Emerging Field of GOP Presidential Candidates
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-15/emerging-field-gop-presidential-candidates
This weekend saw major changes in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. While votes were being cast in Iowa’s straw poll, 1200 miles away, Rick Perry shook things up. He officially entered the race from South Carolina. Back in Iowa, Michele Bachmann was the big winner. She won the Straw Poll with 29% of the vote. Fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty finished a distant third, and then finished his run for the nomination. This Monday morning, there are new frontrunners and a new intensity to the campaigns … a look at major changes in the field of Republican presidential candidates.
Guests
David Keene
former chairman of the American Conservative Union and a columnist for The Washington Times
Amy Walter
political director, ABC News.
David Winston
republican strategist and president of the Winston Group, and CBS News consultant. Served as a strategic adviser to House and Senate Republican Leadership for the past 12 years.
Richard Dunham
Washington Bureau Chief for the Houston Chronicle.
Program Highlights
- Amy Walter: [During the Iowa Straw Poll,] Michele Bachman "had a great 12 hours. But she found very quickly that this is going to be a tough fight for Iowa with Rick Perry in this race."
- Diane read an email from a listener named Jeffrey about Sarah Palin, which said, "Sarah Palin showing up in Iowa when she's not a candidate confirms she's gotten a taste of the spotlight and now won't let go. She's like the kid who says, 'no, I don't want to help with your lemonade stand,' but then goes around telling everyone how she made it a success."
- "I think what Sarah Palin is beginning to discover is the train is sort of leaving the station here...and that this campaign is starting to fire up...and, somehow, what she's got to figure out, if she's not a candidate, how does she sort of sustain her level of awareness in terms of the American people?" said republican strategist and Wisnton Group president David Winston.
- "Just because you win the Iowa straw poll doesn't mean you're going to win the Iowa caucuses. And, Lord knows, just because you win the Iowa caucuses doesn't mean you're going to be nominated," said David Keene, former chairman of the American Conservative Union and Washington Times columnist.
- "The economy has become as theological an issue as abortion," Richard Dunham, Washington Bureau Chief for the Houston Chronicle, said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The stream/podcast says its available but the website can't find it. The same thing happened friday.
Very true about Obama-Care, I have a tendency to label it that when speaking/debating with Dem's. And they have always called the other Romney-Care and I believe that is where the Obama-Care label started.
It seems a bit of just hateful digging to refer to folks by having "actually" served "unlike" George W. We don't refer to folks that didn't even sign up for the military as "draft dogging" college boys.
I have a girlfriend IN THE NATIONAL GUARD (1LT) and I have completed 20yrs in the Army but I don't have issues with folks taking a college out. We ALL have a time and place for service or not. I don't have issue with those that do not serve or volunteer. We ALL cannot do what the military needs or requires. I have an issue with folks that sign up for the military and then later claim objector status. BS, you knew what the military was when you signed up, so NOW pay back the government for all the training and PAY you received under false enlistment.
We have relatives overseas who watch US politics. Every time our politicians do someting crazy, they email and want to know what we think we are doing over here.
I wish we'd stop electing lunatics. It's embarrassing.
I can't believe how Ron Paul continues to be ignored, even by NPR.
How is a Republican who is against all wars and whose prediction about the economy were spot on in 2008 is somehow not a news story?
The media continues to give more attention to candidates who are not running (Palin) or who are dropping out (Pawlenty).
We live in a country where many people are against the wars and the only candidates who are against the wars are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Ron Paul finished in a virtual tie at the straw poll yesterday. Yet our media tells us these guys can't win.
Sorry, NPR, but my donation this year is getting smaller.
Let’s see now, this was a poll only of people willing to pay at least $30 to attend a fundraising dinner. It is composed of a mere 16,892 votes (less than 3% of the votes McCain got in the 2008 election, and he lost Iowa). It has no legal effect or significance whatsoever.
For all its importance, they should have included a talent event and bathing suit competition as part of the process. (I would love to see Ron Paul, Pawlenty, Newt, Romney, and Cain model formal gowns.)
