Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-16/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The FBI comes under scrutiny for its handling of the David Petraeus affair. Negotiations begin to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. And President Barack Obama lays out a vision for his second term. A panel of journalists joins guest host Frank Sesno to talk about the week’s top national stories, what happened and why.
Guests
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Julie Hirschfeld Davis
congressional correspondent for Bloomberg News.
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor for The Economist and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
Friday News Roundup Video
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered an ethics review of the military Thursday following the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Washington Correspondent for The New York Times, discussed the propriety of Petraeus and General John Allen intervening in a custody battle. "At the heart of it is a question of the conduct of our military, of the conduct of our highest-ranking civil servants," Stolberg said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
IndieLady7 wrote:
"ecgberht wrote: "I wouldn't get too excited. The Obama win was a tactical win, not an ideological one"
How so?"
Because in the end it was all about ground game and turnout. The Obama folks did a better job. Pure and simple.
pp wrote:
"The hard data shows that Hispanics overwhelmingly favor the redistributive policies of the welfare state. It is affinity for the welfare state and not opposition to the GOP on immigration that drives the Hispanic vote to trend heavily Democratic.""
Completely agree and have said so here. And, the former is what the election was about for Hispanics - clearly not the latter.
""Hispanics have not shown any affinity to vote Republican based on family values; this is because Hispanic family values in America are generally not conservative."
There I disagree. When "family values" is defined by things like abortion, gay marriage, and religous freedom, Hispanics are much more Conservative. And out of wedlock births is on the rise for every demographic. Republicans said the election would be about economics and they were right - just not in the way they thought. Instead of low taxes and small government, the economic issue was that of OPM.
mike dell,
Your post violates the Code of Conduct on the mb.
It's too bad journalists like Julie did not spend any time during the election informing the public about the facts regarding how far ahead President Obama was. If she and her ilk are so committed to telling the public the truth(given her comments about the Benghazi incident) why didn't she, etc, work a bit harder to reveal what the actual status of the election was? I find her so called commitment to the truth a bit late. Does the media not recognize its role in perpetrating the problems for the public as well as the President by acting as if they are reporting what's going on, but mostly they just issue opinions. I am sick of this kind of journalism. The nation is hurting because of it. So get to work.
ecgberht wrote: "Because in the end it was all about ground game and turnout. The Obama folks did a better job. Pure and simple."
Oh, I see. However, don't you think that the majority of Americans agree with his ideologies as well?
johnandere - correct.
ecgberht wrote: "There I disagree. When "family values" is defined by things like abortion, gay marriage, and religous freedom, Hispanics are much more Conservative'
"A Pew survey from 2011 has 75% of Hispanics supporting higher taxes and a bigger government (against 19% opposed to a bigger government and higher taxes). Exit polling also shows that Hispanics heavily support Democrats over Republicans on Obamacare, taxes, welfare, gun control, energy policy, and foreign affairs.
Reuters exit polls provide more facts that contradict the idea that Hispanics embrace conservative family values. It turns out that 68% of Hispanics agree with the Obamacare contraception mandate and 57% agree with the Democratic Party platform on abortion."
Hispanics Favor gay marriage 45% oppose 49%.
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=881
Here, here!!!! Best comment made in 6 months. If we are going to shrink the size of government so it can be drowned in a bathtub (thanks to Grover for that) we MUST rid ourselves of corporate welfare. Has anyone suggested a sales tax on business to business transactions (expecting a lot of howling on this one) Strange how this issue was/is not discussed by either party.
pee pee is another disillusioned hater and confused republican. He actually believed the child running mate of Mitt, Paul Ryan was a fiscal conservative,
even after Ryan's 8 years of approving every budget busting deficit spending proposal, under Bush. There are two things most Americans dislike about Paul Ryan, "his face"
It sounds like your panel is already drinking. I loved the fiction that anybody in the Republican Party is interested in anything other than obstruction. Did these reporters sleep through the last four years?
And John McCain? Has there ever been a sorer loser in the history of American politics? He has turned 180 degrees from old positions out of his hatred of the President. His shameless attacks about Benghazi are just another iteration of his grudge informing everything he does. I think any journalist who pretends McCain is a serious voice is just a hack.
It is sad that the DR Show has become so inside-the-beltway predictable.
anyone find it totally absurd that someone as rich as Romney who benefits hugely from the 15% tax rate gift on capital gains income is calling giving those unable to away to access college better interest rates "gifts" etc Can it get any more surreal?
Did you "flag" it? I hope so.
Hispanic voters are like a box of chocolates: You never know what you're gonna get. It's pretty much the same with women as a category, or any other group that remains a partial mystery to advertisers. Most white men have a peanuty center and a bitter aftertaste.
