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.
On September 11, 2012 9 cities in the middle east had violent ongoing protests attributed to objections to an anti-Islamist YouTube video trailer.
Much ado resulted from initial comments by State Department staff and the President. See the initial statement by Susan Rice on "Meet The Press" responding to David Gregory (Sunday, September 16, 2012):
MS. RICE: "Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements
came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice."
Seems clear Ms. Rice was presenting what intelligence staff had provided up to that point (note the word "initially" embedded in her statement).
Her tentative assessment was surely as clear as Condoleesa Rice's ONGOING, REPEATED, LONG TERM statements on multiple Sunday shows about "imminent nuclear threat" and "mushroom cloud" and "WMDs" and portable chemical weapon facilities in Iraq. Did Condi drop/correct/repudiate her statements after only 14 days of investigation after 9/11/2001 ?? .......NOPE.
Michele Davis wrote:
"In case you haven't noticed - ecgbert-
The Middle East has been on fire since the Arab Spring and much before."
To a greater or lesser degree that has been true. There have been periods of relative peace and periods of great strife. Today, on Obama's watch, there are six countries (at least) "in play"; Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt - three new to the picture and three in worse shape vis-a-vis the U.S than when he took office. Those are not circumstances that speak to a "strong record in foreign affairs", but, hey, that's just me. In fact, this "leading from behind" policy and the appeasement policy of the Obama Administration has been an abject failure.
"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video."
But HA, that statement IS the problem. Because 5 days after the attack - in fact ONE day after the attack, that statement was not true and was known to be untrue.
Hi Diane!
Wiith regard to your comment about Romney's view of women related to the Mormon Church: I am a 53 year old Mormon Democrat in a very red state. In my view, as many Mormon women as possible do stay home to raise their children to school age. Many of them have a side business they work from home at the same time. When the children are all in school, many Mormon women leave home to enter the work force either part or full time. There are some Mormon families in Gov Romney's income bracket but he is not the majority in our church. The women in those wealthiest families are much more likely to not work outside the home with or without young children. They tend to do more volunteer work in the church & in the community. In my case, I have juggled a part time business, volunteer work while raising my children over the last 22 years.
Did you know that about 25% of Mormons ARE Democrats? Check out the web site Mormons for Obama!
HonestAbe wrote:
"Her tentative assessment was surely as clear as Condoleesa Rice's ONGOING, REPEATED, LONG TERM statements on multiple Sunday shows about "imminent nuclear threat" and "mushroom cloud" and "WMDs" and portable chemical weapon facilities in Iraq. Did Condi drop/correct/repudiate her statements after only 14 days of investigation after 9/11/2001 ?? .......NOPE.stAbe wrote:"
---------------------
You forgot General Powell went to the UN to present his photographic "evidence" of WOMD.
But your analysis of Rice's "tentative" talking points falls flat considering the Obama Administration had real time video of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi embassy five days before Rice did her 5 Sunday news show performance.
Let's put it this way. The problem with Obama - for the most part - are his opinions, not his character. He does think a bit too highly of his own opinions, and never acknowledges that his opponents have any valid opinions - or that he is willing to listen to them. So when he turns up the squelch on his rhetoric, I just turn off the dial on the TV or radio and go do something else. Liberals will never understand why, other than to try and make it personal, as if I were the problem. Not so.
Romney, on the other hand, just battered away with battalions of facts. I thought it was quite the thing after the first debate when Susan Page said on this show that she didn't understand all of Romney's facts and figures. Note to Susan - this is your job. Do your homework. But in the second debate, there wasn't really a debate, just the same sound bites with the same old numbers thrown around, out of context, as if we were too stupid and weren't listening the first time. Really, it was just a waste of time. If the candidates had actually tried to answer the questions from the audience thoughtfully, that would have been good - but I also think a lot of those questions were contrived, politically motivated gotcha questions whose underlying motives were pretty transparent. This debate was pretty much FAIL, when you come right down to it. Go back to the Nixon-Kennedy debates to see what a real Presidential debate looks like.
