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.
Is it obama's handling of the economy that buried them or just the crushing weight of the bad economic policies for the prior 8 years? It seems weird to place the weigh of crushing job losses on the head of the manager who was able to slow job loss and return to job growth in 18mo. Similarly to think that saying that the middle class have lost a huge amount of their wealth because of the collapse of the housing market under a republican president is Obama's fault but it is even weirder to not want to talk about it when it comes to new republican polices that aim to further reduce middle income wealth.
Giddy up Peter, nice words
Peter Barnes-Davies wrote:
"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).
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,.."
---------------------------
Could you cite one example where Romney was anything less than respectful to the President or Lehrer? Was Obama disrespecting Lehrer when he dismissed him and spoke for another 4 minutes?
Diane Rehm herself has said many times that NPR relies on only 1% of taxpayer funding. Since this is such an insignificant amount, they will never miss it. So why all the colic?
Mitt Romney claimed he did not get a tax credit for outsourcing; that if there was a tax credit he would have to get a new accountant.
In fact there is a tax deduction for companies that move operations offshore. That is an insult to United States taxpayers. More importantly, this further demonstrates Mitt Romney's lack of concern for American workers. Whole communities are effected when businesses are moved offshore.
Mitt Romney's loyalty is to the Almighty Dollar, which he has no qualms in moving offshore (Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Swiss Bank accounts). I don't care how fast he talks, Mitt Romney is not credible. I simply do not trust him to fairly represent the interests of the average American citizen.
For reference, I believe that the book about the decline of armed conflict that one of the guests referenced without title is "Winning the War on War" by Joshua Goldstein. It's a really great book; highly recommended.
http://www.winningthewaronwar.com/
"Mitt Romney is not credible. I simply do not trust him to fairly represent the interests of the average American citizen"
And Obama is?
I wonder how many times I argued against the same bogus democrat party and MSNBC talking points.
Joyce in Arizona wrote:
'Mitt Romney claimed he did not get a tax credit for outsourcing; that if there was a tax credit he would have to get a new accountant."
------------------
"Under present law, there are no specific tax credits or disallowances of deductions solely for locating jobs in the United States or overseas," the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation wrote in June to lawmakers sponsoring the proposed Bring Jobs Home Act."
Romney was technically right in implying there is no special break.
The President lost the debate because of his policies over the past 4 years that have stunted economic recovery and increased the ranks of those on Government "subsistence". Plain and simple, deal with it!
It just makes me laugh to read the comments from all these so-called intellectual elitist's trying to console themselves with a "Romney lied" or "Romney was rude" excuse. It must be exasperating to reconcile how a Havard educated LIBERAL intellectual like the President; let himself get completely run over by a "Conservative" (much less a Replublican) in a debate. Sort of defies "reality", doesn't it? Perhaps that should tell you something about your "definition" of reality! Sure, let's just say Obama wasn't on his game Wednesday night. He'll get another chance to redeem himself during the next debate. If you can spin a loss into a win, you can continue to delude yourself that socialism is the next great thing for our Country! God help us all if Obama gets another 4 years! Or the way I like to think of it is; "We get the Government we deserve"!
The simple fact is that you & I interpret the same exchange in different ways.
I call it "more than just a little insensitive" and you call it "anything less that respectful."
Words matter so much because they reveal what we value.
Your words make a clear link between dismissiveness and disresectfulness. Since I agree with this link, I do agree with you that both debaters were quite dismissive of Jim L. And this very fact is part of the reason why I think Jim L. wins on the gentleman points.
As to whether either debater was speaking or acting in a disrespectable manner, I leave that as an open question. I will not claim to make such a moral judgment against either man who may become our nation's President.
That said, I do honestly wonder:
Will a majority of Americans end up voting for someone who has promised to defund NPR?
That too remains an open question, to be answered on Election Day.
Phil A. Buster wrote:
Diane Rehm herself has said many times that NPR relies on only 1% of taxpayer funding. Since this is such an insignificant amount, they will never miss it. So why all the colic?
Please don't confuse colic with conviction, and please don't use what I consider to be a dismissive word (colic, which generally is used to describe infants) to describe my logical, adult and well-though-out viewpoints.
