Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-30/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Negotiations to avoid the "fiscal cliff" continue. A fight over U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice heats up. And President Obama lunches with former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The week’s top national stories: what happened and why.
Guests
David Leonhardt
Washington bureau chief for The New York Times.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Ari Shapiro
White House correspondent for NPR.
Friday News Roundup Video
President Barack Obama and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney met for lunch Thursday at the White House. Ari Shapiro of NPR said the menu was one of the only known details of their meeting, which was closed to reporters. "I can't think of a story in my recent memory that had so much interest and so little information," Shapiro said. Wall Street Journal correspondent Laura Meckler said Obama hosted a similar meeting in 2008 when he dined with his Republican challenger, Sen. John McCain. David Leonhardt, Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, added that these sorts of bipartisan meetings are a good thing. "It's a sign of the way things should work in a democracy," Leonhardt said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Jeff Neufer wrote:
"How someone could have the audacity to call Susan Rice "not too bright" given her extraordinary education, credentials and experience and not be shown to be a grandstanding obstructionist, "
Hey, Democrats did it to Condi Rice and she was more accomplished than Susan Rice.
Clifford wrote:
"They look like Mr. Potter of "It`s a Wonderful Life",demanding the economy be crashed"
Clifford, I believe that is Mr. Obama's end game.
I refer you to the "Cloward and Piven" strategy.
revjo1957 wrote:
"and on how the major risks/events of life--education, medical care, and retirement--and more and more being borne by individuals rather than collectively, as they once were. "
I get that you are a socialist. But that self-determination which you so blithely cast aside is what made this country not just great, but FREE. It's your "collectivism" that has buried us under a mountain of debt and created a society where millions are on food stamps and other forms of aid from the FG. They are, in a word, slaves to it instead of free people. I'm sure that is just fine with you.
THX1138 wrote:
"Some of us are pretty damn sure Obama wants to go off the cliff. In his previous four years he a shown zero interest in helping the economy. "
That would be an enormous gamble. If it, in fact, put us back into recession that would go, as they told you in school, "on his permanent record". Nobody wants that, least of all the current President. As I have said, his first term was about re-election, this term is about his legacy. He does not want the second dip of the double-dip on his watch. I still think his overture at his news conference a couple of weeks ago of closing loopholes to boost revenue over raising rates was the sound of him blinking. When Clinton left office the economy was headed for recession. But you never hear about that. All you hear is the meme of the "Clinton surplus that Bush squandered". The problem with a double-dip for his legacy is, he can try to blame it on Republicans, (and the Dems are much more effective at controlling the message through Pravda) it's not what history will remember. It will only remember the Obama recession.
ecgberht wrote: "As I have said, his first term was about re-election, this term is about his legacy"
I believe his idea of "legacy" cannot be measured in traditional ways. I don't think you appreciate the full meaning as he sees it when it comes to his idea and goal of "transformation".
gary k wrote:
"The trend worldwide is to create a one-world economic and political system. The world's economic powers are pushing this agenda. It remains to be seen whether or not this system will come into being. But the trend is real, and I believe it can be achieved."
Utter nonsense - at least in this country. What you see as "the trend worldwide is to create a one-world economic and political system" is simply the normalization of the labor force in what is now a world labor market. That's what's different. That's the megatrend. The isolationist policies of unions are failing and, longer term, will fail.
"If it does happen, I really don't think most of the world's population will enjoy it. One could argue that the living will envy the dead."
That's a bit of melodrama, but on this we basically agree - again, at least in this country. What represents enormous economic opportunity for the rest of the world will cause the standard of living in this country to decline to the degree that we cannot become the world's technology provider and that remains to be seen. Might as well get used to it.
"I don't think you appreciate the full meaning as he sees it when it comes to his idea and goal of "transformation"."
Oh, I think I do - and always have. I'm the one referencing Cloward and Piven. I've said so from the beginning, when McCain was talking about "changing Washington" and Obama was talking about "fundamentally transforming America". I think though, that he thinks that he can do that without tarnishing his economic legacy. Much of Europe has been transformed to socialist democracy, and, until the recent unpleasantness has done so without significant economic issues. (You can do that when you deficit-spend for decades ... see CA).
ecgberht wrote: "I think though, that he thinks that he can do that without tarnishing his economic legacy"
I do not think you appreciate his ability to transfer the blame onto the republican party as he has so successfully done for four years. Why not eight years, why not twelve with a new democrat? With the right formula I can see no limit to the effectiveness of this strategy. In my mind people accept just about anything if it satisfies their immediate desires. That's where the electorate is at these days, the satisfying of immediate desires.
As you can tell I'm completely pessimistic at this point. After the supreme court ruling on Obamacare and the outcome of the election, all just might be lost.
I forgot to include the accomplice media. It appears the republicans have already lost the moral high ground on current budget negotiations. There is just too much accepted marginalization and demonizing of any opposition to democrat party goals.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"...I’m sorry, but the guest who tried to compare the filibuster controversy of today with the “nuclear option” of the Bush the Second Era couldn’t be more wrong. The differences are stark.
