Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-07/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Democrats wrapped up their national convention this week with key speeches by Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren and former President Bill Clinton. Manufacturing and construction spending reports showed continued sluggish growth ahead of the August jobs report. And the Department of Justice approved a New Hampshire voter ID law. Greg Ip of The Economist, Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor for The Economist and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
Ruth Marcus
columnist and editorial writer for The Washington Post.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel discussed why Democrats made two last-minute changes to the party's national platform. The revised document mentioned the word "God" and declared Jerusalem the Israeli capital. Ruth Marcus, columnist and editorial writer for The Washington Post, said Democratic strategists didn't read the platform's language on the Middle East well enough before the convention in Charlotte, N.C. New York Times correspondent Sheryl Gay Stolberg said the Jerusalem gaffe was problematic because it's contrary to the Obama administration's foreign policy. Economist editor Greg Ip said the changes were more symbolic than practical.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Obama wore shoes a half size too small, "it's true". PROVE IT ! these journalists?
The guests today are seeing the jobs picture in very traditional terms. Seeing it from the other side, from the hiring companies side, one has to ask why would we hire more employees when we are having the most profitable quarters ever, with the fewest and most productive employees available? Apple is sitting on 76 billion in cash, Exxon just reported almost 16 billion in profits for the 2nd quarter. It's not the businesses that are doing poorly, it's the jobless, the underwater, the
aged, the underemployed, the people that won't be helped with a Republican administration.
Normally your show, Diane, has credible analysts. I am disappointed in the choice of guests this morning...Ruth M. and Sheryl S. are saying very little but using a lot of words. I am hearing too much of their opinions and not enough substance. Just tell me what happened and what reaction
may have occurred but keep your opinions to yourself. Sorry...I am turning off the show and going to the gym.
Truth. That's a mighty big word these days. I think most people would believe that truth is important. And it is still considered (at least I hope so) an admirable trait in any individual.
But what is truth? I decided I would get out my old dog-eared dictionary and get the "official" definition. It gave five different definitions.
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. Fidelity to an original or standard.
3. Reality; actuality.
4. A statement proven to be or accepted to be as truth.
5. Sincerity; integrity.
Now it did have one other definition, and that one was "God". A lot of people don't accept that; usually because they are atheists, or perhaps even agnostics. Naturally those who believe in God would accept it.
I think that many people on this board actually prefer Number 4: A statement proven to be or accepted to be as truth. Or at least the second half of it: accepted to be as truth.
The second half of that statement implies (at least to me) that truth is something that an individual has accepted as truth, but that particular truth may not in reality be true.
I couldn't help but go down this road, because I regularly read some accepted truths that are very, very difficult to believe.
Which means that truth for many is just whatever you want to believe. It doesn't have to be remotely true.
And politicians, regardless of party, are masters at telling you exactly what you want to believe.
@ partisan politics...
I asked you a question... You did not reply... I would appreciate it greatly, however, if you could enlighten me... Thank you...
First off, I admit I'm an Independent and I voted for Bush Sr (1st term). But my question is this, as a Professional African American why should I vote for Mitt Romney? I look at the Republican party and see no diversity or inclusion. Not only this but the simple concept of "Working Together" for all of us to succeed seems to be absent. In addition to this no one "small" segment of a party should dictate the total direction of ALL! On my management team if I try to rally mid-managers to stage a coupe against the company's CEO at the cost of damaging the company's value(stock) I'll be out on my butt before the ringing of opening Stock bell! As a NC Charlottean for years I, couldn't stand Jessie Helms. But dammit I would trade Jesse for the whole lot of these Tea Party, "NO" to compromise politicians! At least he knew behind close doors you had to work together to get things done in America!
I don't know if your commentators were in Charlotte or not ,but I spent two days down by the hub of activity here and the mood and the reactions to the speeches have been wildly enthusiastic, except by one our right wing county commissioners.
Did I miss something? I don't think the caller's comment about voting in lockstep is an accusation about Nazis. That would be goosestep, nicht wahr?
Last night, President Obama spoke as though he was running for his first term, rather than second. And many of us were, like, "What the heck were you doing for the last four years, Mr. President?!" Oh, right, he was too busy bickering with Congress, campaigning, and playing golf or shooting hoops. FAIL.
"Many of the jobs were in lower-paying industries such as retail, which added 6,100 jobs, and hotels, restaurants and other leisure industries, which gained 34,000."
So, these must be the "good jobs" that Michelle Obama referred as those that her wonderful hubby created for Americans, on Tuesday night, in her "inspiring" and "heart-felt" speech.
"Higher-paying manufacturing jobs fell by 15,000, the most in two years."
So much for Obama's "Made in America" rhetorics, eh?
