text:
Nationals Baseball: Substitute Features

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Substitute Features

Here's something that might surprise you.  The Nats offensive starters have this line :

.253 / .311 / .408

That batting average is league average. That OBP is a little below league average.  That SLG is a little bit above league average.

But the Nats haven't produced like an average offense. They've been better than that.  They've been good.  How is that?

It's because, for one reason or another, the Nats hitters are great when they don't start the game.

One thing we can look at is pinch hitting.  The Nats have a line of .315 / .409 / .473 when pinch hitting this year.  That's good enough to be head and shoulders above the rest of the National League.

But it goes beyond that because being a substitute isn't just being a pinch hitter.  All those at bats after that count too. And nearly every National that could come off the bench in this role has hit better as a substitute than when they start.

Starting : .283 / .360 / .388
Subbing : .395 / .490 / .488

Starting : .219 / .265 / .438
Subbing : .323 / .405 / .548

Starting : .274 / .317 / .355
Subbing : .357 / .438 / .429

Starting : .277 / .342 / .505
Subbing : .310 / .375 / .517

Starting :  .085 / .214 / .085
Subbing : .316 / .458 / .526

Starting :  .226 / .275 / .376
Subbing :  .240 / .321 / .600

Starting : .131 / .180 / .190
Subbing : .278 / .350 / .667

Their sub line is .319 /.415 / .486. The next best in the NL is the Mets with a .262 / .344 / .440 line. Is it Davey making the right moves? Is it Rizzo putting together a decent bench? Is it just dumb luck?

I don't want to dismiss the other two but it's a lot of #3. Generally, your at bats as a sub are going to be limited so you are going to see a lot of variation compared to your stats as a starter (pure pinch hitters like Chad Tracy excluded). Some people should find themselves doing worse, some should find themselves doing better.  And it can be radically so, averages closing in on .500 or well below .100.  What we see here with the Nats, with everyone improving when they aren't starting, is really very fluky.

As for the first two parts, I'm not sure. The Davey role is something that would need more investigation.  He can't place the guys in situations so that they'd perform this well (remember too that this includes post PH at bats that Davey has less control over). However, he could have a history of having most of his guys do slightly better at PH than expected.  I'm not going to discount that out of hand.  The Rizzo role, well... I have a hard time saying that DeRosa and Nady constituted a good bench. You see what they've done when they've started. Their sub success is the most flukiest. You may not have expected the other guys to do this well but there are decent players among the rest. Bernie can spot start. Lombo can get a single. Moore has legit major league power. You kept Ankiel in part because he might blast one. Tracy was brought in to pinch hit and he has. Maybe Rizzo didn't personally set out to get all these guys on the Nats (Bernie has been the 4th OF for what? 18 years now? Moore forced the issue through his play and injuries forced the move) but in the end he's responsible for who's out there, so he gets the credit if they do well.

Can the Nats keep this up? Sure, why not. It's just a few at bats. A better showing from the guys that start the game would be nice though.

blovy8 said...

Who kept Tracy on to pinch hit? Who got Bernadina to hit .300? Who turned a guy pretty much everyone thought was an empty .260 hitter to be a productive utility guy hitting much higher? Who turned a guy who can't even play first very well into a viable bench bat who can play left?

blovy8 said...

When enough things improve more than you expect, who do you give credit to?

blovy8 said...

I think what we understand it that Davey can manage talent, and if he doesn't have enough, he asks for more.

Harper said...

blovy8 - Who knows? Look at your questions. Rizzo gets Tracy. Bernie and Lombo could be the hitting coach. Then again Bernie is a lot of luck (BABIP at .390), and lombo feels like he's doing well but in reality he's all singles so does that deserve credit? Moore would have to be someone in the minors.

The organization looks strong in this, that's all I can say for sure and even then I would take a wait till next year approach, even with the multiple player improvement.

DezoPenguin said...

How about the hitting of the pitchers when compared to the rest of the NL? Most nights, the Nats basically run Nick Punto out there instead of an automatic out machine, and that's got to count for something, but are we legitimately ahead of most of the league?

Donald said...

I don't think there's just one factor, but Davey does deserve some credit. He changed Desmond and Espinosa's approach around at the plate, so he probably had a hand in Bernadina at least. I think Rizzo gets most of the credit for Tracy, but I think Davey has set the atmosphere correctly to get people to play up to their top potential.

Also, my guess is that most of the substitute at bats are the first pinch hit one, and for that, Davey gets a lot of credit for putting the right person in the right situation.

Any predictions for the next two games besides a Strasburg win tonight? How about scores, or Detwiler's start?

blovy8 said...

Bernadina's hitting more line drives and has more infield hits. I would guess his babip should be about .350, so .390 isn't as crazy. His homers per flyball are a bit down, I'd say he's a .280 hitter if he keeps most of the improved approach.

Anonymous said...

Harper, please tell me Davey is at least considering starting RB over Bryce. Please!!!! Bryce is plain awful right now.

Anonymous said...

You're right that dumb luck is the answer. And so I don't think there's any reason to worry about this split. The Nats are (all told) a slightly above average offense and this starter/sub phenomenon is just small sample size noise. To appreciate this, consider the aggregate triple slash line difference between the starters and the whole team (starters + subs):

Starters: 254/311/408.
Starters + Subs: 257/317/413.

Other ways of sorting ABs will make it seem like the Nats are especially good in certain circumstances. For example:

On Mondays the Nats hit 304/368/451.
On turf they hit 306/339/583 (in 108 ABs).

These splits should not make us worry about what will happen if the Nats stop hitting so well on Mondays or on turf.

P.S. I don't mean this to be argumentative. You don't say we should worry about what will happen when the subs come back to earth. I just want to explicitly close off this implication.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
We've all been there: sitting in the hairstylists chair, explaining that we want a trim, to only be turned around and see in the mirror before us a lack of the hair we so cherished. I know hardly a single curly gal who has ever not experienced this sort of "misunderstanding" with their stylist. It is a staple stereotype of getting your hair cut, and often it rings so true that, as a community, we've created specific curly cuts to avoid the problem. Heck, some of us skip trims all together to avoid the situation, and honestly, you won't get any backlash from the community for doing so — just understanding looks from women who've been there too.

Celebrities aren't immune to this societal disorder of sorts either. According to People StyleWatch, back in December, Cameron Diaz went to her personal stylist and explained that she wanted just a trim. But when she was turned around to the mirror, she burst out in tears at the short cut she saw staring back at her.

“I just burst into tears and started crying, and I felt so vulnerable,” she explained on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. “For a woman to all of a sudden have no hair, oh my god.”

Of course, the situation was worsened by the mere fact that the stylist is also Diaz' mother. According to Diaz, her mother has been cutting her hair for as long as she can remember, but we're thinking this is probably the first time such a "misunderstanding" has occurred. All of which leads me to this questions, curlies:

Would you let a friend, mother, etc. cut your hair after a bad experience?

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-96-226.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text: I received my Mop Top products on Monday and had great results with their conditioner. You might want to give it a shot. Kelly, the owner of the company, is so nice. If you have any questions, she'll quickly and thoroughly answer them. I had the same results with Jessicurl, by the way. The products weighed my hair down, as well. It was not pretty.


text:
Its so pretty. :') curl envy :')
Originally Posted by Amethyst_Kisses
Lol I'm uncertain if you're talking about me or the gorgeous chica curls above but if you are thank you & if you aren't shhhh lol
Originally Posted by Pocahontas
I was referring to you :') u certainly picked the right screen name


text:
I agree with the others. If you're not wetting and adding moisture in that two week time frame, your hair is going to be very unhappy. Also, what you're deep conditioning with is more than just conditioner- it's a protein treatment. My hair doesn't love a lot of protein treatments, I only use them when I absolutely need to, if my hair seems really really limp. If your hair is dry and coarse, it could be protein sensitive- and it sounds like you're using lots of protein and not enough straight up conditioning moisture to counteract it.

When I first started the cg method, I was having to wet my hair daily, and it was a little (okay, a lot) cumbersome BUT there was a major difference in the moisture level of my hair. It was softer, smoother, and I had a lot less tangles. My hair didn't seem as "angry" and unmanageable as I'd always thought it was.

If it was me, I would start off with a serious deep conditioning treatment- something overnight or at least a half hour with heat- then I'd cowash daily or at least every other day for a week or two and see how you're doing.
Curly work in progress
2C with some 3A if all the stars align
Low porosity, medium to low density and fine
No sulfates since 2009
CG since 2013

In my stash:
Shampoos and conditioners- Tresemme Naturals Low Poo, Tresemme Naturals Moisturizing Aloe, Suave Naturals Coconut
Leave Ins- Kinky Curly Knot Today
Stylers- KCCC, AG Recoil, KY Lubricant (yup), SM Curl Milk
Gels- Ecostyler, Biosilk RHG
Mousse- Devacurl Uplifting Foam, Suave Captivating Curls


text:
Help with hair styles for 3c hair?

I've got a big thing coming up and since I'm strictly on a "year without heat" challenge, I would like to refrain from straightening my hair & styling how I know best. I've never worn my curly hair to a party or wedding or anything, so any ideas? It can be an updo, half updo, whatever.

My hair is thick 3c, and I have a lot of strands on my head.
I have the same hair type, I would braid one side and have the curls flowing. I wear a high bun mostly. Try the high bun first.
The top knot bun looks great on our hair cause the bun is so thick. Also look up hairstyles on UrbanOG's YouTube channel. Spankie valentine has great hair tutorials for long curly hair
3c Hair
Fine Strands, High Density, Low Porosity
CG since August 2011
Loving my hair!!!
for my uncles wedding i put my hair up in a high pony tail and kind of flipped it forwards, and pinned same curls forwards, if you get what i mean? so you got a really pretty like waterfall of curls coming down. perfect for thick hair!

my hair: 3b, high porosity, high density and coarse hair (i think i finally figured that all out)
my hair loves conditioner only styling!
Oils and my own procuts are my hairs best friend
my hair goal length is bra strap length when curly.