And out of curiosity, do you listen to Diane Rehm often? And if so, do you pay membership dues to your local public radio station?
If so, I thank you for your direct contribution to a trusted news source. If not, I still give thanks for the portion of your tax dollars that helps to bring sensible news to the public square.
Peter Barnes-Davies wrote:
"Since I agree with this link, I do agree with you that both debaters were quite dismissive of Jim L. And this very fact is part of the reason why I think Jim L. wins on the gentleman points."
---------------------------------
Jim isn't running for President. If he were the Democratic Party candidate, your opinion might change. Romney is representing just about half the country. It is his responsibility to fight as hard as he can to defeat the incumbent. After all, that is what President Obama is doing to remain in The White House.
---------------------------------
Peter Barnes-Davies wrote:
That said, I do honestly wonder:
Will a majority of Americans end up voting for someone who has promised to defund NPR?
----------------------------------
Defund the 1% from taxpayers? Surely NPR can make that insignificant amount up with paid commercials by the DNC. NPR's audience is overwhelmingly liberal. They are not voting for Romney anyway. If NPR actually had just one show hosted by a conservative, you might have a point.
Peter Barnes-Davies wrote:
"And out of curiosity, do you listen to Diane Rehm often?
------------------------------------------
Often? I listen to the FNR. Considering Diane takes numerous sabbaticals, nobody listens to her often.
---------------------------------
Peter Barnes-Davies wrote:
"And if so, do you pay membership dues to your local public radio station? I still give thanks for the portion of your tax dollars that helps to bring sensible news to the public square."
------------------------------
Would you be as appreciative if your tax dollars went to a conservative radio outlet that brought "sensible news to the public square?"
climatewiz1: It appears you are confusing coaching with advice. I started teaching my students about deceptive propaganda in 1968. I have have been a student of psychology, sociology, religion and economics for over 45 years and have some insight into how people become deceived. Thinking based on beliefs instead of facts and evidence allows deception to gain power. Facts: Republican conservative policies of removal of regulations and weakening of enforcement of regulations caused the financial collapse. No companies or corporations could stop the slide into another Great Depression. Only government intervention could put the breaks on the slide. This was started under President Bush, but it was not enough. All advisors to President Obama knew this. The policies of President Obama prevented another Great Depression. As President Clinton has accurately stated, no President, not him or any of President Obama's predecessors could have overcome this problem in four years. There remain several major negative economic factors that prevent a full recovery, two for example, the housing/foreclosure crisis, and the worldwide economic slowdown. This will take years to resolve. All economists know that the last economic factor to recover in a downturn is the unemployment rate. Enough for now.
Don in Miami wrote:
"It appears you are confusing coaching with advice. I started teaching my students about deceptive propaganda in 1968. I have have been a student of psychology, sociology, religion and economics for over 45 years and have some insight into how people become deceived. Thinking based on beliefs instead of facts and evidence allows deception to gain power."
---------------------
Considering the overwhelming majority of teachers and college professors are liberal, you are correct that ideology has supplanted facts in the classroom.
--------------------------
Don in Miami wrote:
" Facts: Republican conservative policies of removal of regulations and weakening of enforcement of regulations caused the financial collapse."
-----------------------------------
Ah, Democrats Dodd and Frank presided over the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle that actually caused the financial collapse.
Mitt has recently emphasized religion and his unprompted personal devotion - even swore to keep divine references on coinage and other US government materiel. But then in the debate, Romney said "I've got 5 boys; I'm used to people saying something over and over so I'll believe it." That was surely the oddest statement made that evening. Keep in mind that those "boys" range in age from 31 to 42, with 18 grandchildren among them. He's got a serious pot-and-kettle issue on lots of topics.
If Mitt cannot use his vaunted devotion to the Creator (which he boisterously pointed out in the Declaration and the Constitution) to get his own adult "boys" to tell the truth, how can he hope to get Congress to be honest? Are his kids liars?
By the way, "Etch-A-Sketch" is an oxymoron and should be modified for use as Mitt's metaphor: something that is "etched" makes a fairly permanent marking, while a sketch is a very rough temporary rendering.
