Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-26/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Barack Obama suggested he will seek a grand fiscal bargain with Republicans if he’s reelected. Obama told The Des Moines Register this week he would also work to win congressional approval of immigration reform. Mitt Romney’s campaign said he disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments on rape, but he hasn't asked that an ad featuring him with the Indiana Senate candidate be withdrawn. New home sales rose to the highest level in two years. The Department of Justice said it will sue Bank of America over allegations it sold defective home loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And a look at the legacy of George McGovern. Diane and guests discuss the week’s top national stories: what happened and why.
Guests
Michael Scherer
White House correspondent for Time magazine.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post
Jonathan Allen
congressional reporter, Politico
Friday News Roundup Video
The panel discussed the political implications of Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock's comment about rape in a debate earlier this week. Mourdouck said, "I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen."
Michael Scherer, White House correspondent for Time magazine, said the comment gave an opening to Democrats and liberals to label Republicans as "extremists." "The politics of this is that all [election] cycle, Republicans have really struggled on social issues that in past cycles have played to their advantage," Scherer said. Karen Tumulty, national political reporter for The Washington Post, said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney probably wouldn't pull his ad endorsing Mourdock because doing so would focus the story on Romney.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Lets have a quicky quiz.
Which surname sounds less "American"..
.....Sunnunu....or Obama ?
Whose great grandfather was more "American"....
.....Obama's (lived in the US)....... Romney's (lived in Mexico with 5 sister wives) ?
Who "thinks faster in armor".....
......the 85% black professional sports heroes.....or the 85% white Congress...?
Which party got us into the Great Depression and the Great Recession...which pulled us out of both....
.....Rs.....Ds....?
Which commenters routinely bully and bash this site and other commenters......
....cookie cutter conservatives.......progressives....?
1dondraper wrote:
"The co-chair of his committee is John Sununu. Therefore as a Romney surrogate, he represents Mitt Romney. If you don't want to stand behind your statements, that is fine. But it is a fact that he represents Romney and he has made plenty of racist statements."
What is "racist" and what is not is a matter of opinion, not of fact, don. Which blows up your whole argument - unless you are in the camp that believes that if someone with an R behind their name is speaking, it's racist?
Claudette,
Great post on the narrow view of the left on religion. My favorite is their attempt to label conservatives as stingy or miserly toward the poor and try to use the Bible to support the premise, based on the idea that they don't support big government tax programs to support the poor. I'm always reminded of when Jesus fed the 5000. The disciples came to him after he had been preaching for a long time and it was too late in the day for his listeners to go and buy food. So Jesus says to them, "Right. I didn't realize the time. We should go to Ceasar to get our Roman overseers to provide some government cheese. After all, we don't want the people to go hungry, do we?"
Of course he didn't really say that. All he said was "YOU give them something to eat". In other words, the responsibility to help the poor does not depend on a government tax or on anyone but us - it relys first on us to try to provide for ourselves, then on the ability of everyone who can, to provide for the poor. Which, by the way, numerous studies have shown comes much more from "the right" (Christian conservatives) than from the left. Because the left is only generous with OPM. Just ask Joe Biden.
eggie asks a question---
"ecgberht wrote:
DIANE! WHERE IN THE H___ IS BENGHAZI!!!
When the President looks in the eyes of the American people and lies through his teeth (that's probably racist too) as the leaked emails now show that he did, you don't think that's worthy of discussion???!!! But Richard Mourdock is???!!!
October 26, 2012 - 10:14 am"
WWW tries to explain to eggie, "WHERE IN THE H___ IS BENGHAZI!!!"
"WWWyatt3 wrote:
@ecgberht - This is the DOMESTIC hour...
October 26, 2012 - 10:38 am"
eggie responds with a Straw Man!!!
"ecgberht wrote
@ecgberht - This is the DOMESTIC hour...
You think if the truth about Bengahzi sinks into the American consciousness, it will not affect the election?! The whole tact of the MSM has been to SUPPRESS this story as much as humanly possible until after 11/6. It should be discussed in BOTH contexts because it has relevance to both.