Trending Topics

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com


text:
View Poll Results: Night VS. Morning
Night 20 41.67%
Morning 28 58.33%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Washing Hair at Night VS. Washing Hair in the Morning

Lately I've been washing in the evening alot. I wash a few hours before I go to bed so it can be pretty dry too. If it's too wet before I go to sleep it doesn't come out that great in the morning but if it's just damp when I go to sleep and finishes drying, I get more curls than if I washed in the morning and air dried.

I usually just flip it up over my pillow and don't ask me how this actually works because I'm a side sleeper and I move around alot when I sleep. If it's real close to dry I'll put it in a pineapple.
2b/3a, primarily use Jessicurl and DevaCurl products, Curls Hair Tea conditioner and various gels. I'm modified CG-ish since 5/04.
How do you do a pineapple? How long does the hair have to be?
2b. Dark Golden Blond. Very fine texture. Medium thickness. Thrilled to find waves!!!

Trending Topics

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com


text:
joanne624's Profile

3b Curly Spirally

CurlTalk Activity

Member Since:
Aug 25, 2011
Last Online:
Aug 25, 2011
Total Posts:
Read all posts by joanne624
Send joanne624 a message

About joanne624

Nov 30

joanne624's Latest Salon Reviews

Haarmony Salon & Studio - Roswell, Georgia, United States
Christina Carsillo

Aug 25, 2011 - I recently had my first Deva dry haircut by Christina. She is great! I was so pleased with her, her talent, her knowledge - everything about my Haarmony Studios experience. She had me watch a brief video on curly hair, then she cut it. The way she cuts it is amazing -- every individual curl is cut. When she styled it, she explained everything that she was doing and why. With that, I learned the how, the why, the what and the what not to do with regard to styling. I learned how important gel isto curly hair. When I left there, it looked like I had at least twice as many curls as when I walked in! I look forward to my next appointment, that's for sure. While there, I met her boyfriend Bryan who has a photography studio at the same location. I looked through albums of photos (models, actors, etc., etc.) that he has taken. His work is beautiful and very professional. So, in case you need pictures taken, I would recommend Bryan. In addition, Christina will do your makeup and hair for pictures that you may need. I very highly recommend Haarmony Studios!! Joanne


text:
naturallypoofy's Profile

4a Coily Springy

CurlTalk Activity

Member Since:
Jul 18, 2011
Last Online:
Jul 18, 2011
Total Posts:
Read all posts by naturallypoofy
Send naturallypoofy a message

About naturallypoofy

Dec 10

naturallypoofy's Latest Product Reviews

SheaMoisture Coconut & Hibiscus Curl Enhancing Smoothie

Jul 24, 2011 - This gets 5 curls b/c it is inexpensive and delivers! I use it as a leave in moisturizer after washing and a daily moisturizer. I tried making my own shea mixes but i prefer just to use this. It is not good for hold for my styles but to MOISTURIZE before i style

Kinky-Curly Curling Custard

Jul 24, 2011 - It had good hold did leave my hair crunchy and took a loooong time to dry as others have expressed. I could never figure out how to get good second day hair with this product. I need to do more experimentation

Miss Jessie's Curly Pudding

Jul 24, 2011 - The thing i really liked about this product was the hold it provided on my flat two strand twist out. It kept my usually very frizzy ends to a minimum. If i want a well defined twist out this is what i use. But the price is a real doozy, very expensive! I only tried it cuz a coworker hated it and gave it to me


text:
National Fossil Day   Explore Nature
National Park Service
US Department of the Interior

Collaborative Summer Library Program

CSLP logo

Quick Links for Librarians

Welcome CSLP Partners! Are you looking for reading and activity resources? This page is your map to navigate the National Fossil Day website. Each of the links below will help get you started with and involved in National Fossil Day. We also have helpful hints for how to use each of these pages to benefit your library's celebration.

NFD Overview

NFD event on the National MallThis page explains the National Fossil Day official mission and objectives. From here, there are also links to our 'Get Involved', 'Getting Started', and 'Event Hosting' pages, which have useful information about how to become an official National Fossil Day partner, and how to plan a National Fossil Day event.
Learn more...

Activities Page

hands on paleontologyThe National Fossil Day 'Activities' page lists educational activities for all ages, focused on paleontology and fossils. This is a great place to look for ideas for National Fossil Day events you may be planning. The National Fossil Day 'Events' page is also a great place to look for activity and event ideas.
Learn more...

For Kids Page

kids stuff logoThe "For Kids" page is a fun place to explore online. Read about kids and professionals doing amazing things in paleontology. Also, the 'Paleontology Online' tab links to resources like Web Rangers, and online geology and paleontology tutorials. The 'Games and Activities' tab is where you can find our Jr. Paleontologist program, Earth Science Week, the Evolve or Perish board game, the National Fossil Day Art Contest, and some recommended reading. More recommended reading is on the 'Parents and Teachers' tab, as well as some other goodies.
Learn More...

NFD Events

NFD event on the national mallThe National Fossil Day 'Events' page archives all National Fossil Day events from previous years, as well as listing events that are planned for the current year. The National Fossil Day 'Partners' page lists each of our official partners. We have one in every state, so you should be able to find one near you! There is also a 'Libraries' partner category, so if your library is interested in officially partnering with National Fossil Day, please contact us.

Used together, these pages are a way to find National Fossil Day partners near your library. We strongly encourage you to contact National Fossil Day partners near you, to share ideas, resources, and event to collaborate in event planning.

NFD Logo

NFD logoWant to download the National Fossil Day logo? We have the logo artwork for each year available. This page also includes instructions for how to use the logo.
Learn More...

More Fun...

Be a Web Ranger Be a Junion Paleontologist
BLM's Join the Adventure NPS Paleontology Education

Last updated: February 25, 2014


text:
Geologic Monitoring

Fluvial Geomorphology

Monitoring stream morphology at Mount Rainier National Park, Washington.
Monitoring stream morphology at Mount Rainier National Park, Washington.

What is fluvial geormorphology?

Fluvial resources include rivers and streams. Fluvial geomorphology refers to the design or shape of the river or stream channel.

Why does the National Park Service monitor fluvial systems?

Most river systems are inherently dynamic. However, significant changes can cause channel instability and create hazards. Monitoring fluvial systems provides land managers with the data necessary to detect or predict channel instability.

  • Monitoring Book
  • Resource Facts
  • Case Study

Geological Monitoring Book

Vital Signs Monitored

  1. Watershed landscape
  2. Hydrology
  3. Sediment transport
  4. Channel: cross section
  5. Channel: planform
  6. Channel: longitudinal profile

Chapter 4
Fluvial Geomorphology: Monitoring Stream Systems in Response to a Changing Environment (PDF - 6.19MB)

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of river and stream dynamics, describe possible stressors that may lead to channel instability, and provide guidelines and methods for monitoring streams and rivers. To the extent possible, in this short treatment of the subject, we aim to provide a description of methodologies that are useful to most readers.

NPS Fluvial Resource Facts

The NPS has 7 designations specific to rivers:

Monitoring Fluvial Geomorphology in the National Park Service

Case study coming soon...

Related Links

Last Updated: April 16, 2012


text:
April 12, 2011

Warriors Sign Season Ticket Holder Fatih Erdin
Pleasanton Resident Returns For Fourth Season Under Risk-Free Renewal Agreement

The Golden State Warriors have signed season ticket holder Fatih Erdin for the 2011-12 season, co-owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber announced today. A member of the greatest fan base in all of professional sports, Erdin came to terms on a risk-free agreement that will ensure his place at Oracle Arena next season.

"This renewal plan is just one small example of our commitment to our shareholders,” said Lacob. “We owe it to our incredible fans, like Fatih, to raise our level of expectations for this organization and to perform at the highest level in all possible phases.”

A resident of Pleasanton, Fatih has been a Warriors season ticket holder since 2008 and considers Stephen Curry as his favorite Golden State player. Fatih attends nearly all of the Warriors home games each season and, based on his observations, believes the Warriors’ fan base is the best in the NBA.

“I think the fans are awesome. I’ve been to other NBA arenas around the country and the Warriors fans are clearly the best,” said Erdin.

A native of Istanbul, Turkey, Erdin lists the acquisition of Dorell Wright as a solid addition to the Warriors.

“Dorell has stepped his game up this season and has been great,” said Erdin. “I’m really excited to watch the team for another season.”

“We feel very fortunate to retain a fan like Fatih for the upcoming season,” said Guber. “Fatih is a valued member of our organization, and one of the key components to the unmatched atmosphere at Oracle Arena. Our goal is to honor and reward our fans’ loyalty in every way possible.”

As a renewed season ticket holder, Erdin was automatically entered for the chance to win prizes at a recent Warriors game, including the opportunity to shoot a half court shot for $10,000 cash. See a video recap of his experience below, including the prize package he chose.


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Public Input Wanted For New GJ Park

The first of two open houses concerning the future of Las Colonias Park in Grand Junction were held Wednesday and city officials are asking residents for their input.

The current design of the park allows for many amenities including picnic areas, a multi–use amphitheater and a whitewater kayak course along the river.

The concept for the park was developed in 1998, but with the construction of the Riverside Parkway, plans had to be amended and developers say with the park's potential, public input is crucial.

Comments will also be accepted during Thursday's open house at Two Rivers Convention Center, between 4:30-7 p.m.

