Today on AirTalk we'll discuss the latest poll numbers between Mitt Romney and President Obama and how the latest comments made by Romney could have hurt his position, how the California emissions standards may be forcing small trucking and transportation owners out of business, the ripple effect "insider shootings" are having in Afghanistan and on NATO troops in the middle east, the latest attacks from Syria causing a massive strain on Middle East diplomacy and the dangerous fascination with the media's coverage of high speed police chases. Plus, the latest news
FULL VIDEO: Romney under fire for remarks about Obama's voter base
With the party conventions over and the debates a few weeks out, the candidates running for president are now facing intense daily scrutiny from the media and voters.
Perhaps most aware of this is Mitt Romney, who has a new problem on his hands after already having to deal with his heavily criticized remarks concerning the Obama administration’s handling of the unrest in the Middle East.
Now, a leaked video from a Romney fundraiser shows the candidate speaking dismissively of Barack Obama’s perceived voter base. Romney explained his electoral process by saying, "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon the government … And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people who pay no income tax.”
Once made public, these remarks and others from the event in which he claims there will never be peace in the Middle East and that he might have a better shot at winning the election if he were Latino, caused a firestorm amongst Obama supporters and quite a backlash for Romney.
Romney video from Mother Jones:
Romney's comments on 47 percent:
Part I:
Part II:
The GOP hopeful held a press conference to address the videos, but did not walk his statements back and stood by his original message that those who don’t pay taxes will find Obama a more appealing candidate than himself, because his plan centers on reducing the size of government and cutting taxes.
Several media outlets are comparing this gaffe to Obama’s statement in 2008, also at a private fundraiser, that voters in rural areas “cling to guns or religion.”
Weigh In:
Do the two statements carry the same weight? Will Romney be able to move past the conversation in the same way Obama did, or at least wrangle it enough to win the election? And what about the math here, what does that 47 percent number really mean? Are all those people definitely Democrats, or are there some Republicans in the mix? There are less than 50 days until people go to vote, how are both candidates faring in the polls?
Guests:
Matt Rodriguez, Democratic strategist; former senior Obama advisor in 2008, who now runs the Los Angeles office for the Dewey Square Group
Jonathan Wilcox, Republican Strategist; former speech writer for Governor Pete Wilson
Lynn Vavreck, Professor of Political Science, UCLA; co-author of the newly released e-book The Gamble: Choice & Chance in the 2012 Election
Are California air pollution laws putting truckers out of business?
Trucking industry representatives are awaiting a judge’s decision in their case, which asks the U.S. EPA to ease state air quality regulations.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) wants to cut the particulates flowing from the tailpipes of diesel trucks. Newer vehicles already do – they’re manufactured with diesel particulate filters. But what about the older trucks? Many have hundreds of thousands of miles on the dial but aren’t ready to quit just yet.
Joe Rajkovacz of the California Construction Trucking Association said that implementing the rule will cost the trucking industry over $10 billion, and the rule would mostly affect smaller businesses.
"This rule [will] basically take the equity away from most small businesses in California. The equity in their businesses is primarily their vehicle, and they would typically use that vehicle to trade up to another vehicle," he explained. "You're forcing people to either destroy perfectly good equipment. Or, if they sell it out-of-state, where is the alleged savings of health effects? [The trucks] will operate someplace else."
Rajkovacz added that the cost-benefit doesn't justify CARB's rule, and people can't afford to make financial commitments during California's recession.
"No, they can't raise the money from their operations in order to satisfy the mortgage on their new trucks. A Class A truck – to replace it – would cost anywhere between $150,000 and $180,000. That's going with a brand new truck. If you're talking about a car carrier, those start at a quarter million," he said.
Melissa Lin Perrella, senior attorney of the Southern California Air Project, said she questions the validity of $10 billion, but she acknowledges that the truck industry will need to spend money to comply.
"What are the true costs of this regulation, and what are the costs if we don't move forward?" she asked. "For decades now, those that breathe dirty air have gotten the short end of the stick, and I just feel that it's completely unacceptable to tell the kid with asthma or the mother with lung cancer who lives close to a busy roadway that their lives aren't worth replacing old, dirty trucks."
Should those trucks and bulldozers be required to come up to the new standard? The state board and environmental backers say, of course. But the truckers contend that the repairs are so costly, it will put many small owner-operators in debt, or out of business altogether.
Weigh In:
Should the EPA give them some leeway? Or given the heavy traffic to and from California’s ports and agricultural regions, are we better off with the cleaner air rules?
