Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-09/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Barack Obama is elected for another term. The U.S. House stays Republican and the Senate gains two Democratic seats. And the focus turns to avoiding the fiscal cliff. Diane and a panel of journalists discuss the week’s top national stories, what happened and why.
Guests
Ron Elving
senior Washington editor for NPR.
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Friday News Roundup Video
The 2012 national elections ushered in a historic number of female legislators, including key wins by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Tammy Baldwin and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. Ron Elving of NPR said the number of women running for office, the quality of their candidacies and re-election rates hit record highs, as did voter turnout among women. "I remember when I first start working for the United States Senate as a staff member in 1985, there was not a women's restroom on the level with the Senate chamber. They had to go to another floor, and there weren't that many to go there," Elving said. "So we have just transformed the Senate in that 30 year period." USA Today's Susan Page said studies indicate that female elected officials tend to seek alliances and common ground across party lines more than their male counterparts do.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
ecgberht wrote: 'Associating the recent storm activity to "global warming" is patently dishonest and Diane has done it more than once since we first heard about Sandy. In a word - it's propaganda"
Just another example in the unending examples of liberal dishonesty.
maxmati wrote:
"Values!
There is a fundamental difference between sticking to one's values and imposing them on others, republicans just don't get this!"
--------------------------
Is this actually sarcasm? Because it sure seems Valerie Jerrett and Sandra Fluke are leading the charge of imposing their values on the entire country.
@ Phil Buster
You are becoming my personal pinata, but I enjoy exposing your "lies" and "misinformation". First, two weeks ago, you had a math problem with Colin Powell's endorsement (how many years was in the Senate again) and last week you stated Romney, your fellow liar, didn't say Jeep was moving ALL their production to China, to which I provided a link of him saying exactly that. Now, this week, you continue with your misinformation campaign. None of those actors campaigned for Romney....are you sure about that, big guy.....don't let the facts get in the way
Giuliani, Voight campaign in NEPA for Romney
BY DAVID SINGLETON (STAFF WRITER)
Published: November 6, 2012
On the eve of today's presidential election, the two men led an entourage of Republican heavy-hitters to Scranton on Monday to rally the GOP faithful to keep working for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and deny Democrat Barack Obama a second term in the White House.
"We must save this country," Mr. Voight told about 50 people, mostly party operatives and campaign volunteers, who crowded shoulder to shoulder in a small room at the Republican headquarters on North Washington Avenue.
Mr. Voight recited parts of the mournful speech from "Camelot," during which King Arthur asks a boy to remember "that once there was a fleeting wisp of glory called Camelot."
"I don't want the United States to be 'once there was,' and your efforts may make the difference," Mr. Voight told the campaign volunteers.
He said Americans will see a nation broken like never before if voters re-elect Mr. Obama.
"Obama says how can we trust Romney," Mr. Voight said. "The truth is how can we trust him (Mr. Obama)."
Why, from the Democrats' standpoint, is it always the Republicans who are expected to change their stance? I assume it is because the Republicans have lost the ability to explain why their position is good for the country as a whole, and that they are continuously fighting about topics that have no business being determined by politicians. That is what needs to change in the Republican party. But this win by President Obama is NOT an affirmation that the Democrats have the high moral ground here, nor does it mean that they have the proper ideas on making our country better. In fact, the Democrats have been more obstructionist on many issues than anyone. They have killed every attempt at a budget, and have refused to accept any republican ideas on most legislation that came to the House. The truth is that Obama has been a divisive president. There has been no real attempt to move to the center. It has been all about promising that the federal government is going to give everything to anyone who thinks they have somehow been unfairly denied some fantasy of a perfect life. The fact is, voters like me, single white and mid-fifties, may not like the way the Republicans are going off track, but we can not fathom voting for a president who has not accomplished even the basics of his job. The president has weakened us abroad, has left positions unfilled, got no consensus on a budget, and has further strengthened the divide in congress by refusing to accept any of the good ideas from the Republicans. That is why he only got slightly over half of the popular vote. I personally couldn't vote for him, so I had to vote for Romney no matter what he said.
