Streams

Post-Election Politics

Monday, November 19, 2012

Molly Ball, political reporter for The Atlantic, discusses the politicking surrounding the fiscal cliff, the Benghazi hearings and the possible influence they may have on the President’s new Cabinet.

Guests:

Molly Ball
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [21]

mercedes from cortlandt manor

One way for Republicans to update themselves is to STOP TRYING TO TEAR DOWN THE WHITEHOUSE BECAUSE IT HOUSES A MEMBER OF THE OPPOSING PARTY. They are there to govern and part of governing means that you support our presidency, government and country so that all are successful. Instead the Republican Party works on maintaining power for the party and definately not for me. Their issues with Bengazi right now reinforce that I was right in NOT voting for their candidate. It also makes me worry. One of my issues prior to the election is that the GOP did not give a whit about me (and many of us). That was domestically. With the Bengazi issue, I'm beginning to think that they are willing to put me (and others) at risk internationally as well. (As well as trying to impact the military budget discussion with the "Fiscal Cliff") Blasting Susan Rice, a very capable, seasoned and educated (Rhodes Scholar as well), who might be very effective on the international scene is self-serving and aimed at both the President and international well being. Get off it and govern, GOP. They are acting like children. If you can't play nicely on the playground, you either take your ball and go home or grow up and just deal with detention .

Nov. 19 2012 10:48 AM
Justin from Manhattan

What I can't understand is what appears to be an attempt on both sides to frame the divide over a more conservative approach to government as a referendum on economic policies.

Speaking as someone who would consider a well thought out and sensible economic policy regardless of the side that put it forth, Republican incorporation of social conservatism is an immediate turn off.

When I perceive a party or candidate espousing a belief set that incorporates the exclusion of rights for people based on gender, sexuality, creed and in some cases race is so archaic I and many others I know disregard any further consideration.

The long and the short of it is my wallet has never been as heavy as my conscience.

Nov. 19 2012 10:45 AM
BK from Hoboken

MichaelB has a point. But I have also hear others across the country making similar comments. To those people I will point out - forest fires all across the West, drought in the South and Midwest, tornados across the Midwest, Katrina ad other hurricanes, and on and on. There really are very few areas or populations that can claim they pay into FEMA and feel like they are supporting others or socializing losses.
Lastly, in regards to rebuilding the Jersey Shore, not only is it important economically, but NJ also received less back in federal expenditures vs what we send to DC than any other state. We shouldn't feel guilty getting help.

Nov. 19 2012 10:39 AM
Taher from Croton on Hudson

Brian’s Analysis is erroneous. The United States has 2 conservative parties. An extreme conservative party (Republican) and a moderate center conservative party (Democrat). There is nothing approaching the European system where there are both left and right parties.

Nov. 19 2012 10:39 AM
mck from Inwood

After the election there were Fox "news" pundits who were saying the same thing as Romney...that Obama won because the US demographics have changed and those people "want stuff and Obama won because he promised them stuff!" I think this is great and I hope the faction of the Republican party that believes this is triumphant. I hope they rationalize that Romney was just a weak candidate, that they don't need to change their views or their PR on abortion, immigration, taxation, social security, medical care finance, etc. I think this will guarantee that there will not be another Republican president or senate majority until after the 2020 census when there is a chance to undo the gerrymandering that was the only reason they were able to keep control of the House.

Nov. 19 2012 10:34 AM
George from ny

this past election was less about DEMs winning as it was a vote against GOPs. The GOP handed Obama/DEMs the election, but when you look at the last 4 years in this country, and Obama's handling of issues, it's hard to figure he won a re-election. The GOP was insufferable this past election, ask the over 60% of women who voted for DEMs.

Nov. 19 2012 10:33 AM
Michael Friedlander from Nyack, NY

Some Republicans acknowledge a change may be needed, however the recent conference of Republican Governors recently decided no change at all should be required. They said they needed a better spokesperson rather than a better message.

Nov. 19 2012 10:32 AM

I recommend the republicats split in to 2 parties. A party for fat cat businessmen and a Christian Taliban party

Nov. 19 2012 10:32 AM
MichaelB from Morningside Heights

As a side note, an article in the NY Times today questioning the Federal government's policy of repeatedly rebuilding storm damaged homes and infrastructure in locations that are demonstrably vulnerable to storms and rising sea levels, many of which are vacation homes! And not only were the homes rebuilt, but many were rebuilt on a grander scale each time.

In a sense, this is another form of privatizing profit (the pleasure of owning a home on or near the ocean) but socializing the cost of maintaining them. The only question is what strata of the economic classes have homes in such areas. I suspect that it runs from the very wealthy, down to the middle-to-upper middle-class.

So, which party is for changing this long-held, but wrong-headed policy? Democratic politicians have supported it all along, but this could hardly be classified as a social safety net. Republicans have probably also supported it, wasteful budget-busting as it may be, because many of the home owners are probably part of their base.

Just goes to show that politics -- the obsession to be re-elected always trumps common sense.

Nov. 19 2012 10:30 AM
S. R.

To me, Romney's description of what Obama did sounds complimentary.

It's impossible to hear Romney speaking and not think, "So Romney realizes how critical health care is to low income voters, yet he doesn't want them to have it." Why doesn't he want them to have it? Why doesn't he care about their welfare?

Nov. 19 2012 10:29 AM
Amy from Manhattan

So Romney realizes health care can cost 1/3 of a middle-class income...& apparently he doesn't think that's a problem. Because you can't put any restrictions on business! How does he actually think the free market could fix this?

Nov. 19 2012 10:26 AM
Peg

Republicans also turned off many Americans with their multiple campaigns to limit access to voting.

Nov. 19 2012 10:25 AM
John A.

Romney in that he excluded the Republican givebacks in his statement was back equivocating yet again, ad nauseum, whatever. Out the door.

Nov. 19 2012 10:22 AM
Rick from Connecticut

Speaking of Obama's gifts to the voter, didn't Romney promise $5 Trillion in tax cuts to his people?

Nov. 19 2012 10:21 AM
Carl from NJ

It is very interesting that Romney has only a vague idea of the income level of most people -- especially non-white. AND, IT IS A REALLY BIG DEAL to get healthcare, STUPID. We all need it.

Nov. 19 2012 10:20 AM
Edward from NJ

Politicians should never do political analysis of their own campaign. Right or wrong, it never sounds good to the people they're talking about. I still hear people on the right whining about the bitter-clingers Obama quote from the *2008 primary*.

Nov. 19 2012 10:18 AM
ellie from manhattan

Romney's comments shows, yet again, why electing a businessman is all about dollars and cents and not people.
He was calculating how much it would be worth, like 10K per person in health care, to get elected. Not that the 10k in health care would uplift people...whew, so glad he lost for so many reasons.

Nov. 19 2012 10:16 AM
BK from Hoboken

Cutting taxes 20% for a guy making $20,000,000 is a heckuva lot larger gift than giving a poor person a basic wealth insurance policy.

Nov. 19 2012 10:16 AM
Carl from NJ

Romney is actually just saying what he and his party do all the time -- give away the country to their friends and donors. He is just mad that it didn't work for him this time.

Nov. 19 2012 10:16 AM

I thought Obama was gonna meet with Romney to get his ideas...we are doomed

Nov. 19 2012 10:15 AM

This clip just proves that Romney was the wrong man at the wrong time, his view of his fellow Americans is sickening. Why would he even want to be the leader in a country where he holds so many citizen in contempt.

Shocking...The country dodged a bullet by voting 'No' to Prince Willard.

Nov. 19 2012 10:13 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.