Media Alert: START Up with Pete Dominick

-

Pete Dominick Capitol.jpgI have been chatting up Pete Dominick on his Sirius/XM program Stand up with Pete Dominick for a long time, but I never had any idea what the guy looked like. Same with Rachel Maddow for years until we finally met at the Democratic National Convention. But like Rachel, Pete’s sorta worth getting a camera on. CNN has figured this out.
Well, today at about 5:30 pm EST, I’ll be chatting with Pete about the showdown brewing on the START Treaty.
So, I’m renaming his show “START Up with Pete Dominick” at least for today.
For those following START, here are some of my views on the stakes of the debate for the Obama administration that appeared today in the Financial Times. Here too is a blog post telling incoming Senators to leave the prerogatives of incumbent Senators alone. Also a great slam by Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee icon Richard Lugar against many in his own party — who he implies will be responsible for enormous degradation of US security if they succeed in blocking START.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

36 comments on “Media Alert: START Up with Pete Dominick

  1. JohnH says:

    Nadine, if Obama made the speeches, show me! I gave you the list of Obama’s speeches, but you can’t seem to find any that focus on health care!
    Yet you claim they’re there, without (as usual) providing any evidence!

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    “Nadine, Obama didn’t make the speeches. Just look at the link listing all Obama’s speeches. While Congress was deliberating, Obama made a single speech with health care in the title (Sep 9, 2009). Case closed.” (JohnH)
    Now this is really taking on a ‘Baghdad Bob’ quality. Of course Obama made the speeches, gave the radio addresses, did the town halls. I was following the issue carefully and I heard or read the coverage of nearly all of them.
    Who are you trying to fool? Yourself? You’re certainly not fooling anybody else.

    Reply

  3. JohnH says:

    Nadine, Obama didn’t make the speeches. Just look at the link listing all Obama’s speeches. While Congress was deliberating, Obama made a single speech with health care in the title (Sep 9, 2009). Case closed.
    Regarding CBS, I have no idea how they came to their number–they didn’t show their work, their source, or the motivation behind the claim. But I did provide mine.
    And, contrary to what you think, nobody understands the benefits of the legislation, because neither Obama nor Democrats bothered to explain to anybody what it was supposed to accomplish. Carville and Greenberg told them how to market it up front, but the Democrats’ dysfunctional leadership couldn’t be bothered with explaining the program to people.
    And now they run from their signature issue rather than running on it!
    As Carville and Greenberg said, “While the public is uncertain about the plan

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    JohnH, you are a walking exemplar of the liberal penchant for substituting feelings for facts. You feel Obama didn’t make speeches, so presto chango, he didn’t — and look at the Obama website! that’s proof! Gee, won’t CBS news be interested to learn that have joined the conservative conspiracy? Is 2009 really so long ago you don’t remember it?
    He’s a line Obama used so many times I can recite it from memory: “Here’s a guarantee I have made. If you like your health plan, you can keep it.”
    …meanwhile they passed a law which encourages employers to dump their health plans en masse by allowing them to dump a $13,000 per employee plan for a $2,000 fine. Of course the dumping has started and will only get bigger. Millions will lose coverage.
    Of course nobody knows what’s in Obamacare. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s 3000 pages of legaleze, that won’t really exist until all the regs get written. Every time people learn anything about what the plan does, it gets less popular. Why do you think all the big corporations going to Commissar Sebelius for waivers?
    Why do you think no Democrat ran on passing this bloated piece of crap, their signature issue? They could read the polls.

    Reply

  5. JohnH says:

    Jeffrey Goldberg explains the problems as Obama’s inability to sell: “[Obama’s] lost — if he ever had it — his appetite for persuasion. Oh, he can explain things just fine. But there’s a difference between explaining your position and selling it. Clinton, the consummate salesman, understood the difference.”
    http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/09/03/obama_could_use_some_clintonesque_salesmanship
    In June 2009, Carville and Greenberg explained exactly what Obama needed to do, but Obama never bothered to heed their advice:
    1. Voters need to hear clearly what changes health care reform will bring. [BENEFITS:]Never losing health insurance when you lose a job or get sick, power shifted from insurance companies to people, reduced costs for you and your family, business and country.
    2. Build a narrative around TAKING POWER away from the insurance companies and giving it to people. [Insurance companies were a really, really easy target, given people’s horrendous experience with them.]
    3. The president and reform advocates have to explain concretely the changes that will mean LOWER COSTS.
    4. Show all voters and seniors that there are BENEFITS for them, including prescription drugs.
    5. All of these points should be made with the dominant framework that continuing the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. [The only thing that Democrats ever bothered to talk about.]
    http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/dcorps-healthcare-062509.pdf
    Obama had access to tremendous marketing talent. But instead he chose to do virtually nothing.

