Pro-Huck push poll: McCain supports experiments on unborn children
posted at 4:30 pm on January 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Nothing to do with the Huckabee campaign, of course. Just those madcap Huck supporters at TrustHuckabee.com, framing McCain’s support of stem-cell research as tantamount to Nazi-esque vivisections of screaming infants on operating room tables. Can’t wait for the debate in the comments.
Fred’s hammering Huck for the push polls, but to what effect? Two new surveys show him stuck in fourth — Rasmussen, where he’s two points behind Romney for third, and MSNBC, where he’s also two points behind — with less than half the vote total of the frontrunner, McCain, although the fact that Mitt’s evidently preparing to skip SC means there could be a late bleed from him to Thompson. Exit question: Assuming he can’t win the state, what margin would he need as the second-place finisher to limp on to Florida? I don’t think he can win there without a win in SC but his staffers may disagree, so it’s worth thinking about. 3%? 5%?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Huckabee favors a Federal Smoking Ban (then doesn’t in the heat of a campaign).
A net increase in taxes in Arkansas.
Rejection of school vouchers, good enough for even the National Education Association. That’s representing the government over the freedom of people to decide what’s right for them.
His silly ’social-program’ foreign policy is certainly not Reaganesque.
His massive amounts of pardons and commutations.
None of these are conservative positions.
Here is a good link to a Robert Novak column that will outline some of the points that show he is NOT a Reaganesque conservative.
And the fact is that his speeches cannot be believed, any more than that other Arkansas governor’s can. He lies. He dissembles. He’s ’slick.’ He changes his positions and signs meaningless ‘pledges’ that are at variance with stands he’s taken in the past.
Just because he wraps himself in righteousness doesn’t mean he’s telling you the truth. The facts and his record say otherwise.
And do you honestly think that someone playing such religious divisions and identity politics is going to unite a country that’s already seething with disdain for the ‘Religious Right?’
snickelfritz on January 17, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Hide the ducks!
Laura on January 17, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Probably not. I’m in the market for a reluctantly pro-choice, pragmatic, tax-cutting security hawk who will stand against the expansion of the welfare state while getting control of Executive Branch and all of its departments in order to make them work for the benefit of the country, and not against its interests (see: anonymous leaks from the State Dept.) I’d like better border (and port!) security, but would not mind some kind of amnesty down the road. This may put me out of step with HotAir readers, but I’m pretty well within the mainstream of the Republican Party on most issues. I’m sick of the attempted excommunications by self appointed arbiters of “true conservatism”.
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I can’t say I blame you there.
Rudy, although someone I could not vote for, would not keep me awake at night if he were POTUS unlike McLiar and Huckascam.
And I am totally with you on taxes and the welfare state.
SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 7:06 PM
The thing that puts Rudy over the top for me is his willingness to get into the fray. For non-New Yorkers, it may come as a surprise, but the man held daily press conferences over his 8 years as mayor, in addition to his weekly radio show, in order to set his agenda, defend his policies, and promote the actions of his administration. He also stood up against fierce criticism from the Democratic/liberal establishment in NYC and prevailed more often than not. If the next president were even a fraction as good as that, in terms of communication, it would be a major upgrade over our current mute Chief Executive. Imagine how much better the past 7 years might have been if Bush had only had the guts to, you know, defend some of the administration’s actions in the War on Terror.
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 7:13 PM
You are preaching to the choir on that one. I never understand Bush’s or the spineless leadership of Frist and Hastert in their inability to make their cases to the people instead of allowing the Dims free reign to put their propoganda out there.
Like I said, I do like Rudy and I think he did some great things in New York.
But being on the front lines of the border issue (I live in Texas) that and amnesty are deal breakers for me. I believe in the sovereignty of this nation and want a POTUS that will fight for it.
SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I’m with ya there. All the candidates have a few warts and I’m not going to get my perfect candidate. I can live with Thompson, Rudy, or Mitt. Not wed to any of them,..they all have strong points.
a capella on January 17, 2008 at 7:25 PM
I know someone already commented about it, but why is it entertaining that an evil monster is possibly a better politician than a good, honest man who is also a good conservative? I fail to see the entertainment value other than for those who oppose freedom.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Being from NYC, I see the immigration issue through a slightly different prism. My main concerns with it are the security aspect (terrorism), and the difficulties of dealing with the impact that a huge influx of immigrants would have with an expanded welfare state; I’m on the front lines concerning those two issues. I can understand your point of view, though, and imagine that practically, in the near term, we would endorse similar agendas, differing in whether or not to grant amnesty to current illegals down the road. Neither of us are “bad Republicans”, even though we may disagree on some goals, as well as on methods. Some of the rhetoric just gets a little bit too heated for me.