Willard's principles are so transitory even that toy is too permanent. The media might rightly substitute Pat Boone's old groaner "Love Letters In The Sand" since all his former references to big tax cuts for the bogus "job creators", VoucherCare, beefy defense, privatized Social Security, self-deportation, letting foreclosures take their course, 47% victims, and kicking out undocumented ninos/ninas were all washed away by his debate tide.
When he "resets" his campaign, he does a memory clear and reboots.
What do H. Ross Perot, J. Paul Getty, and W. Mitchell Romney have in common? All rich as Croesus and apparently ashamed of their given first names.
HonestAbe wrote:
"By the way, "Etch-A-Sketch" is an oxymoron and should be modified for use as Mitt's metaphor"
--------------
Take it up with Ohio Art Co makers of Etch A Sketch.
-------------------
HonestAbe wrote
"But then in the debate, Romney said "I've got 5 boys; I'm used to people saying something over and over so I'll believe it." That was surely the oddest statement made that evening. "
-------------------------
Odd? It was a very effective visual that put President Obama on the defensive. Did you want Romny to just call the President a liar?
Mitt rightly described small businesses as the primary source of American markets and drivers of job creation and innovation.
And the Prez rightly pointed out the deceptive use of the word "small".
FYI..... the majority of "small business" owners are smart enough to incorporate as Subchapter S Corporations rather than C Corps or even LLCs. Their accountants routinely tell them (IF they really want to BUILD their businesses) to pay themselves as employees and keep their own self-paid wages down - to retain money in the corporation for subsequent years, to reduce the FICA and Medicare taxes they pay on both sides as employer and employee, to reduce equity draws to keep taxes down, to reduce the Federal and state unemployment insurance premiums, and contribute to self-directed retirement accounts to hold down even more taxes. They rarely pay themselves anything in excess of $200K.
And that puts them below the radar for IRS hawks and politicians.
kathleen wrote:
"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"."
Well, what do you think he should call them, kathleen? "Formerly 'not poor'" because "poor" sounds politically incorrect? The requirement for someone to be on Medicaid is just that - that they not have the assets to pay for their own care - that they are "poor".
Ted Viens wrote:
"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."
You are right to a point, Ted. It does still depend on what you do for a living whether "compensation is raised above the level of servitude", but essentially this is what I've been saying for at least the last 6 years or so - that labor has become an international commodity and has to be viewed as such. American workers no longer do so in a bubble. Until labor rates and commensurate standards of living reach equilibrium by the factoring in of billions of people into the overall labor market, expect the pain to continue.
kathleen wrote:
"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."
Ha! kathleen, it sounds like my posts on this are finally sinking in! It wasn't THE cause of the recent unpleasantness but it was one of the major ones because it opened up depositors' money to risky investment. Government interference in the housing market also greatly contributed as well. I don't think either by itself could have caused the recession we have had. The American economy had to be stabbed in the back with both prongs of the fork.
Phil I attended the Libby trial. Follow the facts. Rove announced Plame was "fair game" early on in her outing by the Bush administration. And who would trust much of what Mitchell has to say she wants Iran attacked and is one of the more biased MSNBC talking heads about the middle east. She could give a rats ass if Plame who put her own life on the line was outed. One more wall down so that Israel and the I lobby can push an attack on Iran. Sure Mitchell is happy about that.
ecg many of us have been saying this for over a decade
@Kathleen: Ecgbert and Romney are correct in using the word "poor" when referencing those on Medicaid. In order to qualify for Medicaid total benefits you can have no more than $2000.00 in your bank account. You can own 1 car and 1 house. You are audited every 5 years to insure that you still qualify. There are many, many shell games played in the U.S. in order for people to qualify for Medicaid. Careful now, I am not inferring here that there are not many, many thousands of qualified and deserving elderly people here in the U.S., only pointing out that you indeed are "poor" when it comes to having fluid assets of only 2K to your name. There is no option to purchase insurance independant of Medicaid once you reach the 2K mark.... you can't afford it. That's why regardless of who becomes president...Medicaid has to remain.
"formerly not poor" would work. "poor" because the private for profit nursing home industry cleaned out their assets would work too.
