Andrea Mitchell on Politics

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent and host of Andrea Mitchell Reports on MSNBC, discusses national politics.


Andrea Mitchell

Comments [31]

rene from new york

Ms. Mitchell? what next I hope u have some from fox nex week u are fair or not?

Mar. 02 2012 08:16 PM

“good traditional religious education DOES NOT hurt!” agreed as long as it’s a good catholic school not some cult
“let people live their own lives, and face the consequences of bad decisions on their own”
Great, except when their bad decisions effect the rest of us, like for example when a crazy homeless guy kills a pretty blond student. We are all in the same boat here.
It’s not wild kingdom’s survival of the fittest

Mar. 01 2012 12:19 PM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

"Let every family "plan" what they want, and be responsible for what they "planned" or didn't plan." Amen - that's exactly what I want.

So JG - 95% of Americans and others in developed countries are using a failed Liberal idea? So you are saying sexually active (that's 90+% of adult humans) should not have a say in when they have kids? - it should be left to the Govt, with idiots like Santorum, and our priests, rabbis and imams telling us how to live our lives? Are you a communist, taliban, or other? Obviously - you are not a conservative.

Mar. 01 2012 11:57 AM


no one here is an idiot!

Mar. 01 2012 11:36 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Sheldon again

"Family planning" is another FAILED Liberal idea, be it here or in China. Let every family "plan" what they want, and be responsible for what they "planned" or didn't plan. Liberals have stop thinking for other people! The road to doom is PAVED with good intentions. "Social science" is an oxymoron! People are not guinea pigs. EVen guinea pigs can run their own lives if allowed to. All of this unchecked "New Deal" nonsense has reached a dead end! We have to let people live their own lives, and face the consequences of bad decisions on their own. A good traditional religious education DOES NOT hurt! More often than not, it induces productive values.

Mar. 01 2012 11:35 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

JG - I am not pro-abortion, that is a separate issue. You are correct that falling birth rates can be bad for an economy's future - Japan/Europe.

However, family planning is crucial in helping keep women and families out of poverty. Santorum has 7 kids - good for him, he has an BA, MBA, and a JD and will get a govt pension with your tax money. Most of us aren't that fortunate. I hate to tell you - The "traditional" family structure never really existed below the surface and banning contraception will destroy what's left of it. BTW, I am an immigrant, I employ 6 people - immigration is not necessary a bad thing.

Mar. 01 2012 11:26 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To John A again

The economics will solve the problem the old fashioned way: by inflicting pain. We SHALL be going back to a smaller standard of living because the God of Economics is forcing the issue. The main question is, The Family. Will it exist, or will something like Aldous Huxley's "Brave New WOrld" replace it?
Something will have to give on that. Meanwhile, I support Santorum who is the only one bringing these IMPORTANT matters into` the light of day.

Mar. 01 2012 11:24 AM
jgarbuz from Queens


It's happening anyway as we speak, that the rise of energy prices and the economic and housing crisis is leading to the LIQUIDATION of suburbia as we speak. Most of the few homes being built now are apartments or "conominiums" or whatever you want to call them. ANd many young people have had to move back into the parents' home, for economic reasons as well. So like it or not, we SHALL be rapidly moving back to a much smaller, more modest standard of living, like it or not! When energy was cheap, and America was dominant, we could afford the "American dream" called suburbia. That's shutting down. We are at the cusp of insolvency, like Greece. Which means that everyone,except the super rich, are going to have to accept going "back into the Future."

The problem of the family structure is a difficult one, as it is impossible to go back to Patriarchy, and how that will be solved is another question. But the dissolution of the family structure by Liberals has been a major reason for our decline as a country.

Mar. 01 2012 11:19 AM
John A.

Good luck. One thing I know is you can't change the masses by saying "you're all wrong".

Mar. 01 2012 11:19 AM


You're arguing with an ideological idiot.

Valiant try, though.