    Reply

  6. JohnH says:

    “Obama gave over 50 speeches dedicated to health care.” This is just BS, part of a characteristically deceptive conservative effort to convince people that the American people understand Obamacare and reject it. Fact is, people don’t support Obamacare, because they don’t have a clue to as to what it is. Nobody has bothered to launch an information campaign to explain it to them.
    I watched Obama carefully during 2009, waiting for him to fight for health care. Instead, he tossed the whole issue over the fence to Congress and then sat on his hands while Congress deliberated.
    I watched. Where were you, Nadine? I already provided you the entire list of speeches and statements Obama made on health care. Most “speeches” were just short comments, secondary mentions and afterthoughts. Most had nothing to do with selling health care reform. Go look at them.
    The only health care speeches Obama made in 2009 were one in March, one in June to the AMA, and one in September. Unlike other Presidents, he never had the whole cabinet blanketing the media and stumping for his top priority. It just didn’t happen. Obama’s “fight” for health care is by far the most pathetic effort I have ever seen a President make to sell his top priority.
    Obama, the Undecider, the Uncommunicator.

    Reply

  7. nadine says:

    “During the period when health care was under active deliberation in Congress, June 2009 – January 2010, Obama made one — that’s right, exactly one — speech dedicated to health care, as evidenced in the speech’s title.” (JohnH)
    JohnH, that’s hysterical. Obama campaigned for health care reform from March 2009 to March 2010. During that period, Obama gave over 50 speeches dedicated to health care. You don’t get to discount them just because they failed to persuade people. Though I can understand why you would want to, lol. Here’s a March 2010 recap from that noted right-wing rag, CBS News:
    “Obama Has Given 54 Speeches on Health Care
    Posted by Mark Knoller
    On no other issue has President Obama put in as much effort and displayed as much passion as on health care.
    Since launching his campaign for health care reform with a White House forum on March 5th of last year, Mr. Obama has delivered 54 speeches and statements on the issue.
    And elements of the first speech could be heard more than a year later in the latest.
    March 5, 2009
    “There are those who say we should defer health care reform once again — that at a time of economic crisis, we simply can’t afford to fix our health care system, as well.”
    March 19, 2010
    “You’ve got a whole bunch of opponents of this bill saying, well, we can’t afford this; we’re fiscal conservatives. / Not only can we afford to do this, we can’t afford not to do this.”
    Our CBS News tally shows Mr. Obama has made 471 speeches, remarks and comments on every issue under the sun since taking office 423 days ago. His 54 statements on health care reform mean that better than 1 in 10 was on health care. Since the first of this year, it’s been nearly 2 in 10.
    And on more than any other issue, health care triggers the most forceful passages of his rhetorical repertoire.
    In four speeches the last two weeks in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio and today in Virginia, his passion reaches a peak and an ear-popping crescendo as he appeals to his largely supportive audiences to back his appeal for enactment of his plan to fix what he says is wrong with health care coverage in America.”
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000825-503544.html
    He has done health care events in 12 states, some of them more than once. He’s done 9 Town Hall Meetings on health care and made it the focus of 13 of his Saturday radio and Internet addresses. ”

    Reply

  8. JohnH says:

    During the period when health care was under active deliberation in Congress, June 2009 – January 2010, Obama made one — that’s right, exactly one — speech dedicated to health care, as evidenced in the speech’s title.
    http://obama-speech.org/Health.php
    Obama made as many speeches pardoning the National Turkey!
    Obama obviously mentioned health care many times, but only as a secondary matter or an afterthought. And there are perhaps a grand total of two other occasions when health care figured prominently in a presidential speech or remarks.
    Yet Obama had the chutzpah to claim that health care was his number one domestic priority? What a joke!
    Fact is that Obama never behaved as if passing health care was all that important–he never made it a prominent part of his communications with the American people.
    Obama the Undecider, the Uncommunicator.