Mitt lost, his political career is essentially finished, we will never hear much from him again.
PLEASE, NO FLAGGING AS OFFENSIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can take it!
He da PO-leese, mike dell.
Better pull over.
Remember when Mitt Romney was a Pup?
Old Georgie bought him a trooper uniform and a cruiser.
He got caught trying it out on Michigan roadways.
Recall Jim Carrey as an Avenging Cherub (Living Color)?
(Respect mi authoritay- Cartman)
A different take on Benghazi.
When you consider that the motivation of extremist terrorists is to gain attention for their cause and intimidate their adversaries with the power of their weapons and the strength of their beliefs, what is the best way to blunt their objectives. It is to deny them credit for their acts. The administration's initial response based on the assumption that the attacks on the consulate was the overreach of a crowd of idiots until proven otherwise represents a major insult to the terrorists which serves to deny their objectives. meanwhile the insult motivates them to claim credit making it easier to identify the perpetrators. It was the right move even if we suspected otherwise.
The reaction of the Republicans serves the objectives of the extremists and amplifies the effectiveness of the act as a terror attack. We need more sophistication in or foreign policy and less demonstrations of how DUMB the Republicans really are.
Tim Bennett
Coppell, TX
@pp
So, your statistics tend to support my statement, because the things you list that "75% of Hispanics" support are all (or mostly) "give me stuff" things so it depends on how you define "family values" issues.
Do you think the Hispanic vote is lost then? I don't. But also, as I have posted in other threads, Republicans would be best to jettison social issues all together. Stay as far away as possible. The ability of the Obama administration to tattoo Republicans with the made-up "War on Women" badly hurt them with that demographic.
On economic issues, you can never outbid the Democrats as Obama has proved. The best option left to Republicans at this point is to avoid the social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) and focus on the reasons why the Democrat's plan for the economy is a dead end.
IndieLady7 wrote:
"Oh, I see. However, don't you think that the majority of Americans agree with his ideologies as well?"
No, I think we remain center-right, but less so than four years ago because of the growth of the welfare state. The question is whether we have reached the tipping point or not. We will know in four tumultuous years.
Just another side factoid ... the markets, since the election, do not seem to be optimistic.
ecgberht wrote:
@pp
So, your statistics tend to support my statement, because the things you list that "75% of Hispanics" support are all (or mostly) "give me stuff" things so it depends on how you define "family values" issues.
Do you think the Hispanic vote is lost then? I don't. But also, as I have posted in other threads, Republicans would be best to jettison social issues all together. Stay as far away as possible. The ability of the Obama administration to tattoo Republicans with the made-up "War on Women" badly hurt them with that demographic.
On economic issues, you can never outbid the Democrats as Obama has proved. The best option left to Republicans at this point is to avoid the social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) and focus on the reasons why the Democrat's plan for the economy is a dead end.
OMG. a sensible republican! I dont want the government between my abortion doctor and me and Keep the government out of my bedroom. The republicans problem is one of consistency. Do you want smaller government or a bigger government to dictate social ideals??
"partisan politics wrote:
...To think that a perfectly qualified, honorable candidate was beaten by a lying, unqualified, narcissist, with four years of failure under his belt, who won the election by buying votes with welfare checks, birth control pills, illegal waivers for illegal aliens and lets not forget the accomplice media, it does tend to create a few ripples in my pond..."
With all due respect, your description of the winning candidate is not justified... As a matter of fact, it is ridiculous. I would happily engage anyone in a conversation founded upon a reasonable read of the economic circumstances this country faces. I tolerate opinions that contradict my own. But a simple verbal assault on someone's character just does not prove a point.
It would be interesting to discuss the issue of "four years of failure..."
I am an economist (formerly a budget analyst for a government). I am not a democrat or a republican. I don't vote in this country. Frankly, on the economic front, from the perspective of an outsider looking in, what Obama accomplished was nothing short of miraculous, given the global economic circumstances and the absurd fiscal policies and budgetary manipulations of the previous republican administrations. I am not even considering the obstruction of the republicans in congress...
On the foreign policy front, the first four years of the Obama administration are, in the opinion of this guest in your country, a welcome return to sanity.
On the public health front, Obama brought your country into the modern era... We can debate all these issues, including, if you wish, how Romney made his fortune...
You are angry. This is your prerogative. But the reasons you give weaken your position... Sorry!
mike dell wrote:
"Did you "flag" it? I hope so."
Yes. When a post does not contain a single word addressing any of the subjects at hand but merely contains personal attacks against another poster, it gets a flag. That is in violation of the Code of Conduct.
The intent is to bring the poster to the attention of the board moderator.
ecgberht wrote: @pp So, your statistics tend to support my statement.