(The quotes are from today's Washington Post)
The Nazi analysis is not that far off. The Nazis were also popularly elected in the 1933 elections in Germany. After Hitler became Chancellor he then got the "Enabling Act" passed which essentially gave him dictatorial powers. The Rethuglicans through their state legislatures are doing everything possible to suppress voting rights through legislation accompanied by corporate purchase of candidates and elections. So the analogy is not far off.
Ferdnam wrote: "@ partisan politics..."I asked you a question... You did not reply"
I do not see why a reply is warranted, if you have something to say, say it.
Did someone say pragmatic progressive? Yes, that is what I think of Obama. He is very pragamatic but his orientation is toward progress or taking us forward. Yes, we need this guy and many, many more like him. Bill Clinton is not that much different than Obama. He is a little more willing to compromise and he talk the Republican's language better. Hey, did anyone notice Clinton's shaking right hand? Could that be early signs of Parkinson's Disease? That would be a shame. I like Bill!!
partisan politics wrote:
"I watched Obama's speech and yeah I am angry as hell, I don't like him personally because personally he is a weak parasite of a man. He stands as the symbol of the permanent victim, a loser, lost in such deep pessimism that he drags down anything that he touches."
Wasn't it Romney that was asking for the apology?
You trust Lyin' Ryan more?
From Ruth Marcus's column, "The 44th president is, as yet, a rough sketch whose distinctive features might require a second term to fully emerge."
As a Democrat, I think she's captured it. I was - in June 2008 - an early enthusiastic supporter of Obama. Voted for him in the primary. But the longer I got to know him, the less he stood out to me. But I know for others, the enthusiasm was still there, and was building. In this way, then, the latter stages of the campaign were like a thrilling downhill ride. There was not much in the way of setbacks and challenges (in the grand scheme of things). They had the momentum. They were not tested.
The man is now tested.
For those who questioned if race is an issue, being a lifelong resident of south Georgia, I have been astonished at the racist comments and hatred aimed at President Obama, including the "N" word, and, not by 'rednecks' waving Confederate flags, but, also, by supposedly well-educated persons that I have known all my life.
Bill was great! I noticed some speech oddularities, for sure. But given the stress that any president (two-termer especially) is put under, and him in particular dealing with the wrath of the Republicans, I would not be surprised if it's some neurological thing that's failing perhaps prematurely. But let's hope not. The man can speak.
As a Southerner living in Alabama, I can assure you that race is only a tiny part of the resentment held for Obama. His stances against Christianity and his poor record on job creation are in the forefront of criticism of him. We were unimpressed by his response to the BP oil spill and we oppose his stances on gay marriage. Broken promises about troop reduction and a dictitorial attitude about Obamacare, his lack of support for Israel and his lack of success in economic matters will be deciding factors in an overwhelming vote for Romney. Don't assume that all Southerners are racists. Visit the new South to see for yourself.
I think there might be one thing we can agree on, and that is, no matter who wins, the reason will be that the other candidate was just not strong or good enough. If O wins, it'll be because people just didn't trust Romney and thought he was too out of touch. If Romney wins, it'll be because Obama was perceived as not having done enough and the effort of being president was unfortunately beyond him.
This is not the first time that a commentator on the Diane Rhem show has used the explanation for McConnell's statement that his "number 1 priority was making Barak Obama a one term president is just what politician's do".
What other elected official has made this a priority and admitted it rather than making governing his top priority?
Ms. Stolberg's comments were lacking in analytical depth and insight. They were at times offensive.
I resented her use of the term "sly" in reference to Michele Obama's speech. This a prejorative term.
I resented her use of the term "alleged" voter fraud in her description of GOP voting rights suppression without mentioning that the Texas legislation was found by the court to lack evidence of fraud sufficient to merit the suppression of voting rights.
Please Ms. Stolberg present empirical fact. Don't regurgitate unsubstantiated allegation. Thank you, Ruth Marcus, for however briefly, referencing that fact.
Everytime an analyst appears on the program whose analysis is this superficial and inadequate she or he undermines the credibility of the program.
I think calling it Obamacare instead of what it really is called (the Affordable Healthcare Act) is a dead giveaway and you are really showing your hand, but ok. As someone who has lived in Alabama a very long time, I would dare say that you probably would never support him, no matter what he did. I agree, it's not all about race - it's possible though that some will vote against him because of his race, just as some voted for him in 2008 because of his race. That's not a stretch of the imagination by any means. And of course, that will be nationwide.
"I resented her use of the term "sly" in reference to Michele Obama's speech. This a prejorative term."
I don't agree with this assessment. The First Lady can't be sly? Why on earth not? She was complimenting the speech so much so that now I wish I'd seen in because it sounded good!
Definitely agree with you here, though:
"What other elected official has made this a priority and admitted it rather than making governing his top priority?"