    Reply

  9. JohnH says:

    BS, Nadine. Obama MENTIONED Health Care 400 times. He never stumped for health care, never gave a press conference on it, never went on national TV to pitch the case. These are all things that his predecessors did when trying to make the case for their policies.
    In all, Obama made perhaps one speech dedicated to healthcare, and that was only when prospects of passage looked dim in the Summer of 2009.
    Obama is the non-communicator President. But only because he chooses no to communicate with the American people.

    Reply

  10. nadine says:

    “START (and all of Obama’s other initiatives) will fail because the guy chooses not to sell anything but himself. He makes no effort whatsoever to influence public opinion, perhaps because he thinks it’s irrelevant, except during elections. Heck, the guy doesn’t even hold press conferences or make Oval Office speeches on important issues.
    People still don’t know the benefits of Obamacare, which is why it stirred so much opposition. Same is true of the stimulus package and the bailouts.” (JohnH)
    Obama gave hundreds of speeches on healthcare. Literally – I remember a newspaper counted up the speeches, and counted over 400. Dozens of them major. Obama even addressed a joint session of Congress, remember?
    The speeches failed. It turns out Obama cannot sell anything but himself.
    But it wasn’t for want of trying.

    Reply

  11. rc says:

    “… couldn’t even sell ‘free trade’ to Korea, …
    (DB Nov 19 2010, 9:21PM)
    Here is some feedback to the ’empire’ on what others are saying about this ‘free trade’.
    “Proposed Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement” http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/3069954.htm
    And they are friends.

    Reply

  12. Don Bacon says:

    It’s time to re-read Obama’s 2005 DKos memo. Those of us who first read it five years ago aren’t surprised by his shortcomings, his failure to fight for progressive policies.

    Reply

  13. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Surely, by now, some of you must be considering my long held, (sometimes voiced), opinion that he may well be a ringer?

    Reply

  14. JohnH says:

    START (and all of Obama’s other initiatives) will fail because the guy chooses not to sell anything but himself. He makes no effort whatsoever to influence public opinion, perhaps because he thinks it’s irrelevant, except during elections. Heck, the guy doesn’t even hold press conferences or make Oval Office speeches on important issues.
    People still don’t know the benefits of Obamacare, which is why it stirred so much opposition. Same is true of the stimulus package and the bailouts.
    If you let the opposition create objections without preempting them or countering them, you’re sure to lose the debate. Obama decided to be a loser from the day he got elected.
    The mystery of Obama is why he chooses not to fight publicly for anything.

    Reply

  15. Dirk says:

    I don’t think you have any idea of what you’re talking about Don. To blame Obama on the desire by the GOP to thwart the START treaty is wildly off base. Senator Kyle was “for it before he was against it” to use Senator Kerry’s own words. Everything was settled and concerns were addressed above and beyond what was necessary.
    Maybe you should read your inspiration’s entry, the “literate and hard hitting” WigWag.
    But go ahead and vent your bile…get it out…when it’s gone maybe you’ll be able to think clearly again.

    Reply

  16. DakotabornKansan says:
  17. Don Bacon says:

    at Foreign Policy, P.J. Aroon points out:
    At this point, the New START arms-control treaty with Russia has been endorsed by:
    * All of the current U.S. military leadership
    * 7 former commanders of U.S. Strategic Command
    * 5 former defense secretaries
    * 3 former national security advisors
    * 6 former secretaries of state
    But Obama, the president who couldn’t even sell ‘free trade’ to Korea, could blow it. Thus the “media alert.”

    Reply

  18. Don Bacon says:

    Yes, reminding Afghans of the tank-heavy Soviet occupation might bring back the pleasant memories of blowing them up, and I doubt that they’ve lost the touch.
    What I’ve been expecting but it hasn’t happened on any scale yet is the use of the Stinger-type anti-aircraft missiles that were so effective against the Soviets, as depicted in “Charlie Wilson’s War.”
    Hey, there’s a lot of money being made so who are we to criticize.