October 26, 2012 - 10:42 am"
WWW, to spare the poor, simple fellow's feelings, tries to explain again.
"WWWyatt3 wrote:
@ecgberht.....The DOMESTIC hour.....
October 26, 2012 - 10:48 am"
This time, eggie responds with a whole Corn field of Straw Men.
"ecgberht wrote:
@WWWyatt3:
Yeah, you said that ... and I said ...
You think if the truth about Bengahzi sinks into the American consciousness, it will not affect the election?! The whole tact of the MSM has been to SUPPRESS this story as much as humanly possible until after 11/6. It should be discussed in BOTH contexts because it has relevance to both.
Today's "Domestic Hour" is little more than a 60 minute Obama ad today. I expect the same from now until election day.
If you heard the political story on Morning Edition at 8:00 yesterday and today, it was clear. Obama gets non-stop sound bites from his speeches. Romney gets Richard Mourdoch. The contrast is stark. Don't believe me? Go online and listen.
October 26, 2012 - 10:53 am"
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
lyle says (rightly) that Ryan is using, what we Physicists call, "Hand Waving Arguments", meaning that he is trying to snow us.
"lyleoross wrote:
BTW - The notion proposed in the interview that Ryan is well informed, especially about budget issues, is directly commented on by Paul Krugman who points out that none of what Ryan says makes sense. Ryan proposes solutions without telling how to accomplish those ends. He hasn't crunched numbers because if he had, he would know what he is proposing won't work. How is it that your guests don't understand this and think Ryan is smart? Me thinks they are biased.
August 13, 2012 - 12:14 pm"
eggie responds with a classic Straw Man Whopper-
"ecgberht wrote:
lyleoross wrote:
"The notion proposed in the interview that Ryan is well informed, especially about budget issues, is directly commented on by Paul Krugman who points out that none of what Ryan says makes sense. "
Paul Krugman? The "Nobel Prize Winner" who said that the stimulus which wasted $1T wasn't ... BIG enough?!"
Then as if that wasn't bad enough, eggie also wrote-
"Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, lyleoross also wrote:"
"The MSM has done a very poor job of dissecting what Ryan has proposed. In depth analysis of it shows clearly that it won't work, that it doesn't get you to where Ryan says it will and that it is at best silly, not bad, but so bad that it is silly. "
"Won't work, poorly constructed, silly, blah, blah, blah, nothing of substance.
Read: "No, I haven't read the bill and I am counting on the likes of Krugman to tell me if I should like it or not".
August 13, 2012 - 1:53 pm"
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
eggie explains a pretty good definition of a Straw Man Argument--
"To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
And gives 2 examples--
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."
Then today, he manages to muddle a sensible and well-made point, obvious to all but the most obtuse thinker, proved true by years of bitter experience, thus--
ecgberht wrote:
ssousa wrote:
"Public health data consistently show that making abortions illegal increases morbidity and mortality for women and children."
Really? With unfettered abortion, the mortality rate for unborn children is 100%. How do you top that?
October 26, 2012 - 10:58 am
Need I say more??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote ... and wrote ... and wrote ...
Still not getting the "strawman" are you mchaun. A response to an argument that actually REFUTES the argument is not a "strawman". Get it? Here's an example:
"Public health data consistently show that making abortions illegal increases morbidity and mortality for women and children."
"Really? With unfettered abortion, the mortality rate for [aborted] unborn children is 100%. How do you top that?
That's a statement of fact, and a counter argument, not a "strawman argument".
On the other hand, if I had said, Well, then we should promote abortions to get that morbidity and mortality rate as low as possible! it would have been a strawman.
Except I didn't say that.
It was also a statement made in irony. We should work on getting you to understand that, right after you've mastered the "strawman".
Irony: "a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form "
Oh ... sorry.
