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:
"Restore America to what? This almost sounds like the "Take America Back" rhetoric that I been hearing over the last decade and a half. And if so, take America back to what? I asked this of pp and have not received a response. Being that you too think rather similar, hopefully you can answer this for me."
Great questions and topic, Indie. Need a little time to noodle it and give you an answer, but I'm not ignoring it. Check back tonight or on the weekend for me or my congenital twin johnandere posting a response.
"So, stop with the "it was only a problem when this guy got to office" tap dance. There is plenty of blame to go around "
No tap dance. Bush spent too much. By the way, he acknowledges that and the "conservative" Republican congress betrayed the American people in the early part of the decade
And yet, I am pretty sure, you were willing to reward the Romney-Ryan ticket despite Paul Ryan voted for every one of those deficit-filled budgets 2000-2008? BTW, if the bubble was bursting, those tax cuts were completely irresponsible (as well as not creating jobs). Even you would have to agree they should have chosen a different course. Oh and let's not forget, the first decrease was in the capital gains tax rate. This is a completely irresponsible and economic boondoggle for the wealthy. Why should people speculating in the secondary market get special preference over people who put money in the bank. If this tax were truly meant to help businesses develop and grow, give the tax break to new businesses or those that expand. Why should someone who invested in Apple as it went from $500 to $700 get taxed at 15%, while someone who gets interested get taxed at a higher rate. We know the reason, a wink and a nod to the wealthy and the first tax decrease by the Republicans when they took power in 2001.
ecgberht wrote: "Great questions and topic, Indie"
"Restore America to what? This almost sounds like the "Take America Back" rhetoric that I been hearing over the last decade and a half. And if so, take America back to what?"
This question emanates from a place of utter dismissal and contempt for traditional and constitutional values. It can only be the product of a completely closed mind that has deliberately ignored or tuned out any contrary opinions. Why bother.
1dondraper wrote: "And yet, I am pretty sure, you were willing to reward the Romney-Ryan ticket despite Paul Ryan voted for every one of those deficit-filled budgets 2000-2008?"
We voted for the better of two viable options, one of the options is/was a mirage that only offered more depravity, the other at least had some real world successes and experience. I for one am not "down" with an affirmative action president.
"Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator."
partisan politics wrote: "This question emanates from a place of utter dismissal and contempt for traditional and constitutional values. It can only be the product of a completely closed mind that has deliberately ignored or tuned out any contrary opinions. Why bother."
That is an unfair generalization. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not a white male. When we hear "Take America Back", it conjures up the sense of going back a time in which the only person in control of everything was a white male. A time in which the traditional family was white, suburban, and middle class. A family who didn't struggle and every thing was perfect in their eyes because they were white and everything benefitted only them. In those times, there was segregation--which is something that was not discussed on Leave It To Beaver. My ancestors were not allow to go into particular places or live in certain neighborhoods or allotted certain privledges or jobs because they were not white or because they weren't male...or even a white male. Speaking of the Constitution and before the 13th amendment, African slaves weren't even seen as human--rather as property and/or 3/5 of a person. Even after the 13th amendment was passed and after the Civil War, while there was some progress in equality, it didn't last long. With the emergence of the KKK and with movies like "Birth Of A Nation", that put a halt to progress of equality for blacks until the civil rights movement. And while the Republican Party was ONCE the "party of Lincoln", this appears to be no longer the case. With the rhetoric coming out of conservatives, they're sounding more like Dixie-crats at their worst. And the Black conservatives, while that's their prerogative, appear to me as what John Derbyshire labels "Intelligent Well-Socialized Blacks" (or IWSB's)--those who won't cause the white man any trouble.
So to go back to "traditional" to where my people were degraded? NEVER!
IndieLady7, I cannot see things through your prism, but know when libertarians and 99% of conservatives speak of traditional values and constitutional values, they are speaking to the best intentions that this country was founded on. Not going back to the mistakes that every society has at one time or another gone through.
It is telling however that you view black conservatives as uncle toms. I do not see much tolerance or intellectual curiosity there. My dealings with black people from my perspective was one of baseless suspicion and subtle contempt based solely on the fact that I am white. While I understand the history, I never understood the reasoning behind it. I still think these emotions are creating the very atmosphere that black people claim to despise. No one likes the company of anyone with a bad attitude and that attitude in my opinion has in effect created a self perpetuating prison of defeatism. (I was an apartment manager, FYI) By the way, you are a good sport, this is the first time that I know you have revealed your race.
