Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-19/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Both Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney claimed momentum coming out of a spirited second debate. With less than three weeks until Election Day, polls still show a tight race. Consumer confidence rose to a six-month high as a housing recovery begins to ripple through the economy. The White House said President Barack Obama will veto bills to avert the fiscal cliff unless Republicans raise tax rates on the rich. Wall Street urged the president and Congress to address the crisis soon. And Newsweek said it will go digital only after nearly eight decades in print. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, Susan Page of USA Today and Jerry Seib of The Wall Street Journal join Diane 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 the book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today
Jerry Seib
Washington bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal
Friday News Roundup Video
Candy Crowley, who moderated the Oct. 16 presidential debate, was criticized for her on-the-spot fact-checking of a remark about the U.S. consulate attack in Libya. "The moderator is sort of like the captain of an airplane. In the end, it's up to that person to steer the conversation," Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, said. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza said Crowley was in a "no-win situation." "So much of this depends on the partisan lens through which you see things," Cillizza said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
What is most needed in the US's Presidential (and Congressional) elections is answers to:
1) "which presidential candidate is most likely to* equitably- and responsibly- spread cuts to US govt spending if their economic plans don't work- and/or the govt deficit keeps growing/doesn't shrink fast enough??"
2) "If you are re-elected/elected, and if the economic policies that you are campaigning on are passed by the House of Representatives and Senate (& signed into law) and subsequently these economic policies end up not working and/or the govt deficit keeps growing/doesn't shrink fast enough- what policies will you advocate to raise govt revenues, IE: what, if any, types of taxes will you endorse being raised??"
3) "If you are re-elected/elected, and if the economic policies that you are campaigning on are passed by the House of Representatives and Senate (& signed into law) and subsequently these economic policies end up not working and/or the govt deficit keeps growing/doesn't shrink fast enough- what policies will you advocate to lower govt expenditures, IE: what, if any, cuts to govt services and programmes will you endorse??
______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada,
(non-US-citizen)
* 'work towards' equitably- and responsibly- spreading cuts...
... recognizing the inherent oppositional relationship that exists between the US government's 3 branches, IE: House of Representatives, Senate & President (+ his/her cabinet) and that US Presidents don't rule by decree...
So much for Candy Crowley aka "fact checker" facts.
"It turns out after the debate was over, Obama waltzed over to the Kerry Ladka, the man who asked about Benghazi, and told him that he did delay calling the attacks on Benghazi a terrorist attack:"
“After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terrorist attack. The rationale for the delay was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation." Kerry Ladka
For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation.
Governor Romney said 23 million are struggling for work. He didn't say "unemployment" which keeps going down. Instead he used a generic category to keep throwing the number 23 million without defining what the number means. It didn't represent the BLS number unemployed 12.1 million (7.8%). Doublespeak, Mr. Romney? If the Governor insists on using the 23million number, what was the analogous number at the end of the Bush years and what was the rate of loss of jobs and the increased number of “struggling people” per month? Don't compare apples (Bush unemployment rate) to oranges (number of unemployed plus , according to the Governor, the additional number of those struggling, but not unemployed under Obama.)
The Governor said people lost, on average, over $4,000. What does that mean? Is that loss of income, from a job? Does it mean that if you take all the lost income in dollars and divide it by the number of people (or households), you get an average of over $4,000. That's a novel definition of , “I feel your pain.” What about those who gained income? Is the Governor saying that the people who remained working through the Great Recession have been harmed by the loss of income of their neighbors who actually lost jobs? Is the Governor trying to upset those who didn't lose jobs to feel as if that they did lose jobs, and therefore, should direct this “pain” to vote for the Governor? It's a number that he has never explained. Besides, what was Simpson-Bowles that Republicans hated? Romney says “you lower tax rates for all, and more income will come in because of the stimulus to the economy.” Institute a 20% tax cut for all. Simpson-Bowles detailed how to lower tax rates by closing loop holes.
Remember Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign promise to get us out of Vietnam. He kept that secret. So is the Governor's New Math.
Statman2 wrote: "Governor Romney said 23 million are struggling for work. He didn't say "unemployment" which keeps going down. Instead he used a generic category to keep throwing the number 23 million without defining what the number means".
What is the point of putting the same post up multiple times when it has been answered?
The 23 million is the U6 unemployment rate, I explained this in great detail on Oct. 12/12, it is 14.7% now and it was 14.2% when Obama took office.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-12/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Statman2 wrote: "The Governor said people lost, on average, over $4,000. What does that mean?"
It means the economy is performing badly.
In January 2009, the month Obama took office, median household income was $54,893. In June 2012, it was $50,881, a drop of almost $4,000.
MrRoderickvLouis, It would be interesting to read a broad outline on Canadian style austerity measures that have worked out so well for Canada in recent years.