Mar. 01 2012 11:19 AM
RBC from NYC


Americans should live like much more economically, but we have a social and corporate climate that frowns upon that. Our economy for the last 50 years also relies on people living beyond their means. But you overgeneralize life in the 1952 as if it was so much better. I think if you talk to people who lived in that era, they'd argue that life now is much better. Actually the increasing number of children being born is part of the reason why our society & economy went from the small apartment, one car model to the bigger house, two or more car lifestyle of what we have today.

AS for poor families, we didnt have public assistance because poor people worked. The problem in our current economy is that businesses don't hire these low income workers any longer. Why? Because they aren't cheap enough. When business realized that they could pay poor men on the other side of the world 30 cents an hour, it was the death sentence for the poor industrial American worker. Its true that Liberal policies did not bring people out of poverty, but the conservative cut-and-run strategy didn't work either; conservatives were so busy trying to seperate themselves from any non-white populations.

I respect Santorum's desire to rebuild the family & society, but he wants it done in the ultra conservative, evangelical model. Millions of others would like society improved, but we are not believers that it should be done through an evangelical perspective. We have dozens of other religions, traditions, theologies, ethical values and other points of view should be taken into consideration. This is the reason why our nation has seperation of church and state, to the credit of our founding fathers.

Mar. 01 2012 11:11 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

If dad is in jail, it's because (a) it made more economic sense for the wife to have him taken out in favor of a welfare check, and (b) because he was unruly being separated from his child by an insane liberal system that is BONOBO-IZING our society, turning it into an emasculated matriarchy that will increase dysfunctionality if it continues to progress as it has done.

Mar. 01 2012 11:06 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Sheldon

I was the only child of Holocaust survivors, who grew up in the housing projects of Brownsville, went to yeshiva with a yarmulka in a 90% black neighborhood, and saw what welfare did to the impoverished black community that was pouring in from the South. But I also knew Hassidic families with 13 children who lived a bit further away, and yes did live in stark poverty, but did manage to survive. And the kids went on to do well. I did see them sleep a dozen on single bed, and yet they survived without welfare.Of course Hassidim and everyone else will take advantage of a welfare system, if it is there. I am not suggesting we suddenly remove welfare in one fell swoop. But Santorum is funamentally CORRECT. If we do not restore the traditional family structures, our society will continue to destroy itself. WE will simply bring in more immigrants who will live 13 to a room anyway, but change the ethnic mix even more so than it has already, with unpredictable consequence#s. We have killed 50 million children in America through abortion, and the effects are not going unnoticed.

Mar. 01 2012 11:02 AM

dad is in jail because of your broken system, entrapping men.

Mar. 01 2012 10:57 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Haha - JG, You have made my point for me - the lack of access to birth control helped destroy the black family. I live in a Hasidic neighborhood, were the young women supposedly have fathers for their kids, yet many of them still live in poverty and on public assistance.

The govt already gives tax incentives for having kids. I grew up with two parents, I would love everybody to have a nuclear family, it's not going to happen by banning contraception. You and that nut case santorum aren't living in the real world.

Mar. 01 2012 10:51 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To John A

How about this. AMericans are consuming at 5x world average so how about more Americans living like ME? WHich is in a small one bedroom apartment with no car? How about Americans going back to the life-style of 1952, when the majority of Americans lived in small apartments and two cars to a family was a rarity/ Why cut the number of children? Cut the number of cars and the number of square feet of space you waste? I'm all for conservation! I'm not against contraception, as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for it. And I AM against ABORTION and definitely against taxpayers paying for that.If an "accident" happens, leave it on the steps of the church or take it to an orphanage. Don't dump all your mistakes and excesses on the taxpayer.

Mar. 01 2012 10:37 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Sheldon

I'm not making sense? Ever hear of people called "fathers??" Were all poor families on public assistance in the history of this nation? The Liberals destroyed destroyed the Black family with their "get rid of dad" welfare policies, and the Black community is just recovering from 60 years of insane, inane family-destroying welfare policies!!!

