Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-28/friday-news-roundup-domestic
New polls showed President Barack Obama ahead in several key swing states with just six weeks to go until the election. Mixed economic news this week with reports showing higher consumer confidence but weaker GDP growth. And the NFL reached a tentative agreement with its referee union. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, Lisa Lerer of Bloomberg News and Michael Hirsh of National Journal join guest host Susan Page for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of a new book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Lisa Lerer
politics reporter for Bloomberg News.
Michael Hirsh
chief correspondent at National Journal magazine and author of "At War with Ourselves: Why America Is Squandering its Chance to Build a Better World."
Friday News Roundup Video
With the first presidential debate scheduled for Oct. 3, 2012, our panel discussed how significant the event could be in shaping the election outcome. "It's very important because you've got so many eyeballs on it," The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza said. Lisa Lerer of Bloomberg News said the debates could move the opinions of Mitt Romney's donors and fellow Republican politicians. Michael Hirsh, chief correspondent of National Journal, added that Romney "really needs a knockout punch" to emerge from the debates.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Jim Gamble wrote:
"fillybuster and climawhiz:
If that's all ya got, why even post? Irresistable urge to obey your brainwashing? I thought so. You really should get that treated or it could get infected."
---------------------------------
If you are this angry when reporting favorable poll numbers for your hero President Obama, imagine how angry you will be when Romney is the winner in the actual election.
Part-insane poitics:
Why didn't you check with the folks that have actually worked in the health care/insurance industry before launching UNfounded claims? You used links showing losses brought on by state Medicaid from 4 to 6 years ago from 2 state programs. That's about as much a bait and switch as one can get......and certainly not part of ACA at all. In fact the link to Maryland shows competetive hospitals respond by doing cost CUTTING, not shifting.......which is a major effort involved in ACA itself.
Makes us wonder if you actually read the stuff you paste.
Maybe you should actually talk to people on Medicare instead of rummaging around in the internet. Most Medicare recipients are very satisfied with their plans.
We can only hope you and yours never suffer the ignominy and financial woes Ryan's voucher shaft would bring. A 6k voucher would pay about 7 months premiums for a young healthy male on the so called free market. An elderly female with lots of preexisting conditions (ban to be rolled back on day one of a Romney presidency) would never be able to afford a policy. Maybe you have never shopped for a health policy.....or been turned down.
Jim Gamble wrote:
... and wrote, and wrote.
Hey Jimbo, I had the distinct pleasure of saving off your comments so that they may be recalled to you on November 7th.
@Jim Gamble I would ask the same question of you, Jimbo, If all you are going to do is spout off a bloviated compilation of the same rhetoric that the brainiac talking heads on CNN, MSNBC and the "YOUNG TURDS" (oops I meant Turks) are spewing, then "why even post"???
climawhiz:
Because its fun!
johnandear:
Will you also admit you were wrong if it goes the other way?
fillybuster:
I can actually sympathize with the whole "the polls must be wrong!" thing. I thought so in 2010. But when the election results more or less matched them, I had to accept that they were right all along. Will you be able to do the same?
HonestAbe wrote: "Sorry to let you in on the deep dark secret......there IS NO "Medicare trust fund".....never has been. In fact the bipartisan congressional commission that routinely scores these programs indicated that Obama's method ADDs four years to the longevity if Medicare while Ryan's shrinks it."
Wrong again! Yes there is a medicare trust fund. Ryan does not take money away from medicare like Obama he reorganizes it. Obama's increase in the longevity is because of the cuts to medicare providers in other words cuts in services, politically these proposed cuts are unworkable, the CBO also calls these cuts into question. You are operating in fairy land. Ryan has a real plan that can work, Obama is pushing a disaster that most doctors want no part of.
"Medicare Trust Funds
The payments for medical services covered under Medicare come from two trust funds. The Hospital Insurance trust fund covers Medicare Part A payments to hospitals and the Supplementary Medical Insurance trust fund pays the doctor and out patient medical expenses covered under Part B of Medicare. The trust funds take in the money designated to pay for the services covered under Medicare and make the payments to the health care providers when claims are submitted."
Read more: The Definition of the Medicare Trust Fund | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7753185_definition-medicare-trust-fund.html#ixz...
HonestAbe wrote: "Why didn't you check with the folks that have actually worked in the health care/insurance industry before launching UNfounded claims?"