1) During the Clinton Administration, the Republicans used the filibuster (and the secret hold) to block (or try to block) almost every judge he nominated. The result? Far fewer judges got through than under Reagan or Bush the First.
2) As a result, Bush the Second had far more judicial vacancies to fill. But instead of constantly trying to block them, as the Republicans did, the Democrats blocked just seventeen! "
Specifics on the latter - NONE on the former. Typical of your posts.
In fact, the situations are essentially identical, it just depends on whose ox is being gored.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GBu6-wMuj0
THX1138 wrote:
"I do not think you appreciate his ability to transfer the blame onto the republican party as he has so successfully done for four years."
You do not think I appreciate?! Why do you keep saying that?!
"The problem with a double-dip for his legacy is, he can try to blame it on Republicans, (and the Dems are much more effective at controlling the message through Pravda) "
"As you can tell I'm completely pessimistic at this point. After the supreme court ruling on Obamacare and the outcome of the election, all just might be lost."
Well, that's the difference between you and me, even though we are on the same side. I was just reading about Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death" speech. It essentially was the spark that lit the Revolutionary War against tyranny. Washington and Jefferson sat in the audience that day. Imagine if Henry had said, "As you can tell, I'm completely pessimistic at this point ... all just might be lost".
strudel wrote:
"The evidence is uncontroverted that Rice merely reported what she had been told, and that she, personally, had no contrary information. Maybe she was lied to (by our intelligence agencies, allegedly to protect sources), but that doesn’t make her a liar."
This is the meme that Democrats want to be attached to the Bengahzi affair. You will not hear a mention of the incident without it. It's the one they want to stick in the history books - not the fact that it was known within 24 hours that the attack was a terrorist attack - a fact she didn't just bypass, but flatly DENIED on the Sunday talk shows. You can't argue that "all she knew is what the FBI/CIA (it changes daily) told her" without questioning her JUDGMENT as an official of the US government representing the adminstration to the American people. She didn't HAVE to say, "it was the film". She could have said "we have several theories as to the cause, but we're still investigating". In fact, she was carrying water for Candidate Obama days before the election when a terrorist attack on our soil in a foreign country would "not have been optimal".
strudel:
"When the Constitution was being drafted, and adopted, there was debate on the granting of Federal power directly over individuals. (Under the old Articles of Confederation there was no such power.) The Founders decided that absence of such power was a major flaw in the old system. (See, The Federalist Papers, number 15.) "
Gee, strudel, we'd really love to hear more about that! Not from Federalist 15 but from the Constitution.
Imagine if Henry had said, "As you can tell, I'm completely pessimistic at this point ... all just might be lost".
I am talking to you, not rallying the troops. I will be there for every election and referendum, so I'm not dropping out. The thing that is most upsetting about the election is the poor republican turnout. "All Good Men" where the hell were they? Romney did a good enough job campaigning for the sensible to do the right thing in a critical election and they chose not too.
You do not think I appreciate?! Why do you keep saying that?! Because I don't think you do, I hope I'm wrong but I do feel the conservative message can no longer penetrate into a society that more and more values instant gratification over sensible long term personal goals.
"Because I don't think you do"
That's an easy statement to make, THX, but if you read my posts critically and know the body of my work here, impossible to support. I was talking about what a choice election this was a year ago before Romney had even sealed the nomination. Wish I could find the post, but I don't remember enough specific words to find it. Essentially it laid out the choice the American people had in no uncertain terms. Here's one I ran across that makes the point, however:
June 29, 2012 - 11:40 am
Smoot on November 30, 2012 @ 2:10 pm wrote: “No one cares, besides the hard left, whether or not Fox is reliable. . . . CNN is loaded with liberal zealots, to say nothing of MSNBC.”
Gee, are you saying that members of the hard left are the only people who care whether a news source (or any source for that matter) is reliable? Why, then, do you spend so much of your time trying to discredit other sources, unless you’re a member of the “hard left” yourself?
Of course everything should be verified, and not just accepted on faith.
“What is important, is that however over the top Fox News may be at times, they are finger in the eye of the democrats, and that is all that is necessary to justify their existence.”
So, the fact that much of what they spew hovers between absolute nonsense, and just plain lies, is of no importance whatsoever? I’d say that’s a view members of the “hard left” and the “hard right” (in other words extreme ideologues) share. The fact that I don’t agree with it proves I’m neither, the fact you do proves what you are.
Meanwhile, good job evading and avoiding the point I made about how inaccurate was the bunk Fox spewed about Petraeus, and their predictions for the election.
climatewiz1 on November 30, 2012 @ 2:21 pm wrote: “@ Etaoin: Sorry but I'm not willing to poke my head in the sand on this one. C'mon barrister put your legal beagle ‘admissable evidence’ and ‘discovery’ aside and use the smell test. You have to agree there is a terrible stench from the whole lot of them. An honest investigation is called for, but alas, will never happen. Too many teflon suits in the mix. No need to lecture me on Vietnam either... 2 tours was too many and yes I saw Mr. Johnson and Mr. Westmorland in all their ‘glory.”
