Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-05/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Fallout from the first presidential debate. A first look at September unemployment numbers. And Pennsylvania’s voter ID law is blocked. Diane and her guests discuss the week’s top stories, what happened and why.
Guests
Major Garrett
White House correspondent, National Journal
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post
John King
chief national correspondent, CNN
Friday News Roundup Video
Our panel discussed why incumbents lose presidential debates, and how President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are likely to prepare for the second debate.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Enjoy your show but would enjoy listening even more if your "experts", and you Diane, made an attempt to be more neutral and unbiased. Sometimes I find myself thinking you just can't help yourself. Unfortunately it seems that NPR is following the path of commercial media in that they are becoming a "news" source with its own agenda.
Gov. Romney was coached for eight days. We heard his coaches in the debate. I wonder what we would have heard if there was no coaching.
Good discussion today. Glad Diane and panelists are not just making excuses for Obama. Despite his upbeat campaign style, Obama seems at heart pessimistic about America, and this showed in his demeanor during the debate. Romney in his heart seems optimistic about America.
George Will has a good Washington Post column on this today, excerpt "America can be the society it was when it had a spring in its step ..."
see http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-romneys-trifecta/20...
Panelists did a good job in discussing real meaning of latest employment stats. This drop at end of summer was predicted months ago, largely normal seasonal adjustment.
The debate on international issues will be the critical one.
Kmcquirk agree. Hope they discuss fact checking on what both President Obama and former Governor Romney had to say. The 5 trillion dollar issue confuses the hell out of me. Economy not my strength.
One thing that Romney said that jumped out at me was when he referred to all people on medicaid as "poor" I kept thinking about all of the seniors and Vets I have met in numerous nursing homes around Dayton Ohio the last five years who worked hard all of their lives ended up in a nursing home lose their savings, house etc paying the bills at these nursing homes and then having their pensions, social security paying these exorbitant private for profit nursing home prices and end up having a good chunk of their bills paid by medicaid. Don't think these formerly hard working seniors and Vets would like being referred to as "poor" Hope Obema's team picked up on that one and makes an ad with that comment
How can it be that reporters suffer, as all humans, with the curse of congenital blinders? They blather on about this recession in the throws of some "same as it ever was" delusion. By every measure this recession is the worse in history. By many measures this recession is worse than the Great Depression. Under the delusion of "same as it ever was" these reporters discuss meaningless issues about recovery. By one measure this recession is recovering better than can be expected. That measure is Labor. This is the first major recession to transpire under a widespread Labor Surplus. Companies large and small have all the workers needed to invent the product and services of commerce, to sell the product and services of commerce, to produce the products and services of commerce, and to distribute the products and services of commerce. There is not now, and never again will be, the shortage of workers needed to force the compensations of salaries and wages above the level of servitude.
Special forces Vet. That is what I think. We know with Romney's foreign policy team next stop Iran. Support for Israel no matter how many UN resolutions they continue to violate and how many illegal settlements they continue to build and undermine a two state solution will be supported by Romney. With President Obama there is a slim chance that Israel will not be able to force the U.S. to support them in an unnecessary military strike on Iran and on the I/P issue President Obama may MAY try to start pushing Israel to consider halting their own efforts to undermine the state of Israel based on the 67 border. With Romney's foreign policy team no chance of that
I am surprised you started your program by quoting a tweet from Jack Welch that the ‘boys from Chicago rigged the un-employment rate numbers’. Jack should be ashamed of himself and apologize. It is his elk that has tried to depress the economy as much as they could so that Pres. Obama is not re-elected. Finally, a dirty secret of Jack’s success at GE was in steering a blue blooded research and manufacturing company into a financial company, so much so that it had to be rescued along with other financial companies.
@Don in Miami: President Obama was coached for 4 years and WE HEARD what he had to say... I wonder what we would have heard if he had listened to America.