@ PP
President Obama (love the sound of it) was an affirmative action President with unremarkable grades (blah, blah, blah). No accomplishments, etc. Please tell me about the accomplishments of George W. Bush? Please show me how a man who got 1250 on his SAT scores, which was 200 points BELOW the average score of his incoming class. Fill me on on how he parlayed his (self-proclaimed) C average to get into Harvard Business School, the most competitive in the country at that time. Oh, and how did all that education help our country. What academic legacy, signature legislation or real accomplishments did Bush have prior to becoming President. According to your definition, you should have voted for Gore over Bush in 2000. Did you? (rhetorical question, because we know the truth) Oh,and how did it end for W? I remember, the President with the lowest approval rating when leaving office.
So, given your "statement" about President Obama, for which you have no evidence about his grades, is mere speculation, and probably wrong information, since he made law review. Plenty of presidents didn't have your wish list of qualities. Check out this guy Abraham Lincoln:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/history/lincoln_failures.htm
I may not like Rush Limbaugh, but at least he doesn't try to hide his racism behind duplicity....you know, having a set of rules for one "candidate" while not applying them to candidates from their own party. There is a word for that.....let me see...oh yeah, HYPOCRITE.
@PP
My dealings with black people from my perspective was one of baseless suspicion and subtle contempt based solely on the fact that I am white. While I understand the history, I never understood the reasoning behind it. I still think these emotions are creating the very atmosphere that black people claim to despise. No one likes the company of anyone with a bad attitude and that attitude in my opinion has in effect created a self perpetuating prison of defeatism.
So, if we take the 4th word out of the above statement and put in white, as well as changing the 25th word, is it any less offensive. Do you think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity operate from a position of baseless suspicion and subtle contempt for Black people? How about their audience? It is not a one-way street and when conservatives take a look in the mirror and make the necessary changes, they will be a more viable party. But if they stay in denial, it will be better for progressives. Personally I hope they stay the course.
1dondraper wrote: ."Please tell me about the accomplishments of George W. Bush?"Plenty of presidents didn't have your wish list of qualities. Check out this guy Abraham Lincoln:"you know, having a set of rules for one "candidate" while not applying them to candidates from their own party. There is a word for that.....let me see...oh yeah, HYPOCRITE."
You must be joking. It is dishonest to bring up straw-man arguments to make ones points as you have done. My comment is on the present, not every president who won an election in the history of the U.S. But seeing how you are so wrong on both accounts, it is my pleasure to destroy your rant.
Bush
He was the Governor of Texas and a business owner.
Lincoln
Lincoln was a business owner, a Congressman, Whig Party leader, Illinois state legislator He served four successive terms in the Illinois House of Representatives, private sector lawyer for 16 years, Captain in the Illinois Militia in the Black Hawk War, Lincoln served as New Salem's postmaster and later as county surveyor. Lincolns resume is very impressive and my examples do not do justice to it. To compare Obama to Lincoln is sickening.
Although I agree the G.W.B. presidency was a disaster, after all it did usher in the worst president of all time. He was a Governor of a large state, which is generally considered to be the best training ground for the office of president of the U.S.
1dondraper wrote: "Do you think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity operate from a position of baseless suspicion and subtle contempt for Black people?"
NO, if you listened to them without preconceived notions you would know that.
In this day and age of unexamined beliefs and political correctness, merely stating the facts and figures makes you a racist.
@ PP
NO, if you listened to them without preconceived notions you would know that.
In this day and age of unexamined beliefs and political correctness, merely stating the facts and figures makes you a racist.
So, tell me, is Rush enlightening us with facts here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiLVTzljOjA
So, is Glenn Beck stating facts as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIZDnpPafaA
I hope you will acknowledge your facts are in dispute. Your heroes have shown their true colors. ;-)
Nov 16th's show, was extremely negative, inflicting fear on us, it felt like I was listening to a FOX show, all reporters kept repeting themselves not bringing anything new to the table. I turned the radio off, in fact I will no longer listen to NPR since it is obvious that they are getting payed by big money coorporations, DO NOT ASK FOR MY contributions ever again.
@ PP
You didn't destroy anyone argument and I see logic is not your strong suit. Rush and Beck have been exposed in the previous thread. That whole facts thing, shredded. He was caught in another lie this past week stating he did not predict a Romney victory the night before the election. But, as a regular dittohead, I sure you were aware of that.