BobbyNoel wrote:
"The mantra that the President didn't get a mandate is just another way of rationalizing non-cooperation. The President won five out of six contested states, he won because the people chose the concepts of economic fairness, multiculturalism, women's equality and universal healthcare."
--------------------------------
None of these issues have anything to do with fixing the economy. But thanks for admitting that 50% of the country voted to re-elect President Obama in order to continue to get free stuff.
ECG wrote "..Obama's first term was about getting re-elected. His second term is about his legacy. Neither term is about the country. Pretty simple stuff, really.”
Actually his first term was all about working for the benefit of American people to the best of his ability. His second term will be the same.
Pretty simple stuff really.
There have been too many critical issues to contend with for him to have the luxury to sit around worrying about “his legacy”.
Bush on other hand spent lots of time worrying about “legacy” without much effect.
BobbyNoel wrote:
"economic fairness"
Read: confiscatory tax policy - or - spreading the wealth around.
I was thinking about the strong support the polls show for raising taxes on the wealthiest - somewhere between 60 and 65% I think was the last number I heard. Is this a good thing?
IMHO, no, it's immoral - people just don't realize it.
Imagine a family; husband, wife, four kids. Mom and Dad work. They're the sole bread winners. Kids all get an allowance - let's say Mom and Dad pay "taxes" that support their wants. Were this a democracy and you took a poll, do you think the kids would vote to get their allowances raised? Mom and Dad would be badly outvoted. Since Mom and Dad are the ones that work, do you think that would be fair? Moral?
President Obama plans to use his massive campaign organization to assist him in his battles with Republicans as he seeks to drive forward his second term agenda.
Obama used his 2008 campaign infrastructure during his first term to try to further his objectives. But the apparatus today is far larger and much better organized than in 2009 and 2010, when it helped the president barely tug Obamacare over the finish line in Congress.
The campaign has developed detailed profiles of its supporters and has an excellent idea about who it can tap to participate in rallies, contact lawmakers, and organize others in support of Obama initiatives.
Messina’s decision to immediately let supporters know they will be enlisted for further action suggests that the first order of business for them could be the looming battle over tax increases and spending cuts needed to avert the “fiscal cliff.”
But the organization could have an even more powerful impact during what is expected to be an emotional 2013 battle over immigration reform. Obama’s massive Election Day support from Latinos and backers of his immigration stance will no doubt be translated into direct, populist action next year.
1dondraper wrote:
@ Phil Buster
"You are becoming my personal pinata, but I enjoy exposing your "lies" and "misinformation". First, two weeks ago, you had a math problem with Colin Powell's endorsement (how many years was in the Senate again) and last week you stated Romney, your fellow liar, didn't say Jeep was moving ALL their production to China, to which I provided a link of him saying exactly that. Now, this week, you continue with your misinformation campaign. None of those actors campaigned for Romney....are you sure about that, big guy.....don't let the facts get in the way."
--------------------------------------
Math problem? What are you babbling about? Who said anything about the Senate? You really need to cite these make believe posts you say I posted.
What commercial did Vought make supporting Romney? He spoke to "50" people? Wow! Although that is more than Sandra Fluke could get to attend her function.
Please show me where any of the people on your list made known their politics before they were well established stars in their 40's? In this way, the Hollywood black list against conservatives couldn't effect their careers.
The only Hollywood commercials supporting a candidate were done by Hollywood liberals. Who could forget those inane actresses pleading to vote for Obama and the tattoed dumpster fire pretending voting for Obama was like their first sexual encounter. Ughh! Now, do you have any Republican conservatives making a commercial for Romney? Do you now realize that you have no idea about Eastwood's politics?