I am generally skeptical of all polling (except one), but this is ridiculous!
Everyone calm down and repeat this one great truth: It’s a long way to Election Day.
Nothing better illustrates how debased and degenerate the GOP has become than the fact Governor Perry is even being considered as a possible Presidential candidate - enthusiastically by some. For heaven's sake! This is a guy who openly favors States seceding from the nation. Hello! Didn't we fight a little war over that issue? Wasn't the Republican Party founded, in part, to oppose that idea?
Anyone who wonders why I call this bunch the Republi-Con party, you now have the answer. It has ceased to be "the party of Lincoln". (Who is surely spinning in his grave!)
monte on August 15, 2011 @ 8:40 am wrote: “Keep it simple stupid, follow the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.”
Anyone can claim to be following “the original meaning and intent of the Constitution”, but as the Japanese say “Ah, so deska?” (Is it really?)
Bush II claimed to be following the Constitution when he invoked the doctrine of the “Unitary Executive” to give himself almost dictatorial power - even though no such doctrine can be found either in the document itself or in the debates about it back in 1787. What you can find is opposition to the idea that the President could wield the power of a monarch - which Bush essentially did (remember his signing statements declaring he could ignore any laws he wished, or the way he ignored both FISA, the Fourth Amendment, or Habeas Corpus?)
Scalia is a big proponent of “original intent”, but in D.C. v. Heller he cut the Second Amendment in half, and threw away the first part (that “well regulated militia” stuff), even though this is perhaps the only place in the entire Constitution where the “intent” is spelled out. (I admit applying the intent is difficult, but that’s no reason to toss it on the garbage heap, especially if you’re a Justice who supposedly believes in “original intent”).
Then there’s Herman Cain, who apparently doesn’t know Bankruptcy is an exclusively Federal matter, when it says so expressly in the Constitution. And let’s not even get started on the “respect” he’s shown for the “No Religious Test” Clause of the Constitution or the First Amendment by proclaiming Moslems shouldn’t serve in government and shouldn’t be allowed to build their houses of worship.
A piece of free advice: before you vote for a candidate, any candidate, due to their claim to respect the Constitution, first try and learn what the Constitution actually says!
strudle wrote:
"Let’s see now, this was a poll only of people willing to pay at least $30 to attend a fundraising dinner...Everyone calm down and repeat this one great truth: It’s a long way to Election Day."
Would you believe we actually agree on something?! One small point, the campaigns pay the 30 bucks.
In your other post I spotted Republi-Con so I skipped that one.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Scalia is a big proponent of “original intent”, but in D.C. v. Heller he cut the Second Amendment in half, and threw away the first part (that “well regulated militia” stuff), even though this is perhaps the only place in the entire Constitution where the “intent” is spelled out. (I admit applying the intent is difficult, but that’s no reason to toss it on the garbage heap, especially if you’re a Justice who supposedly believes in “original intent”)."
I hope you understand that the original intent meant the "militia" is THE PEOPLE and not an arm of the government.,"well regulated" meant proper functioning and not controlled by the government.
All of this is very easy to find as is just about anything pertaining to original intent. The jig is up on liberal lies trying to twist the Constitutions intent with the advent of the modern computer. All you have left is intellectual dishonesty or what it really is, just plain lying.
monte wrote:
"not an arm of the government"
monte, any thinking person will realize this. All you have to do is read the Bill of Rights. These ammendments all pertain to individual rights, i.e. the rights of individual citizens, not to any right or duty of the government, in fact, they are protections from the overreaching of same.
Think about it; religion, speech, petition, quarter, privacy, self-incrimination, speedy trial, trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, all others - retained by the people, and guaratneeing individual freedom from tyranny.
Now, consider arms. Why would it be, that the Founders who took such care to enumerate here rights retained by individual citizens for the benefit of themselves and for their protection from an oppressive government, suddenly throw in the middle one which is unrealted to those notions and instead would be only for the purpose of establishing national defense via militia, a DUTY of the Federal government, not a duty of the people? The answer is, they wouldn't.