I’m not sure what you are babbling about. (When did I ever discuss “admissible evidence” or “discovery”?) But forgive me for suggesting that an honest investigation is preferable to a partisan exercise in name-calling, and a witch hunt. Talk about not passing the “smell test”! That describes what Republi-Cons are up to perfectly. (Yet, you have no trouble swallowing it, and cheering it on.)
As for whether it will happen, I’m not so cynical. (Though if it’s merely an exercise in partisan posturing, then I agree.) Look at Watergate: it was an example of a (mostly) non-partisan investigation, by people who were truly interested in the rule of law, and finding out the truth. It may be rare, but it can happen.
(And no, I’m not saying we learned all the truth back then - just enough for comparison purposes.)
P.S. - Next time, could you please include the date and time of the Comment you’re responding to, perhaps with a relevant quotation, so I can have a better idea what you’re talking about?
Smoot on November 30, 2012 @ 6:18 pm wrote: “. . . you must be one of those verbose, over-paid public union teachers.”
And that totally erroneous assumption is a perfect example of why “your side” lost. Sorry, Smoot, but (as I’ve said many times) I’m a retired attorney, not a teacher. (Which explains, of course, my verbosity.)
“Your president choom is the one picking and choosing the the laws he wants to enforce at this time, President Bush is no longer president, if you haven't noticed.”
Really? Gee, that must be why I used the past tense in discussing Bush! Maybe if you spent more time listening to your English teacher you’d understand that.
And you obviously don’t understand that openly deciding whether or not to defend a law in the Supreme Court is something many Presidents have done. (Including Reagan.) But only Bush declared he’d “pick and choose” which laws to follow and enforce, and then did so secretly. Just as you don’t “get it” that Republi-Cons didn’t criticize Bush for it. Which makes the real issue their hypocrisy! (And yours.)
Just sayin’.
ecgberht December 1, 2012 - 11:54 am wrote: “Specifics on the latter - NONE on the former. Typical of your posts.”
Actually, that’s typical of your posts, and this one in particular. A YouTube collection of video clips, taken out-of-context, is hardly “specifics”, much less proof of anything.
And yes, I assumed that most people were familiar enough with the facts of the Republi-Con misuse of the filibuster that more specifics were unnecessary, just as I assumed most people are aware that the proposal to reign in the filibuster by changing the rules on the first day the new Senate takes office is far different from the “nuclear option” the Republi-Cons threatened to use during Bush the Second’s years.
Of course, “most people” never includes a partisan ideologue like you - for whom all that matter is ox goring.
ecgberht on December 1, 2012 @ 12:44 pm wrote: “This is the meme that Democrats want to be attached to the Bengahzi affair.”
Hey, eggie, I happen to dislike jargon like “meme” (and such other overused phrases as “paradigm shift”). They strike me as pretentious nonsense, even when created (as that one was) by a member of the “left”. Let’s avoid it, okay?
And if we’re talking about “spin” (a better phrase), then I’ll see your accusation and raise you the spin the Republi-Cons are trying to put on the whole “Bengahzi affair”: namely that Ambassador Rice deliberately lied!
Sorry, chuckles, but if truth means anything to you (which I doubt) then the facts are clear. As I said before: Rice merely repeated the information she was provided. She didn’t lie!
As for whether someone else did? Well, what part of my call for an investigation of the intelligence community (the source of the information she was handed) was too difficult to comprehend? I have repeatedly called for a full investigation of what happened. The Republi-Cons are merely interested in defaming Rice, and so are you!
As for Rice’s “judgment” - excuse me, but what proof do you have that she knew anything else? I’ve heard none, only vague statements about what (allegedly) “was known within 24 hour”. Known how, by whom? Did Rice know? If you’re going to attack her, or her “judgment”, that’s a missing piece of the puzzle you have to provide. Instead, all you do is sling more mud.
Let’s find out the facts first, then render judgment.
ecgberht on December 1, 2012 @ 1:07 pm wrote: “Gee, strudel, we'd really love to hear more about that! Not from Federalist 15 but from the Constitution.”
Gee, eggie, I guess you don’t agree with Justice Scalia, then. He seems to think the original intent of the Founders carry some weight. And given the fact that the Federalist Papers were written by three of the men who drafted the Constitution, and were written in order to persuade the nation to ratify and adopt it, I’d say their explanation of this is a pretty good source to cite.
However, chew on these parts of the Constitution, and then distort them as you wish (which I’m sure you’ll try to do):
Article 1, Section 1: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress . . . .”
Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises . . . .
To regulate commerce . . . .
To establish . . . uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies . . . .
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting . . . .
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To define and punish piracies and felonies . . . .”
Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 2: “The Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason . . . .”
I could go on, but I trust even you can see these provisions involve direct control over the actions of individuals, not just over the States.
Now, go contrast that with what the Articles of Confederation said.