Let’s see, you do not equate “acts of terror” with “terrorist attack”. Why can’t you interpret the President’s words literally? It’s almost as if you want to read into his statement so that what he meant was more than just what he said. You use the English language for your own benefit and to serve your specific purpose. The hard work of generations of people before you constructed and refined speech craft to incorporate complexities like context, inference and subtlety.
You didn’t build that.
Even though both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan refuse to list any specific tax loop holes that they would close, they adamantly claim that their budget proposals are "revenue neutral". If that is the case and if, in fact, that were possible, where would the revenue come from to lessen or get rid of the deficit come from? They continue to decry the growing size of the deficit; but, with a "revenue neutral" budget plan, they have no plan to deal with it.
The Romney campaign and its SuperPAC allies seem very adept at using edited video of President Obama's own ads and speeches to twist his words against him.
Why hasn't the Obama campaign used video from Gov. Romney's primary campaign, and the GOP debates, to emphasize the duplicity in his hard conservative positions then vs. his moderate ones now?
while Candy Crowley corrected Former Governor Mitt Romney's claim that President Obama had not used the term "terrorist attack" days after the attack. The so called liberal press has completely ignored that Crowley in a bumbling way also pointed out that the Obama administration had sent very mixed messages for weeks after the attack. President Obama avoided this fact on the Daily show the other night also. Please address
As a Canadian I once admired the U.S. and its political system, in fact i thought it was the best in the world. But since the appointment of G.Bush I feel that both the political system and the country itself has become dysfunctional. In the last four years esp. since the election of Obama which made me feel so good about the U.S.. The U.S. has become more divisive, more hateful, more racist and much more dysfunctional. I'm sad to see that much of the media has drunk the juice. I must say congrats to the GOP they have very successfully sabotaged this president as well as the 98% of the American people by blocking nearly everything this man has tried to accomplish. Now they are free to run around the country proclaiming that Obama's policies have failed and are not being held accountable for this treasonous act. I have many family members who live in the states including a brother who served in Vietnam and as a Detroit cop for nearly 39 years. I no longer admire the U.S. and am very thankful that I do not live there. I see the GOP trying to steal the election by this blatant attempt to erode the democratic process. Your politics has become completely corrupted and without integrity feeding the pop. lies and misinformation. if Romney the devout Mormon liar becomes pres. I will have to agree with Rush and I too will be hoping for this pres. to fail as well.
Within days bloggers on the internet pointed at former Al Qeada members as having been involved with the "terrorist attacks" on the U.S. consulate. The CIA chief in Libya reported this within 24 hours of the attack. Yet we hear President Obama still avoiding the fumble at the debates by hiding behind former Governor Romney's fumble when he claimed that President Obama had not used the term "terrorist attack" within days after the attack,
President Obama turned to Former Governor Romney and said that anyone who indicates that the Obama administration purposely mislead the public is wrong. Will we ever know whether the Obama administration purposely mislead the public on that attack?
Over at Dr. Marcy Wheeler (Emptywheel.net) she reported within days after the attack that classified intelligence was confiscated from the U.S. consulate. That some of this intelligence had to do with oil contracts in Libya. There was also a fair amount of talk on Professor Juan Cole's site, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett's site Race for Iran and a few other sites that those who conducted that attack on the U.S. consulate were Al Qeada members. And that Ambassador Stephens had dealt with former Al Qeada members who led the Libyan Rebels in the overthrow of Gaddafi.
Can your guest please address that the CIA chief of staff in Libya let the Obama administration know that the attack on the U.S.consulate was a terrorist attack
He said it the day after the Benghazi attack. What, did Republicans say it was unrelated? How do they arrive at that?
I am a woman and I will be voting for Romney. Hoping each day for a more unbiased discussion coming from NPR. Yes there many many different issues to discuss but bottom line - how can people not realize that if we as a society do not start making the RIGHT CHOICE instead of the EASY choice we WILL NOT be able to sustain a SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY as Mr. Obama is presenting!!!
Clearly there is so much more to the
Benghazi story. If you want to get more up to date, clear information about that attack. Go to Emptywheel.net, Race for Iran, Informed Comment Anti war .com Justin Raimando.
@ Robin Shoulders
Amen, my friend. I can only add, how can Paul Ryan sit there with a straight face and complain about the debt, when he voted for all eight of Bush's debt-laden budgets which did not include the two wars we were fighting. In addition, how can you expect a President to reach across the aisle when the leader of the GOP senate has vowed to do everything in his power to make him a one term president. So many Republican initiatives, like immigration reform and healthcare, were suddenly forgotten, in an effort to not give the President anything to campaign on. But, I will remember Ryan's utter bs when he attempts to run for President. All this foolishness coming from his mouth will come back to haunt him, as he leads a minority party post 2020. That will be fun to watch.