Sardonic: "disdainfully or skeptically humorous : derisively mocking "
mchaun wrote:
"eggie responds with a classic Straw Man Whopper-"
Sure, mickey. Be happy to explain this one to you as well. So pay close attention, ok?
lyleoross's entire argument rested on the statements of "Paul Krugman who points out that none of what Ryan says makes sense". So the opinion of Paul Krugman, is what lyleoross relies upon to uphold the idea that Ryan's plan is unworkable. Pointing out that Paul Krugman is an unreliable (and certainly heavily biased) source on the subject is not a "strawman". It is an impeachment of his source on the subject of economics and economic analysis.
Now, if I had said, "Paul Krugman? You know Paul Krugman put his mother in a nursing home, don't you"? That might have been a strawman.
But I didn't say that.
In fact, MSM HAS done a very poor job of any kind of in-depth analysis to the Ryan plan. They just take the word of partisans like Krugman and run with it. Which is why I said that this is equivalent to, ""No, I haven't read the bill and I am counting on the likes of Krugman to tell me if I should like it or not".
Get it now?
"eggie responds with a Straw Man!!!"
"This time, eggie responds with a whole Corn field of Straw Men."
Again, mchaun, not everything you disagree with is a "strawman". If I had said, "The Domestic hour? If it's the Domestic hour, why aren't we talking about maids!" That might have been a strawman.
But I didn't say that.
Instead, I showed WWWyatt3 why the Benghazi debacle was appropriate for the first hour, the Domestic hour, because it may (and probably is) affecting the election and has been a subject of the debates heretofore. That's DOMESTIC news.
WWWyatt3, it appears, did not seem to get that, and neither do you.
Keep Googling the "Strawman" argument and reading about it, mchaun, and maybe, someday, you'll find me making one. So far, you've not shown a single example!
It is clear to me that this panel, and its unquestioning support for the Simpson Bowles plan, doesn't have a clue about how budget reductions and "entitlement reforms" will affect ordinary people.
Why don't you explain to people what exactly is meant by "broadening the tax base"? I fear the unreflective use of that term as right wing code for shifting more of the tax burden upon those least able to bear that burden.
The corporate control of our media produces such people, who are apparently insulated from people who struggle with low-wage jobs, without pensions, without adequate healthcare, manipulated by the "social issues" and blinded by the paucity of genuine analysis from such "reporting."
I love you, Diane, but to me this is just another example of the ways even NPR has been co-opted by corporate funding.
I will never send another dime to NPR or its local affiliates.
@ ecgberht, you are wrong. I personally know progressives who give a substantial amount of their income to charity and other organizations that protect the environment, expand the safety net, promote civil rights, and provide treatment to the uninsured, both here and abroad!
Why do faux "conservatives" hate the idea that we AS A PEOPLE, have a MORAL obligation, THROUGH THE POWER OF SELF-GOVERNANCE, to create and maintain the social/political/economic frameworks that enable individual freedom AND social justice to flourish! Do you really believe if you falsely label our moral obligations to each other a form of totalitarian communism, we will swallow it!
Opposition to self-governance is achieved by corrupting its processes and de-legitimizing its purpose as the will of the people. Hence the fears of totalitarian “socialism/communism” are deliberately heightened to destroy trust in the validity of government itself! This lie, this deception, this false witness, is successfully robbing us of our birthright as heirs to the world's first democratic republic!
A people whose desire for freedom has been high jacked so that people hate their own elected government, are undermining their own power. This is the disease of faux “conservatism.”
Those who fund and manipulate faux "conservative" campaigns hate the restrictions that a free people may set upon their ability to harm. They want you to believe that self-governance is "the tyranny of the majority"!
They much prefer the tyranny of the powerful few, with unrestrained ability to pollute with impunity, deceive without restraint, war without risk, practice thievery without consequence. This may be the freedom for oligarchs and corporations, but has serious consequences, life & death effects, for the rest of us.
There is nothing moral or Christian or decent about that, and nothing you say will make it so.