I gave you several links there are plenty more. It is COMMON knowledge that medicare providers charge more to private insurance companies to make up for the short fall of ALL government provided health care programs not just medicare.
If you were interested in the truth you could easily find it yourself. Do a search on Medicare cost shifting. I guess you think you know a lot about this topic, YOU Don't. You're reduced to name calling and self deception. You lose.
Jim Gamble wrote:
johnandear:
Will you also admit you were wrong if it goes the other way?
If? If Jim Gambol?! If? But you sounded so certain before!
Perhaps the taste of eating those words is already beginning to form in that big mouth of yours?!
BBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Amazing how many people think that the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression should be solved in four years. The Great Depression didn't officially end until the beginning of World War II; a historical fact. That's 12 years! Could that be why some, even after the twin losing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, are advocating for war with Iran?
No, eggie. its just an expression. Romney is too badly damaged to win. Besides, you wouldn't like him, anyway. He's a perfectly lubricated weathervane.
gary k wrote: "Amazing how many people think that the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression should be solved in four years. The Great Depression didn't officially end until the beginning of World War II; a historical fact. That's 12 years! "
Yes FDR, another democrat who made things worse by insisting government intervention and spending would help if you just kept doing it (Keynsianism) .
Reagan was handed a worse economy than Obama and obviously did much better by allowing the free market to work instead of the dead end philosophies of socialism and Keynesian economics.
Listening to reverse reality on this show explains why Obama is not losing 99-1.
On 9/11 US Embassies throughout the Arab world were attacked. In Libya our Ambassador was KILLED in a planned attack by al-Qaeda. That night Obama flies to Vegas. The Obama administration LIES to the public for weeks, claiming the attack was a movie protest gone bad. President Obama declares Egypt to not be an ally, his State Dept than reverses that statement. Obama tells Univision he cannot change Washington from the inside. In 2009 when Obama took office gas was selling for $1.70, now over $4.
What does the media report - Romney talking about 47% at some private fund raiser. The faux reporting is getting to the point of criminal. Particularly vile in the case of shows supported by public financing.
That Cillizza finds allegations of bias insulting is laughable. He sounds like a paid employee of the Obama campaign.
Riley1 wrote: "No vaginal ultrasound for Partisan, but come out of the garage, you're not a Libertarian as you told me last week but a real republican operative. Are you a republican operative?"
I think Obama and the democrats pose such a threat that seeking libertarian perfection is not an option. I have little doubt who John Stossel is going to vote for. I agree with much of the republican party about small government philosophies and yes they are not very good on delivering, but offer the only viable alternative at this time. The problem with democrats is they just want things, doesn't matter if they work or they can be paid for, just give me. Look at that guy Honest Abe, he pretends he knows what he's talking about but the bottom line is he WANTS Obamacare, government paid for health care, very simplistic thought processes and no objective analysis.
Jim Gambol wrote:
"its just an expression".
Yeah, an expression of doubt.
"Besides, you wouldn't like him, anyway."
On the contrary. I wanted him against Obama in 2008 instead of McCain, but it became clear he couldn't have won so this has worked out for the best. Dems are confident because it is so difficult to unseat an incumbent. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
Everything old is new again. It's 1980.
1980 all over again? More like 1957. And the Republican Party just bought a brand new top-of-the-line 1958 Edsel Citation convertible with push button transmission. In 3 tone. And while Republicans are very proud, and insist they're one of the lucky ones to have this "jewel" and we should all be jealous, everyone else thinks they just bought a lemon.
Charlie Cook says its 1996 all over again. Mitt Romney is just another Bob Dole who's going to get wiped in a near landslide.
And then there's these disturbing facts:
Mitt Romney is obviously no Ronald Reagan. Reagan led in every poll that summer except one outlier. His performance in the debates just sealed the deal; they didn't win it for him. Barring a knock out punch in the 1st debate, Romney is toast.
Carter got a primary challenge, while Dems are very enthusiastic about reelecting Obama. Obama is more like Clinton than Carter.
In 1980 an estimated 20% of voters were still undecided by this point in the campaign. This year less than 5% are. If Romney is going to win, he will have to get all those. Since that's never happened before, its unlikely to happen this time either.
No Republican has ever won the Presidency without winning Ohio. Romney currently trails by 5-8 points. His "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed ruined him in Ohio because 1 in 8 Ohio jobs are dependent on the auto industry. You have to wonder "what was he thinking?"