This attempt by the left to make an end-run around the Constitution is as egregious as the one they've made around the Commerce Clause.
ecgberht on August 15, 2011 @ 7:04 pm wrote: “Would you believe we actually agree on something?! One small point, the campaigns pay the 30 bucks.”
Yes, eggie, I can believe it - occasionally at least.
One small contradiction: While the campaigns can and do pay for some of the people to attend the fundraising dinner, I don’t believe they pay for everyone who attends. Even so, the fact that some attendees get their tickets paid by the campaigns only further demonstrates how ridiculous and unimportant this whole beauty contest is. (Except, of course, for the punditocracy and the commentariat, who need something to chatter about.)
Oh, and if I had realized sooner that this was all it would take to keep you silent, I’d have employed the term “Republi-Con” much sooner in our disputes, and I’d encourage everyone to use it!
;-)
Take care.
monte on August 15, 2011 @ 7:44 pm wrote: “I hope you understand that the original intent meant the "militia" is THE PEOPLE and not an arm of the government.,"well regulated" meant proper functioning and not controlled by the government. All of this is very easy to find as is just about anything pertaining to original intent. The jig is up on liberal lies trying to twist the Constitutions intent with the advent of the modern computer. All you have left is intellectual dishonesty or what it really is, just plain lying.”
Part One.
Looking in the mirror are we, monte? You do realize that ad hominem attacks are no substitute for sound reasoning, much less facts or truth.
Like Scalia, you want to disregard the first half of the Second Amendment, and have the text merely read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Sorry, chucky, that’s not what it says. However difficult it may be to balance the two halves of the Amendment (a point I conceded in my earlier Comment), the two halfs exist! You have to figure out how they work together, not just pretend (as you and Scalia want to do) that the first half doesn’t exist, or doesn’t mean anything.
Oh, and what about the relationship between the government and the militia? What does the Constitution as written actually say about that? (As opposed to what you would delude yourself and others into believing it says.)
Article 1, Section 8 - “The Congress shall have the power . . . :
Paragraph 15 - “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To be continued
Part Two.
Paragraph 16 - To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” . . . .
Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 1: “The President shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; . . . .”
Wow! The big bad Federal government can use the militias to execute its laws and to suppress insurrections. It organizes, arms, and disciplines the militia, and can govern them when called into its service. And the President is the ultimate Commander-in-chief of the militias. Sure sounds like the Founders intended the militias to be available as “an arm of the government”, and to be “controlled by the government” (especially when you consider that the States appoint the officers of the militias and actually conduct the training of the militias “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”). I’d say there’s a few constitutional holes in your simplistic view of the “intent”.
Oh, and by the way, the Second Amendment only became applicable to the States (to prevent banning “Saturday Night Special handguns”) because of the 14th Amendment. Which means until 1868 (when the 14th was ratified), the States were free to ban whatever “arms” they wished.
Sorry, bunky, but you ably demonstrate the point I was making, and the flaw with the “original intent” theory of constitutional interpretation. Your “analysis” doesn’t match what the Constitution actually says.
To be continued
Part Three.
No wonder you didn’t bother quoting a single passage from the document to support your incorrect argument!
P.S. - I’d accuse you of lying, but that requires a level of knowledge I can’t credit you with possessing. Invincible ignorance - that I can accuse you of (and other so-called “conservatives” like you).
ecgberht on August 15, 2011 @ 8:30 pm wrote: “monte . . . any thinking person will realize this.”
Too bad thinking, and knowledge, is something neither of you demonstrate. I’ve already shown what the Constitution actually says the role of the militias was supposed to be. Your task is to find me where the Second Amendment (or any other part of the document) overrules what Articles 1 and 2 say about that, not simply mindlessly repeat NRA talking points. (Good luck with that one.)
As for the Bill of Rights, if you bothered to study its history you’d know that originally it only limited the power of the Federal government, it did not bind the States at all.