KKCO NBC 11 News 2531 Blichmann Avenue Grand Junction, CO 81505 Station Phone: 970.243.1111 Business Fax: 970.243.1770 Newsroom Fax: 970.245.3793 News Tip & Contest Line: 970.255.8477
Copyright © 2002-2015 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 4784676 -
Gray Television, Inc.


text:
National & International News
The day’s top national and international news

Anthony Weiner Surges to Lead in Democratic Mayoral Race: NBC NY/WSJ/Marist Poll

The poll finds Weiner with 25 percent and Quinn with 20 percent among registered Democrats

View Comments ()

    Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner has surged ahead of his opponents in a new NBC 4 New York/Wall Street Journal poll, transforming himself in just a few weeks from disgraced has-been to mayoral front-runner. Melissa Russo reports. (Published Wednesday, June 26, 2013)

    Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner has surged ahead of his opponents in a new NBC 4 New York/Wall Street Journal poll, transforming himself in just a few weeks from disgraced has-been to mayoral front-runner.

    Weiner, who entered the race two years after resigning his congressional seat amid a sexting scandal, now leads City Council Speaker Christine Quinn 25 percent to 20 percent among registered Democrats, the poll by Marist found. That's a flip-flop from the last survey in May, when Quinn, the longtime front-runner, led Weiner 24 percent to 19 percent.

    And a runoff in the Democratic contest seems increasingly likely -- no candidate appears close to capturing the 40 percent needed on Sept. 10, which would force a second contest between the top two finishers.

    The poll shows that, in those scenarios, Weiner does not lead, but has gained a great deal of ground since the previous survey. In a runoff between Quinn and Weiner, she beats him 44 percent to 42 percent, with 14 percent undecided. That's a change from last month's poll that found 48 percent for Quinn, 33 percent for Weiner and 18 percent undecided.

    In a runoff scenario between Quinn and former Comptroller Bill Thompson, 42 percent backed Quinn and 40 percent support Thompson, with 18 percent undecided. And if Thompson were to face Weiner, he would narrowly beat the former congressman by 42 percent to 41 percent, with 18 percent undecided.

    Another good sign for Weiner is the number of registered New York voters who said they might vote for Weiner. Forty-nine percent said they’d consider it, up from 40 percent two months ago, before Weiner entered the race. Those who said they wouldn’t consider voting for him dropped from 52 percent to 45 percent.

    The next closest contender in the Democratic primary is Thompson, with 13 percent of registered Democrats saying they'd vote for him, up 2 percentage points from May. Public Advocate Bill de Blasio follows with 10 percent, who dropped 2 points. Then comes current Comptroller John Liu at 8 percent, Staten Island minister Erick Salgado at 2 percent and former City Councilman Sal Albanese at 1 percent.

    With potential votes spread out over so many candidates, and turnout in the primary expected to be relatively low, the race remains statistically wide open. Many Democrats — 18 percent — remain undecided, and 61 percent who have a choice indicated that they weren’t firmly committed to it.

    But Weiner appears to be enjoying the clearest advantage so far. His early campaigning, in which he’s portrayed himself as a middle class guy from Brooklyn, has included frequent apologies about his misdeeds. That seems to have made him more acceptable to New York voters, said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

    "The race changed when he got into the race, and he’s been able to survive returning to electoral politics, at least to this point," Miringoff said.

    At the same time, Quinn, who holds the most powerful office of the candidates, has suffered an erosion of support: 57 percent of Democrats polled they had a good impression of her, down from 60 percent in May, the poll shows. Meanwhile, her negative rating has inched upward, from 26 percent in May to 29 percent now.

    Mike Morey, a Quinn spokesman, said: "We fully expect the polls to fluctuate throughout the campaign, but we are confident that on Election Day when voters have to decide who they want to lead this city, they will choose someone who has demonstrated the ability to lead and deliver."

    Weiner, meanwhile, saw his favorability rating among Democrats jump from 44 percent to 52 percent. His negative rating dropped from 44 percent to 36 percent.

    Weiner said Tuesday that "in many ways, it doesn't change anything. We're going to keep talking about ideas for the middle class."

    Thompson also enjoyed a favorability boost, jumping from 52 percent to 60 percent.

    Miringoff attributed the Weiner-Quinn reversal to the fact that Quinn, as the early front-runner, became the target of her rivals’ criticism as she tried to find the right balance of allegiance to — and independence from — outgoing mayor Michael Bloomberg. That drew some negative attention from Weiner.

    Weiner resigned from his Brooklyn congressional seat in June 2011 after using Twitter to send provocative photos of himself to women. When the exchanges became public, he claimed he’d been hacked. He eventually confessed and went into virtual hiding with his wife, Huma Abedin, a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton. At the time, Abedin was pregnant with their first child.

    She has emerged as a key player in her husband's mayoral campaign.

    Weiner has long desired the city's top office. He ran in 2005, and nearly forced a runoff against Fernando Ferrer, but conceded in the name of party solidarity. He planned to run again in 2009, and was considered a leading contender, but dropped out after Bloomberg chose to run for a third term.

    Prior to his unraveling, Weiner had begun to plan for a 2013 campaign. He began with more than $4 million in his campaign account. And, for good or ill, lots of New Yorkers recognize his name.

    Weiner now leads Quinn in three of the five boroughs, the exception being the Bronx, where they tied, and Manhattan, Quinn's home, where she leads, according to the poll.

    Weiner also outpolled Quinn among men (29 percent to 19 percent) and women (22 percent to 21 percent).

    Among registered Republicans, former MTA chairman Joseph Lhota leads his closest competitor, billionaire Republican businessman John Catsimatidis, 28 percent to 21 percent. Homelessness-services nonprofit head George McDonald is in third with 10 percent. Forty percent of Republican voters remain undecided.

    The poll was conducted from June 17 to June 21. The respondents included 1,118 registered voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Of those respondents, 689 were registered Democrats, with results from that pool carrying a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. A much smaller number of registered Republicans were questioned, so the margin of error is higher, plus or minus 9 percentage points.


text:
Illinois Party Lines Clear on Health Care Vote

View Comments ()

    (L to R) Reps. Aaron Schock (R-18th District) and Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd District) voted with their parties on health care reform, just like every other representative from Illinois.

    No surprises here.

    Illinois House reps voted along party lines on the sweeping health care reform bill passed Saturday.

    Every Democrat from the Land of Lincoln voted "yes" on the bill, while every one of their Republican counterparts voted against it.  The landmark bill narrowly passed, 220-215, and now moves on to the Senate.

    Here's the breakdown for U.S. representatives from Illinois:

    Bobby Rush (D-1st District) Yes
    Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd District) Yes
    Daniel Lipinski (D-3rd District) Yes
    Luis Gutierrez (D-4th District) Yes
    Mike Quigley (D-5th District) Yes
    Danny Davis (D-7th District) Yes
    Melissa Bean (D-8th District) Yes
    Jan Schakowski (D-9th District) Yes
    Debbie Halvorson (D-11th District) Yes
    Jerry F. Costello (D-12th District) Yes
    Bill Foster (D-14th District) Yes
    Phil Hare (D-17th District) Yes

    Peter Roskam (R-6th District) No
    Mark Kirk (R-10th District) No
    Judy Biggert (R-13th District) No
    Tim Johnson (R-15th District) No
    Don Manzullo (R-16th District) No
    John Shimkus (R-19th District) No
    Aaron Schock (R-18th District) No

    The biggest surprise in Saturday's vote was the last-minute deal to ensure the bill's passage.  Democrats agreed to gut coverage for abortions in the compromise, which makes federal money off-limits for nearly all abortions.  Under the deal, only private insurance money can be used to cover them.

    Illinois Democrats took the floor to oppose the amendment, even though it would eventually pass.  Rep. Schakowsky called the amendment a "radical departure from current law.  Others agreed.

    "This amendment says only women who can afford insurance deserve access to reproductive health care," Rep. Quigley said.

    But, of course, Republicans were on the opposite pole.  They said including funding for abortions in the health care act would be breaking with long-standing law.

    If you're interested in what the health care reform act actually looks like, you can take a look at the complete text of H.R. 3962 here.


text:
Police Blotter: $10,000 Reward Offered in Wingstop Shooting

View Comments ()

     Here's a daily list of crimes across North Texas compiled on June 7, 2011.

    $10,000 Reward Offered in Wingstop Shooting
    Oak Farms Dairy has offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and indictment of the person responsible for last month's fatal shooting of a security guard. Dallas police said they interviewed several witnesses and came up with a sketch of the suspect (pictured, right), which they released Tuesday. Robert Dale St. Clair, 49, was killed on May 10 while making his rounds in the 1500 block of South Buckner Boulevard. Police said that St. Clair apparently walked in on a robbery at the Wingstop restaurant. Anyone with information is asked to contact the Dallas police at 214-671-3661.

    Police Suspend Burglary Investigation
    McKinney police have ended the investigation of an apparent burglary that occurred in late April. Police responded to a home in the 1700 block of Surrey Lane on April 27 and found the homeowner on the back patio with a gunshot wound to his torso. The homeowner told officers he confronted three suspects inside his house and was shot by his own weapon, which was left at the scene. Monday, however, police suspended the burglary investigation, saying the victim had been inconsistent and uncooperative. Anyone with additional information on this incident can contact McKinney police at (972) 547-2828.

    Frisco Bank Robbery Under Investigation
    Police are investigating a bank robbery that took place in Frisco Tuesday. Bank employees and witnesses told police that at about 10 a.m. two men entered the Chase Bank on the 11500 block of Preston Road. The men fled in a tan Buick sedan southbound on Preston Road before police arrived. Frisco police asks that anyone with information on the robbery contact them at (972) 292-6200.


text:
Press Here

Woz Would Like iTunes for Android

     In an interview, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak said he would like to see iTunes for Android.

    "If you remember, we ported iTunes to Windows. We now addressed 100% of the world's market with this integrated system (iPod/iTunes) and it began the era of Apple that we are now in. So why don't we port iTunes to Android?," he wrote in a Q-and-A discussion on Slashdot. "Did something get closed up? I love Apple products and iTunes and wish it were on my Android products too."