Your wishful thinking is as irrelevant as you are. Romney can't win. And the polls are right.
@Jim Gamble
Jimbo I think that like MSNBC you have "leaned forward" so far that you now have a great view of the back side of your front.
There is a different voter segmentation in Ohio this year. You know that "1 out of 8" you are talking about? Well... you are going to hear loud and clear from the other 7 voters this year and a majority of their votes are going for Romney. You are correct, the Ohio vote will be just as significant as in the past, but it's not headed the way you hope.
Let's talk irrelevant ... starting with your post.
The Edsel stuff, all rhetoric.
The poll stuff, all falsehood. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
"Reagan led in every poll that summer except one outlier. His performance in the debates just sealed the deal; they didn't win it for him." Simply fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_presidential_campaign,_1980#O...
The most accurate polling in 2008 and 2010 was Rasmussen and accuracy, not ideology, is what matters. Rasmussen shows the race dead even. So, in addition to your post, what is also irrelevant is the rest of the polls. They are, and have been proven to be, in the last two elections, inaccurate, and therefore noise.
The 1996 stuff, absurd. And I suggest you read Mr. Cooks column from yesterday. Romhey has work to do, but this is far from over. There is simply no comparison to 1996. Clinton bowed to the Republican thrashing he took in 1994 and changed course. Obama took an even bigger thrashing in 2010, but didn't change one whit. Plus, the heat of the internet was blasting the eonomy off in 1996, not being driven deeper into the ditch as it has been the past 3 1/2 years. The Pope couldn't have beaten Clinton that year. Dole was a sacrificial candidate and everyone, including the Senator, knew it. The polls had Clinton well ahead and well over 50% almost every week and Dole had Perot to contend with who consistently polled in the high single digits. Anyone who thinks that there is any similarity to 1996 is either delusional or just plain stupid. Which are you?
egbent:
Didn't your Mother teach you not to swallow articles from Wikipedia? You don't know where they've been!
http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/trialheats1980.png
This graph clearly shows Reagan led all summer. I think you just proved you don't know what a fact is. Maybe you should have quit before you got run over! Enjoy that Edsel...
Hi Cli,
Maybe you should check with someone who actually knows Ohio before you embarrass yourself:
Many GOP Operatives Conceding Ohio
Walter Shapiro: "Many of the well-known Ohio Republicans I interviewed offered their blunt assessments only after they were guaranteed complete anonymity. That is often the Faustian bargain of political journalism in 2012: robotic talking points on the record or something resembling honesty with no names attached. The reason, though, that I am emphasizing the don't-quote-me part of the equation is that I was stunned by the vehemence of the thumbs-down-on-Mitt verdict. All but conceding the state to Obama, these Republicans were offering what may be the biggest rejection of Ohio since Philip Roth wrote Goodbye Columbus."
U.S. News:
Ohio is slipping away from Mitt Romney. That's the judgment of the top political handicappers—Real Clear Politics, The Cook Political Report, The Rothenberg Political Report, Sabato's Crystal Ball, and the New York Times's Nate Silver—who have all now moved the Buckeye State from the toss-up category into the lean Obama category. And as you've probably heard—no Republican has ever won the White House without carrying Ohio.
I'm pretty sure Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, and Nate Silver know what they're talking about and you, well, don't.
Jim Gambol wrote:
"Didn't your Mother teach you not to swallow articles from Wikipedia?"
Actually, Wiki is usually pretty good, considering that its information is distilled from the collective knowledge of the world, and cross checked by same.
On the other hand, you offer "themonkeycage" (did you escape?). Nothing sourced, just a bunch of dots on a page that you could have created yourself. In fact Reagan led Carter in the polls of three weeks from mid June to mid July by as little as 3 points. That does not constitute "Reagan leading Carter all summer" except in your foggy alternate reality. Other than those weeks, Carter led or the race was a dead heat until Reagan crushed Carter in the election by winning 40 states. Sound familiar? By the way, after the February/March time frame, Carter never polled 50%. Sound familiar?
Those are the facts, Jimmie. Like them or not. And you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the arse.
Eggie that chart is all over the internet, you can find it in dozens of places. I chose that one because it was large and clear. And you can believe it or don't- I don't care. You've already proven I was right when I said : You Can't Argue With Stupid. So we're done. Every reasonable observer reading these posts knows by now you will never admit you're wrong, so why should I waste any more time on you?
You are such a waste of my precious time, so this is my last post on this subject. You can have the last word, I don't care.