It does?
"Do you think the Hispanic vote is lost then?"
At least for the foreseeable future, yes.
"The best option left to Republicans at this point is to avoid the social issues (abortion, gay rights, etc"
I would like that also, however the evangelical vote for Romney accounted for 26% of his support. From what I am told their support translates to feet on the ground and is critical to get out the vote efforts.
moderator = big government
Ferdnam wrote: "I am an economist (formerly a budget analyst for a government). I am not a democrat or a republican. I don't vote in this country. Frankly, on the economic front, from the perspective of an outsider looking in"
I smell the an air of conceit from most of your posts, you are no less biased in your opinions than Clifford. But you do write them in a respectful way.
There is a bit of theatrics here, I see no problem with that.
Let me add my comments to those sorely disappointed by this mornings "Domestic Hour". The two women - one a Bloombery "analyst" and the other, I believe, a Wall Street Journal "analyst" are so bent on superficial commentary that one ended the hour with the comment that to her "a big disappointment with Obama's first term was the lack of bi-partisanship. And the implication that this was Obama's failing! Please!
No comment made about a GOP agenda to make Obama a first term president. No comment made on GOP refusal to allow any proposal made by the president to pass.
We got analysis from one panelist this morning - Greg Ip.
Really weak program this AM - DR Show producers!
1. Completely agree with a previous poster who said that companies should be allowed to stand or fall on their own merit, for the most part. I supported the auto bailout as a Michigander because, in the long run, it may very well pay out. Certainly it has in many ways already.
The Fortune 500 companies you listed do not deserve the welfare they are given. Companies are not people. Are any Republicans pushing to reduce oil company tax breaks?
2. Along these same lines, I see a pattern emerging here where Republicans are calling pretty much all non-whites a bunch of free loaders and then wonder why America has the gall to re-elect Obama.
If you have the choice between a coffee that costs $5 or a coffee that tastes the same at $4 which one do you buy? I'd buy the cheaper one. However, what if the person selling me that coffee is a racist who lectures me about how the only reason I want that coffee is because I like free things (even though I take none)? I'm gonna go with the more expensive one every time.
This is what's happening in American politics. Want to know why the Republicans aren't garnering votes? Stop using overt racism and pre-Civil Rights tactics and we'll start voting for your economic policies.
timben wrote:
"When you consider that the motivation of extremist terrorists is to gain attention for their cause and intimidate their adversaries with the power of their weapons and the strength of their beliefs, what is the best way to blunt their objectives. It is to deny them credit for their acts. The administration's initial response based on the assumption that the attacks on the consulate was the overreach of a crowd of idiots until proven otherwise represents a major insult to the terrorists which serves to deny their objectives. meanwhile the insult motivates them to claim credit making it easier to identify the perpetrators. It was the right move even if we suspected otherwise."
Four dead, Tim. Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to you. To the Stevens, Smith, Woods, and Doherty families it does. Not "optimal" indeed.
Yours is yet another attempt to divert attention from the fact (while actually reinforcing it) that the Obama middle east policies and War on Terror efforts against Al Qaida and the response to the attack were an abject failure.
ecgberht wrote: "No, I think we remain center-right, but less so than four years ago because of the growth of the welfare state. The question is whether we have reached the tipping point or not. We will know in four tumultuous years.
Just another side factoid ... the markets, since the election, do not seem to be optimistic."
Don't you think the markets are the way they are is because of the fears regarding the fiscal cliff? Isn't it possible that the economic situation was the way it was before Obama and before Bush II--yet Obama is getting blamed for it all...as if he's responsible for the Chicago fires (metaphor)? Don't you think that Obama wants the best for the country, despite what the Republicans have said or done (or haven't done)? Do you honestly think he campaigned for president to increase the welfare state? Why the obstruction now when it comes to tax hikes on the wealthy when 2/3 of the country wants this done, and the fact the the rich were taxed at 39% during the Clinton administration without incident from the opposing party? I understand compromise, but if the Republicans want entitlement reforms and cuts, we need revenue. I'm sorry, but I would not equate the wealthy as "job creators". NPR did a survey about 2 years ago asking Republican legislators to name one job creator. They couldn't do it. I'm having a difficult time understanding how the Republican's policies will benefit the country. I'm not seeing it.
"From what I am told their support translates to feet on the ground and is critical to get out the vote efforts."
Not this time!
The best get out the vote effort came from the TEA Party in 2010. It was an economy-based effort, not one based in social policy - although the Dems have tried their best to tie the two together. The evangelical vote will support a strong conservative economic platform.
If you believe that Democratic economic policies will fail and understand WHY they will fail, that is the message that needs to be front and center.