Ecg get your arse into those nursing homes and ask these seniors directly if they want to be described as the "poor" Many of these people have worked their asses over a lifetime and are mortally ashamed that they are now partially on medicaid.
SFV wrote:
"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."
Don't forget about Pravda (i.e. MSM) Pravda maintains that most people have made up their minds. I don't think that's true, with apologies to Bertrand Russell. I think there are still many undecideds. The key number belongs to the President. He remains solidly under 50%, whereas, he took well in excess of 50% of the vote in 2008. Dick Morris has the best take on the undecideds who voted for Obama in the last election. It is like asking a wife if she wants to remained married to her husband and she answers "I'm undecided". As long as Obama polls below 50%, Romney has an excellent chance.
@ Don in Miami: Sorry Don but you are correct in stating "Thinking based on beliefs instead of facts and evidence allows deception to gain power".
Fact: Dodd-Franks were responsible for Fannie and Freddie (even and especially) on Bush's watch. Their weakening of the qualifications for low income and "underprivileged" borrowers for home loans was an over-reaching reaction to the Citi-group debacle. Citi-group was charged with denying loans to low income and minorities. As a result, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Franks (thru Fannie and Freddie) forced banks to take on a certain percentage of these loans or risk losing funding. As a result, banks got creative and started trying to make their profit by "brokering" or selling loans thru Wall Street. That is where the train left the tracks and the "housing bubble" began.
Fact: It was not caused by free-market... it was caused BY government intervention.
Bertrand's statement applies to PEOPLE regardless of political swing. The fact that you try to apply it to one political party in particular shows that you need to go back to school and study some more doc. By the way... like Brown said in the Brown-Warren debate... I'm not one of your students... You can be one of mine, however; I am a guest lecturer on critical thinking on several campuses.
Physician...heal thyself!!!!
raymond,I agree with your overview of the parties,but I`m a Progressive Democrat,not obligated to corporate America. In fact,it ticks me off when instead of the 'Customer is Always Right' model,which worked so well,Corporatists have adopted the new "Let`s Screw Consumers" every chance we get mode.
And when these corporations are found guilty of defrauding customers,or go into bankruptcy ,we`re not business friendly?
@ Kathleen: Sorry to offend with the word "poor". You are correct in stating that most members of the "greatest generation" are so independant and self sufficient that a nursing home or on Medicaid is the last place they wanted to end up. Most of them have ended up there because they "FIRST" depleted their life savings before moving on to government resources. I only wish that same self-sufficient traits existed in more of our gen Boomers and X'rs.
kathleen wrote:
"Phil I attended the Libby trial. Follow the facts. Rove announced Plame was "fair game" early on in her outing by the Bush administration. And who would trust much of what Mitchell has to say she wants Iran attacked and is one of the more biased MSNBC talking heads about the middle east. She could give a rats ass if Plame who put her own life on the line was outed."
---------------------------
For starters, Andrea Mitchell is indeed biased, but her bias is of the liberal ideology. She loathes Romney and is in the tank for Obama. Rove had zero to do with Plame's blown cover.
"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."
Secrets Of the Scandal
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 11, 2003
The New York Times
Why wasn't Richard Armitage, who admitted to be a source for Plame's CIA identity, the target of Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald ? Because Fitzgerald could not find that anyone committed any criminal act regarding the mention of Val's CIA classified position. Since there was no evidence of the commission of the underlying crime, Fitzgerald had to come away with something to justify the millions squandered on this investigation, A Scooter Libby perjury conviction was better than nothing.
kathleen wrote:
Phil I attended the Libby trial. Follow the facts. Rove announced Plame was "fair game" early on in her outing by the Bush administration. And who would trust much of what Mitchell has to say..."
------------------
Was it not her hubby Joe who also put Val's "secret" identity in jeopardy? As 60 Minutes Lesley Stahl queried during her interview with Val, wouldn't a White House, that was supposedly capable of "lying" about the presence of WOMD's in Iraq, not have any compunction about leaking her "identity" after her hubby went to the New York Times with his diatribe? Val's response doesn't bode well for a professional "spy," who was trained to analyze all angles, all contingencies, and all possibilities before taking action. "I wasn't thinking about that at the time." Priceless