A ton of other elected officials - in other words, the whole of the Republican Party. They run on less government, and the irony is then how do they govern (if they hate government)? They got themselves elected to a contradiction. Unworkable.
Discussion re: impact of policies on Catholics needs historical perspective (e.g. 98% have used contraception). Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) promoted heliocentric theory and was tried by the Inquisition - found "vehemently suspect of heresy". He was not excommunicated but required to "abjure, curse and detest" his opinions and remain under lifetime house arrest; in 1965 the Church revoked its condemnation.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) was a loyal son of the Church and very sensible. Knowing that opposing Church doctrine meant branding as heretical - not only excommunicated but executed. He avoided censure by delaying publishing his major work On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres until after death - the book was placed on the Church's list of Prohibited Books.
Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) presented findings regarding the process of evolution and emphasized he never intended to assault theism/Christianity; yet On The Origin Of Species continues to be strongly opposed by religious and political leaders; teachers are often chastised for even discussing the topic; districts have passed regulations demanding teaching creationist principles.
Though traditional/current teaching decries abortion and contraception, it is reported Pope John XXIII considered revisions in approach re: contraception but passed away before official publication. There are similar teachings and prohibitions re: homosexual "marriage" and females priests.
Note: non-Catholics do not share a concept of papal infallability; knowledgeable Catholics understand that infallability is proclaimed only under very limited, strict tenets; but believers are admonished to follow papal/Church teachings at all times.
Bottom Line: individuals must follow their consciences and learn "the mind of God" as best they can when making voting decisions.
I watched both the Republican and Democratic conventions. It reminded me of something I read recently in one of the Jonathan Kellerman's books (wish I could remember which one), "some people see the doughnut, others the hole". In my opinion The Republican convention saw the hole; the Democratic convention's speakers saw the doughnut.
I'd rather have the doughnut!
Media types and voters always "want it both ways". They demand specificity in speeches but groan when the speakers drone on giving any details. Media folks pick apart speeches especially when they come back to back at conventions, indicating how some speaker adds or omits some item - asking for both complete congruance and covering new material at the same time. It seems reasonable that each speech should be evaluated on its own and in light of what the speaker wants to present - NOT some list of expectations.
If highly detailed specifics on plans are needed, it is unreasonable that a speech or even a collection of speeches can hit every note; an evaluator needs to go to some written tome to get the minutiae instead.
Maybe the campaigns could resort to an annotated set of detailed diagrams about their plans. Hopefully the diagrams/notes would not be like those one gets when assembling a cheap item imported from China......missing some instructions and crucial components.
No, his speech last night was much different than the one he gave running for his first term. It was not like the inspirational speech of four years ago. This speech was about the hard work this administration has done and will continue in the next term. It was workman like as opposed to soaring rhetoric.
That is a very good point. We have lower than accustomed employment rate but companies and corporations are doing quite well. Hey, the employment rate would be a full point lower if not for all the public sector layoffs.
I would argue with the grades that were given the 2 conventions. I believe the Republicans scored a B+ and the Democrats a C-. Changing your platform in the middle of the convention.... really???? I thought 1st Lady Obama's speech was eloquent and well thought out and presented. President Obama's speech was more a mea culpa and pretty weak on substance. I hear lots of rhetoric instead of plans and I hear excuses instead of reasons. Self inflicted pain is still pain...
Well spoken Gary. I watched both conventions and each speaker, when hitting their talking points varied quite a bit between 1. thru 4. as you have listed in your comments. There is the absolute truth and there is each individual's paradigm, and then there is the politician's expressed view, taylor made to suit his political intentions in speaking. Fact check the job creation numbers and unemployment numbers that speakers in both conventions used and you will see a large and varied swing in the numbers. Mr Clinton tried to be definitive with numbers and stats and while amusing, most of his accounting did not pass the smell test. Same goes for various speakers in the Republican convention and likewise for pollsters, news media and anyone associated with politics in general. Sorry to have such a jaded view but I have decided that my paradigm is just as important and accurate as anyone elses!!!!!
Wow. How incredibly unprofessional and yet perfectly drshow to keep hammering the race issue at the end there, Ms Rehm. With dismal jobs numbers coming out, let's distract everyone by suggesting those who oppose Obama are racists (why certainly that's the only logical explanation for why Republicans want Obama to only serve one term). Even when your guests are scoffing at the notion, you just won't let up. Gotta stir the pot somehow even if it means fabricating a situation that just doesn't exist. So divisive in nature. Just what the Obama camp hopes from you. Even if it means throwing your ever dwinding professional integrity aside. This jewel definitely gets added to recordings I'll be playing to my local npr station when they ask for me to reconsider ceasing all financial support (business and personal) to them two years ago.