As for those amendments all pertaining to “individual rights” - what about the Tenth, particularly the part that says there are powers “reserved to the States”? That doesn’t sound like an expression of individual rights to me. (There are powers the Constitution prohibits the States from having, and those powers, “respectively”, are reserved to the people.)
Apparently it’s too much to ask you folks to actually read the Constitution before blathering about it. Thanks for again demonstrating my main point: just because someone claims to be following the Constitution doesn’t make it true!
P.S. - Where did I say the Second Amendment “would be only for the purpose of establishing national defense via militia, a DUTY of the Federal government, not a duty of the people”? The answer is: I didn't. Thanks for creating a “straw man”. Apparently it’s also too much for you to read what I actually wrote!
Thank you for confirming my point that you are intellectually dishonest.
The GCA of 1968 was just as unconstitutional as the NFA of 1934. Just because something becomes law does not make it constitutional.
Sorry, but you do not know what your talking about. The Constitution is just not as complicated as you wish it were to peddle your pro big government arguments. You pick and choose and distort way too much.
"b23erlin wrote:
I am skipping the program today. My psyche will simply not bear listening to the Republican circus in action. Best thing is to go into hiding for 10 months. The Republicans will come up with a candidate who may or may not be insane, but who will certainly be harmful for the country. Then we have to cross our fingers that the Demcorats, despite their own near fatal weaknesses, win. Any other strategy would be harmful to your mental health.
Only better option would be to convince Obama to make a victory speech, saying he has accomplished his program and , as he stated at the beginning of his term, he will be a one term President. Then find someone like Jim Webb or Mario Cuomo the run in his place. Despite being a sentimetal favorite, there are a number of reasons why Hillary would not fit"
Best you can stay in Berlin the next 10 months and get involved in German polictics on how they are going to bail out the rest of Europe. LOL
"Loic wrote:
I believe it was Sinclair Lewis who said that when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. I believe he foresaw either Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry"
How about the current leftist that we currently have in the White House? Got any quotes about him?
"Robin Shoulders wrote:
Romney laid off more people than he hired. Bachman created jobs mostly with government money."
Where is your source Robin?
David Ballantyne wrote:
I'm English, so I may have missed something constitutionally, but I've been living here in the US for more than 10 years. My question is in 2 parts but nevertheless fairly simple:
Who elected the Tea Party and why do the media pay them so much attention?
They seem to me to be the self-appointed representatives of a particular body of opinion that has never had to stand before the electorate."
Welcome Back David.
Did not hear back from you in our last exchange.
The Tea Party is not really a political party. It is a conjunctions of mostly middle class people with a belief system that the middle class is over taxed.
They have stood by the electorate in getting candiates to vote for their values and had a big influence in last November's election when 63 Republicans were elected.
By the way we do not want the taxations that the Brits currently have.
"Aeneas2011 wrote:
I find it ironic that, today, you call for the media to dig in and give us 'the facts about the candidates, not just what they tell us' for the upcoming presidential race. I don't recall this challenge ever being issued on your program for any Democrats. The press gave a pass to candidate Obama in the 2008 election and all we knew about him is 'what he told us' in his books and interviews. His entire life has been sealed and locked behind an iron curtain of secrecy (e.g., his educational records, his thesis at Harvard, etc.), yet neither you nor anyone in the mainstream media ever questioned this. But now, you call for the media to expose every vestige of these Republican candidates' lives so that the electorate can 'be informed.' Why the hypocrisy"
Aeneas:
Great Post and so true. The majority of the media is liberal and does not tell the real truth about Obama.
Be carefull because somebody Dems/Libs) may accuse you or me that we belong to a conspiracy like the Birth Certificate.
"scottie238 wrote:
Very true about Obama-Care, I have a tendency to label it that when speaking/debating with Dem's. And they have always called the other Romney-Care and I believe that is where the Obama-Care label started.
It seems a bit of just hateful digging to refer to folks by having "actually" served "unlike" George W. We don't refer to folks that didn't even sign up for the military as "draft dogging" college boys.