    Wozniak said that it wouldn't take much for Apple to license iTunes to Google. "The market shares would probably remain the same, but we consumers would all win."

    The problem is, however, that Apple has declared Google and its Android platform Apple Public Enemy No. 1 and seems to have no intention of working with the company. This has been evidenced by the change from Google Maps to Apple Maps on the new iOS 6 -- even though Apple's map app has been deemed an inferior product that made chief executive Tim Cook have to apologize for it.

    Most consumers would like Apple and Google to get along better -- allow Google Maps and YouTube on iOS 6, maybe iTunes on Google Play -- but what's best for the consumer unfortunately isn't necessarily what's best for corporate interests.


text:
Prius Driver Missing After Crashing Into Parked Big Rig

The driver of the red Prius left the scene after the crash on Moorpark Street

View Comments ()

    The driver of a red Toyota Prius disappeared after crashing into the back of a big rig early Thursday in Studio City. (Published Thursday, July 24, 2014)

    The driver of a Toyota Prius disappeared Thursday morning after slamming into the back of a big rig parked on the side of a street in Studio City.

    The crash occurred early Thursday on Moorpark Street. The heavily damaged Prius remained at the scene at about 6 a.m., but officers told NBC4 the occupants left the location, near Laurel Canyon Boulevard.

    Details regarding the crash were not immediately available, but authorities confirmed they are investigating the collision as a hit-and-run crash.

    Refresh this page for updates.


text:
Loretta Lynn's Eldest Daughter Dies at 64

View Comments ()

    Loretta Lynn

    A family representative says Betty Sue Lynn, the oldest daughter of country singer Loretta Lynn, has died. She was 64.

    According to the statement from the family, Lynn died Monday from complications of emphysema in Waverly, Tenn., near her mother's ranch in Hurricane Mills.

    "Real Housewives" Star Smacks Photog Outside Court

    [NATL-NY] "Real Housewives of New Jersey" Star Smacks Photographer Outside Court
    Two stars of the "Real Housewives of New Jersey" arrived for a court appearance on federal fraud charges Tuesday. Giuseppe "Joe" Giudice smacked a photographer's camera out of his face as he and wife Teresa walked in. (Published Tuesday, July 30, 2013)

    Loretta Lynn, who has six children, was born in the coalfields of eastern Kentucky and chronicled her life in an autobiography and song, both titled "Coal Miner's Daughter."

    Betty Sue Lynn is survived by two daughters, Lynn Markworth and Audrey Dryer, and five grandchildren. The statement said the family is thankful to friends and fans for their thoughts and prayers.

    Cate Blanchett Talks Woody Allen's "Blue Jasmine"

    [NBCAH] Cate Blanchett Talks Woody Allen's "Blue Jasmine"
    Cate Blanchett hits the red carpet for the premiere of her new film, "Blue Jasmine," in Beverly Hills. She talks about the Oscar buzz surrounding the movie and why Woody Allen is a great director. (Published Tuesday, March 4, 2014)


text:
updated 11/19/2006 1:33:16 PM ET 2006-11-19T18:33:16

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: on election night, there were two Senate races too close to call. The next day, Democrats Jim Webb of Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana were declared winners, giving Democrats control of the U.S. Senate. How will these two independent-minded and outspoken senators shape the debate on Iraq, the economy, and congressional prerogative?  With us, Senator-elect Jim Webb and Senator-elect Jon Tester, together only on MEET THE PRESS.

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’ll be incredibly destabilizing.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Iran continues its nuclear ambition. Can there be a diplomatic solution? Our guests: Ted Koppel of the Discovery Channel, whose two-hour documentary, “Iran-The Most Dangerous Nation,” debuts tonight; and Robin Wright, author and diplomatic correspondent for The Washington Post.

And in our MEET THE PRESS MINUTE, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman died this week at the age of 94. He appeared here almost 25 years ago, and was asked to forecast our economic future.

But first, two of the newest Democratic members of the U.S. Senate: Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia.

Gentlemen, welcome both.

SEN.-ELECT JIM WEBB (D-VA): Good to be here. Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Webb, let me start with you. The election, held 12 days ago. Looking back now, what were the voters saying?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: Well, I think—you know, I can’t, I can’t comment for the whole country. I think that there’s a lot of concern everywhere I went about Iraq, and a lot of concern about the, the issues of economic fairness in this country, and thirdly, accountability. Those were the third theme—the three themes that I ran on during the campaign, and that’s what we were hearing.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator-Elect Tester, what did the voters say 12 days ago in Montana?

SEN.-ELECT JON TESTER (D-MT): Well, I think it revolves around many of the same issues that Jim talked about. I think fiscal responsibility I’d also add to that mix. But health care, energy, what’s going on in foreign policy, and, and what’s going on ethically back in Washington, D.C., were definitely issues that I heard about.

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Webb, let me show you and our viewers what you said during the campaign about Iraq. “If we want a new direction in Iraq, we need a new team in Congress. A Democratic Congress will demand from day one that the President find a real way forward in Iraq.” What’s “a real way forward”?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: Well, first of all, I, I was saying even before we went in that there were three major issues in the Middle East that had to be addressed. One was the Israeli/Arab situation, the other was terrorism, and the third was, was Iraq, and that if we lumped them together that we risked in—having a problem with all three of them. That has happened.

So in the—in looking at Iraq, you need a larger scope than simply what’s going on with—with the government, with the troops inside, which people keep talking about. And I’m looking forward to hearing what the Baker commission comes forward with, the Iraq Study Group. But what we need—and I’ve been saying this for more than two years—is a diplomatic approach that will bring the countries in the region to the table so that we can have ownership, some ownership, diplomatic ownership from the countries that have long-term cultural and historical ties with Iraq. And from that umbrella, then we can address the issue of moving our combat troops out and still affecting the war against international terrorism. I think that’s doable. It’s a leadership question rather than simply an issues question, and that’s what I’m looking forward to trying to bring to the table.

MR. RUSSERT: You’re talking about Iran and Syria.

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: We need to talk to Iran and Syria. I think it was a great mistake not to as this moves forward, and that’s one thing that I’ve been encouraged to hear from former Secretary of State Baker that, you know, you need to talk to your, your enemies as well as your friends. You don’t have to give up anything in terms of, you know, national concerns to be talking to them, but it’s impossible to resolve the situation now without talking to them.

MR. RUSSERT: Jon Tester, during the campaign this is what your Web site said: “An open-ended occupation is not in the best interest of the United States, the Iraqi people, or the Middle East. The time has come to support our troops by laying out a plan to bring them home.” Realistically, what kind of plan would you lay out to bring the troops home?

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Well, I think many of the things that, that Senator-elect Webb talked about would be part of the plan. But I will tell you, we, we need to work with our allies within—in the region. We also need to talk to our enemies and put diplomatic pressure on them. But we also need to visit with our allies around the world to, to develop a plan to, to make, to make this war come to some sort of conclusion and get our troops home. Right now, as it was—been for, you know, since I got into this race in May of ‘05, there is no plan, and, and there’s no end in sight to this. And, and we really need to focus on, on the war on terror and national security issues. And I think that this war has taken our focus off of that.

That being said, we’re there. And as some folks told me on the campaign route, there’s really no easy solution here. Getting out tomorrow isn’t, isn’t probably the right thing to do; staying and getting out later’s probably not the right thing to do, and that’s why we do need to have a plan. The president as commander in chief needs to provide leadership in this, and in the process we all need to work together and get something that really works for this country and works for the Middle East also.

MR. RUSSERT: Jon Tester, is it fair to say that neither the Democrats nor President Bush at this time really have a plan?

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Well, I mean, possibly. I mean, I think, I think ultimately what, what’s really fair to say is that what’s been going on there hasn’t been working. And, and we need to come up with, with some, with some focus on, on the war in Iraq. And we need to all understand that, you know, what’s going on there hasn’t been successful. We’re losing lives, it’s costing money, I think we’re losing stature in the world. And so it’s important that we, we, we broaden the scope of, of who we’re working with, and, and, and come up to some sort of solution that works for this country, and really focus on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and those kind of things that, that we were focused on, you know, four years ago.

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Webb, John Abizaid, the military commander for the Middle East, came to Congress, and this is what he testified to on Wednesday, “that to begin a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq over the next six months would lead to an increase in sectarian killings and hamper efforts to persuade the Iraqi government to make the difficult decisions needed to secure the country.” Your reaction?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: Well, I can, I can understand why the military people would have concerns about the notion of beginning this process with the announcement of troop withdrawals. It’s, it’s almost backwards from the way that we should be solving it. There’s a tremendous amount of sectarian violence either way and there’s, and there’s going to be. There are limits to what our military can do. And what I’ve been proposing and which—something I think that General Abizaid might, might have a different feeling about if he were testifying, I would think, is that we need a diplomatic approach that creates some stability, some agreement among the players in the region. They all have long-term interests, obviously, in, in the stability of, of Iraq, and from that approach then you begin troop withdrawals and—of combat troops, and still be able to affect the issue of international terrorism. That is a workable formula, I think, and it goes a long way toward addressing the situation that he was talking about.

MR. RUSSERT: What happens if the situation deteriorates and it becomes a whole widespread civil war, total chaos? What do we do then?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: Well, again, there are limits to what the United States military can do in that region. And, in fact, when the United States is operating unilaterally, it creates further potential for the kind of thing that you’re talking about because of the resentments of having the, the, the United States there alone.

So the, the key, to me, for years has been getting these countries that are tangential and other countries that have long-term interests in the stability of Iraq to take some diplomatic ownership. And we did this in, in ‘01 after we went into Afghanistan when, when we were putting the formula together that resulted in the Karzai government, we got the countries tangential to Afghanistan and others, including Iran, by the way, Iran, India, Pakistan, to become a part of the, the process that created the, the, the solution, the governmental solution. And that’s what you need in Iraq, in, in my view. You need these countries to have—to—with, with—some of them with compatible ethnic populations and this sort of thing to, to be participating so that there is some accountability in the region other than the United States for a solution.

