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.
johnandere wrote: ""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."
We should thanking the Republican Party for their closed-mindedness. Their unwillingness to stop living in the past is preventing them to move forward into the future. While there are certain things with the Democratic party that I do question (i.e. I am pro-life and pro-traditional family), the elitist attitude of the Republican Party--in that they have shown repeatedly their siding with the wealthy, big business, and other special interests that benefit mainly white males have put the party in the minority.
Come on, you know the "thrill" for most voters and the media was race. You think Obama would have received the black vote in the numbers he did if he were white? of course you don't. You make a good point about Hillary though, the thrill for her was mostly about gender and the fact that Bill would probably be pulling levers behind the scenes. The 2008 election more than any other was nothing more a pop culture popularity contest. American Idol gone rabid.
partisan politics wrote: "Come on, you know the "thrill" for most voters and the media was race. You think Obama would have received the black vote in the numbers he did if he were white? of course you don't. You make a good point about Hillary though, the thrill for her was mostly about gender and the fact that Bill would probably be pulling levers behind the scenes. The 2008 election more than any other was nothing more a pop culture popularity contest. American Idol gone rabid."
So based on your above and previous comments, do you feel that this country would run better under a white male?
IndieLady7 wrote: "the elitist attitude of the Republican Party--in that they have shown repeatedly their siding with the wealthy, big business, and other special interests that benefit mainly white males have put the party in the minority."
Siding with the wealthy and big business as you put it, to a republican means helping businesses create jobs so the poor, all of the poor and everyone else can find jobs and improve their lives and get off the welfare dole. You just do not believe it, I do believe it and I agree with it. It is an anti poverty message that republicans truly believe in.
IndieLady7 wrote: "do you feel that this country would run better under a white male?"
I would and could happily support and vote for any candidate regardless of skin color or gender, that ran on individual freedom and traditional family values and believe it or not I do not exclude same sex marriage in that equation.
partisan politics wrote: "Siding with the wealthy and big business as you put it, to a republican means helping businesses create jobs so the poor, all of the poor and everyone else can find jobs and improve their lives and get off the welfare dole. You just do not believe it, I do believe it and I agree with it. It is an anti poverty message that republicans truly believe in."
Over the course of the last 30 or so years, the Republican Party has sided to big business and the wealthy, but how has it helped everyone else? Over the course of last 30 years, the wealth for the top has increased dramatically; whereas, the salaries for average folks have remained steady. How are the Republicans in siding with big business and the wealthy creating jobs for the poor? It's not. I would like to believe it, but I haven't seen it.
partisan politics wrote: "I would and could happily support and vote for any candidate regardless of skin color or gender, that ran on individual freedom and traditional family values and believe it or not I do not exclude same sex marriage in that equation."
That's good to know; however, from my perception, your past comments have shown otherwise.
I too will vote for whomever I feel is best for the job. While I'm with you on folks doing for themselves for traditional family values, I am also for giving people a hand when they need it. I do agree that government, in some ways, may be too big and a tad intrusive, but I also feel that government is needed in certain aspects.
IndieLady7 wrote: "Over the course of the last 30 or so years, the Republican Party has sided to big business and the wealthy, but how has it helped everyone else?"
I am not smart enough to write in a few sentences the answer to that question. I will say the republican party has not followed it's own principals of small government for a very long time and we reap the failures because of it. But the stated conservative ideals of the party are sound. You probably will laugh at this suggestion but here it is. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for a couple of months and watch the Stossel show on Fox business. If you like to read, Milton Freidman and Friedrich Hayek books are a great place to start.
Come on, you know the "thrill" for most voters and the media was race. You think Obama would have received the black vote in the numbers he did if he were white? of course you don't. You make a good point about Hillary though, the thrill for her was mostly about gender and the fact that Bill would probably be pulling levers behind the scenes. The 2008 election more than any other was nothing more a pop culture popularity contest. American Idol gone rabid.
No, it was not a popularity contest at all. The country was glad to see the "legacy" "MBA" president leave office, because he left the country in a shambles on his way to Crawford. We were fed up with a greedy group who took us from a surplus to an unprecedented deficit with irresponsible capital gains and income tax decreases (that did not create jobs). Oh and this administration has seen a greater increase in jobs in four years than Bush saw in eight years. ;-) So, to reiterate, the American public took the broom to sweep out the eight years of incompetence by the MBA President.
1dd wrote:
"No, it was not a popularity contest at all. (Sorry, that was definitely a major factor) The country was glad to see the "legacy" "MBA" president leave office, because he left the country in a shambles on his way to Crawford. We were fed up with a greedy group (your opinoin) who took us from a surplus (meme of the left which I've already debunked) to an unprecedented deficit with irresponsible capital gains and income tax decreases (that did not create jobs - FALSE). Oh and this administration has seen a greater increase in jobs in four years than Bush saw in eight years. (Depends on how you count - UE, U6 are up under Obama - maybe that's what the "wink" was about?!);-) So, to reiterate, the American public took the broom to sweep out the eight years of incompetence by the MBA President. (your opinion, not supported by the facts)".
Don, you can keep posting this same tripe day after day after day. The lefties will eat it up. People with the facts of what happened over the last 12 years know better.