As I stated, logic is not your strong suit. You chose to make an unsustainable comment about President Obama and his grades. You have no proof of what his grades were, only your speculation about them. However, there is one piece of irrefutable evidence about his grades. He made law review at Harvard. Your hypocrisy was exposed, because you, like your fellow racist, Donald Trump, only are concerned about grades post 2008. When your duplicity is exposed, using his predecessor as the example, you want to back off this argument. Maybe you can calculate the importance of grades on a successful presidency.
As for your Lincoln comment, your first sentence is true for President Obama, sans party leader, and that was true, once he made the speech at the 2004 convention. It was not a comparison, but to show you that many people did not consider him very successful before he became President.
The jury is still out on where Obama will rank among Presidents. Obviously your objectivity is in question because you have already made up your mind, despite your harsh criticism of Bush. Really PP? Worse than Bush? Carter? The crook Richard Nixon? Buchanan? Calvin Coolidge? Seems like we know why you hold that opinion and it has nothing to do with objectivity and reason. Not suprising
"As I stated, logic is not your strong suit. You chose to make an unsustainable comment about President Obama and his grades. You have no proof of what his grades were, only your speculation about them. However, there is one piece of irrefutable evidence about his grades. He made law review at Harvard"
I knew the "grades" comment was questionable, but I just pasted someone else's evaluation that I think as a whole nails it. Logic dictates if he had great grades or even decent ones he would not hide them. The fact that we have to go to such lengths to find minuscule accomplishments tells it all, except for getting elected he has none. Even the stupid health care bill only required his signature. Did you ever stop to consider that his Harvard record was all about affirmative action. More speculation on my part because Obama is obviously hiding something, he probably got into these schools as a foreign exchange student, another affirmative action program by a different name. Obama in short has led a charmed life where just about everything was handed to him.
Everything else you write is backtracking and worthless, no comment warranted beyond that.
1dondraper wrote: "@ PPSo, tell me, is Rush enlightening us with facts here:"
There is NO RACISM IN R.L.'s commentary. I know you wish there were. He had an opinion on the facts and came to a logical conclusion as to why things are the way they are.
I won't bother with the Beck link because you obviously do not know what racism is, just like I wrote in my commentary.
In this day and age of unexamined beliefs and political correctness, merely stating the facts and figures makes you a racist.
This is basically what Rush Limbaugh was driving at.
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
Booker T. Washington on Black Victimhood
The word 'racism' is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything - and demanding evidence makes you a 'racist.'
Thomas Sowell
Every day I read through all the comments, and every day I never cease to be amazed that no one seems to know the root cause of all the problems. And I always have to wonder why. And then I realize that people only want to hear whatever makes them comfortable. If they knew the root cause, it would make them uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. They prefer to blame everything on the Democrats and the Republicans. And they are partly correct; the Democrats and the Republicans are a part of the problem. But only a very small part.
But wait! Perhaps some of them do know the root cause? It frightens them so much that they can't bare to mention it, much less think about it.
There is NO RACISM IN R.L.'s commentary. I know you wish there were. He had an opinion on the facts and came to a logical conclusion as to why things are the way they are.
I won't bother with the Beck link because you obviously do not know what racism is, just like I wrote in my commentary.
In this day and age of unexamined beliefs and political correctness, merely stating the facts and figures makes you a racist.
You are a real piece of work. On that "sample" from The bigot Limbaugh, he states that a majority of African-Americans are angry. (did his polling data come from Rasmussen). Where did this "analysis" come from? Is this a true statement? Or is it one of many lies your hero utters on this video. He then goes on to speak about how Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Acorn et al are teaching Blacks to hate America. Of course the weasel does it without one piece of evidence. Maybe you can produce it. He even blames the "group" for the mortgage crisis and you stand behind these "facts". You are as delusional as that loser, RL (didn't know he was Ralph Lauren). Facts. You wouldn't know facts if they came and greeted you at the front door. He spew nothing but hate that fuels you and the rest of the dittoheads.
@ PP
I knew the "grades" comment was questionable, but I just pasted someone else's evaluation that I think as a whole nails it. Logic dictates if he had great grades or even decent ones he would not hide them. The fact that we have to go to such lengths to find minuscule accomplishments tells it all, except for getting elected he has none. Even the stupid health care bill only required his signature. Did you ever stop to consider that his Harvard record was all about affirmative action. More speculation on my part because Obama is obviously hiding something, he probably got into these schools as a foreign exchange student, another affirmative action program by a different name. Obama in short has led a charmed life where just about everything was handed to him.
