling just like Reagan did and Bush did and Bush did. They just ignore you completely or at best offer some infantile evasion and that's it.
You're crazy to treat them with any respect at all, they will just give you back more BS and laugh at you, for your sincerity, when they get back to their ratty Meetings in their ratty warrens and their ratty Wives and their ratty little Babies.
The only thing that will straighten them up (a little, at least) is the proverbial 2X4 across their thick skulls from the American People.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
pallas_athena wrote:
"I remember feeling in 2008 that our country, like the Roman Empire was about to lose its prominent position among nations. That's what we kept hearing - about the ascendance of China and the decline of the United States. The future looked entirely gloomy. Today we have problems, the economy isn't great, we have a huge debt, but we no longer fear that we're looking at the decline and fall of the United States."
Some of us do, pallas. Some of us see Mr. Obama managing the decline, not striving to put the U.S. on top again. What you do not understand is that your first statement is Mr. Obama's goal, "that our country ... lose its prominent position among nations". His anti-colonialist point of view has driven every move he has made to further that goal. In Mr. Obama's view, the U.S. is TOO big, and TOO powerful. The most recent non-proliferation agreement, for example, would bring the U.S. nuclear arsenal in line with that of Russia (at 1500 warheads instead of our current 5000) and eventually in line with China at 300. Mr. Obama has opposed local development of natural resources and instead has farmed that out to previously colonized countries in South America, so that we can BUY their energy and prosper them, instead of using our own. Finally, economically, he has taken us to the brink of collapse, borrowing like there's no tomorrow to put us in debt to other nations, so that we can be weakened economically and in influence.
That is the record, pallas. I recognize that some on this board will celebrate these "accomplishments". But hopefully, others may think twice before they pull that lever on November 6th.
mchaun,
I came within an eyelash of marking your last post "offensive". Clean it up, will you?
In January of 2008, then candidate Obama said this:
"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you’ve made – how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you’re churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President."
Unfortunately, he did not deliver on his promise.
If he had, that plant would still be open. That was Ryan's point, and he didn't need a technicality to make it.
I sense that something has changed since the close of the Republican Convention. The anger level coming from the left is palpable. Methinks you feel the brass ring you've been tenuously holding onto the last 4 years slipping away.
Normally I am a fan of your show, but you permitted a broad-stroke description today that is an outrage. James Fallows reviewed the incident regarding the expulsion of two RNC convention-goers for harassing a CNN camera operator, who happened to be African American, by throwing peanuts at her and saying something about feeding animals.
That panelist then made the sweeping statement that the two who were expelled for this behavior "exemplified a larger problem this party has." This is an unfair characterization that went unchallenged.
You, Diane, said nothing. No one challenged this at ALL. That is, as a former radio host and journalist, INEXCUSABLE.
You left the listeners with an unexplained, unchallenged remark that completely revealed the bias of the panelist speaking and you must, then, hold that same bias.
Normally, you seem to moderate with moderation, but today you fumbled the ball significantly.
Fallows should be pulled as a panelist and Mrs. Rehm, you need to review the role of a moderator. You are to be the voice of moderation, someone who challenges the unfair sweep of both extremes.
I am an independent with positions to each side of center depending on the issue, but I was aghast at the blatant bias in his statement and the unwillingness of anyone to say, "What???"
ecgberht wrote: ") In another post, you place all the blame on Republicans and none on President Obama (I'll find it if you want). As the leader of the Executive branch, it is the job of the President to LEAD in bringing both sides together in compromise. He's never done that ... to the extent that parliamentary tricks and bribes had to be used to pass his signature piece of legislation. "We won the election, we write the bills" is not the spirit of compromise. In fact, from 2008 to 2010, with full control, Democrats could have sealed a hold on both houses and the Presidency, and by extension the Judiciary for a generation or more with just a little bit of give - instead we got Republicans locked out of conference rooms and a Health Care law nobody likes. They paid the price in 2010."
What's the difference? Based on your posts, you put all of the blame on President Obama. While he is guilty for concentrating mainly on the healthcare law for the first two years of his presidency when people are losing their jobs, but to ENTIRELY blame him isn't right either. You must remember the times when the President and the Republicans did meet, but the Republicans didn't want to play fair because he didn't go their way entirely. While I think that some government spending may be beneficial in terms of investing in businesses (hence the jobs and infrastructure bills--which, would have otherwise passed, but ALL of the Republicans said "no". That's why I blame the Republicans. In the past, this would have passed with bipartisan support). And yes, I do agree that the government can't and shouldn't go out to save everyone and every organization, but a little boost doesn't hurt. I don't think AIG should have been bailed out, because, unlike the auto companies, AIG did not pay the taxpayers back and are still living as if they were never bailed out.
