New Hampshire Results as Rivals Move To South Carolina
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-11/new-hampshire-results-rivals-move-south-carolina
After New Hampshire, G.O.P. rivals move on to South Carolina. Profiles of the big winners and key factors dividing them.
Guests
Ramesh Ponnuru
senior editor for the "National Review."
Michael Dimock
associate director, Pew Research Center
Isaac Dovere
deputy politics editor, POLITICO
Mark Maremont
senior editor, Wall Street Journal
Kate Zernike
national correspondent, The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
All this talk about "good, better, best" capitalism amongst the Republican candidates is hilarious! Seriously, a discussion about the merits of capitalism has broken out within the Republican camp???.....maybe the Mayans had it right and we only have a couple more months left to go! This is surely a sign of the end.
Good showing for Ron Paul, maybe we have a chance at real change this time around. Lets see capitalism have a real chance not this hybred that does nothing but incentivize bad decisions. The problem with the bastardized form of capitalism that we currently labor under is the unnatural shift of the risk vs reward paradigm. We need to stop telling people and corporations that we always have there back so they will need to make only reasonable risks and feel the hurt when they come up short. Government needs to get out of the boardroom, but that means nothing if they don't also remove the implicit safety net for companies and individuals that take the long shot and miss. That is the only reasonable way to incentivize sound decision making. Let the big boys fail if they can't survive in a true capitalistic environment. And yes Republicans are just as bad at acheiving this goal as Democrats. Go Ron Paul give em hell.
Listen, Republicans aren’t interested in winning anything in 2012.
With the economy looking like the city dump at 8.6 percent unemployment and job creation barely keeping up with how fast we are popping out kids, Republicans ought to be looking around and saying “There is no way we are going to lose this thing” Yet there they are, the bar’s closing and they have just about the ugliest crowd of candidates you ever saw trying to hook up and go home with someone. Ask any Republican at the table this morning and they’ll all look into their hand and say….”we got nothing.”
So what is the strategy then? What evil and diabolical plan have they cooked up? With all the social and economic indicators lined up pointing for a resounding defeat of this uber-socialist/commie/nazi of a president, shouldn’t they be able to field a winning candidate? Someone who could rally the broadest possible coalition to defeat him? Um, apparently no….
And with a Republican platform that endorses tax cuts for the filthy rich, to invading every crevice of a woman’s body to ensure that she’s not hiding an at risk embryo, to voucherizing Medicare and repealing child labor laws and you’d have to go back to Barry Goldwater’s 1964….”Deep in your guts, you know he’s nuts! campaign”….to find something remotely similar. So what are they thinking?
continued….
First you have to differentiate between three levels of thinkers within this truly evil cabal….and the first thing you must conclude is…. that it is not the red-meat base that wants to lose….it’s the party leadership. And they’ve been planning this since 2008.
The red-meat, soldiers in the trenches with their tri-corner hats and Gadsden flags….those who look at the short term….they wanna win. They hate Obama (for all kinds of reasons) and they just want to defeat the DEMOCRAT party! Rush Limbaugh flogs them into a frenzy each and every day. But these grunts in the trenches are not strategists, they are just the zombie hordes that duly show up to vote. They think a tad bit longer than the primaries…but once they choose a candidate (it’ll be Romney) they’ll support him because they think that is how to win. It is not the base that wants to lose…. and especially not to Obama.
Then we move up to the mid-level thinkers. These are the officer class, the ones trying to consolidate party power. Now the Tea-partitards, are a painful thorn in the side of the Republican Party leadership. T-tards started in 2007 as a revolt to the profligate spending under Bush the younger. It was co-opted by the Koch’s and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks in 2009 but even after this attempted hostile takeover it is still more independent than the Republican Party leadership likes. And here is the strategy….four more years of Obama is just want Boehner and Cantor need to consolidate everyone back behind the party machine again. They need to b-slap the unruly elements in line and get them supporting the party machine candidates again. This is the domain of the party’s strategists….it is anathema to the party base because they cannot possibly wrap their heads around the nuances of “the lesser of two evils”. They are so like a shark in a feeding frenzy, they can only smell blood.
continued….
Finally we come down to the long term thinkers. Those who have hatched this plan and passed it down to the faithful officers. As the economy continues to deteriorate….whoever wins this upcoming election in November will be “IT” when the bottom finally drops out of this wet slimy bag we call capitalism. During this next presidential term the culmination of four decades of rot will finally create a gaseous bubble in the putrid fabric of this country and when it pops…. the party in office will take the fall. The long term thinkers have placed their bets on ruining the economy all along and they want Obama squarely in the hot seat when it all comes apart. After that, they could sell the country National Socialism with tarted up pink rather than brown uniforms and we’ll happily buy them. Torch-lit parades and book burnings (science books)….oh the spectacle! Rove oughta do well as the Reich Minister of Propaganda. Eh?