Your solution to poverty is China's "one child" policy? Your solution is fatherless children living on welfare? Your mindset is exactly the Liberal mental sickness that turned us into a dysfunctional society in the first place! Santorum wants to rebuild the concept of family, which includes fathers and children, and not single women having fun on taxpayer funded contraceptives and abortions on demand!

Mar. 01 2012 10:32 AM
John A.

How about this jgarbuz:
If Americans consume resources at 5X the global average, maybe we should sit at ZPG until that situation changes.

Mar. 01 2012 10:31 AM

Great segment with Andrea Mitchell. Thanks!

Mar. 01 2012 10:29 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

JG - You are not making any sense. Are you saying we would have a robust economy if we had a bunch of poor women with 4 kids by 30, on public assistance? Do you want the Govt to decide, like China - how many kids its citizens should have? No thanks

Mar. 01 2012 10:24 AM

LOL...thanks, Andrea. Thinking of the GOP as mean girls is my new meme. Both parties need to take a pill and exercise something approaching maturity.

Mar. 01 2012 10:23 AM
bernie from bklyn

i like everything about andrea mitchell except for one thing. yes, she editorializes too much but i agree with her politics for the most part. but she's married to alan greenspan!!!!!!!! i contend there's no bigger character flaw you can have as an amercian than being married to alan greenspan. he's ruined out country and ruined so many lives and should be in prison. how can she square that away? why would you take this comment down?

Mar. 01 2012 10:21 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Yes, Andrea Mitchell would like nothing more than to split the opposition to Barry Obama in November.

This woman is so blatant.

Mar. 01 2012 10:21 AM

Another exposure of GOP hyprocrisy...They rail against the Affordable Care Act as government intrusion into health care and YET a law that injects their employer into the private relationship between the patient and their doctor is being debated to become law.

Can you ask Ms. Mitchell about her 'moment to process' when the guy said that in his day women used aspirin between their knees as a contraceptive.

Mar. 01 2012 10:17 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Come on, most people in the Clinton/Bush era were drinking Greenspan's Kool Aid. Don't blame the man for being wrong, he did exactly what the business and political elite wanted: MASK STRUCTURAL FLAWS IN THE ECONOMY BY KEEPING MONEY ARTIFICIALLY CHEAP!!! JOB DONE.

Mar. 01 2012 10:16 AM
bernie from BKLYN


Mar. 01 2012 10:16 AM


good question!

Mar. 01 2012 10:13 AM

'Ol mean Mitt had it right before the back-peddling began.

What a pathetic weenie.

Mar. 01 2012 10:12 AM

ask AM why her husband ruined everything

Mar. 01 2012 10:10 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Andrea Mitchell on politics??!!.....LOL, you might as well put on David Axelrod and go right to her major source and prompter.

Barry Rubin writes of the American media at the JERUSALEM POST-

"These journalists have been highly partisan previously and seem to shield President Obama from criticism. Nothing like this has been seen in America for a century or even two. The main newspapers and television networks are determined to reelect Obama, promote the currently dominant leftist (not liberal) ideas without limit and to smear or slander critics.

Why is this so effective? Because roughly half of the American population doesn't even realize it's happening. They think the news media is fair and at least as balanced as it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. Consequently, Obama is a big success, the economy is recovering, man-made global warming is the biggest problem facing the planet, and the president's enemies are a bunch of racist, reactionary, stupid people."

Mar. 01 2012 09:41 AM
Peter from North Carolina


Maybe you will consider asking Ms. Mitchell about her remarks regarding Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and President Obama. See video link:

Is Ms. Mitchell really saying that a foreign leader should not disagree with the President of the United States? Why does a legitimate disagreement between two world leaders get dismissed by Ms. Mitchell as just a disrespectful Israeli leader?

What I respect about other news sources such as Slate is that they have clearly let their readers know that the overwhelming majority of Slate writers and staffers supported and voted for Obama. Why doesn’t Ms. Mitchell and MSNBC just do the same? And of course, I would like Fox news and other media outlets to do the same.

Is Ms. Mitchell a correspondent, or is she a partisan activist with a microphone? Often times, it feels like the latter.

Mar. 01 2012 09:18 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.