MR. RUSSERT: You are a highly-decorated veteran; back in 1985, you were on MEET THE PRESS as second—assistant secretary of defense, reflecting on Vietnam. And let me show you what you said then and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, April 28, 1985):

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: If I had one lesson that stands out in my mind, it is that you cannot fight a war and debate it at the same time.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That’s what we’re doing right now, aren’t we?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: In a, in a way. I mean, any time you have these, these situations that go on for a long period of time, you have to be able to, to answer questions now. And I, you know, I’m one of these people who—there, there aren’t many of us—who can still justify for you the reasons that we went into Vietnam, however screwed up the strategy got, whereas I don’t think there were legitimate reasons for us to have taken this move into Iraq, again, with the situations that come—the other situations in the region that were a lot more...

MR. RUSSERT: You opposed it publicly two years before we went in.

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: I did. And, and on strategic grounds that the—if, if you’re going to work in this region, the Arab-Israeli situation should be first order priority. We need to find Dennis Ross or, or someone of, of, of that stature to come in and, and really aggressively attempt to bring a resolution to that situation. We need to address international terrorism. We created what I was calling at the time a strategic mouse trap by going into Iraq when we did. We have to fix that, that’s the reality that we’re dealing with. But, again, the way to fix it is to work from the diplomatic into the military rather than the other way around.

MR. RUSSERT: Your son, Jimmy, 24, is a Marine in Iraq, you wore his combat boots throughout the entire campaign. Is it hard talking about this war knowing that your own son is over there?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: I have, you know, feelings as a father that I have, you know, I have to separate from the policy issues, because there are a lot of people who have loved ones there and, you know, so I, I think in terms of policy issues I can separate that. Very difficult personally, I have to admit.

MR. RUSSERT: Jon Tester, let me show you what Major General J.D. Thurman, the senior commander of American forces in Baghdad, said. “Part of our problem is that we want this more than they do,” talking about the Iraqis.  That’s a very powerful statement.

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Well, I mean, I—the—you know, if you go back to what, what Senator-Elect Webb said about diplomatic pressures, you know, I think that is, is just so right on the mark. It, it really is critically important that we visit with our allies to develop, to develop a plan for the region, and also keep our enemies close on this thing. Because I think it’s in everybody’s best interests to try to find some sort of resolution here. And I don’t know if it’s wanting it more than they. I think it’s, it’s knowing what we accomplish when we’re done. That, that’s part, that’s part of what is, is mysterious to me when I look at what’s going on in Iraq right now.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the things that happened the day after the election, Jim Webb, was that President Bush announced the Donald Rumsfeld was leaving; that Robert Gates was going to replace him as secretary of defense. And there’s a photograph of Mr. Gates meeting with John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Would you like to be able to vote on Mr. Gates’ confirmation, rather than have him confirmed before you’re sworn in?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: I would, and that has been misinterpreted by, by some. I heard there was a column by Robert Novak saying that I have some personal animus toward Mr. Gates. I don’t even know Mr. Gates. But if this is an individual that I’m going to be working with for the next two years, I would like to be able to ask my own questions, and to examine, you know, his, his qualifications. And I, I think that’s sort of logical. If it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen, but certainly I would like to be able to, to sit down in his confirmation hearing and take a vote.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of congressional corruption. Jon Tester, here’s a campaign ad that ran all across the state of Montana. Let’s watch, and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, Jon Tester campaign ad):

AD ANNOUNCER: Look around Montana, and you’ll see, Jon Tester is catching on.  (Several people shown getting haircuts similar to Jon Tester) He’ll put an end to Senator Burns’ kind of corruption and make the U.S. Senate look a little more like Montana.

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: I’m Jon Tester, and I approved this message. I approve the haircut, too.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Take away the haircut, let’s talk about corruption. You talked about Senator Burns’ kind of corruption. Right now there are proposals before the incoming U.S. Senate, senator-elect, which will talk about free meals and airplane rides, and so forth. Two of the areas that some in the Senate, some Democrats, don’t want to go near are establishing an Office of Public Integrity, and also full disclosure for the so-called “earmarks,” money that Senators target for their home states. Are you in favor of a comprehensive reform package that would include the creation of an Office of Public Integrity, and deal with earmarks?

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: I, I, I’m, I’m not—I will tell you that, that building a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., is not something that I’m crazy about, so developing another office is something I’d take a hard look at before we did it. I do think that we need to get a hold of the earmark situation, and make sure that they’re, they’re transparent, make sure that the people who are offering the earmarks, we know who they are.

But, but really transparency in government is the key here, Tim. When you talk about influence that the K Street lobbyists have on the process, I think we can limit that. But ultimately, in the end, we—you need to have people in Washington, D.C., who are honest, who, who can’t be bought. And, and we will come up with an ethics plan, we talked to Senator Reid about that, that, that will take care of some of the, the free meals and travel and all that stuff.  I also hope that we, we get something as far as, as posting who the senators meet with, to the best of their ability. And I know that’s, that’s tough when it comes to staff in offices this size, but, but the fact is, is the people back home need to know who we’re meeting with, so that they have the opportunity to put their two bits in, in, too.

When you talk about a representative government, it should be for everybody not just the moneyed interests. And, and when we have a situation like’s been back there the last couple of years with, with—and you know the names, I don’t have to bring them up again—that, that have had the dealings with, with, with lobbyists and, and, and money transactions. I just don’t, don’t think it speaks well for public service at the local level, state level, and especially at the federal level. And we’ve got a lot of good people back there that do a lot of work, sacrificing family and a lot of other things, and we need to make sure that, that ethics and honesty is a, is a foundation quality for our government.

MR. RUSSERT: One of the issues in your campaign was Senator Burns saying, “I may have said some outrageous things, but I bring home the goods, I bring home the pork for Montana.” And Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat, said, “If you vote for Jon Tester, we’re going to put him on the Appropriations Committee as soon as possible.” That’s where the pork is, that’s where the earmarks are, but you didn’t get on that committee. What happened?

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Well, I think that Senator Reid did the best he could do, and, and I think that—I don’t think any of the freshmen got on that committee. I hope that I will get on it as soon as possible. I’ve talked to Senator Reid about that, and I think it will happen. I’m very happy with the committees I got—I’ve, I’ve received in the Senate. And, and, you know, I’ve, I’ve been in the process in state government for eight years. I can, I can deal with, with issues of importance to Montanans through the amendment process on the floor and, and will do that.

But I think part of what will enable me to do exactly what I talked about with amendments is transparency in government. You can’t affect the process unless you know what’s transpiring on the floor at the time. So there has to be transparency and opportunity for debate.

MR. RUSSERT: So if you got on the Appropriations Committee, you would want complete transparency for that committee?

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Absolutely. I think, I think it’s very important to be able to offer a debate. What happens—offer to—be able to debate the issue.  What happens when earmarks are done until late at night and there’s not opportunity for total transparency is you get a lot of projects funded that are truly pork projects that shouldn’t be funded, taking money away from good projects that should be.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about the economy. Jim Webb, when you were running, you said, “I’m not just running about Iraq, I’m running about what I see happening to the economy in this country, the divisions between rich and poor, as a Jacksonian Democrat.” And let me show you an op-ed piece that you wrote on Wednesday for The Wall Street Journal, and have both you and Jon Tester talk about it.

“The most important ... issue in politics today is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America’s top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks. ... The top 1 percent now takes in an astounding 16 percent of national income. ...

“This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation’s most fortunate. ...

“With this new Congress ... American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.”

Very strong words. What do we do? Roll back tax cuts? Roll back trade agreements? What do we do?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: No, and I, I strongly believe that, that it’s the most important country—issue facing our country. We have corporate profits at an all-time high, wages salary—and salaries at an all-time low as a percentage of our national wealth. And it’s sort of a three-tiered problem, a very difficult problem; it’s going to take years, years to break it down.

The first is, what is fair trade in the, in the age of globalization? We can talk about free trade agreements, but when are, when are they not fair?  China’s the best example of that, where we have a situation now rather similar to what we were seeing with Japan 20 years ago, but much more dangerous in terms of its size and our—and the issues of national security, where you have a devalued currency that is enabling them to bring goods into this country at a very low price. And at the same time, they’re using that money to help finance our national debt. We’re becoming dependent on them.

The second is, what has happened to the American workers in, in this environment. Because when you look at the movement from GATT toward the WTO, the American workers, the workers around the world, were not addressed as an, as an issue in terms of fairness. So we have situations here, a different type of, of economic and governmental system, where does—where do you pay health benefits? Where do you pay retirement benefits in the different countries? What’s equality of condition on a workplace that all goes to the worker?

And then the third is, who is benefitting from the bene—you know, from the, from the larger benefits of globalization? It’s not getting down to, to the workers. And that can be addressed, in my view, as a—at a starting point through corporate tax loopholes, there’re many of them; through how the tax code is structured that—in a, in a way that benefits the, the, the top 1 percent.

But this is an issue, it’s not just rich and poor anymore. It’s an issue of what is happening to workers worldwide and how the American worker fits into it. And that is my number one priority as a senator.

MR. RUSSERT: Jon Tester, do you share that concern? And would you be willing to roll back the 1--tax cut of the Bush administration on the top 1 percent and look at trade agreements?

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Well, I, I think we do need to look at trade agreements for some of the reasons that Jim Webb just talked about. You know, as I go around the state of Montana, you see more and more people working more and more jobs, trying to make ends meet, and I’ve got story after story about folks who are really having trouble making their, their, their budget balance.  And, and it ends up, you know, where we have a society where there’s no middle class, and, and the working poor aren’t being addressed.

And I think we do need to address, I think we do need to address it in the tax code, make sure we have a tax code that works for the middle class, small business, working families, family farms and ranches, and make sure that those people are empowered to move our economy forward. Those are the folks, really, that, that brought us here, was a vibrant middle class, and they’ve been forgotten about over the last many years, and it’s time to show them some attention.