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The military has previously been reluctant to introduce tanks because of fears they would remind Afghans of the tank-heavy Soviet occupation”
    Chuckling. What are these assholes thinking?
    “Gee, that didn’t work, so lets do the same thing again!”

    Reply

  20. JohnH says:

    “We are now deploying heavily-armored battle tanks to Afghanistan”…all part of the campaign to destroy Afghanistan to save it…American “human rights” in action…

    Reply

  21. DakotabornKansan says:
  22. DakotabornKansan says:

    Snookiism

    Reply

  23. John Waring says:

    Don,
    Wig Wag is more literate on her worst day than 99% of senators are on their best day.

    Reply

  24. Don Bacon says:

    The “New START” arms control treaty is only one potential casualty of a Repub “Lame Duck” assault on Obama, which also includes potential Obama losses on continued tax cuts for the rich, additional unemployment benefits, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and continued higher Medicare payments for doctors.
    This is all being set up while Obama is overseas selling airplanes, failing to get more “free trade” and planning war extensions. And he isn’t getting any help from other Dems, as noted above. It’s beginning to look like the next two years of Obama’s term will be a Lame Duck.
    Perhaps the Party has other plans for 2012? The Repubs are the only faction supporting Obama on Afghanistan — Americans, Dems and Indys want out — and if the Repubs turn against the war then Obama is no longer a merely a lame duck but a political dead duck.

    Reply

  25. Kathleen says:

    Wonder when Pete Dominick will have Flynt Leverett on his program. Have been after Chris Matthews for quite some time. Maybe Rachel Maddow could beat Matthews to Flynt Leverett on. Well on second thought Rachel is one of the MSNBCErs who has on numerous occasions repeated inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims about Iran.
    Dylan Ratigan would be the more likely candidate to have a voice of reason on the middle east like Flynt Leverett on his program
    Listening to the most amazing interview with former CIA middle east analyst Flynt Leverett over at Race for Iran (have followed him for 10 years now, was in 43’s administration quit right before the invasion based on his opposition I believe. Over at Race for Iran Deals with the invasion, early 90’s gulf war, occupation instead of “off shore balancing” strategy in the middle east, why Muslims are pissed off with us occupying their holy lands, support for Israel’s hegemony and to be able to attack pre-emptively “anytime, anywhere, for more or less anything”
    AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: ON THE ROAD TO FAILURE
    He is so clear, on point, easy to digest. Goes over the reasons for the invasion, our role in the middle east, mistakes. Nails the serious problems that our support for Israel no matter what they do causes in the middle east. Focuses on diplomacy. Suggest a plan for moving forward. This man is brilliant, incredibly reasonable and fact based.
    Really think you will appreciate this interview with Leverett. The voice of reason. 30 some minutes. Well worth the time
    http://www.raceforiran.com/american-grand-strategy-in-the-middle-east-on-the-road-to-failure#comment-26659

    Reply

  26. Don Bacon says:

    In other words why can’t John Kerry D-MA (Senate Foreign Relations) be as literate and hard-hitting as WigWag on this subject. Cat got his tongue?

    Reply

  27. DakotabornKansan says:

    Sarah Palin (why I was distracted) opposed to START treaty

    Reply

  28. Don Bacon says:

    Where’s John Kerry? Why is Dick Lugar leading?
    These are not new problems. This is a continuing failure to identify problems and solve them, a continuing inability to deliver a message.
    Senator Kerry, Nov 16:

    Reply

  29. WigWag says:

    The sheer stupidity of John Kyl and his fellow Republican Senators who are dithering on START is so profound that it’s amazing to behold. Twenty years after the Cold War ended, these Republicans are so nostalgic for the glory days when the United States and the Soviet Union confronted each other that they just can’t bring themselves to accept that the United States and Russia are no longer adversaries. The Evil Empire is dead but they just miss it so much that they can’t and won’t let it go.
    Aren’t the Republican Senators who oppose START the same Senators who support an aggressive U.S. posture in Afghanistan? Hasn’t Russia allowed NATO and the United States virtually unhindered access to its airspace as the United States and its allies supply troops in Afghanistan?
    Aren’t the Republican Senators who opose START the same Senators who favor severe sanctions on Iran? Didn’t Russia fail to veto the U.N. sanctions resolution against Iran and then reneg on the deal it had made with Iran to deliver a powerful anti-aircraft system that it had promised it would provide?
    Do these Republican Senators actually think that the foreign policy goals that they themsevles support will be any easier to accomplish if an angry Russia, stabbed in the back by the United States Senate, decides that it’s time to provide the United States with a little pay back?
    Can the Republican caucus in the Senate really be this dumb?
    For an interesting article on the subject, see this,
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/17/the_pause_button?page=0,0