Guests:
Joe Rajkovacz, Director of Governmental Affairs and Communication for California Construction Trucking Association
Melissa Lin Perrella, Senior Attorney, Southern California Air Project, Los Angeles, with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) since 2004
Insider shootings lead to curtailing of NATO activity in Afghanistan
Two days ago, anti-American violence erupted in Kabul as militant branches of Islam protested the inflammatory “Innocence of Muslims” video. And yesterday, twelve people were killed, mostly foreign air charter workers, when a suicide car bomber targeted a minivan near Kabul International Airport. The maverick Islamist Hezb-i-Islami (Party of Islam), has claimed responsibility for the attack, according to a spokesperson for the group quoted in the Washington Post.
This latest violence follows on a period of increasing hostility towards westerners in the region. Since January, more than 50 coalition troops in Afghanistan have fallen victim to a number of so-called “insider” shootings by Afghan security forces. On Sunday, four NATO troops were killed by an attack believed to involve Afghan police; two days before, insurgents disguised in U.S. army uniforms attacked a joint British-American base. Two U.S. Marines and 14 insurgents died in the firefight. As a result, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force has ordered its troops to curb joint operations with local security forces.
Are “blue-on-green” attacks leading to a breakdown in coalition relations? What can be done to quell the wrath stirred up by the anti-Muslim video? Is the U.S. fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan? Is it time to look at an exit strategy?
Guests:
Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, Foreign Correspondent, National Public Radio, joins us from Kabul
Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution -- with its 21st Century Defense Initiative and director of research for its Foreign Policy program. O’Hanlon is a member of General David Petraeus’s External Advisory Board at the Central Intelligence Agency.
Bill Roggio, Managing Editor, Long War Journal; Senior Fellow, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Former embedded reporter in Iraq & Afghanistan
Syrian conflict provokes Mideast diplomatic reaction
Yesterday [MON], the United Nations released a report of its investigation into the Syrian conflict. After last month’s declaration that both the government and the rebels have been committing war crimes, the investigators have now concluded that the situation is growing exponentially worse.
The Syrian government has been found to engage in more atrocities than the rebels, by focusing attacks on centers with high populations and targeting women and children. The investigators also found evidence of “militant jihadists” from foreign countries inserting themselves into the rebel uprising, which experts worry could lead to further escalation and a larger regional conflict. Other countries in the region are not taking the situation lightly, as Egypt’s new leader President Mohamed Morsi is reaching out to Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia as a means to initiate a brokering of peace in Syria.
While these countries are not traditional allies (Iran and Egypt broke ties after the Iranian Revolution of 1979), there is a definite sense that it will take a concerted effort of Mideast countries, and a lack of Western political presence, to achieve an end to the bloodshed in Syria. These countries are perfectly poised to be such players, as Turkey and Saudi Arabia are the biggest supporters of the Syrian rebels, while Iran has backed the Assad government. And with Egypt coming off of its own democratic revolution and Morsi attempting to define the early days of his presidency, the country is in a unique position of power in the region.
Will the four countries be able to influence an end to the Syrian conflict? What is the reaction of the United States to this news? What other specifics were included in the U.N. investigation? How is Syria affecting its neighboring countries?
Guests:
Danielle Pletka, Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Joshua Landis, director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Oklahoma
Media coverage of car chases: entertaining, pointless or irresponsible?
A wave of car chases throughout Southern California has caused the police force to disparage the way media outlets handle coverage of chases, stating that live coverage from the scene of chases does little but exacerbate the problem.
According to the LA Police Protective League, “media coverage of police chasing dangerous felons in the southland have put thousands of people, including dozens of police officers, in extreme danger. Police chases and the aftermath are certainly newsworthy, but the recent live television coverage has had the feel of a sporting event – with accompanying colorful commentary.”
Last week, live coverage of a police pursuit saw a shootout between a suspect and police on live television, and in another chase, saw a mob scene follow a car after money was thrown out of the window. Police then not only had to deal with pursuing the suspect, but also a crowd surrounding the car, hoping for more money. “In these situations, the responsibility lies with the suspect for not submitting to arrest, the public to stay out of the way, the officers to use good judgment when in pursuit and the media to limit its coverage,” says the LAPPL. “We aren’t questioning the news value – when it’s over – and in some cases as a warning for public safety, but many times …live coverage endangers the public.”
Do you enjoy watching police chases on TV or do you find them to be a distraction, or even dangerous?
Guests:
Tyler Izen, President of the Los Angeles Police Protective League
Jeff Baugh, airborne reporter for KNX 1070 news radio