Jimmie wrote:
"Eggie that chart is all over the internet, you can find it in dozens of places."
Yet you only show one ... but never mind, anyway. Even if there are "dozens", uh ... 'scuse me, but that doesn't make it correct. There are dozens of sites that say Obama is a Muslim and isn't a citizen - that doesn't make those things true. But thanks for the insight into your view of logic and fact! (More on that in a minute).
Here's another view:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/flashback-gallup-had-carter-up-4...
which shows that Reagan led for only a few weeks in the summer, not "all summer" and that Carter was even or ahead the rest of the time. Wiki, which generally distills everything that's known about a subject, says the same. And I remind you, Reagan won 40 states. By the way, I notice you have nothing to say about the evidence I present about the accuracy of this cycle's polls. But the only poll that really matters is the one on November 6th. That's the one I'm looking forward to.
"Every reasonable observer reading these posts knows by now you will never admit you're wrong"
Every reasonable observer?! Really?! Did you take a poll, Jimmie? Or is that your ... well ... bias? I'll admit I'm wrong when you can demonstrate it ... not when you just say, "you're wrong". But, you're going to believe what you're going to believe.
And one more thing ... as for "proving who knows what a fact is", the writings of Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, and Nate Silver are called "opinion", not "facts". See?
partisan politics wrote:
"gary k wrote: "Amazing how many people think that the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression should be solved in four years. The Great Depression didn't officially end until the beginning of World War II; a historical fact. That's 12 years! "
Yes FDR, another democrat who made things worse by insisting government intervention and spending would help if you just kept doing it (Keynsianism) .
Reagan was handed a worse economy than Obama and obviously did much better by allowing the free market to work instead of the dead end philosophies of socialism and Keynesian economics."
It's bad enough that you are historically-ignorant, but you have a very bad habit of trying to change the point of an original comment.
My comment has nothing to do with WHO or WHAT caused the Great Depression. Nor does it have anything to do with WHO or WHAT may or may not have made it worse.
It was a simple statement of fact. Of course, when I make statements of fact, I sometimes forget that those statements will be totally misunderstood by the historically-ignorant.
"gary k wrote: "Amazing how many people think that the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression should be solved in four years. The Great Depression didn't officially end until the beginning of World War II; a historical fact. That's 12 years! "
And then he wrote:
"My comment has nothing to do with ... WHO or WHAT may or may not have made it worse."
Well, yeah, it does have to do with that, gary! Your assumption is that FDR did everything right. He didn't. And here's why:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression...
So if the UCLA (that bastian of conservatism, ha ha) economists are right, and many economists agree with this assessment, without FDR's intervention, the U.S. economy should have recovered much faster (in 5 years, not 12) in the 30's. It is reasonable to think that without the Obama plan, which mimicked FDR's, we would be much farther along than 1.3% growth (and falling) that we currently see.
"When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obama...
@Jim Gamble - just returned from Ohio Jimbo... I think I'm pretty comfortable with my read on the state. I figure my odds of being correct are just as good as anyone elses at this point. Perhaps you should poke your head out of your bomb shelter once in a while and get YOUR facts from somewhere besides the wannabe pollsters and hucksters you so often quote. Polls, media hype, talking heads and you Jimbo. Not an ounce of credibility in any of them. How about we watch the debates and the electoral college vote results and then in November we will all count coup. I know that just like Pavlov's dog you are gonna post some more blather after you read this. You just can't help yourself. Blather and bloviate on my friend.
I'm looking forward to this week's domestic news roundup when extensive discussion of the Obama tape takes place.
I have seen many reader comments on various websites which question what the heck was with Romney's strange USA flag lapel pin. I don't know what that black dot on it was or meant. But I do know that established flag etiquette states: "The flag should never have placed on it, attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, or drawing of any kind."
www.usfag.org/flagetiquete.html
To my mind, that defaced flag pin disrespected America, and it was Romney who was wearing it. A small detail? I think not.
@ paula in concord NH: Look closely at Obama's pin. You will see a small emblem on it as well. Check out all of the secret service pins and note their markings on the flag. You wanna talk about defacing the flag???? Check out the Obama camps campaign slogan flag that was planned by his staff and squelched once it hit the media... I did notice that Romney's flag pin was BIGGER than Obamas... Hey, here's a novel idea... how about focusing on the issues instead of their attire? Nice try at a conspiracy theory though...