I have a girlfriend IN THE NATIONAL GUARD (1LT) and I have completed 20yrs in the Army but I don't have issues with folks taking a college out. We ALL have a time and place for service or not. I don't have issue with those that do not serve or volunteer. We ALL cannot do what the military needs or requires. I have an issue with folks that sign up for the military and then later claim objector status. BS, you knew what the military was when you signed up, so NOW pay back the government for all the training and PAY you received under false enlistment."
Scottie:
Bush was a fighter pilot for the National Guard just like your girlfriend. It was Bill Clinton that was in ROTC in order in not fighting in Vietman. There was a big controversy between Clinton and his ROTC instructor when he failed to enlist.
strudel wrote:
"As for those amendments all pertaining to “individual rights” - what about the Tenth, particularly the part that says there are powers “reserved to the States”? That doesn’t sound like an expression of individual rights to me. (There are powers the Constitution prohibits the States from having, and those powers, “respectively”, are reserved to the people.)"
Huh? Thanks for making my point! Let me summarize the Tenth Amendment for you, strudel. It goes something like this, "There's probably stuff we forgot about in the Constitution and the previous nine amendments. If we did, the FG doesn't get the power; the states and/or the people do". Simple.
Oh, "P.S. - Where did I say the Second Amendment “would be only for the purpose of establishing national defense via militia, a DUTY of the Federal government, not a duty of the people”? The answer is: I didn't. Thanks for creating a “straw man”. Apparently it’s also too much for you to read what I actually wrote!"
What makes you think I was responding to ANYTHING you wrote? I even TOLD you (other than the straw poll part) I didn't read your post. My post was addressed to monte. Perhaps the paranoids are after you.
But I'll pose the question to you, "Why would it be, that the Founders who took such care to enumerate here rights retained by individual citizens for the benefit of themselves and for their protection from an oppressive government, suddenly throw in the middle, one which is unrelated to those notions and instead would be only for the purpose of establishing national defense via militia?"
monte on August 15, 2011 @ 10:53 pm wrote: “Thank you for confirming my point that you are intellectually dishonest. The GCA of 1968 was just as unconstitutional as the NFA of 1934. Just because something becomes law does not make it constitutional.”
What the heck are you talking about? Once again we see your dishonesty in action. (Hey, if you can be insulting so can I, the difference between us is I’m about to demonstrate your dishonesty, not just assert it exists.)
If you are referring to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, I never discussed either of them and I certainly made no statement about whether they are constitutional or not. So, this is just another “straw man” argument (following ecgberht’s brand of dishonesty are we?).
Instead of dealing with what I wrote, you merely engage in more ad hominem attacks, and evade and avoid the force of my actual arguments by raising something completely extraneous that I never discussed. A true masterpiece of dishonesty on your part.
P.S. - And if you have any case authority which declares that either law is unconstitutional I'd be happy to see it, Mr. Justice monte.
monte on August 15, 2011 @ 10:53 pm wrote: “The Constitution is just not as complicated as you wish it were to peddle your pro big government arguments. You pick and choose and distort way too much.”
I never made any “pro big government arguments”. The only thing I said is that Scalia’s interpretation of the Second Amendment did violence to the plain text of the Constitution. An absolute truth. I also pointed out the parts of the Constitution you did violence to in your quest to distort the role of the militia plainly expressed in that document. Another absolute truth.
The Constitution is not as simplistic as you pretend. The fact you refuse to discuss the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 that I cited proves it. You can only maintain your fiction by ignoring what the document actually says.
Plus, you are making a false assumption that I disagree with the result of D.C. v. Heller. I don’t. I object to the reasoning Scalia employed to achieve that result. (Which, by the way, does not confer an unlimited right to keep and bear any “arms” for any purpose whatsoever, free from any government control. If you bothered to read the case you’d know that.)
In short, sir, it is quite possible to find an individual right “to keep and bear arms”
without throwing half of the Second Amendment under a bus. That is what Scalia did, and that’s what’s wrong with his opinion.
But thanks for picking and choosing, and distorting way too much.