I am so tired of the Obama administration and Democrats blaming the state of the economy completely on the Republicans and the Bush administration. The Glass Steagal Act was repealed under the Clinton administration. Let's not forget this. Clinton let the bankster dogs out
Amazing that Jack Welch would have the chutzpah to tweet such an accusation. His company, GE, would qualify for Romney's 47%, as they paid 0 federal tax on a $6 billion profit just very recently.
Don in Miami wrote:
"Gov. Romney was coached for eight days. We heard his coaches in the debate. I wonder what we would have heard if there was no coaching."
---------------------------------------
You fault Romney for being prepared? Look how not being prepared worked for President Obama, and all he had to do was justify his own record for the last four years.
BTW: Look how the New Orleans Saints are doing without their coach.
On a positive note I thought that was one of the most respectful and intelligent debates I have ever witnessed in my 44 years of working on Dem campaigns
According to Al Gore, Romney was not President Obama's enemy, it was the Denver altitude that was Obama's Kryptonite.
Dev Devta wrote: "I am surprised you started your program by quoting a tweet from Jack Welch that the ‘boys from Chicago rigged the un-employment rate numbers’. Jack should be ashamed of himself and apologize. It is his elk that has tried to depress the economy as much as they could so that Pres. Obama is not re-elected. Finally, a dirty secret of Jack’s success at GE was in steering a blue blooded research and manufacturing company into a financial company, so much so that it had to be rescued along with other financial companies."
I agree 100%. But then again, this is Jack Welsh--the poster child for shipping jobs overseas to prevent GE paying its fair share of corporate taxes.
Jim Lehr did a terrible job as moderator. He defined only 3 or 4 topics and none of them were critical topics which differentiate Obama and Romney, e.g. abortion, immigration, 47%, et al.
You know, Diane Rehm Show, I would love to share my postings here on my facebook page where my 600 plus friends find amusement and occasionally some insight in my rantings but you prevent me from doing this. You have chosen to feed my facebook postings through an APP and I do NOT do APP's. If you were to offer me the choice of posting through a "Share" I would blissfully share my views with the few hundred people on facebook brave enough to read them. Thanks..
I didn't think Romney was rude to Lehrer. Lehrer KEPT ON INTERRUPTING ROMNEY!!! Lehrer NEVER TRIED TO INTERRUPT OBAMA MORE THAN ONCE WHEN OBAMA WENT OVER, BUT WITH ROMNEY, Lehrer tried to talk over Romney multiple times!!! I can't believe the bias on NPR. It is blinding you. Oh, so disappointing. I thought NPR was supposed to be reporting not editorializing ALL THE TIME!
Why isn't the stock market brought up in the discussions of the economy? It is inching up to the same mark as the fall in 2008. Doesn't this benefit the top earners? Why is there no credit given to the economic policy of the current administration?
etters and the evil genius Karl Rove who belongs in an orange jump suit behind bars for being part of the Bush team who purposely outed Plame and undermining our justice dept has districts that the Republicans can flip and disenfranchise voters down to a science. And with all of those dirty billions behind them anything can happen
please be less biased.
Teece Bowman wrote: "Are we really two America's? Are we down to a 50/50 split where one half wants to go one way, and the other wants to drag the country off in another direction?"
Good question, thanks for asking it. Fortunately the answer is no. We are at heart a center right country -- regardless of ethnicity, income, age or any of the other demographic dividers. Most of us want to live in a free country with minimal government intrusion in our lives (including intrusions from both right and left), good safety nets for the poor and unfortunate, and an economy that ensures the number of needy is small.
On the right, ~20% are either (a) social Darwinists who think the poor are there because of their own weakness, not deserving of much help or (b) good persons of faith who believe the Church and charity should take help these unfortunates, not task government with this.
On the left, ~20% believe the best days of America are behind us, that we are struggling like Europe against inevitable decline and decadent capitalism, and that we need to move forward vigorously in implementing a utopian welfare state.
Fortunately, ~60% of us -- largely middle class people who pay most of the bills -- take the middle road, the high road IMHO. Unfortunately we have a political system dominated by the two 20% groups.
Thus people like Jon Huntsman don't fare so well. But it's worth noting that Republicans chose the most moderate candidate after Huntsman, while the Democrats went with the most far left primary candidate.