Beth not sure how you can do so. With Supreme Court seats more than likely opening up Roe Vs Wade on the cutting board. Not that abortions are a great choice for anyone. But the right to choose is so critical. Until so called pro life but really pro fetus individuals start to really stand behind real pro life issues health care for all babies that they have forced to be born, equity in education for all, fair wages, real help for those mothers that they have forced to have children then their arguments can not hold water. Period.
Romney is not even able to support the Lilly Ledbetter act Same wages for same work whether the individual is male or female. This is a simple thing to do and Romney is not able to support a logical stand up legislation.
Wake up Beth wake up before it is too late
After hearing again part of the debate, regarding the Rose garden comment, it is clear to me how aggresive, almost rude, Rommey sounds,
while President Obama was assertive but not aggresive.. I'm surprised this is not commented..
After hearing again part of the debate, regarding the Rose garden comment, it is clear to me how aggresive, almost rude, Rommey sounds,
while President Obama was assertive but not aggresive.. I'm surprised this is not commented..
the big difference is Obama's not up for re-election-- since they ca't beat him,maybe hey will work with him--
Oh yes, Chris Cilliza -
Lets talk about Romney as president and a tea party controlled house =
Right wing fananticism holds the country hostage to a regressive agenda to destroy the social safety net.
Don't blame "both parties" for playing chicken. It is the Republicans who pushed us to the brink for their refusal to take 2 cuts for every 1 increase in revenue.
And here you go apologizing and defending Romney's 1 point plan to fix the economy.
It's all fine and well to examine Romney's plan, but since this election is about the next four years why can't we examine Obama's plan? There is no plan except for more proposed budgets that even the democrat senate refuse to vote for. Four more years of the same! no thanks.
MrRoderickvLouis,
Just a quick point, the three branches of the US Government are the Legistature (House and Senate combined), the Executive (the President and cabinet), and the Judicial ( the supreme court).
If President Obama does win a second term would Republicans like Mitch McConnell who famously said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” be willing to put aside party politics to actually start working for all the American people?
It was only a matter of time before the liberals would start to attack Mormonism. Congratulations, Diane, you are one of the first. This is a great indicator of desperation on the part of the Obama team.
Good morning,
As it seems that most of the comments/questions you are receiving on the "women's vote" seem to be one sided, I felt the need to offer a first time comment:)
I am a Republican working mom living in Ohio. I find it negligent of the media to focus on how Romney may have handled the "women" issue while Governor and yet I have yet to hear ANYthing about documented evidence (via the Ron Suskin book of 2011) that describes in detail how women were treated in the early Obama White House. Sadly that usually seems to be the case. Thank you.
When Ms. Rehm brought up the murder of the ambassador and the administration's complete and willful misrepresentation of the attack, none of her guests really mentioned the lies Jay Carney was telling, blaming the attack on an internet video
Obama, Clinton, Rice, and Carney were deliberately lying for up to two weeks, yet apparently it is not a matter of any import to this group
Typical, for NPR
As usual. the coverup made the administration look worse than just telling the truth would have. It seems to me that they chose this colorful story over the truth as a diversion because they left this poor man to be killed by savages, basically unprotected after he had specifically asked for more security.
Moreover, if I hadn't watched the whole farce unfold and therefore realized early on Obama and Carney (Carney has a bright future if Obama loses, in Venezuela or NK) were lying through their teeth, I might have come away thinking that all muslims are apparently ignorant and violent thugs that can be easily manipulated by simple means, such as a video.
You are the best journalist out there! You are absolutely correct about the Mormon religion discouraging woman from working outside of the home. I am very familiar with the Morman church and have a lot of respect for their focus on the family. However, they go to great lengths to encourage moms to stay at home. For example, they do not allow preschools to be housed inside their buildings because they do not want their female members to work in them. I have been troubled by the fact that I haven't heard any other journalists point this out.
Look in regard to the Benghazi story. Most people get that the President of the United States can not tell us all of the classified details in regard to an attack on the U.S. consulate to the world. But why was that President Obama and the Obama administration did not simply come out and say we are not able to give you all of the details at this point or maybe ever. Why is it that they came out and said that these attacks were associated with the protest over that hateful anti Muslim movie? Why did they do that?
Thank goodness for the internet within days in depth reporters and researchers (who knows if they get inside information) that the attack was a "terrorist attack" That classified intelligence was confiscated. That Ambassador Stevens had been dealing with former Al Qeada members who had led the Libyan rebels a year ago.
Do your guest know if those involved in the "terrorist attack" on the U.S. consulate was committed by some of the very same former Al Qeada members that Ambassador Stevens had allegedly been working with during the overthrow of Gaddafi?
Every time Chris Cillizza is on you can expect the same formulaic comments
Long on regurgitation of GOP talking points and no analysis.
Let's see if Chris alone can win the election for R and R.