@ Phil Buster
Clint Eastwood is a libertarian. Had you read the complete profile, you would have seen that. His own words, not yours. ;-)
Stacy Dash, young.....the chick is almost 50. Oh and she voted for Obama in 2008....so stop being a hypocrite. If you release Eastwood for supporting a Democrat....be consistent.
CCraigS wrote:
"Why, from the Democrats' standpoint, is it always the Republicans who are expected to change their stance? I assume it is because the Republicans have lost the ability to explain why their position is good for the country as a whole, and that they are continuously fighting about topics that have no business being determined by politicians. That is what needs to change in the Republican party. "
The answer to the first question is because their position is "you are entitled to my opinion". The second point is exactly correct and I had the same conversation with my wife last night. The Republican party has a great message on self-reliance, self-determination, and economic prosperity - they're just lousy at communicating it. The values that most Republicans share are shared by important constituent groups in this election, including women and Latinos, but they were overshadowed by "the war on women" and "self-deportation". Republicans need to SHUT THEIR MOUTHS on social issues and stick to the economic ones. We have the freedom argument on our side.
So, it's your contention that we should have an open border. Letting in everyone who wants to come and giving them all of the benefits of citizenship immediately? Because that is what would be. And calling illegal immigration 'undocumented immigration" just to make it sound better won't work. We have rules about coming into our country for a reason. Giving rewards to people who come here illegally only begets more of the same...and it belittles those who have been trying to come here legally for years, and lengthens their wait. Find another solution.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"Actually his first term was all about working for the benefit of American people to the best of his ability. "
So you admit that he's incomepent. Most people still think we're in a recession! U6 rate is 16%. UE rate only declines because people leave the workforce. 100-150K jobs per month means we're still moving backwards! Growth an anemic 2%.
If his first term were not about getting re-elected, how do you explain this open mike comment to Medvedev? "After my election I have more flexibility"!
"Bush on other hand spent lots of time worrying about “legacy” without much effect."
Pure rhetoric. Bring some evidence.
1dondraper wrote:
@ Phil Buster
Clint Eastwood is a libertarian. Had you read the complete profile, you would have seen that. His own words, not yours. ;-)
Stacy Dash, young.....the chick is almost 50
---------------------------
50? Dash is 46. Now who has a math problem? What is your point? With age comes wisdom? You just now researched Eastwood's politics? Good for you. Why did you not do this before you put him on your Conservative Republican list? Well, getting your facts straight is better latter than never.
@ Phil Buster
Jon has spoken to way more than 50 people. He was very active in his support of Romnesia. But of course, you said, none of those actors supported him personally
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/11/obama-vs-romney-who-celebs...
Jon Voight: The conservative actor is a regular on cable news, supporting Romney.
Care to change your last HS statement. This is fun
partisan politics wrote:
The take away was the shortsightedness of the irresponsible and the need for the here and now it produces without any concern for the future.<<<
I didn't agree with your take away, just that immigration is not the only issue. I don't support people who want a hand out, but there are people who are born into or find themselves, through no fault of their own, in situations where they could use a hand up, or at least a society where they have an opportunity to work hard & achieve a comfortable standard of living. That is no longer the case.
Why are so many people unemployed, getting food stamps & without health insurance. Not because they want it; it's because our country was pushed over a cliff & into the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.
Our economy crashed because of the combination of over-inflated house prices due to abnormally high demand, the granting of mortgages to people who could not afford them - some with balloon terms that home buyers didn't fully understand, & the packaging of these mortgages into bundles that were then sold as investments, with the expectation that these mortgages would be paid back at the same rate as in the past.
When many were unable to pay their mortgages, the economy came tumbling down. It took down not just those who had taken out mortgages they couldn't afford; it took down anybody who had bought their house at over-inflated prices & now had mortgages in excess of the new (true) house values. Then the economy in general went bad & more people lost their jobs resulting in even more people who couldn't pay their mortgages, which in turn led to much unemployment, etc.