Candy Crowley was, in fact, mostly wrong, and Romney mostly right about President Obama's Rose Garden comments on 9/12. I hope she learned a valuable lesson that all future debate moderators should heed:
The job of moderator is tough enough. Don't make it harder, and undermine your credibility, by attempting to play fact-checker in real-time. Many others are doing that beyond your purview, and after the fact. Even if a debater says something that is obviously wrong (i.e., Gerald Ford in 1976 on USSR domination of Eastern Europe), let the opponent challenge it, not the moderator.
Bill_R wrote:
"Let's put it this way. The problem with Obama - for the most part - are his opinions, not his character. He does think a bit too highly of his own opinions, and never acknowledges that his opponents have any valid opinions - or that he is willing to listen to them".
Bill, this is a characteristic of most (though not all) on the left, and usually, the farther left you go, the more pronounced it gets. It is the attitude that "you are entitled to my opinion". Consider the posts of mchaun or Jim Gamble in this forum. In Obama's case it is quite evident. He claims to have tried to compromise with Republicans, but his view of compromise is, "agree with me". That is not what a leader does - especially with opinions so starkly divided in this country.
ecegbert - "appeasement"? We aren't living in the era of Neville Chamberlan and WWII. The problem with defense hawks (Neocons) is their short attention span.
The "periods of relative peace" ( I named a number that weren't - do you want to specify?) were bought by shoring up tyrants like Mubarak and Khadafi. Republican and Democratic adminstrations did this. In this election the GOP has resorted yet again to saber rattling. There are many reasons for our reluctance to do in Syria what was done in Lybia.
Chief among them, Syrian rebels are not a unified entity and do not have clear leadership. Without that we are risking the same mistake we made in Afghanistan by training and arming the Mujahadin vs. the Russians (the aftermath of that - Bin Laden and Alqeida). In addition, the Lybian airforce was much weaker than Syria's air force so that even establishing a no fly zone is more problematic.
Mit seems to want to entangle us in another Mideast misdaventure like encouraging Israel to go to war with Iran. Romney has five strapping sons who can serve. One says he wanted to "take a swing" at the president.
I have a grandson - How's about if Tag and his four brothers enlist and take out their GOP aggression against " our enemies". Their father doesn't seem reluctant to risk other children's sons and grandsons. Put your sons where your mouth is Mit.
Having been to a variety of sites, both liberal and conservative, I find it interesting that liberal bloggers often make observations and statements of opinion while conservatives prefer to criticize the site, the press, the administration, Democrats and liberals in general, or other bloggers. I have seen very few conservatives posing solutions or plans to improve ANYthing.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "He who has the tongue to criticize must also have the heart to help." Basically he meant it really helps NObody to just complain or tear down others.
Could be why Romney has yet to come up with anything new or creative to propose.
You continue to reinforce the illusion of a democratic 2 party system in the US, so I will continue to remind the reader, that they are living in a special interest-controlled prison. I only wonder if Diane is aware of this fact, but chooses to play the game for the sake of taking a paycheck and being a part of it. Or if she is actually oblivious to the reality of the political system we have today? Since I know she is an intelligent and informed person, I refuse to believe the latter. So I can only assume that she knows very well that her job, and that of the MSM, is to perpetuate the illusion, which serves to keep the American people down. I welcome any comments.
Honest?Abe wrote: "he meant it really helps NObody to just complain or tear down others."
You just described the modus operandi of the Obama campaign and the Obama presidency and why it's failing and failed on all fronts.
The outrage and anger from the left grows more intense here each day, must have something to do with those polls.
It looks real bad for Obama on Monday, he's on the defensive where he should be, and he hasn't even put one foot on the stage yet.
HonestAbe wrote:
"Abraham Lincoln once said, "He who has the tongue to criticize must also have the heart to help." Basically he meant it really helps NObody to just complain or tear down others.."