Yet who is the target of faux “conservative” rage? Irrational and immoral hatred is directed at people "who want something for nothing", who "refuse to take responsibility for their lives"! (The idiotic assumption that we each live on an island apparently unaffected by everything around us, and everybody makes or breaks themselves. Without stating the obvious that individual effort is absolutely necessary to successfully interact with the social context, the moronic insistence that individuals are unaffected by the social/political/economic environment, in a nuclear family vacuum, is asinine and inaccurate!
Such claims are equivalent to asserting we are all powerful little gods, and only have ourselves to blame for our wealth or our misery. Only people who have never known a moment of hunger or fear or untreated illness would make such a stupid, stupid claim!)
This deadly assumption is the basis of so many bitter and hateful comments aimed at the recipients of anti-poverty and New Deal programs, and so many of those comments are bitterly opposed to sharing the burden to create and uphold a society that PREVENTS hunger and homelessness and oppression and ignorance and injustice, I doubt very, very much your premise that religious faux "conservatives" are more generous.
I do grant that many conservatives do have a heart, and are willing to share for THOSE WHO ARE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THEM, what about those who are invisible! I guess it's just their bad luck if the "charitable" programs that churches & voluntary organizations don't fill the needs, too freaking bad, right! How about we get to media to ignore them, eh? Allow the entire culture to continue the message "Just stay invisible and don't make noise so we have to see and be effected by our suffering."
No wonder Jesus weeps.
The truth is that refusing to uphold a JUST social structure, ENABLING AN UNJUST & INEQUITABLE POLITICAL & ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT FORMS THE FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC POVERTY, HUNGER, IGNORANCE, AND HOMELESSNESS PUTS THE LIE TO JUST INTENTIONS.
What about the power of the individual will? Get real! Gut taxes, gut public education, gut healthcare, gut housing for the most vulerable, and it is only the rare exception that overcomes the overwhelming social odds against them.
Such a society is a sociopath's vision, and there is nothing Christian about it.
There are no more conservatives; every traditional value has devolved into the ugly lust for power and profit. The truth is that religious conservative & libertarian philosophies are politically wedded to the social & economic right wing, essentially the rebirth of the John Birch through their billionaire heirs. Never mind that the dismissal as others as inferior, the denigration of their humanity & worth, NOT the compassion or justice of Christ, are the underlying foundation of libertarianism ! You and Ryan can try to dress it up in the Cross, but selfishness is not sacrifice, never was and never will be!
The only way to make the world a better place is to improve human nature.
Which is impossible. Ain't gonna happen.
All these other "solutions", regardless of which end of the political spectrum they come from, will not work. Why? Because these ideas come from those who exhibit the worst traits of human nature: greed and dishonesty.
@HonestAbe @ Carolyn Doc @ Mchaun:
Power whining, gnashing your teeth, frothing at the mouth, kicking your feet, hurling insults and epithets and all the while railing against those who disagree with you on any given minutia or particum of a subject. And here I thought those were all tactics that you attribute exclusively to those on the right? Is this tantrum happening because in your heart of hearts you know of the impending death of your ideology and the exposure of your collective dirty underwear and because you know that eventually you are going to get the change that Obama promised you in 2008, but not exactly in the way he promised?
There are no more democrats... only power whiners, advocates, collusionists and water carriers...Gunga Din....Gunga Din....Gunga Din....
First, don't be thrown by the different ID. ecgberht and I think so much alike that some think we're the same person!
"@ ecgberht, you are wrong. I personally know progressives who give a substantial amount of their income to charity and other organizations that protect the environment, expand the safety net, promote civil rights, and provide treatment to the uninsured, both here and abroad!"
Carolyn,
You are wrong. I offer statistics, you offer anecdotes. Now, as I have often said, liberals are kings of the anecdote, but never mind.
I was going to give you a few links to studies that prove my point, but when I started looking I couldn't choose.
Suggest you Google "who gives more to charity liberals or conservatives" and start reading.
"I doubt very, very much your premise that religious faux "conservatives" are more generous." You can doubt what you want, but it is true. Liberals are generous all right, but it's mostly with OPM.
