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.
ecgberht on August 15, 2011 @ 11:48 pm wrote: “Let me summarize the Tenth Amendment for you, . . . .”
Part One.
Your “summary” of the Tenth Amendment is also incorrect. The Federal government isn’t limited just to express powers. The word “express” doesn’t appear in the Amendment. That’s not by accident.
One of the problems with the Articles of Confederation is that they contained exactly such a provision, Article II, which declared that each state retained every Power not “expressly delegated to the United States . . . .” [Emphasis added.]
Neither the original Constitution nor the Tenth Amendment contains such language, precisely because it made the national government under the Articles too weak to function properly (one of the main reasons the Articles were scrapped in favor of the Constitution.)
During the debate in Congress over the Tenth Amendment there were several attempts to add the word “expressly”. All of them were rejected, with James Madison leading the opposition. On this subject he had some very instructive words to say:
“it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers[;] there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to recount every minutiae.” - James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights, by Richard Labunski (Oxford University Press, 2006), page 230.
Madison also rejected the “express enumeration” argument in his Federalist Paper #44. And this was recognized and adopted by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819).
To be continued.
Part Two.
But that’s okay, we’ll just ignore what the Founders actually said and wrote, and what the Supreme Court decided (in a ruling by a man, John Marshall, who was actually alive and an active participant in all this). We’ll just ignore what has been settled law for two centuries because Chief Justice “eggie” says so!
ecgberht on August 15, 2011 @ 11:48 pm wrote: “What makes you think I was responding to ANYTHING you wrote? . . . My post was addressed to monte.”
Oh, please, that bit of dishonesty (as monte would call it) is almost too obvious to need a response. But I’ll try.
The post by monte you were “addressing” was, in turn, his response to my arguments about reading the Second Amendment as written. You even began your post by quoting his words about how the militia (mentioned there) was "not an arm of the government". Taking things out-of-context is another dishonest trick you (among others) employ. When will you learn that you can’t get away with it?
As for your ridiculous question, it’s simply another “straw man”. So let me answer it with a familiar question of my own:
Where did I claim that the Second Amendment was written “only for the purpose of establishing national defense via militia”?
Answer, I never did (especially since the original Constitution, the one the Bill of Rights amended, already talks about militias).
And let me provide a follow-up question: If the Second Amendment is only about “rights retained by individual citizens for the benefit of themselves and for their protection from an oppressive government”, why bother mentioning “a well regulated militia” or “the security of a free State” at all?
As for “enumerated” rights, check out the Ninth Amendment sometime. By the way, it’s the only place in the Constitution that word appears.
I do wish people would stop claiming they “follow the Constitution” when they don’t know what they’re talking about.
"On every question of construction of the Constitution, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
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."
ES:
Let add that Leftist like control of power. They did take over equity ownership wihile destroying shareholder wealth . Gave ownership to the have nots (Unions) which still own 40% of GM.
They did force banks that did not want bail out money to take it. A way of forcing debt in order to make it harder to repay it. Warranties strike a cord ES.
They are putting mandates on private insurance to drive them out of business and/or resulting in employers favoring dropping insurance for employees because of cost. Forcing Insurance companies to pay for "morning after pill and birth control without the beneficary paying one cent and I though the Health Care Reform Bill excluded abortion procedures. You even stated this previously. These employees will be forced to joined Government Exchange insurance and this is where the control and power noose gets stronger.
Nope ES, "Rome was Not Built in One Day" and the Democratics/leftist know this. To quote Obama in 2005 Planned Parenthood appearance " I favor a one payer system". It might take one year or 15 years.
Gee and to think I am just a dumb Mexican Boy from South Texas who barely made it out of college and can still put up a good arguments with these brainey eggheads who mostly likely never had a real job in private industry.
"When will you learn that you can’t get away with it?"
Just so you know, I stopped reading after this too. I wasn't replying to your post, except in your fantasy that somebody reads and hangs on every word you write. You said it yourself, "you quoted monte". That's because I read monte's post. Why is this so important to you? If you want to call me a liar and have any evidence for it, which you don't have ONE SHRED, then just get it out there.
Now, your other post about the "express" nonsense, I did read. Do I remember correctly that you pretend to be a lawyer? And you don't understand the definition of "express" in law? Just like you didn't understand the concept of a unilateral contract? I could have you mixed up with another poster though.
By your definition, the lack of the term "express" combined with the "commerce clause" gives the FG the right to do anything it wants! Since you are a progressive, that you would wish that, does not surprise me.
And one more thing ... my paraphrase of the Tenth amendment is spot on.