-------------------------
Lincoln is the Republican President that liberals love to call their own. . However, were you helping Dr. Condi Rice with your comments or just tearing her down
Pee pee tic, if I posted as much as you do, I might be worried. Phil, if you could find a "conservative" who could stick to the facts, I for one would welcome it. But then, you would call him a liberal, wouldn't you?
Hey Jim. If you spent any time here and paid attention, you would know that I, and others, post under two different IDs and you would know why. But you prove once again that you are a "low-information" poster. By the way, I just flagged your last post as "offensive". I don't care to do that, but two can play that game. Generally, posters here who strongly disagree will eschew that option except for direct personal attacks which seem to be your modus operandi. The fact that you have to appeal to other posters and/or the board moderator tells me you bring nothing to the table.
So what? Now you want to punch me?
"We aren't living in the era of Neville Chamberlan and WWII"
Yeah, actually we are.
"The "periods of relative peace" ( I named a number that weren't - do you want to specify?)"
I believe you're forgetting the Camp David accords and the Geneva accords, aren't you? There have been other periods far less heated compared to today - sure Iraelis and Palistinians have always been a bit strained, but nothing compared to today, but that seems like a tickle fight compared to the muslim on muslim brutality we see today - and that has escalated on Obama's watch with his policies of leading from behind and, yes, appeasement.
As for the tripe about Romney sending his sons into battle, it is just that. Romney doesn't want to send anyone's kids to war and I doubt that he will. Very similar tactic to what was used against Reagan in 1980 - he was gonna light off the bomb, wasn't he? You're 68. You surely remember that? Same scare tactics. Different election.
We are in agreement that the U.S. has made many mistakes in who it has backed in the middle east. When U.S. safety interests are not at stake, let them kill each other. Sad though it is, it doesn't affect us. Jefferson and I, and presumably you, are in agreement on that. Even humanitarian interventions, history shows, usually end up going south.
Jim Gamble wrote: "if you could find a "conservative" who could stick to the facts, I for one would welcome it. But then, you would call him a liberal, wouldn't you?"
Is this a "liberals" idea of "sticking to the facts"? Yes it is! By the way, am I supposed to be insulted by you twisting my user name? maybe if I were in second grade.
Jim Gamble wrote:Candy Crowley IS NOT backing down from her real-time-fact-check,despite what conservatives have fantasized here today:“Not a backtrack?” O’Brien wondered.“No!” Crowley said. “Now, did the president say, ‘This was an act of terror’? The president did not say [that], he said, these ‘acts of terror.’ But he was in the Rose Garden to talk about Benghazi so I don’t think that’s a leap.”
partisan politics wrote:"That MIGHT have made sense if it wasn't followed by a couple of weeks of an all out misinformation campaign by the entire Obama administration to blame the movie".
Jim Gamble wrote:
"pee pee tic wrote a typical Republican response: The Republican party's huge mountain of BS is nothing compared to the only example we can think of.
Birthers
Jobbers
WMD
Binders full of women
Romney's tax plan
Ryan's "budget"
Zero job creation
the polls are rigged"
Approximately 3 pages of posts censored from this thread.
In the real world where humans dwell there was a coordinated terrorist attack and the ambassador was killed with three others. There was no protest at the consulate over the youtube movie trailer. The consulate was inconstant communication with the state department. The next day the president gave a speech in the Rose Garden in which he mentioned the words 'terrorist attack' in a general manner. Not referring to any single event. Over the next two weeks the President and all his top advisors including the Secretary of State and United Nations ambassador explained to the American people and the rest of the planet that it was a spontaneous reaction to the youtube trailer. That is what happened in the real world. In the topsy turvy wacked out world of the liberal sheep that listen to this show none of that happened. In their view it was made crystal clear from the very beginning by the President and his administration that this was a coordinated terrorist attack. The talkers on this show are in agreement and that is why we must get taxpayer funding for this kind of thing stopped immediately.