I second that motion of support for Ron Paul! It's odd how many times I hear his positions belittled, mischaracterized and laughed at, only to be agreed with as the discussion continues. It looks like Romney is our guy, I suppose we could do worse. The country is just not ready to make the sensible decisions to avoid the coming government crash landing. We obviously do need a sensible discussion about capitalism and the fantastic prosperity that it has brought to the world. On the insane America hating front, we have what can be read here today. People so filled with hate and rage that they cannot see straight. Yesterday a like-minded individual spent the entire day in a psychotic fit.
Teece, you are an exception author of fiction, my guess is you have some sort of education and possibly a job that allows you to use your brain instead of/ in addition to your brawn. From this assumption I question how you come to decry the very system that created an environment which allowed you to reach (at least) some modicum of success? Either you have some missguided ethical stance that tells you to constantly engage in self flagulation in the form of hating what caused you to reach your present societal position, or you simply are an idealog willing to sacrifice yourself and your progeny, blindly and without regard for logic, or what is best for this country and it's people.
They asked many NH voters why they DID vote for Romney, and they said "because he could beat Obama", meaning they thought the others couldn't do so as well as Romney.
The fact that the so-called "kook" came in 2nd shows that Paul is likely even MORE popular than the 23% result, but there has been such overwhelming prejudice against him, mainly by media talking heads -- thereby making him seem "unelectable", as the media frames it.
Many people I know think Paul is the best candidate of the bunch, but feel they'd be throwing their vote away because they hear that "he's unelectable" so often by pundits. Therefore, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bo Jones wrote: "The fact that the so-called "kook" came in 2nd shows that Paul is likely even MORE popular than the 23% result, but there has been such overwhelming prejudice against him, mainly by media talking heads -- thereby making him seem "unelectable", as the media frames it."
So true, even "no spin zone" can't help himself from ridiculing and condescending to Ron Paul and his supporters. He goes so far as to bait and embarrass his guests whether left our right to do the same.
I don't see why everyone is acting like the race is over and Romney has won , when only 12 delegates have been won and those delegates will be assigned proportionatly. i don't think the race is really over until after "Super Tuesday" and maybe not even at that time since it is not wineer take all in most of the states
A clear observation.
The MSNBC pundit class have a war against Rep Ron Paul. Now don't get me wrong would never ever vote for Rep Paul based on domestic issues. But why the MSNBC crew do not get that his anti war based on false claims stances unites Democrats, Independents and Republicans against unnecessary wars based on lies. He has huge support amongst the military. Yet Chris Mattews, Ed, Lawrence O Donnell, Al Sharpton continue to rip him up. They really have a war against him. Here are a few of their comments last night during their coverage of the outcome of the New Hampshire results.
Lawrence O'Donnell " nothing Ron Paul can do that is relevant" "I just don't count him. A joke. A srew up."
Chris Matthews: " If the second place is taken by Rep Paul blah blah(those words Chris's words) who cares"
Al Sharpton: "discounts" Ron Paul "whacky"
Bob Shrum "irrelevant"
Yesterday I got on the Ed Schultz radio show and Ed called Rep Paul "a jerk" that those who support "do not want wars" Ed said this in a high pitched whiny voice. As if all of the military folks who support Rep Paul are whiners or chicken hawks like the MSNBC pundit class.
What is it that MSNBC has against Rep Paul and why is it that they do not get that his message unites the anti war crowd...including active military.
Really seems the MSNBC crew is at war against Rep Paul and the anti war folks.
reinhard wrote:
"On the insane America hating front, we have what can be read here today."
mnemecek wrote:
"you to constantly engage in self flagulation in the form of hating "
You are both right. This is a fascinating phenomenon I have seen coming from the left. I just call them "haters". They're not hard to identify (you will see slurs in place of reasoned argument, and seething hate in the language that, if you could express it in pictorial form would be foaming at the mouth) and once you identify them, you know in each and every statement that's what you're going to get. Once identified, I tend to just skip over their posts.
One of your guests mentioned 44% polled weren't excited about any of the rep candidates. If you polled a cross-section of America and added Obama to the list, I'd think the number would still be that large. I consider myself independent and I'm not excited about anyone who today might wind up on the ballot in Nov. It's coming down to whom do I dis-like and dis-trust the most and voting for the other person, and that's probably not the best way to put someone in the White House.