Your first sentence says it all. It wasn't only questionable, it is a joke. Maybe you can't comprehend English. No one, none of the prior 43 Presidents were required to release their grades. What does it tell you that simpletons like you suddenly want this President to release his grades for your edification. This is cynicism of the highest order. But, rational people understand why you are trying to suddenly make no "requirements" that others do have to meet. Yet, when exposed as a fraud, based on 43, you still try to insist on this new standard. We see through your hypocrisy and once again, we reject you an your faulty logic.
partisan politics wrote: "IndieLady7, I cannot see things through your prism"
Why don't you try? Show some empathy for once.
"but know when libertarians and 99% of conservatives speak of traditional values and constitutional values, they are speaking to the best intentions that this country was founded on. Not going back to the mistakes that every society has at one time or another gone through."
So, you mean traditional values of our "hypocritical" founding fathers who claimed to be of religious and moral convictions, but sleeping with slaves on the low? So, you mean the people who came over and dominated a country of people who already existed centuries earlier? You mean the principles of colonization and the self-imposing of your views?
"It is telling however that you view black conservatives as uncle toms."
Uncle Tom DID NOT come out of my mouth. The "IWSB" statement came from one of your own--John Derbyshire, a British immigrant who was once with the National Review. This is the man who said the world is better under European (white) rule.
Really pp?
@ IndieLady7
Logic is not his strong suit. He thinks, according to his Messiah, Rush Limbaugh, that most African-Americans are angry (and this is a fact). Let him spew his "rhetoric", but thinking people know it is false and comical. As for the Uncle Tom comment, he brought it into the mix, then wants to pillory you with the comment. Of course I don't personally put much credence in what Thomas Sowell has to say because he preaches from the Ivory Tower and has almost no contact with the people of whom he speaks. He hasn't had any traction since Reagan gave him the thumbs up.
1dondraper wrote:
"Of course I don't personally put much credence in what Thomas Sowell has to say because he preaches from the Ivory Tower and has almost no contact with the people of whom he speaks. He hasn't had any traction since Reagan gave him the thumbs up."
Hmmm. Would you feel the same way about ... oh, I don't know ... Herman Cain? Condoleeza Rice? Mia Love? Al Sharpton? Colin Powell? How about Allen West? Jesse Jackson? or Alveda King? Are they all in the "Ivory Tower" too, 1don?
Now, specifically, which meet with your definition of authentically black and which don't, 1don? Because that's what we're really talking about, right?
IndieLady7 wrote:
"Uncle Tom DID NOT come out of my mouth"
This did.
"And the Black conservatives, while that's their prerogative, appear to me as what John Derbyshire labels "Intelligent Well-Socialized Blacks" (or IWSB's)--those who won't cause the white man any trouble."
A rose by any other name. Uncle Tom, "a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals). "
1dondraper wrote: "rational people understand why you are trying to suddenly make no "requirements" that others do have to meet. Yet, when exposed as a fraud, based on 43, you still try to insist on this new standard"
Rational people like to see some evidence of competence before they vote for a potential president. Obama came on the scene with nothing except being schooled in high places, seeing some records is not unreasonable when there is nothing else to look at. But then again Obama was not elected for rational reasons. He was elected because HE"S BLACK!
I notice that noise about Rush Limbaugh and facts has been silenced. The most divisive figure in the Republican party and I would like to personally thank him for helping President Obama get re-elected. His stupidity and hubris were just what we needed. Had he kept his drug-addicted mouth shut, you might have your Tin Man in office. But thanks to Rush, Trump and Foot In Mouth Mitt, along with Todd Akin and Mourdock, the Dems snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. ;-)
@ PP
Keep believing he was only elected because he was Black. Irrational behavior ensures more conservative losses. Excuses and finger-pointing will result in no change of behavior and more losses. Oh and duplicity rules in the world of PP.
If he was white, Hillary would be president now and you know it, assuming she won reelection of course.
"The most divisive figure in the Republican party and I would like to personally thank him for helping President Obama get re-elected."
You should be thanking me ... and your buddy partisan politics. We're the ones that pay the taxes that Obama could use to buy the votes of the women (abortion and birth control) and low income people of color who were able to vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. Did I leave anybody out? Oh, and then there were gays for whose cause he was happy to flip-flop.
@ PP
Revisionist history at its best. But what does it matter to you whether it was Hillary of Barack? You don't like either and according to your "required skills" what did she have....both were legislators? Do you have her grades? Is there osmosis because she was First Lady? You are truly comical.