Dems to Hillary: Please, please don’t go! Plus bonus Republican polling …
posted at 7:27 am on March 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If Hillary Clinton can eke out a win in either Texas or Ohio, a 2-1 majority of Democrats nationwide want her to remain in the race, according to a fresh ABC poll. The 29% who want her to withdraw if she doesn’t win both increases to 51% if she loses both. That doesn’t exactly give a ringing endorsement to Barack Obama, who may wonder why a 13-state win streak isn’t enough for 45% of Democrats:
Democrats by more than a 2-1 margin say Hillary Clinton should stay in the presidential race even if she loses either the Texas or Ohio primary on Tuesday. But if she fails in both, fewer than half say they’d want her to fight on.
Many, in that case, have another idea for Clinton: the vice presidency.
The lead overall is now Barack Obama’s. With his string of 11 consecutive primary and caucus victories, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents by a 50-43 percent margin would like to see him nominated. That’s a remarkable reversal: Clinton held a vast lead in ABC News/Washington Post polls before the Iowa caucuses. Campaigns clearly matter.
Despite the overall preference for Obama, Democrats by a very wide 67-29 percent say Clinton should stay in the race even if she loses either Texas or Ohio. But if she were to lose both, far fewer say they’d want her to continue 45 percent, with 51 percent saying otherwise.
The key demographic in that statement is independents – or at least it used to be. Party members no longer favor Hillary, as Obama now has a 10-point advantage among Democrats. Interestingly, ABC has Hillary leading among independents by two points. Otherwise, Obama owns most of the rest of the categories, including a whopping 22-point advantage among men. Clinton still leads by 10 among whites, and by 25 points among white women.
What does this mean for tonight? It means that the Hillary campaign has no reason to shut down after tonight, and it will extend her campaign to Pennsylvania at the very least. She leads in Ohio, maintaining an advantage there as Obama has floundered in the past few days over NAFTA and Rezko. Only Zogby shows Obama coming close, and that’s hardly the most reliable pollster in the business. All of the other polls have Clinton ahead outside the margin of error.
As for the vice-presidency, forget it. Hillary won’t be a second banana again in a Democratic administration, and after her remarks on Obama’s “experience”, he won’t choose her anyway. However, ABC’s poll on a running mate for John McCain looks interesting. Seventeen percent want Mike Huckabee, and 11% want Mitt Romney. “Other” outpolls Romney at 13%, while 43% don’t care at all. Obviously, the VP selection is hardly a make-or-break moment for McCain, a somewhat surprising result given his issues with the base and the supposed angst over his age.
My prediction: Clinton wins Ohio by six, and Obama wins Texas by three. They’ll split the other two states, and wind up with a push in delegates overall. And it will be enough to keep Hillary in the race. I’ll be live-blogging the results tonight, so be sure to check back starting at 6 pm CT on a new post.
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:
Mornin’, Cap’n!
I am thinking Hillary is going to do OK today. Gut call.
Snooper on March 4, 2008 at 7:30 AM
Welcome mini-super Tuesday.
Best if she wins Texas and Ohio. Rooting for Hillary and Democratic meltdown.
Pax americana on March 4, 2008 at 7:41 AM
I think Obama-Edwards is more likely. The MoveOn dream ticket.
Pax americana on March 4, 2008 at 7:45 AM
If it’s somebody like Pawlenty, I’ll still vote for him, but I’ll be very unhappy. I think we should start the impeachment process on day one. If it’s a conservative like teh Fred or Romney, I’ll probably be a little more at ease.
malan89 on March 4, 2008 at 7:46 AM
I suspect, though, that within that number there are actually plenty of people who really don’t want Huckabee or don’t want Romney — so we can’t really infer that they don’t care. It’s a matter of how the question was framed, no?
My point: McCain can’t take Huckabee at 17% and “indifferent” at 43% and reasonably think he gets 60% by adding them together. There’s an interactive effect.
DrSteve on March 4, 2008 at 7:47 AM
Yeah, either that or Obama-Biden. Not the lefty dream team, but it would ease some of those experience issues.
malan89 on March 4, 2008 at 7:47 AM
Let’s not forget either that it is D-Day for Ron Paul and Crazy Kuchenich.
Texas – your moment is now.
Pax americana on March 4, 2008 at 7:49 AM
Just speaking in general… they’re only a hundred or so delegates apart arent they? I mean to me that’s the bottom line regardless of who we’re talking about. Eff the win streak. So keep winning then, what’s the problem?
Dash on March 4, 2008 at 7:52 AM
I think the wet dream of Obamamessiah comes to an end today. Whether he wins, wins small, loses small or gets woodsheded, the damage is done and the honeymoon is over. The Rezko trial is happening in full force, conspiring with Canadian lawmakers, etc…
Let’s go Texas Repubs, cross over(only after Mav secures the nom) for Billary. Send this circus on down the road all the way to Denver so we can see a battle royal of democratic special interest. Maybe we can even dig up Dan Rather to get pushed around again at the convention, just like old times!
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 4, 2008 at 7:52 AM
I don’t understand that poll at all. So, Obama leads among independents, leads among Democrats, leads among most constituencies… but 67% want Hillary to stay in if today’s a good day and 45% if it’s not?