And when you look at, look at the tax cuts from the Bush administration, let’s look at it from the middle class. Let’s look at those tax cuts that empower the middle class and move forward. And I can’t agree more with what Jim said about the, the trade, free trade vs. fair trade, devalued dollars and workers’ rights in other countries. We’ve got to make sure these trade agreements work for us and other countries so we’re not continually pushing jobs out of this country.

MR. RUSSERT: It’s been quite interesting watching both your campaigns and reading about your backgrounds. Here’s the cover of The Weekly Standard magazine, Jon Tester, where you’re in front of a truck with a shovel and considerable girth, which doesn’t make you a bad guy, I know the feeling. Are you a new kind of Democrat? Are you different than some of the national Democrats the country’s heard from over the last decade?

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Well, I don’t—you know, I don’t know. My, my focus really is on what I talked about, the middle class, and, and, and the people who have really built this country. I think Democrats have been focused on that in the past, but it really is a priority of, of mine. You know, as I look out my window here in Big Sandy, I see more farms than aren’t lived in than what are lived in. We really need to have some policies that, that, that move forward, that work for production agriculture. We’ve got to have some policies that work for the middle class. One of the reasons I am a Democrat is because I think the Democrats have focused on the middle class, and I hope they put more of a priority on it into the future, and, and it’s one of the things that I feel very, very strongly about. It’s, it’s where I come from.

MR. RUSSERT: You said when you walked into the Senate—in the Senate chamber for the first time, it was like walking into your barn. There was no other place in the world quite like it.

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Well, it’s—I mean that from a very positive standpoint.  The barn was built by my grandad nearly a hundred years ago and it’s a very, it’s a very special place for me, as was the Capitol, very, very impressive, and it’s a place where I hope to be able to do some really good work, working on both sides of the aisle, finding the common ground to help move this country forward and the state of Montana forward, both domestically and in a, in a—from a foreign affairs standpoint. So, it’s, it’s a marvelous place, you know that, Tim, and I really look forward to the challenges that are presented to me over the next six years.

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Webb, you had this comment in The Washington Post which caught my attention. “Webb said he will model himself after former New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D), whom he described as someone ‘who had government experience that was shaped by the intellectual world.’” A man I knew well, described as independent, maverick, iconoclastic. Do you see yourself along those lines?

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: You know, when this campaign started and people were saying I didn’t know how to do soundbites and debates and this sort of thing. And I sat down one day and I said, “Well, who is my prototype here?” And it would be Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Someone who had government experience, but who was shaped through the intellectual world and who cared about where you measure society, which is at the base, rather than at the top. Where is the health of society. And yeah, very much look forward to, in many ways, following in his footsteps.

MR. RUSSERT: And sometimes got in trouble for his writings.

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: And I, you know, it’s—I—I’m really looking forward to, to trying to do the—some of the same things that he did in terms of putting, putting my experience in the intellectual world onto the problems, the practical problems of today.

MR. RUSSERT: Jim Webb and Jon Tester, congratulations to both and we look forward to covering your tenures in the Senate.

SEN.-ELECT WEBB: Thank you. Appreciate being here.

SEN.-ELECT TESTER: Thank you. Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, insights and analysis on the war in Iraq and the relationship with Iran from Ted Koppel, who just spent three weeks reporting from the region. His new Discovery Channel documentary airs tonight. And author and Washington Post columnist Robin Wright will be here as well, coming up right here on MEET THE PRESS.

MR. RUSSERT: Iraq and Iran. Insights and analysis from Robin Wright and Ted Koppel after this station break.

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Robin Wright, Ted Koppel, welcome both.

Ted Koppel, tonight, Discovery Channel, 9 p.m. to 11, two-hour documentary on Iran. You just got back. Let me show you as you visited the former U.S.  Embassy in Iraq—in Iran. Let’s watch.

(Videotape, “Koppel On Discovery: Iran-The Most Dangerous Nation”):

MR. TED KOPPEL: This, of course, is what used to be the U.S. Embassy, until a bunch of radical students back in November of 1979 seized it, and took all the Americans inside hostage. There are other reasons why the U.S.  government considers Iran to be dangerous these days, but if you want to talk about the roots of American resentment toward this country, what happened inside the U.S. Embassy here is a pretty good starting point.

But raise that with almost any Iranian, and he or she will respond by saying “Ah, yes, but look at what you guys did back in 1953, when the CIA conspired with British intelligence to overthrow the freely-elected prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq, replacing him with the shah.”

And that’s essentially the way you can define U.S./Iranian relations these days. Tit-for-tat, grievance for grievance. When a group of Iranian journalists were denied entry to the United States, trying to accompany President Ahmadinejad to the general assembly at the United Nations, the Iranians immediately responded by saying, “Well, when Koppel and that Discovery group leave, that’s it, we will be issuing visas to no more American journalists.”

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That’s incredible. Here we are, concerned about Iran becoming a nuclear power, with the war in bordering Iraq, and we’re still dealing with tit-for-tat on journalist visas.

MR. KOPPEL: I’ll give you another example. When I arrived in Tehran, I was taken in to be fingerprinted. It took about an hour, because they don’t fingerprint anybody else. They only fingerprint Americans. And the only reason they fingerprint Americans is because we do retinal scans on people who come from the Middle East, and they don’t have a retinal scan machine. I asked someone later, “What do they do with the fingerprints?” Because the guy who fingerprinted me had never done it before, and he got so much ink on that you couldn’t even read the fingerprint. He said, “They, they just throw it away. They’re just doing it to be”...

MR. RUSSERT: Harassment.

MR. KOPPEL: Yeah. Well, it’s tit-for-tat.

MR. RUSSERT: What’s the sense of the country? What did you find there, Ted?

MR. KOPPEL: It’s not—look, all of us have been to totalitarian countries, and, in its own way, Iran is a totalitarian country. But there is a different feel. In some countries, you sort of feel as though all the air has been sucked out of the atmosphere as soon as you walk in. That’s not the way it is with Iranians. Iranians are eager to talk, they will criticize their president, some of them just as savagely and with the same kind of sarcasm that people at—in Georgetown salons in this town criticize President Bush.  In fact, frequently they will draw that kind of analogy between their own president and President Bush. That surprised me a little bit.

Having said that, if you cross some of these invisible red lines that they have, you can be jailed for the most innocuous things. And you can be brutalized for the most innocuous things. It’s not an easy place to live.

MR. RUSSERT: Robin Wright, 27 years ago, when the embassy was taken over, it’s an eternity, when you think of the population of Iran, a country of 69 million people. Seventy percent are under the age of 30. They don’t remember that event from their own memories.

MS. ROBIN WRIGHT: No. And, in fact, they are, in many ways, the most dynamic force for change in the region. We focus so much on the ayatollahs and hard-line president, when in fact, the real future of the country is likely to be decided by this enormous body of people who really do understand a global era. They are connected through the Internet. There are, as Ted’s documentary points out, tens of thousands of blogs. Everyone’s connected.  There is a real engagement. They will—many of the people I know in Iran have seen American movies before I see them. They are, they are very savvy about us, just as savvy about us as we are ignorant about them. And that’s what, in many ways, is the fe—the hope for us. I’ve often argued that the solution to U.S./Iran relations is really in bridging the gap, particularly with that age group, rather than dealing with, you know, bombs or a military solution.

MR. RUSSERT: And yet, Ted Koppel, you captured what many young people in Iran are exposed to at an very early age. Let’s just watch more from your documentary.

(Videotape, “Koppel On Discovery: Iran-The Most Dangerous Nation”):

MR. KOPPEL: Still, Khomeini, the religious leader, the revolutionary, the severe, forbidding anti-Western, anti-American presence, remains a force. And the displays of public anger against America that he first inspired more than 25 years ago echo to this day during Friday prayers at the University of Tehran...

(Man shown leading prayer service, congregation shouts in response)

MR. KOPPEL: ...in the streets after prayers...

(Men shown walking through street, shouting in Arabic)

MR. KOPPEL: ...and in the indoctrination of the very youngest. The newest generation of Iranians on their first day of school:

(Children shown standing in formation. Man addresses children over public address system, children shout in response)

MR. KOPPEL: “Death to America! Death to America!” Without much passion, without much emphasis, without any real understanding, they carry the flowers given to them on this, their very first day of school, and they begin their indoctrination against what their leaders tell them is the most dangerous nation: America.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: One universal truth of all school kids in the morning: they yawn.

MR. KOPPEL: They yawn.

MR. RUSSERT: Thank God.

MR. KOPPEL: And don’t know what they—and, and really—but it’s not just the kids, Tim. The amazing thing to me was that, for the most part, and we were witness to, and sometimes sort of involved in some of these demonstrations, surrounded by them, there’s no passion to it whatsoever.

MR. RUSSERT: It was robotic.

MR. KOPPEL: It’s robotic. People are going through it. In fact, people were coming out of Friday prayers when we were there in Isfahan. And, you know, sort of giving us the ‘V for victory sign,’ and all of a sudden somebody there spotted the camera and realized that here was an opportunity, and all of a sudden he started whipping out the “Death to America” slogans. And people go through the motions, but you didn’t get the feeling, certainly with the people, that there was any real enthusiasm.

MR. RUSSERT: Because here’s the other side of Iran. And here we have people who are enjoying life in a very Western way. Rock music, videos, cafes, Internet cafes, pool tables. I mean, Robin Wright, how do we tap into the fact that young Iranians love Western culture, and yet, those same young Iranians, even if they are “reformers,” also think that their country should have a nuclear bomb as a, as a sign of stature in the world?

MS. WRIGHT: Ah, let’s be very careful about that. They all believe they should have nuclear energy because that is the key to development and being a modern country. When it comes to a bomb, that’s a very different issue and I’m not sure that—no—there are no public opinion polls in Iran, so we don’t know—but there’s a very strong feeling that the outside world is trying to block them from having energy because they want to keep it as a kind of third world country that is submissive and dependent.

You know, Iran also has gone through this long war with, with Iraq itself. It was isolated by the outside world. The United States actually provided, again, as Ted’s documentary points out, provided intelligence to the Iraqis.  Much—some of which was used in—using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. There is a paranoia. So there are those, obviously, who feel very vulnerable, and there are strong indications that they are looking at developing a bomb. But when it comes to the average Iranian, it’s the nuclear energy issue that’s important to them.

MR. RUSSERT: You encountered a farmer, in terms of...

MR. KOPPEL: It blew, it blew me away. We went for a drive outside Isfahan and I was so tired of being manipulated that I said, “OK, we’re going to drive out of town.” When I say manipulated, you’ve got government minders with you most of the time and they let you do this and don’t let you do that. I said, “Let’s go for a drive.” And they said, “OK.” I said, “All right. Go straight here and make a right here and make a left there.”

We’d gone about 20 miles outside Isfahan and I see a bunch of guys spreading fertilizer in the field. I say, “OK, stop there. I want to talk to these guys.” No way they could’ve set it up. Talking to the guys in the field, all of a sudden this tall dude comes along, he’s the owner, 10 acres. Right?  Small land owner. We start talking about the bomb, and even in Farsi I can hear he’s saying, “NPT,” non-proliferation treaty. He’s invoking the non-proliferation treaty and saying, “We have a right. Why can’t we, you know, the Pakistanis have it, and the Israelis have it and the Indians have it. Why shouldn’t we have it?”

And Robin’s exactly right, he was talking about nuclear energy, not the bomb.  But I would go a step further than, than Robin. I think Iranians are sort of secretly and sometimes not so secretly pleased that Ahmadinejad is tweaking the United States and making us so upset about this.

MR. RUSSERT: Is there any realistic way we can stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb?

MR. KOPPEL: Boy, I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I mean, if they want it, the only thing we have to hope is that their, their, their technology is not all that advanced. And unless they buy the technology somewhere else, I’m not at all sure they would get it for at least a few more years.

But having said that, can we stop it? We had no—I had a senior U.S. State Department official tell me we’ve had more diplomatic contact with North Korea than we have had with Iran. No diplomatic contact. The economic and trade sanctions have been in place for over a quarter of a century, really aren’t working. And the military option? Boy, I don’t think that’s—I don’t think that’s an option.

MS. WRIGHT: Well, I will add one thing to that. There is this illusion that we can go in and strike a few targets and eliminate their program. But the reality is with all the troops we have on the ground, any military operation against Iran would end up having to strike at their defensive positions.  Whether it’s along borders, their tank corps, their artillery corps. It would be far more—to be effective, would be far more extensive than anyone envisions at this stage. At least in terms of the public debate about a military option. Much more complicated and costly.

MR. RUSSERT: On the—Thursday in the Financial Times, there was in interesting article written which I’d like to read to you and for our viewers and come back and talk about it because it brings into the equation Iraq.

“Analysts say that as the U.S. scrambles to find an honorable exit from Iraq, opening a new channel to Iran is very much under consideration. Bringing Iran and Syria into the equation is expected to form one of the main proposals of the Iraq Study Group led by former secretary of state James Baker and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton. ...

“Trita Parsi, an analyst who advocates engagement, says the U.S. cannot conceal its weakness but has limited alternatives. He says that for Iran to be drawn into a dialogue it needs a clear indication that the U.S. is looking to discuss all issues and address a strategic transformation of the relationship, not just a tactical quick fix of the Iraq crisis. ...

“[At] a three-hour meeting last month between Mr. Baker and Javad Zarif, Iranian envoy to the U.N., ... Mr. Baker was told that Iran would consider helping the U.S. in Iraq if ‘Washington first changed its attitude toward Iran.’ ...

“Iran is wary of its last experience of cooperating with the U.S., when it helped oust the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001 ... only to be denounced by Mr. Bush weeks later as a member of the ‘axis of evil.’”

The grand compromise.

MR. KOPPEL: Well, focus on that last line. Because I think most Americans are not aware of the fact that Iran really was extremely helpful in getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan. And I had one political scientist, who’s a childhood friend of Ahmadinejad, tell me, “You know, we’re not without resources. We helped you guys in Afghanistan, but we can also hurt you guys in Afghanistan.”

I had several people make the point to me that Iran today is more influential inside Iraq than the United States, for all that we have 130,000 troops in there. And that if they wanted to make life even more difficult for us in Iraq, boy, could they do it.

MR. RUSSERT: Richard Engel, our correspondent from NBC News in Iraq, says if you want a hotel reservation in southern Iraq, you order the room in Farsi, the Iranian language. The Iranians have built an airport and a train station in Iraq for their pilgrims to come over to. In order to deal with our crisis in Iraq, must we bring in the Iranians, and have a grand compromise on nuclear power and Iraq?

MS. WRIGHT: Clearly we need to deal, and include in some way, the Iranians and the Syrians. But I think we have to also understand, not have any illusions about what they can accomplish. Remember, Iran is a Shiite country, predominantly Shiite, led by Shiites. Syria is led by a Shiite offshoot minority. They can have influence when it comes to the Shiite militias in, in Iraq. But the insurgency is predominantly Sunni, and the foreign fighters are predominantly Sunni. What influence they can have is still in question. They can certainly, when it comes to the issue of civil war, perhaps, whether it comes to the issue of arms, intelligence, funds, it can try to hold them back.

MR. RUSSERT: But Iran could probably help with the militias and the death gangs.

MS. WRIGHT: The militias and the death squads, yes. But the big question, of course, is are we about to see a full-scale civil war? And on that front, the Iranians may be less of an influence. Syria could help to a certain extent, because the insurgents often go through Syria. But reining them in, that’s a different issue as well.

MR. KOPPEL: Robin makes a really important point, that there’s another half to that equation. As she correctly points out, who’s going to help with the Sunnis? And the Saudis, for example, could be of enormous assistance with the Sunnis, and to date have not been. So it’s not just a function of bringing the Iranians into the equation, and bringing the Syrians into the equation, you really have to bring everyone in the region into the equation. And let me say that one dirty word that no one in politics says these days: oil. It’s about oil. Not about the Iraqi oil, but about Persian Gulf oil that supplies 25 percent of all the oil that is consumed every day in the entire world. And if Iraq blows up, and if that spills over into the region, you could have an economic instability throughout the world that we haven’t even begun to consider.

MR. RUSSERT: Less than a year ago, last December, you were on this program, and we talked about Iraq. And you were rather prescient, talking about the elections, and the tone of the debate, and what would happen after that as Democrats would have to deal with real power. Let’s listen.

(Videotape, December 15, 2005):

MR. KOPPEL: The mousetrap that is waiting for the Democrats is if they do not publicly acknowledge that U.S. national interest is, is just fundamentally involved in a stable Iraq and a stable Persian Gulf; if they simply come after the Republicans and take the cheap shots on the war and say you got to bring the troops home at all costs, they might even win the election. But if they win the election, they’re going to find themselves confronting the same issues of national interest that the Republicans are facing right now. The simple fact of the matter is, it is in America’s national interest that there be stability in the Persian Gulf. And if we precipitously pull the troops out of that area now, there’ll be hell to pay.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That’s the debate.

MR. KOPPEL: That’s the debate. And, you know, the problem now is, now the Democrats have influence, and they’re going to have to deal with it. And I was at least reassured to hear the two senators-elect this morning in effect make that—especially Senator-Elect Webb, who obviously has had more opportunity, I think, to deal with foreign policy issues than Senator-Elect Tester. But the fact of the matter is, you can’t just pull the U.S. troops out of there in the next four to six months. Could you, for the sake of symbolism, begin to, to draw a few of them out? Yes. But that symbolism is going to have effect not only here in the United States, it’s also going to have effect over there in the Persian Gulf.

MR. RUSSERT: Robin Wright, you cover this government, the State Department.  You’re watching very closely Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton, the study group. Robert Gates replacing Donald Rumsfeld. Back in Bush 41, who reported to Robert Gates in the National Security Council? Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of state. Do you believe that what the Baker group recommends will be adopted by this administration, and what do you think they might recommend?

MS. WRIGHT: Oh, I don’t think necessarily they will be adopted. I think one of the most interesting things to happen over the past week is that the Bush administration on Tuesday launched its own debate—own review. It pulled together the secretary of state, the Defense Department, the CIA, and under Stephen Hadley are organizing a very fast review, trying to come out at the same time that the Iraq Study Group comes out with its recommendations for the very reason that it doesn’t want to feel that this is the only plan on the table. It wants to be able to say—to pick and choose, basically, to say, “Well, there’s some good ideas here; we’d like to blend it with our own thinking,” because, because of the very discussion we’ve had: What do you do about Iran and Syria? The administration argues they’ve tried that route.  They’ve been open to discussions, and that they haven’t found either the Iranians or the Syrians willing to come to the table on reasonable terms, as they see it. And so this is a way of skirting that issue and, and taking a much more narrow focus.

I think the Iraq Study Group is looking at, as you called it, the bigger game, whether it includes the Arab/Israeli conflict, is uncertain, but it clearly is looking at the neighbors and the regional component of it, whereas the Bush administration’s really trying to fine-tune its program.

MR. RUSSERT: The candidates for president in ‘08, Democrat and Republican, overseeing an exit strategy from Iraq?

MR. KOPPEL: Clearly going to be trying to do that. Whether in fact we will have withdrawn most or all of our troops from Iraq by the time 2008 rolls around, I don’t know.

One quick point I do want to make, and that is very few people seem to recall that Bush 41, the elder President Bush, and Colin Powell, who was then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, kept U.S. troops from going all the way up to Baghdad, kept U.S. forces from overthrowing Saddam Hussein, during Operation: Desert Storm for one principal reason: to keep Iran in check.  We’ve done the Iranians a huge favor.

MR. RUSSERT: And the secretary of defense back then was Dick Cheney.

MR. RUSSERT: Robin Wright, thank you. We’ll keep reading you in The Washington Post. Ted Koppel, tonight, Discovery Channel, 9 to 11. Thank you for this good work, and come back whenever you have something like this. It makes us all proud.

MR. KOPPEL: Thank you. Thanks very much.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, our MEET THE PRESS MINUTE with noted economist Dr.Milton Friedman. Is it possible to forecast an economic turnaround? Right after this.

MR. RUSSERT: Deficits, tax cuts, inflation, interest rates, unemployment—all on the minds of Americans in the midst of a recession in the spring of 1982.

(Videotape, March 21, 1982):

MR. BILL MONROE: Our guest today on MEET THE PRESS is economist Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner, senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a member of President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board.

MR. MARVIN KALB: Dr. Friedman, you are speaking with a great deal of confidence and you are clearly a world-renowned economist. With that in mind, could you please tell us when there will be a turnaround in the economy in this country?

DR. MILTON FRIEDMAN: If you were—if I were to say to you, “You are a world-renowned meteorologist. Would you tell me when there’s going to be a rain in the next two days,” would you think that that was a contradiction to the statement? The forecasting of short-run changes in economic activity is by no means a science. It’s not something in which we are a really able to make very good predictions. I think there’s a fair chance that when the historians of business cycles come to look at this period, they will say that the bottom was already reached in January. But that may be wrong. It’s not the kind of statement in which I would want to have a great deal of confidence.

MR. KALB: So what you’re really telling us is that, deep down, you don’t know right now when this is going to turn around?

DR. FRIEDMAN: Nobody knows. Nobody knows. knows.

MR. KALB: Nobody knows.

DR. FRIEDMAN: Nobody knows.

MR. KALB: Not even the president and his people when they say...

DR. FRIEDMAN: Nobody knows exactly when it’s going to turn around.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Economists, meteorologists, political pundits, do they ever get it right? The economy did slowly start to turn around at the end of that year, and for the next 92 months, the U.S. enjoyed one of the longest sustained peace-time economic growth periods in history. Milton Friedman, one of our most well-known economists of all time, died this week at the age of 94.

And we’ll be right back.

TEXT: Milton Friedman 1912-2006

MR. RUSSERT: Check out the MEET THE PRESS Web site where you can now download both audio and video of the entire program to your computer or MP3 player. The MEET THE PRESS netcast and new video podcast all at mtp.msnbc.com.

That’s all for today. We’ll be back next week. Have a great Thanksgiving.

If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.

Discussion comments


text:
Image: Wedding
Getty Images stock
More women are waiting longer than ever to get hitched. But as our sex lives have changed, calls to “save marriage” have grown.
By contributor contributor
updated 7/16/2009 8:38:36 AM ET 2009-07-16T12:38:36

It may have worked as a plotline for “Sex and the City,” but according to new  government figures, very few American women need fear being an “old maid.”

Eighty-six percent of women marry by age 40, according to the National Center for Health Statistics which recently released revised data gathered in 2002. And those women are waiting longer than ever to wed — age 25 on average.

More than 20 years ago, a Newsweek magazine article called “The Marriage Crunch” scared the bejesus out of many women by stating that if a white, college-educated woman hadn't married by age 30, she had a slim chance of ever tying the knot. The most notorious nugget of the article declared that a 40-year-old single woman had a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than getting married.

The article was wrong then and now, a generation later, it is even more off the mark.

The vast majority of women who want to marry actually do, although they're no longer in a rush to do it. Does that mean women and men are less interested in marriage than in the past?

No! Americans love marriage compared to people in other industrialized countries. While Americans get hitched at a rate of 7.5 per every 1,000 inhabitants in a given year, the French and Germans marry at a rate of 4.5 to 4.9 per 1,000, Swedes 4.0 to 4.4, Belgians 2.8 to 3.9.

Yet as American sex lives have changed, not coincidentally, calls to “save marriage” have grown. That seems to indicate some confusion about the purpose of marriage and the role of sex within it.

Like the old Newsweek article, some traditionalists fret that Americans are falling out of the marriage habit. “Marriage has fallen by the wayside,” declares the National Marriage Project in its most recent report from 2007. The Project, a research organization based at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J., blames “secular individualism” and tolerance of “alternative lifestyles” for marriage's perceived unfashionable status.

While such statements seem to fly in the face of the recent government data, the Project bases them on the divorce rate (about 45 percent of all marriages), the number of adults who are not married (roughly 50 percent of people older than age 18 are unmarried at any one time because of divorce, a spousal death, or by choice) and relaxed attitudes toward phenomena like out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation. It argues that “the institution of marriage needs to be promoted by all levels of society, particularly the families, the schools, the churches, the non-profit sector, and the government.”

This is essentially a political argument, part of the now-hibernating culture wars that are rooted in worry over sexual morality. But turning marriage into a political issue is a losing idea no matter where on the liberal-conservative spectrum you fall because marriage isn't going away. It's just changing, quickly.

Video: A case against marriage
  1. Don't miss these Health stories
    1. Splash News
      More women opting for preventive mastectomy - but should they be?

      Rates of women who are opting for preventive mastectomies, such as Angeline Jolie, have increased by an estimated 50 percent in recent years, experts say. But many doctors are puzzled because the operation doesn't carry a 100 percent guarantee, it's major surgery -- and women have other options, from a once-a-day pill to careful monitoring.

    2. Larry Page's damaged vocal cords: Treatment comes with trade-offs
    3. Report questioning salt guidelines riles heart experts
    4. CDC: 2012 was deadliest year for West Nile in US
    5. What stresses moms most? Themselves, survey says

“I always tell my students that everything we study right now could be out of date in 10 years, that’s how rapidly the social environment is changing,” said Christine Whelan, a University of Iowa sociologist and author of “Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.”

‘The personalized marriage’
We may idolize the perfect marriage, but need to recognize that its purpose has been redefined.

The “institutional” marriages of the 19th century were practical affairs, meant to establish family bonds, distribute property and raise children as part of a unit within a community, Whelan explained. Then, from about World War I to the early 1960s, “people married for friendship, for a division of labor — what men did and what women did — and for love and attachment,” she said.

Since the 1970s it has been evolving into our current phase, the “personalized marriage.” This is all about what the relationship can do for you as an individual,” said Whelan.

In recent surveys, nearly 90 percent of young people say they want to find their “soulmate.” A 2007 Pew study found that “mutual happiness and fulfillment” was cited by Americans as the main reason to get married by a three-to-one margin. Children ranked eighth on a list of items that made a “successful marriage.”

The rise of the personalized marriage happens to dovetail with Americans’ changing sexual norms. While the age for first marriages has climbed, the age at which Americans become sexually active has fallen. The mean age of first intercourse for boys and girls is now about 17 according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Contrast that with women who were born before World War II. More than 80 percent were still virgins at 18.

To which many might say “Ah ha! We’ve loosened our sexual morals so much we’ve endangered marriage.”

But something else has happened. Women are freer to pursue their educational and career goals, as well as their carnal desires. That delay allows them to be more selective in their partner choice, so they can wait to find a more suitable spouse or time of life.

According to Whelan, women who wait at least until age 25 often have better marriages than those women who marry at 20, although waiting until after age 25 doesn’t seem to add much to marital stability. Men who get married before they turn 25 are twice as likely to get divorced , Australian researchers recently reported.

It can be argued that premarital sex has freed us to make better choices when it comes to marriage partners and to know ourselves better, too.

Those who think our culture now devalues marriage often point to women’s success in education and the workplace and to high-powered women who choose to be single mothers — the “Murphy Brown” effect. But while women now outnumber men in graduate schools and often those women out-earn their future mates, the vast majority of such women still marry and younger men are very attracted to them. Dorothy Parker’s old saw about men not making passes at women who wear glasses has been turned into Tina Fey worship.

However, there is one segment of our society in which women do not marry at the numbers they used to, helping to fuel worry over marriage in general. But it’s not about sex, it’s about economics and lack of education.

According to the new government figures, about 53 percent of poor black women have not been married by age 35 and it's not because they are too busy working on Wall Street.

Video: Cheating politicians giving marriage a bad name? “There is a diverging demographic of marriage separating the marriage haves from the marriage have nots, and that split is getting bigger and bigger,” Whelan said.

Marriage as a job
But, as Whelan suggested, the average middle-class altar-bound types, have come to regard marriage as a form of personal enrichment, like a Tony Robbins seminar.

It’s not. Marriage is a job. It’s a job we may love and find rewarding, but there are days (weeks? years?) when it’s a slog. Pop culture has fed us the ideal of wildly romantic love accompanied by a rock power ballad and filled us with the belief that if we’re not having nightly explosive sex with our spouses of 15 years, we’re losers.

The newest figures prove that we don’t hate marriage in this country, we just have a problem staying married because we still don’t understand the complex institution and become disenchanted when our expectations crumble. In the segments of our society in which marriage may truly be in trouble, the cause isn’t sex, or tolerance of “alternative lifestyles.” It’s lousy education, tough economics and, yes, sometimes a lack of personal discipline. Try fitting all that into a political philosophy.

Among the well-educated and economically secure — an increasingly rare bunch these days — we managed to break the shackles binding marriage to sex and to free ourselves to make better choices later. That’s good. But we risk those marriages by forgetting that to a large degree they are business arrangements, ones in which you get to dress inappropriately at the office, but business just the same.

Brian Alexander is the author of the book “America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction," now in paperback.

© 2013  Reprints

Discussion comments

Most active discussions

  1. votes comments
  2. votes comments
  3. votes comments
  4. votes comments