Shifting Dynamics in the GOP Presidential Race
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-12-13/shifting-dynamics-gop-presidential-race
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are the current front-runners in the contest to become the Republican candidate for president. It was only months ago that former House speaker Gingrich was written off by many as unelectable. In recent weeks he has surged in the polls. This week Gingrich is seeking gains in New Hampshire, an early primary state where Romney enjoys widespread popularity. Gingrich debated third-tier candidate Jon Huntsman on national security issues. On the sidelines, Gingrich broke his vow to stay positive and traded barbs with Romney. Diane and her guests discuss the shifting dynamics in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.
Guests
Major Garrett
congressional correspondent, National Journal.
Lisa Lerer
politics reporter, Bloomberg News.
Juan Williams
political analyst, Fox News.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
monte on December 12, 2011 @ 10:47 pm wrote: "A living bobble head holding back a Roman ready to accept his unearned glory from a desperate populous seeking leadership, both of which are better than the legend in his own mind Obama. Anyone but B.H.O. is OK with me."
For sheer incomprehensible mindlessness, I think this surpasses anything and everything you've written in the past.
But let's test out that last statement of yours. If I lose my mind, and decide to run for President next year, can I count on your vote? Or don't I qualify as "anyone"?
Considering that Gingrich is viewed as the front runner, it's remarkable that nobody brought up one if his most incendiary statements, namely that poor children should spend some of their time, during school hours, learning how to clean bathrooms and mop floors. This kills three birds with one Republican stone.
First, it deprives the children of time in the classroom and make it more likely they will be condemned to a life of menial labor. Secondly, in each school, all the janitors would be fired, leaving one "master janitor"; apparently, it doesn't matter that they have their own families to provide for.
I suspect it's the third bird that's uppermost in Gingrich's mind - in many states, firing janitors would help weaken those pesky unions.
By the way, Monte - what's a desperate populous?
But let's test out that last statement of yours. If I lose my mind, and decide to run for President next year, can I count on your vote? Or don't I qualify as "anyone"?
maybe, but don't count on it. Huntsman is a rino, his physical characteristics and movements make me think of the ornaments that decorate rear parcel shelves in cars, at least used to when cars had parcel shelves.
Roman, I think of what a vainglorious Roman politician would have said nearing or leading up to the collapse of the Roman empire.
In the above picture it looks like Hunstaman is pulling Newt back by holding on to Newt's suit. I surmise Hunstsman has only contempt for Newt when the cameras are off.
mancuroc wrote:
"By the way, Monte - what's a desperate populous?"
Anyone who wants to turn this train wreck around. I thought the point was obvious..
Newt Ging-rich, like all of his Republican oponents, is connected to the monied 1%, added to that he is an unmitigated liar. He wants to cut education and social security, cut student aid and health care benefits, while privatizing and de-regulating everything, and providing big tax cuts for his friends in high places. To understand Newt, look at his earning statements, what he makes, and where his money comes from.
That he was cheating on his wife who was hospitalized and fighting cancer, while leading the charge for "family values" and trying to get Clinton impeached, just shows he feels that he is entitled and that telling the truth is beneath him.
Previous to the impeachment Gingrich worked well with Bill Clinton because Bill Clinton is a corporate Democrat, they belonged to the same exclusive clubs. Clinton jettisoned the Glass-Steagall banking regulation and signed NAFTA which cost the country a vast amount of jobs. Benefiting the rich. A vote for him or any current Republican candidate will further cost 90% of Americans whose piece of economic pie has been steadily plummeting these past 30 years.
Representative goverment is certainly better than corporatism (fascism), but we won't have it until we get big money out of our government.
ps. Major Garrett has to be Diane's most obnoxious guest, pitiful.
monte wrote:
"Huntsman is a rino"
Huntsman is an elitist jerk, arrogant and condescending. He is not his father's son.
@monte
mancuroc wrote:
"By the way, Monte - what's a desperate populous?"
Anyone who wants to turn this train wreck around. I thought the point was obvious..
-------
In that case you might want to check your spelling and your grammar.
I
monte on December 13, 2011 @ 10:57 pm wrote: “In the above picture it looks like Hunstaman is pulling Newt back by holding on to Newt's suit. I surmise Hunstsman has only contempt for Newt when the cameras are off.”
Typical. You allow your misperception of reality to generate a “surmise” without any basis in fact. And that’s what will determine your vote!
(It looks to me as if Huntsman is simply patting Newt on the back, and I suspect most people would have the same reaction.)
Oh, and to those wondering why Newt’s serial adultery is a valid issue: remember, he led the charge to impeach Clinton over the latter’s adultery, and both he and the GOP constantly play the “traditional values card”. (Come to think of it, for men in positions of power, adultery is a “traditional value”!) So let me spell it out for you, the issue is: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y!
Also known as the tribute vice pays to virtue.
"Why are staunch Republicans willing to sweep Gingrich's unsavory personal history under the rug but hold other candidates like Cain accountable?" Unsavory? This question or some variation arises often as though it actually sheds light or is a question of great import. It really seems to be a question seeking a definable foundation. One would think that Newt drinks blood in his closet at home or something so horrific that it cannot be mentioned in public. Or, perhaps, and most likely, Newt's achievements in congress made some competitors angry and rubbed other career types the wrong way. Why do Republicans like a man who is married to his third wife? I think it is primarily because we listen to facts and presentation and we place a great deal of emphasis on doing over simply speech making. Repubs are much more complex than the one dimensional straw man that many like to construct. If I am suppose to dislike Newt or disqualify him as a potential candidate simply by hearing that some think he is mean or disorganized or has too many ideas, that will not accomplish the task. Frankly, I have heard many great men described with exactly the same words while being adored. Those comments are quite literally "lame" by themselves. What most of us should remember is that he single handedly brought about changes in congress in the mid 90s that no one else had ever done. That is measureable. BTW. I don't think Newt's past is swept under any rug. It is hanging on the clothesline in the front yard. I think it is more accurate to say, we simply weigh all the data with emphasis on performance.
" Oh, and to those wondering why Newt’s serial adultery is a valid issue: remember, he led the charge to impeach Clinton over the latter’s adultery, and both he and the GOP constantly play the “traditional values card”. (Come to think of it, for men in positions of power, adultery is a “traditional value”!) So let me spell it out for you, the issue is: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y!"
Here is an example of a comment that is stock and may represent either a true misunderstanding, lack of indepth thinking or simple blind partisan attack. Probably, it is all of the above depending on the awareness and memory of the one painting the comment. But, it deserves an answer.
Clinton was not impeached becasue of serial adultery. His serial adulteries were quite well known before he was elected to the office of President. I admit that there was a cummulative effect, but it was the lack of self control leading to sex in the Oval office with a young intern followed by lying on TV to the public that lead to the impeachment. I constantly hear that sex engaged by a powerful figure with a younger weaker participant in the workplace is harrassment or even sexual abuse. The behaviors that lead to Clinton's impeachment and loss of his law license was more complex than often portrayed. The whole scene is abbreviated and intentionally oversimplified in order to fit it into a political rant. The whole story does not so easily fit. After it was all said and done, would the country have been better off if it had just been overlooked. Maybe. But, most thought, at the time, the behavior on the job in the Oval office displayed such a loss of control that it illuminated a real character flaw and a moral failing that met the consitutional definition for an impeachment. However, this was not simply an issue of adultery. That simple definition would disqualify most of us from participation in elected office.