Who is at fault? How can we fix it? These questions have complicated answers. It's far simpler for those of us who weren't affected by the downturn to think that those who now find themselves in dire straits deserve it & just want handouts from the rest of us.
@ Phil A Buster
Still think none of the people on that list actively supported Romney? Still want to stand by that statement? Didn't think so.
IleanaDU wrote: "I didn't agree with your take away"
I know that, but that was the thrust of the article.
CCraigS wrote:
"So, it's your contention that we should have an open border."
That's called a "strawman" argument, CCraig. I am absolutely not in favor of an "open border". I'm just admitting that Romney put his foot in his mouth with the Latino community by making that comment. That's why messaging is so, so important. Democrats mastered it this time around, though most of that "mastering" was simply effectively demonizing their Republican opponents instead of putting forward a positive message.
With respect to immigration policy, my preference would be for a FENCE - to start with. If we can build almost 50K miles if interstate highway, we can build an effective fence across the Mexican border. When you cut yourself, you don't start cleaning up the blood until you stop the bleeding first. It makes NO SENSE to deal with illegals until you can control the inflow of people. A fence would be only step one. After that, you punish businesses for hiring illegals. Once you have done that, economics will drive many illegals home. Others will pursue the correct avenues to citizenship which is great. However ... would I ever articulate any of this were I a candidate for office? Not in a million years. I would say something nebulous, like "this is a critical issue, blah, blah, blah" and turn the topic back to the economy ... and I would never use the term "illegal alien".
BobbyNoel wrote:
"economic fairness"
Read: confiscatory tax policy - ...
Imagine a family; husband, wife, four kids. Mom and Dad work. They're the sole bread winners. Kids all get an allowance - let's say Mom and Dad pay "taxes" that support their wants. Were this a democracy and you took a poll, do you think the kids would vote to get their allowances raised? Mom and Dad would be badly outvoted. Since Mom and Dad are the ones that work, do you think that would be fair? Moral? <<<
This is a spurious analogy. The "kids" here are middle class tax payers who have worked hard for years. Mom & Dad took part of the money the kids earned on their own and used it to party (give themselves big tax cuts & move jobs overseas so they could make greater profits) and buy things they couldn't afford (like 2 useless wars, tax benefits for oil companies, deductions for corporate jets, etc.). When it wasn't enough, they borrowed money and built up a debt while continuing to party. Now mom & dad want the kids to pay for all the debt, and don't want to pay for the benefits they have already received when they should instead have been chipping in.
That would be a closer analogy.
Energy independence arguments by the oil industry are a red herring. From what I read, they currently sell gasoline and diesel fuel off shore to the tune of 2 million barrels per day. More production means more off shore sales of this critical resource. Regulate American petrochemical production for AMERICA FIRST!
Thank you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/springsteen-wit...
Yeah, yeah, we know. The Democrats get all the biggest Hollywood names, but Romney has a few stars in his corner: Kid Rock was slated to be on stage at Romney’s New Hampshire rally Monday; Jon Voight, Meat Loaf, Patricia Heaton and Kelsey Grammer stumped for him last week.
"none of them actively supported him" I'm guessing the Washington Post must disagree with you, but what do they know.
I have a general comment on the election. Mitt Romney is an amazingly wealthy man, who believes that he should not pay 'a dime' more than he 'owes' (after paying lawyers to beat down that number) - which was just 13% last year. In addition, he seems to think that it is seemly, and patriotic for him to put his millions into off-shore banking accounts, and he acts as if it is not only 'business as usual', but patriotic to run a 'small business' like Bain Capital, where he took several American businesses to bankruptcy, pulled millions out for himself and his partners, and then sent jobs to China.
When my father returned with his comrades from World War II people such as Mitt Romney were paying closer to 90% taxes on their millions, and that money paid for public roads, education, and the GI Bill. My father, and the people who he fought with, would have laughed hysterically at someone like Mr. Romney thinking that he deserved the Presidency of the US, when he didn't even think enough about his country, to 'give back' for his good fortunes, in the form of taxes.