    Reply

  30. Dan Kervick says:

    What I hope Senator Kyl can be made to realize is that even though START is a treaty *between* the United States and Russia, it is not primarily a treaty *about* the United States and Russia. It is about the rest of the world, and it is about making use of the diplomatic tools the United States has at its disposal to influence what happens in the rest of the world.
    Russia and the United States have a lot of nuclear weapons. They will continue to have a lot of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. That’s not really the issue.
    The issue is how all of those many countries besides the largest nuclear powers see themselves. Do they see themselves as living in a deeply insecure world; one in which the most powerful countries are likely to re-engage in a nuclear arms race; one in which the most powerful countries cannot be trusted to make new treaties, or abide by the treaty obligations they already have; one in which the most powerful countries cannot be counted on to promote a stable and secure international order? This is important, because to the extent that countries do see their world this way, they will conclude that’s its every country for itself and everybody had better run out and grab their own nuclear gun.
    And in that case, it won’t matter how powerful the US is vis-a-vis the Russians. The rest of the world will be far more dangerous, filled with nuclear-weapons packing states, many of them corrupt, impulsive and unstable, tottering on the brink of failure, and many of them willing to sell their weapons to outlaw free agents. This is a situation in which even a powerful country like the United States will not be able to defend itself. Our intelligence capacities will be overwhelmed; our policing abilities stretched beyond practical limits.
    I understand the long-standing conservative argument about bilateral nuclear arms agreements and our bilateral nuclear posture in a bipolar world. They think that the power that has the ability to out-compete their adversary in nuclear weapons technology should just press their advantage and achieve security through overwhelming strength. But that bipolar world doesn’t exist any longer, if it ever did. START isn’t just about Russia, Russians and Russian nukes.

    Reply

  31. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “As one who bought into the

    Reply

  32. DakotabornKansan says:
  33. John Waring says:

    Guys,
    I thoroughly enjoy a good bashing of the Obama, engaging as I have in a few of them myself, but on this issue, no. Ratifying this treaty is as close as you’ll ever get to a no-brainer decision. The administration has been meticulously selling this treaty in committee meeting after committee meeting, discussing the abstruse details that would numb the public, addressing responsible objections, lining up tons of support from present and past national security officials, great and small. This treaty is the last item that should required a fifty state, rock them sock them, campaign to get it approved. The last time Senator Lugar expressed this level of umbrage was at his birth, which tells us something.
    And Senator Lugar is correct. At this stage of the process, opposition to this treaty is grossly irresponsible. A treaty providing for boots on the ground verification that fewer missles are pointed at the United States of America is an extremely good idea.
    You got to be dumb as a rock to oppose this treaty.

    Reply

  34. JohnH says:

    Meanwhile, one of NAF’s board involved in kickbacks to get business from NY’s pension fund. SEC gave him a tap on the wrist–$6.2 million, probably the amount that Steven Rattner usually makes before breakfast every day.
    Question is: why is he still on the Board at NAF? What ever happened to the social stigma attached to being a crook? Inoperative for the rich and powerful?

    Reply

  35. DakotabornKansan says:

    “I feel like a donkey, with a stick in my mouth and a carrot up my ass.”

    Reply

  36. Don Bacon says:

    Evidence that “Obama fights to save nuclear arms deal”? (from ft.com link)
    Where’s the beef?
    As I noted on another thread, Obama’s last Weekly Address, November 13, 2010, didn’t mention START. I guess it wasn’t important. There is no mention of START on the White House website front page. The last news item is from last April, seven months ago.
    So, no fight from Obama.
    What Dem senators have spoken out on START?
    Some fight.
    The word ‘fight’ isn’t even in Obama’s vocabulary.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *