meeting on wednesday. representatives from the romney campaign and about eight editors and reporters from the post and at the end of the meeting, the post said we re not issuing a retraction. we stand by the story. well, the next step in this is one of their columnists, jennifer ruben did again an equally devastating column about a 10-page point by point rebuttal that was presented at the meeting to the washington post by governor romney s people. and i have to tell you, it is a really unbelievable recitation. i don t understand how anybody reading the recitation vs. the actual article itself can in any way say that this reporter had it right. it appears very likely that he had it wrong. now, the next step, the ombudsman, you know, who is the editorial referee steps in at the washington post. his name is patrick pexton and
and that is the economy, jobs, the supposed recovery that president obama talks about, how he s kind of saved the economy and the auto industry from oblivion and things like that. he s doing a very, very, good job of going toe to toe of those points. bill: a point by point rebuttal of what the president had to say. 8.3 unemployment actually feels pretty good in this country compared to what we ve been to. reporter: if you talk to people who have given up looking for work it s much worse. while that may be sort of a number that is not as scientific as the bureau of statistics for unemployment, the point remains that those people who are out of work and have given up looking for a job, they are very unhappy. and what that means is that incumbents do very badly among those voters. and if mitt romney he s not
that s their rationale, then it doesn t fly. because the bill they voted down yesterday essentially said we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs rebuilding our infrastructure making america more competitive and the entire program will be paid for by a tax not only millionaires, but people making a million dollars a year or more. which in the united states is about a little over 300,000 people. now, there aren t a lot of small businesses across the country that are making that kind of money. in fact, less than 3% of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. so what they ve said is we prefer to protect 300,000 people rather than put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and benefit 300 million americans who are hurting because of low growth. so we re going to keep on pushing. now, there are steps that we can take absent congressional action. and the refinancing proposal that we put forward in las vegas is an example of that. helping students with student loa
yield power. so that is why they were disappointed. they believe they were told by somebody they had trusted over the speier that dramatic statement was coming. they re trying to figure out what that. it is not only a very strong statement. it is a point by point rebuttal of what president mubarak and vice president suleiman told the egyptian people. they ve been told there was a transition of thomplt it is not yet clear that is meaningful or sufficient. the united states says they should move quickly and spell them out step by step. president mubarak said the foreigners are trying to stir this up. in the time stage of the president of the united states statement, we ve seen young and old, muslim and christian join together and earn the respect of the world through their nonviolent calls for change. essentially the president of the united states saying, i ve listened to your speech, mr. mubarak. not even close. it s fareed. i was wondering whether you know whether this statement has
you. brain damage where you lose sensation in your hands, arms. pain that is in different parts of your body. skin and eye irritation. lung damage. cancers. but of course right now, there hasn t been a thorough epidemio logical study that links everything. you say it s a lack of regulation responsible for a lot of this. the gas industry has issued a point by point rebuttal to what you say in the documentary. what do you say to them? it s interesting you say it s the gas industry. it s energy in depth which is a pr firm posing as a news source which is paid for by the american petroleum institute. and their rebuttal is not factual at all. the film is heavily researched and point by point we re going to be issues a response to that. but i can certainly address any of the individual points in it. one of the points you make is that this type of hydraulic fracturing is not covered by the safe drinking water act. in fact, it is exempt.