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 7:33 PM
And a permanent Democratic majority doesn’t concern you at all?
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 7:39 PM
I don’t happen to think that Huckabee is an “evil monster.” I disagree with him on about as many issues as I disagree with Thompson and the others, just in different combinations. The Republican party, like it or not, is a “Big Tent” party, albeit slightly less so since 2006. I think it’s unhealthy for the party to demand 100% compliance with a so-called “conservative” agenda on each issue, and I resent those who promote such a view. I just appreciate the fact that the Huckabee rise demonstrates so perfectly the futility of insisting upon a “true conservative” candidate; Thompson and Romney supporters pushed so hard against Giuliani’s social views, putting many of them in the forefront for the early part of the campaign when he led, and got paid back for it with Huckabee.
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 7:41 PM
I definitely see border security as a terror issue too. We must secure our borders in order for there to be any national security or else we are just kidding ourselves. And I am talking about the northern border as well because that is just as much of a problem.
My sister, who lived in a middle class neighborhood and pays school taxes, sent her daughter to the closest elementary school. This school happened to be a charter school that catered to spanish speaking kids. But my niece was struggling and when my sister inquired about tutoring for her, she was told that her daughter was not a priority because she was not a spanish speaking kid. That is a problem. My sister’s tax dollars went into that school district and she was unable to procure tutoring for her daughter at her school. So they moved to a different subdivision in the same town where my niece is give the education that she deserves.
I do think we see eye to eye on a lot of issues. And I think we probably agree on more than we disagree.
SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Is it too much to just ask for two things: strong on the WOT and strong on illegal immigration. I’ll even forget about taxes/the economy/whatever else, because you can recover from those, not from the first two. Rudy is not strong on illegal immigration, that’s all. Fred is the only one who is consistent for more than two years on the two I care about. Mitt is my second choice, but how can you really trust anything he says?
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Well he is no Hitler, but he will say anything, will change it without an explanation at any time, and will advertise his godliness to all who cares, while being a constant lier and panderer. He is evil.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Hispanic immigrants are a source of problems for generation because they come from the lowest strata of Latin American societies, and that’s saying something. No tradition of respect for education + demonstrated willingness to break the law = permanent Democratic block + endless demand for social services + endless supply of crime, starting from the second generation. How do you like that equation? And all to get some cheap labor today.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 7:52 PM
I’m not as willing to give in on the economy and related issues as you are. While tax cuts may happen from time to time, the encroachment of government on the private economy is nearly irreversible. As an example, just note that the only way Social Security will ever be restructured is if it fails and we have to start from scratch. Entitlements, like diamonds, are forever.
Anyways, in response to the Rudy’s stance on illegal immigration, it’s clear that he’s been concerned with it for a while, even if his goals and preferred methods may not coincide 100% with your own ideal outcomes. He obviously understands the problem, and has experience dealing with similar issues (crime in NYC). He probably wouldn’t screw it up, although we might get an amnesty in a second Giuliani term if the initial attempts at controlling the border go well. I’m not that concerned with accepting 20 million more immigrants who are already here (although that may just be because I’m from NYC and am used to being surrounded by immigrants.)
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 7:55 PM
I’m afraid I can’t agree with you on that point. Thompson was a non-candidate for much of this race, I don’t think it was his supporters pushing against Rudy. I DO think that there was a large segment of the GOP base (the ‘pro-life’ Christians) that felt they had no candidate in their corner and moved like a shot to board the HuckWagon, but I don’t think they were the ones going to Thompson or Mitt at that stage. In fact many of them didn’t want Mitt because of the ‘Mormon’ issue, and Mitt has come discreditation on the abortion issue swirling around him.
I think a lot of this built up when Rudy was the ‘inevitable’ Republican and many traditional SoCons felt like they’d been left twisting in the wind (a lot of the party feels like that the last few years, don’t they?).