For the nation's center right majority, Romney is the rational choice. If not for Pres. Obama's rhetorical skills, telegenic and fashionable appearance, demographic appeals and well-oiled campaign machine we would be looking at ~60% for Romney right now.
mellington wrote:
"Jim Lehr did a terrible job as moderator. He defined only 3 or 4 topics and none of them were critical topics which differentiate Obama and Romney, e.g. abortion, immigration, 47%, et al."
------------------------------------------
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with Sandra Fluke as moderator?
About PBS government funding...
PBS is great.
Keeping PBS alive is not at issue.
PBS supporters (individuals, businesses and foundations)can and will continue to fund it.
Government seed funding of the PBS experiment should now end, so that government can fund new and fledgling experiments - certainly not on borrowed Chinese money.
Current PBS government funding at $445 million
= about 1/2 billion dollars. Let's not dismiss this amount toward reducing the deficit - every bit counts (and this isn't chicken feed, after all).
ELIMINATE PBS GOVERNMENT FUNDING!
Can someone please explain to me the massive disconnect between the republican party wanting our country to succeed and who much they hate seeing any success that happens under a democratic president. For a group that supposedly loves this country more than anyone how do they not feel awkward, uncomfortable, or even embarrassed by blatantly cheering for our failure and trashing our successes.
Thank you
do you find that when facts don't suit your point of view they are biased in all areas or just politics?
kathleen wrote:
"etters and the evil genius Karl Rove who belongs in an orange jump suit behind bars for being part of the Bush team who purposely outed Plame..."
---------------------------------
What? NBC News Andrea Mitchell told Imus that it was common knowledge to anyone covering the intelligence community that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.
your are right kathleen, the two unfunded wars, unfunded tax breaks, and the rest of the domestic economic policy had nothing to do with the collapse of the economy. It was all clinton's fault for repealing glass steagal but the republicans who proposed it and voted for it in congress had nothing to do with it at all. Wasn't even their idea. Oh crap it was totally their idea
This link is the easiest to get references from in case you care to find facts and stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
Clifford,
I think the reason Obama and the rest of the Democratic leaders do not express your (and my) frustration is this:
At some point in the past there were 2 parties, but now there is one party, and it is basically controlled by moneyed interests and corporations. Yes the dems and republicans differ slightly on some issues, but I think it is mostly done to distract the public away from the real issues.
Looking at what has happened in the past 15 or so years through the lens of a one party model IMO explains much more than the traditional (and obsolete) 2 party model.
Picking up on one caller's question about the "thin-skinned" comment made by several reporters and analysts, I need to ask a moral question:
Is is good or bad to be "thin-skinned"?
The manner in which one answers this question reveals so much about one's values.
To my way of thinking, being "thin-skinned" is generally a good thing, especially in a man who holds much power in our world. Why? Because I would use the word "sensitive" to describe a man - or a gentleman - who is not so thick-skinned (or thick-headed) in one's mannerism that one assumes it's OK to say anything to steamroll other people.
In this sense, here's my summary of the debate.
Jim L. gets the most points as a gentleman with human sensitivity.
Mitt. R get the most points in being thick-skinned (and more than just a little insensitive to Jim and all his NPR-appreciating listeners).
And President Obama, I'd say his skin shows a healthy balance of sensitivity and fight.
If Americans end up electing a man who lost on gentleman points, and if we citizens end up putting in the White House someone who promised to defund a respectable news organization to whom Jim L. has given decades of fine work, then I weep for how moral judgement has become so skewed and distorted in our American body politic.
Honestly, will you vote for a thick-skinned and insensitive man to rule our nation?
If so, what does that say about your view of the Office of President?
I for one would rather have a gentleman use the power of a bully pulpit, rather than a man who has been coached to be aggressive, dismissive, and insensitive.
(and if you think i'm a sissy for saying so, grow up, act your age, and go ahead and call me thin-skinned. because sticks and stones may break my bones, but names only show how mean-spirited you are)