I never said that I want no government. Conservatives want SMALL government, especially at the Federal level.
I never said that I want no safety net.
I have written on both of these numerous times on these boards, but they remain popular memes of the left that are false.
Part deux:
"Never mind that the dismissal [of] others as inferior, the denigration of their humanity & worth, NOT the compassion or justice of Christ, are the underlying foundation of libertarianism ! You and Ryan can try to dress it up in the Cross, but selfishness is not sacrifice, never was and never will be!"
First, you conflate libertarians and conservatives. They are not the same. I have already refuted the "selfishness" argument. "the compassion or justice of Christ" has nothing to do with confiscation of other people's money, no matter how much you want to think that. I encourage you to read the account of the feeding of the 5000, the parable of the coin, and others to understand Jesus's teachings on money and government. Taking and spending other people's money does not make you a generous person, Carolyn. Government confiscation is the LEAST efficient way to help the poor. But it does give power to the elite (like you) to redistribute wealth the way they see fit.
Richard Mourdock has decided that he speaks for God. The Mourdock remark on rape is outrageous. 1st. that God would look on a pregnancy born out violence is sanctioned by God or Jesus Christ whether your 12 or 45 years old that conception, that potential of life is sanctioned by God according to Messiah Mourdock. As a Christian my hair is on fire. "that rapes resulting in pregnancy are "something that God intends to happen." OK, a conception based on rape is a life that God intended? Whether the woman is 12 ( hardly a woman) or 45 (the end of her life). JUST IMAGE BEING RAPED AT 12. MIND BOGGLING ISN'T IT.
1st Richard Mourdock YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR GOD.
2nd ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE APPALLED THAT the Messiah Mourdock has brought down his commandment. All pregnancies from rape and incest are gifts from God and something that God intended to be taken to fruition. HE SPEAKS, LIKE MANDEL, LIKE RYAN, LIKE EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN, THEY SPEAK FOR GOD.
3rd Your party, the Republican party, wishes to cut any aid to young women with children (the Ryan Plan). Whether you work 1 job or 2, if you dare to make minimum wage. Can't afford well care or food for your children, your not working hard enough.
4th THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL CUT AID TO YOUNG WOMEN WITH CHILDREN. You are Mitt Romney's 47%, he told you that, you are my 47%, he does not care what happens to you or your children.
5th If you are unfortunate enough to go to a bar and miss the errant mickey that some guy wants to put in your drink, rapes you and you become pregnant. Endure the pregnancy, give that child up for adoption, this is what GOD INTENDED. RICHARD MOURDOCK KNOWS, HE SPEAKS FOR GOD. THAT IS WHAT WE FACE AS WOMEN.
@Carolyn
Well spoken. Most people in this country, and even moreso in the more civilized nations, would agree with virtually everything you said.
Carolyn Doric wrote:
"I love you, Diane, but to me this is just another example of the ways even NPR has been co-opted by corporate funding.
I will never send another dime to NPR or its local affiliates."
--------------------------
Bravo! Since Governor Romney is for defunding NPR/PBS, you will be voting for him on November 6. You go girl!
Wow!!! Now even Scripture is fair game for the ecgberht gang's deliberate and studied debasement of Truth!!!
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 FOR UNTO EVERY ONE THAT HATH SHALL BE GIVEN, AND HE SHALL HAVE ABUNDANCE: BUT FROM HIM THAT HATH NOT SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY EVEN THAT WHICH HE HATH.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote:
"Wow!!! Now even Scripture is fair game for the ecgberht gang's deliberate and studied debasement of Truth!!!"
Thanks for posting that passage, mchaun, which makes my point so beautifully. I especially like vs.40. I'll paraphrase in mchaunese, "40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have created a government program to help one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me"
See the difference, mchaun?Carolyn? Your world view simply abrogates your PERSONAL responsibility toward others and foists it on government. I won't presume to speak for Jesus as you two do, but I don' think that is the gist of this passage.