I’d prefer Thompson, I could tolerate Mitt, I might be able to swallow Rudy, but I think that’s probably it for the GOP field (not counting Tanc or Hunter as likely). Paul and Huck are no-gos for me.
snickelfritz on January 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM
I know the ethnic concentrations in NYC and California and I’m an immigrant myself. The sheer size of the Hispanic communities in the western states coupled with a sort of self-sufficiency, historical connections to Mexico, and lack of any imperative to integrate, and also coupled with the chain migration that will follow will create a permanent underclass, a permanent Democratic majority, and a back-breaking demand for social services. Size matters in this particular area.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 8:02 PM
That’s pretty much how I feel, other than McCain is a definite no-go, and Rudy is just SO hard to swallow with his ambiguity on the illegals. I just can’t figure out why people care so much about Fred’s lack of a maniacal drive for power as if it was a missing good trait.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 8:04 PM
I guess that’s the key issue. In NYC, different immigrant groups have their neighborhoods, but generally do a great job at integrating with the rest of the city. My guess is that it’s due to the highly competitive nature of life in NYC, and the need to keep up with everyone in order to succeed. In the long run, I think a move towards individual ownership of healthcare and retirement assets, rather than welfare-based programs, would help to foster such competition nationwide, while removing the likelihood of a ponderous burden due to the cost of social services. The formation of an underclass of hispanic immigrants is one of my major concerns when it comes to immigration; I’m afraid the Romney/Thompson “attrition by enforcement” plans may result in the formation of just such an underclass when they do not succeed completely.
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Whoops. Forgot McCain.
He’s a no-go for me, too, but he’d probably be a whisker above Huck and Paul. Practically zero, while they’re in negative numbers.
snickelfritz on January 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM
The attrition plan will work extremely well IF you institute employer sanctions. A couple of multi-year sentences imposed on some CEOs of companies knowingly hiring many illegals, and NOBODY will hire them. I don’t know if you heard about the delegation from the Mexican state of Sonora trying to get Arizona to slow down the repatriation of illegals, because even today it’s working pretty well. The remaining underclass will be just a bleep on the radar screen compared to the existing, fully legal second generation of the recent Hispanic immigrants.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 8:27 PM
I consider him worse than Huck. Huck is willing to pander and say anything that will get him elected, but just signing the no legalization pledge will make it very difficult for him to get the full Amnesty through, even if that’s what he really wants. As everyone knows, McCain is obsessed with Amnesty for whatever reason, and would find a way to make it happen no matter what.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 8:30 PM
McLiar is a no-go for me as well. But my preferences are the same as yours.
I won’t vote for Rudy, McLiar or Huckascam. And Paul is so far out in left field it is laughable he is allowed on the same stage as the rest.
I want Thompson. I could live with Mitt. I won’t be happy with a Rudy win, but I would not be so freaked out as I would with a McLiar or a Huckascam win. I trust and respect Rudy. I just differ on the issues with him.
SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 8:31 PM
While Huck supporters go about doing their sheisters dirty work, discerning and committed conservatives are focusing on the critical issues as the WSJ are:
“Fred Thompson’s optional flat tax (two rates: 10% and 25%), is the simplest and best reform in the field. Thompson and Giuliani are also the best in the field at explaining how taxes affect an economy. They understand incentives and aren’t cowed by Democratic arguments that tax cuts favor only “the rich” and produce deficits.”
“Mike Huckabee is the most unusual, combining an anti-corporate message with the most radical reform of all — the so-called FairTax, or a 30% national sales tax that would replace all federal income and payroll taxes. We have our doubts that such a root-and-branch upheaval could ever pass Congress, even if it did survive a Presidential campaign.”
Stick to real issues Hucks, and spare us all your political ambivalence. For all intent and purpose he is the product of all his liberal deeds. No one else to blame for his GOP insurrection but himself, and all these underhanded tactics during these primaries, covert poll pushing, trying to play candidates against one another show us his true cowardice. For a Christian who invokes the Lord’s Name for his own personal gain and who relies on the ignorance of voters to help him get the nomination, he is a lousy politician at best and has yet to significantly prove otherwise.
ousia on January 17, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Ditto. Fred’s got my vote, and all the cash I can spare. I can vote for Romney if I have to, even though I think his health care plan is a nightmare. I can vote for Rudy if I have to, even though I have some serious differences with him. But I will cross party lines to vote against McShame and the Huckster. I would rather have a Dem in office than either one of them.
Laura on January 17, 2008 at 8:44 PM
How can both McCain and Huck poll around 25% in South Carlina of all places? It just doesn’t make any sense. And the stupid McCain isn’t tanking in the polls at all after MI. Who the hell can support McCain? He isn’t popular with the military at all.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 8:50 PM
People who listen to what he says rather than looking up his record. I forget what station it was, interviewing people leaving a McCain rally and they ALL were raving about how tough he was on illegal immigration. I threw up in my mouth a little bit at how many ignorant people will be voting in 2008. It’s one thing to vote for him because you agree with him – I can at least respect that – but to be so completely ignorant of his history… it’s nauseating.