Not to get meta here, but your panel here is a painful return to form for DRShow: we've got a center-right commentator in Politico, a far-right one in National Review, a straight journalist in NYT, and a straight researcher in Pew.
I suppose the partisan operative at the National Review is balanced by the "left-wing" reporter from the NYT. I'm curious, if this story were about a Democratic primary, what are the chances that your panel would be comprised entirely of centrist and left-wing commentators? I'd put the odds at zero.
Next time, maybe you could find a single progressive in your rolodex and give them a call.
kathleen wrote:
"A clear observation."
Well argued. We are on complete opposite ends as to why we would never vote for Ron Paul, to be sure. While I don't believe in sending American troops in harm's way either - without clear danger to the U.S. or its allies, I think Ron Paul's laissez-faire attitude to world affairs is too dangerous to vote for him.
On the other hand, I love (most) of his domestic policy. I love his libertarian view on most issues. I love his small-government view. I love his view on the Fed and what has become our phoney-baloney currency.
It's a love-hate relationship, no doubt about it. But I give him credit for one thing - absolute consistency in his libertarian view. That, you have to respect him for.
Oh ... kathleen ... one other thing. I always wondered who that one person was that watched MSNBC - now I know!
What is it that the chicken hawk MSNBC pundit class do not get about why Rep Pauls anti unnecessary and illegal invasions of other countries stance gets so much support from progressives, Republicans, Independents and active military members. Why is that they do not get that many of us who support this message would never vote for him based on his domestic issues but want his message in the debates
Last night The MSNBC crew kept whacking Rep Pauls second place win as "irrelevant, whacky, who cares, a screw up, discount, he is a jerk, irrelevant (over and over again)" I heard all of these comments on MSNBC last night.
Rep Paul served in the military..this pundit class has not. Why are they unable to comprehend why Rep Pauls anti unnecessary war message resonates amongst an ecletic and diverse crowd?
I like his message about the Fed. The MSNBC chicken hawk pundit class has a war going on against Rep Paul. Lawrence O' Donnell was almost filled with hatred when he would make derogatory comments about Ron Paul. I (Kathleen/Dayton OHio)was on with Ed Schultz yesterday and he called Paul "a jerk" and then went on to rip him a new --hole. Making fun of the "we don't want a war" crowd (Ed in a whiny voice) As if the military folks who support Rep Paul in huge numbers are a whiny crowd.
The MSNBC crew extremely disrespectful to Rep Paul and ultimately the people in the military who support Ron Paul.
Guess that chickenhawk pundit class needs to focus more on the Vets sitting at the Dayton VA without limbs and with disturbed minds. Think they need to have guest on who have lost family members in those wars based on lies.
It's apparent to this observer the electorate would rather be lied too than vote for someone that is virtuous.
will vote Ron Paul(NC Rep) regardless as current D and R's 'hope'less... though willing to see if 'help' arrives(mathe on Mayan end a little fuzzy... string of Aztec calender stretched/ shrunk... Maya be before election though so NEVER mind).
remember HIS entire platform would be opposed by Congress AND Supreme Court AND lobbyists(UNITED)...
imagine the bully pulpit with a man SURE of his mission... Teddy rides again!(same circumstances as well then)... the 'new king' pointing out that the royalty has no clothes...
of course media would NEVER allow accurate coverages...
BUT imaginaNation...
mnemecek,
In your response to Teece, you write “…you decry the very system that created an environment which allowed you to reach some modicum of success? Either you have some misguided ethical stance that tells you to engage in self flagulation in the form of hating what caused you to reach your present societal position, or you simply are an idealog willing to sacrifice yourself and your progeny, blindly and without regard for logic…”.
It seems from your response that you believe all those that have profited in America, should never question the process. Does the quaint idea of right and wrong ever into the equation for you? IF people have achieved their position by buying political favor &/or questionable ethics that have harmed countless others in process, should these people have the attitude that, here we are on top- the rest of the nation be damned. Is this your American dream?
To me, Teece attempts to be part of a solution… while "conservatives" like you attempt to maintain the status quo that has brought so much damage to our nation.
You feel that way because your cut from the same cloth. Rigid government control of our lives in the name of the greater good coupled with certain poverty because of your desired social welfare mandates. Whether you want to admit it or even realize it the end product of your desires is totalitarianism.
The original TV liberal moonbat Phil Donahue expressed his admiration for Ron Paul on CNN's Piers Morgan. Perhaps Paul should be challenging POTUS Obama in the 2012 election as a Democrat instead of as a Libertarian posing as a Republican.