I am shocked that none of the commentators has ever directly commented on these points.
1dondraper wrote:
@ Phil A Buster
"Still think none of the people on that list actively supported Romney? Still want to stand by that statement? Didn't think so."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Where are the commercial that aired on cable, TV or radio that Hollywood Republicans made for Romney. Since it is your list, where is Stallone's, Willis', Grammer's, Heaton's etc commercials for Romney. I'll wait.......
@ Phil Buster
"Jon has spoken to way more than 50 people. He was very active in his support of Romnesia. "
----------------------
Active? Where is his commercial? Was he on MSNBC supporting Romney? Do they even allow Hollywood types on their air to promote anything conservative?
We won't even get into your use of Obama's nonsensical term "Romnesia." The least you could do is put it in quotes. I'm sure Axelrod would prefer that you attributed this inane word.
IleanaDU wrote:
"This is a spurious analogy. The "kids" here are middle class tax payers who have worked hard for years."
So you say. In the Obama world, Mom and Dad are small business owners who have worked hard and done well. And, actually, the kids in the analogy don't work. They are welfare and food stamp recipients. But, as I said, why wouldn't they vote to tax anyone that "has"? This is not even an argument about rich and poor, or about haves and have nots. It's an argument as to whether confiscatory tax policy (taking money from the haves, just because they have it) is moral, while half the country contributes nothing in income taxes.
1dondraper wrote:
" I'm guessing the Washington Post must disagree with you, but what do they know."
------------------
According to their own history, not much. Remember Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke's made up story about 8-year-old heroin addict?
"The media's post-election truth leaks are in full swing now as the Washington Post will publish an admission from its ombudsman Sunday that it was clearly biased towards Barack Obama in its coverage of the just-concluded presidential campaign."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR200811...
Dean Kirkling wrote:
"Regulate American petrochemical production for AMERICA FIRST!"
"[Maxine] Waters responded, in part, “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …”
The congresswoman paused to collect her thoughts.
“Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …”
Apparently the good Congresswoman takes her cues from Hugo Chavez .
1dondraper wrote:
"Yeah, yeah, we know. The Democrats get all the biggest Hollywood names..."
-------------------------------
The "biggest?" Hardly. Scarlett Johansson, Eva Longoria, Jessica Alba, Kal Penn, Kerry Washington, Jessica Sanchez, Common, Perez Hilton, etc are not exactly A list movie actors. But what a risk to their careers they took supporting the icon of liberalism.
Of course Obama got Springstein. But the Boss hasn't been relevant since the 70's when he knew better than to get mixed up in liberal politics.
victoria meyers wrote:
"When my father returned with his comrades from World War II people such as Mitt Romney were paying closer to 90% taxes on their millions,"
No, Victoria. They weren't. First, there were only about 400 people in the country in that highest bracket. And NONE of them actually paid that rate.
"he acts as if it is not only 'business as usual', but patriotic to run a 'small business' like Bain Capital, where he took several American businesses to bankruptcy, pulled millions out for himself and his partners, and then sent jobs to China. "
Patently dishonest presentation. Every one of those companies would have gone belly-up without the RISK that Bain took with them. Then there are massive successes like Staples, Sports Authority, and Bright Horizons. Romney and Bain CREATED many more jobs than were lost in the companies that failed - which would have been lost anyway.
But it's fun to demonize the rich, isn't it?
"I am shocked that none of the commentators has ever directly commented on these points."
Don't blame the Governor. Blame the legislature. Romney didn't set the Cap Gains rates. The legislature can make whatever tax policy they want. It's then up to the citizens to either pay it or find ways to avoid (not evade) paying it. Romney is grateful for what he has and he gives away millions - including ALL the money inherited from his father.
But it's fun to demonize the rich, isn't it?