Laura on January 17, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Check this:
http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/NEWS0206/80117105/-1/RSS05
stlpatriot on January 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM
The people supporting McCain/Huckabee are the ones that allow the MSM to tell them who to vote for. They don’t know how to reach an informed decision by doing a little research.
The MSM agenda is to set up a GOP candidate that will be an easy win for the Dims.
SimplyKimberly on January 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM
It is nauseating. I don’t believe either he or Huck can win the nomination, but they can force Fred out. I guess that will leave only Mitt as a viable candidate.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Yes read the article and learn about those “Christian values”. Huck supporters are behaving like cultists and they will hear no wrong about their cult leader.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Some day I’ll track Fred down and just ask him why the heck he didn’t use more theatrics. I would just hit all of these jokers so hard in the media, it’s easy to do. Fred’s campaign actually picked up the term I first used for Huck, “court jester” that I had inserted into three different blogs and and call to a radio station. They are still using it today, but why not go for the jugular?
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 9:20 PM
I’ve really come to see this election as a referendum on the American people. We say we want a candidate with substance – we say we don’t want gotchas and soundbites. We say we want a conservative who tells it like it is. So here’s Fred, with white papers and plain talk and a refusal to pander. And people can’t be bothered. If he loses, especially to Huckabee or McCain, then we deserve what we get.
Laura on January 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM
I love this country because it gave me everything I have. But a long time ago I figured out that it’s strength is the respect for fair play and relative orderliness. It’s not the collective intelligence of it its people. While many of the smartest people in the world come from the US, simply put, the country is full of idiots.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 9:31 PM
Substance comes in many forms. Most just don’t like the kind Fred is selling.
Big S on January 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM
I don’t believe this. Most people when they see Fred see an old dude that can’t possibly have the energy to be President, and that’s the real reason. I’ve seen reactions from kids and unsophisticated people when they listen to him speak for the first time and that’s what you get. I’ve heard “but McCain looks younger” from many. In NH McCain won among people who have diametrically opposed views, so much for substance.
Igor R. on January 17, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Any future amnesty definitely will increase the welfare state.
The great economist, Milton Friedman, argued that you can’t have open immigration without an increase in the welfare state. Milton Friedman later admonished the Wall Street Journal over its liberal amnesty and immigration views.
There have already been 7 amnesties granted to law-breakers since 1986.
Clearly, amnesty (”path to USA citizenship”) has been shown to be a proven incentive to increase more illegal immigration.
Maybe it is time just to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
ColtsFan on January 18, 2008 at 2:59 AM
I think you’re a little bit fuzzy on the whole cause and effect thing. Go back and read the article again.
Big S on January 18, 2008 at 3:15 AM
The article discussed Milton’s views on open immigration contributing to the growth of the welfare state.
I believe illegal immigration is an example of open immigration. Thus, rewarding illegals contributes to the expansion of the welfare state.
ColtsFan on January 18, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Colts fan: Milton Friedman argues that you cannot have open borders(open immigration is interchangeable term) AND government welfare in the form of social security, medicare, and medicaid. They essentially are in conflict with each other. Open borders would allow people to come and go as they please. Federal law cannot allow this because of the social welfare supports the federal government is required by law to collect in the form of FICA taxes and to disperse through its various agencies and departments.
Friedman is a liberal as per the definition up until the end of the 19th century. A liberal was an advocate for free markets, capitalism, and supporting policy that would limit the power of government to provide the greatest level of free flow of goods, services, and people.
gabriel sutherland on January 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM
A review of the facts.
1) South Carolina law prohibits the use of push polling through phones.
2) The official Huckabee campaign is not conducting the push polls.
3) The group that is conducting the push polls, Common Sense Issues, Inc, officially supports electing Mike Huckabee for President.
4) Common Sense Issues, Inc has received donations from individuals that have also contributed to the Huckabee for President. The donations to CSI, Inc have been made a few weeks after the same individuals donated to Huckabee for President.
Questions.
1) Is this illegal? No. Proving coordination between a 501(c)4 like CSI and Huckabee for President is nearly impossible.
2) Isn’t push polling into SC just free speech? Yes. However, it is rather shallow to thumb your nose at South Carolina state law with one hand and with the other hand ask South Carolinans to vote for the candidate CSI, Inc supports.
gabriel sutherland on January 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the clarification above.
ColtsFan on January 19, 2008 at 2:58 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2