Regarding Ron Paul, he's good on the issue of bringing home the troops (and saving a trillion there), but he's the same (tax cutting for the rich, program and federal job cutting for everyone else) Coolidge Republican otherwise. But by comparison in this hyper-right wing Republican race he's the lesser of many evils. Really, what a bunch of nightmares in the GOP, led by the corporation-created (astroturf) Tea "Party" celebrity Michelle Bachmann. This TP has absolutely nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party. Just a bunch of propagandist sloganeers that would make Joseph Goebbels smile.
----
As for Obama and the Democrats, they need to point directly at the relationship between the rich and the GOP, the party that threatened to shut down government if its sponsoring yacht club (top 2%) did not get a tax cut. Democrats need to show how the GOP has stuck it to the the working (previously middle) class that is now shouldering the burden of our tanking economy ("Cut education! Cut federal jobs! Cut Medicare! Cut out unions! And cut taxes for billionairs!"). The Democrats need to point to how Hoover handled the oncoming Depression by cutting taxes and government programs with devastating results.
----
And for God's sake, pass an amendment to the constitution that will reverse the recent "Peoples Finance" Supreme Court decision and get corporate money out of our elections!
----
And only then perhaps we can turn back the approaching spectre of American fascism.
monte on August 15, 2011 @ 10:53 pm wrote: “. . . your pro big government arguments.”
Speaking of which, I can’t help noticing that of the three examples of people claiming to follow the Constitution, but actually not, you ignored two (Bush and Cain). [August 15, 2011 @ 5:02 pm] Can I assume you agree that they, in fact, didn’t follow “the original meaning and intent of the Constitution”?
I hope so, because when it comes to making “pro big government arguments” no one was more guilty of it than Bush the Second (as I detailed in that earlier Comment). Or, do you agree with his view that the Constitution embraces the doctrine of the “Unitary Executive”, giving him almost dictatorial power? (Even though no such doctrine can be found either in the document itself or in the debates about it back in 1787. What you can find is opposition to the idea that the President could wield the power of a monarch - which Bush essentially did.)
Do you agree with his signing statements, which declared he could ignore any laws he wished? Do you support the way he ignored both FISA, the Fourth Amendment, and Habeas Corpus? What about the fact that the Supreme Court three times struck down his attempts to make Guantanamo a legal limbo, without any of the due process and other limits on government power the Constitution demands?
Those are examples of his being “pro big government”. Got anything to say about that?
Like Bush and Cain you claim to be following the Constitution, but every word you write proves the opposite!
meangreen on August 15, 2011 @ 11:01 pm wrote: “How about the current leftist that we currently have in the White House?”
Because “leftists” just love using government money to bail out private corporations (the automakers, the banks, etc.), and they fight long and hard for a health care program based on private insurance, instead of on a completely government run insurance or health care program.
I think you better research just what “leftists” want. It sure ain’t what the President provided.
P.S. - And yes, some of that was actually done by Bush - by I thought we weren’t allowed to blame him for anything.
meangreen on August 15, 2011 @ 11:31 pm wrote: “Bush was a fighter pilot for the National Guard just like your girlfriend. It was Bill Clinton that was in ROTC in order in not fighting in Vietman.”
And Bush joined the National Guard during the Vietnam War as a means to avoid serving in that War. It was a well known “way out” since, unlike in the wars Bush started, the National Guard was seldom used in Vietnam, so the odds of going there were far less. Of course, we had the Draft back then.
However, I’ll be the first to admit that accusing someone of “draft-dodging” during the Vietnam War is getting pretty old.
(P.S. - If anyone wonders, I was fortunate enough to have a high draft lottery number, and so was never called for service. I always said I’ve won only one lottery in my life - but it was the most important one.)
ecgberht on August 15, 2011 @ 11:48 pm wrote: “Thanks for making my point!”
Sorry, eggie old chum but your point was that the Bill of Rights “all pertain to individual rights”. I demonstrated the Tenth Amendment (in part) refers to powers (not rights, by the way) retained by the States as well as to powers retained by the people. So, your claim that the Bill of Rights is all about individual rights was incorrect, and still is.