Re David Chalian and his Media friends.
When the topic came about media and the convention the panelist immediately went to the alleged incident of the problem suffered by a CNN cameramen at the hand of two attendees, with assertion that this is a systemic problem for the Republican party. He did not offer any supporting evidence.Listening to it again it felt like he was waiting to divert the discussion away from Mr. Chalian. I could not make out if it was Fallows or Roberts.
When Diane borught up Mr Chalian again he blamed Chalian’s predicament to the open mike . The open mike only let us know how Mr .Chalian really feels.
Mr Chalian has been able to pass himself as an unbiased reporter so far , working at may prestigious news outlets. He was even on this show recently. It is hard to believe that his reporting , and the reporting at the media outlets he has worked at, has not been shaded heavily by his inner feelings.
I find it very disturbing that the panelist can label the Republican party racist based on the behavior of two convention goers but has no problem with Mr, Chalian masquerading as a unbiased reporter.
There is no doubt that reporters at major media organization have the ability to influence the public opinion much more than adds by any number of Super Packs. I agree that all the political donors should be identified immediately to see who is trying to influence the opinion. Similarly I think that the time has come for all reporters at major news outlets to declare their affiliations, like party registrations and voting records , so the public will know about the underlining bias and don’t have to t wait for an open mike!
May be the Diane Rehm show can be the first to start this necessary practice
ecgberht wrote: "2) The use of the term "Teabagger" is a pejorative."
I'm sorry that this term offended you. I find it offputting that the Tea Party comes out NOW and talk about the massive amounts of government spending while Obama was in office when such spending has been going on for decades. They don't appear to like taxes, then where were they when Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich by 39%? If they were concerned about spending, then where were they when Bush was borrowing billions of dollars from China to pay for two wars, two tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and the massive TARP bailout for Wall Street?
"3) When was the last time you voted for someone who wasn't a Democrat?"
This is the honest truth, the first time was in 2002 for the State Auditor General. The last time I voted for a Republican was in 2006. I live in PA, and Tom Corbett (who is now our governor) was running for re-election for Attorney General. He was a wonderful attorney general who has done massive stings on prostitution, child pornography, and developed a registration system for contractors. This system was develop to track down contractors who do shotty work. If they need to be reported, all that's needed is their registration number.
See, I can vote both parties. I vote who is best for the job. Unfortunately, I don't think it's Romney, and I still am truly undecided about Obama. I hope that there is a third party candidate on the ballot.
IndieLady7 wrote:
" I can vote both parties. I vote who is best for the job. Unfortunately, I don't think it's Romney, and I still am truly undecided about Obama. I hope that there is a third party candidate on the ballot."
------------------------
How is it possible after nearly four years you are still on the fence about voting again for Obama? But you are positive you do not believe Romney, the businessman, isn't "best" for the job. And you are a definite maybe that you would squander your vote for a third party candidate. The mind boggles.
James E wrote:
"Normally I am a fan of your show, but you permitted a broad-stroke description today that is an outrage. .
You left the listeners with an unexplained, unchallenged remark that completely revealed the bias of the panelist speaking and you must, then, hold that same bias."
------------------
That's been the way the DR Show has rolled since it debuted. It is amusing that liberals have no compunction about making fun of the 82 year-old Eastwood, yet give Diane Rehm, 80, a pass, when she regularly has senior moments on the air.
"MarcusTullius wrote:
" Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic party."
Clint Easttwood at the RNC
How will th DNC top that?
August 31, 2012 - 10:40 am"
I'll see your Clint Eastwood and raise you one Vagina Monologues.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
IndieLady7 wrote:
"Based on your posts, you put all of the blame on President Obama."
No, I put the blame for a dearth of leadership on President Obama. And that's where it belongs. There was bi-partisan support for the stimulus. It failed. Why would you expect there to be bi-partisan support for another one?
The whole issue of what the FG should spend money on is too much to get into here, but most of what it spends on is, in my mind, a waste. Here's a website that will show you where your money goes. Browse through the list. You'll be astounded.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml
I was in favor of the bank bailouts back in 2008. I bought the Paulsen line that without them we would collapse financially. I was wrong. FDIC and orderly bankruptcies should have been allowed to happen. I no longer accept the notion of too big to fail. And that includes the auto companies.
"unlike the auto companies, AIG did not pay the taxpayers back "
That is a common misconception. The auto companies have not "paid the taxpayers back".
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300075/obama-and-gm-cook-books-jo...
If you loaned your brother-in-law $100 and he paid you back a fraction ... and then you essentially forgave the rest, would you say he had "paid you back"?