I’m thinking today is the day the wagon wheels start to come off the Obama campaign. The honeymoon is over and they are going to have to start to deal with the negative press they haven’t had whatsoever since the campaign began. He will flounder – we’ve already seen his reaction to tough questions (namely, to lie, obfuscate, or get angry and storm out)
amkun on March 4, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Indications are that Shillary is going to get her clock cleaned today, most likely for the last time. If she blows it big time tonight, expect her to either bow out by the end of the week, or most likely after the Pennsylvania primary. But far too many mistakes have been made by her own campaign staff and there is little chance she is going to recover from it.
pilamaye on March 4, 2008 at 8:04 AM
When WJC first ran for POTUS promising 2fer1 with Hillary by his side all through his campaign, IF indeed he thought so well of his wife’s abilities, WHY did he choose a college drop-out as his running mate VP. The time for Hillary to prove her mustard came and went with Bill, and she didn’t campaign for herself enough then, either. So, why would Obama want to allow Hillary to ruin his presidency when her own husband wouldn’t allow her the VP? True enough, it may not be Obama’s call, but the puppet master’s. But that elite obviously does not like Hillary any more than the public at large.
maverick muse on March 4, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Hillary is staying in this race no matter the outcome of today’s primaries. This woman has lived her entire adult life for this campaign and a shot at becoming the first woman to hold the most powerful position in the world.
This is fascinating to watch…Democrats are doing to themselves what Republicans have been incapable of getting done. Republicans don’t have the stomach (lack of courage) to play in this league of hard ball; so afraid of the big bad Liberal media twits. This campaign has already provided much proof to the claim that Democrats use the race card like a gifted musician making sweet sounds on a world class piano; that Democrats have no stomach for war and national defense; that Democrats have a very limited play book, a play book that has mold on the covers; promise the people government hand-outs, and the people will pull the lever for Dems like good lil addicts…
Personally, I just gave up my registration as a Republican; now registered as a Conservative. I will no longer give my hard earned money to the GOP. I will support individual politicians who support my ideology with their actions. I’m done with the empty rhetoric provided by all Democrats, and most Republicans.
Live on Hillary… May you continue to expose the Democrat Party for the lying hypocrites they are; may you continue to show the world how “white elitist” Liberals have owned and controlled “black America” for decades upon decades; may you continue to show the world how Democrats have used the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to control the minds of black America, while keeping the “black vs white” hatred alive and well…
Keemo on March 4, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Could it be that there is some rationality seeping in to the Democrat party? That the fact Obama is an empty suit is beginning to dawn on them. Wishing Hillary luck lest Democrats get stuck with a loser candidate the way the GOP got stuck with Senator Triceratops.
highhopes on March 4, 2008 at 8:28 AM
DemsRepublicans to Hillary: Please, please don’t go!Don’t you think?
Who could have imagined?
I have few thoughts:
Who would you vote for?
1 – A liar, hypocrite, suppressor of freedom of speech, opponent of tax-cut, flip-flopper on immigration (to get elected) like McCain, or,
2 – An openly frank Liberal, like Hillary Clinton (whose programs will hardly be successful anyway, but at least honest about it: universal health care, for example)?
Who would you prefer?
A Liar or a did-as-I-promised candidate?
Who would you prefer?
Someone who -contrary to conventional wisdom- will be tough of national security like Hillary Clinton, or a hypocrite who will shut down GITMO and ship the terrorists to the Homeland, who is opposing interrogation techniques that proved to be useful in saving American lives?
At least Hillary says what she means and means what she says.
Who would you prefer?
A Hypocrite, liar, Republican-in-name-only or an openly honest liberal Democrat?
It’s a tough decision.
All I can say is:
It will be a monumental mistake to have McCain as the President. It will take many years to recover. And the Republican Party will lose its soul, its principles, its base and the very essence on which it presented itself to the American people.
Who would you vote for?
A Party that openly have an agenda which is going to implement, or another Party that has an agenda but its candidate is courting the other party to access power?
I’ll go with the straightforward Party.
I would rather vote Democrat and fix their mess later, other than having a so-called “Republican” lying to me, pretending to be a “Conservative” and screwing the Republican Party.
Maybe this is the time , maybe it’s in this election cycle that we will get rid of all the Republicans-in-name-only.
Then we can start fresh again and elect TRUE Conservatives-Republicans.
Think about it.
Indy Conservative on March 4, 2008 at 8:28 AM
It would be for me. If he chose Huckabee, it would revive my earlier decision to write in the team of James Madison and Milton Friedman if McCain were nominated. To have both McCain and Huckabee, the two least conservative contenders running for the Republican nomination among the eight or so from six months ago, would insure that Madison would get my vote. I don’t think McCain is stupid enough to choose Huckabee.
burt on March 4, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Here’s my bet from Texas that Hillary takes Texas. Not by much, but by some. I think the shine is indeed coming off Obama, and in the end, this just really isn’t an Obamamania kind of place.
In fact, here’s my bet that Hillary runs the table tonight. Not again by a lot and not by impressive margins anywhere. but if it happens however it happens you just watch the narrative change overnight.
He really can’t put her on the ticket but she can take him. And if she sweeps tonight, her arguments that she’s big state and election credible whereas he’s a small-state caucus mirage are going to carry some weight.
I’ve never thought this country was going to elect a tent-revival snake-oil salesman as President. Obama’s far, far, far the more beatable candidate in a general election than she is, and just…
Way to go, Rush, and careful what you wish for, Allah.
I got a bad feeling about this.
Typhoon on March 4, 2008 at 8:36 AM
The vampiress always crawls out of the grave at least once before the movie ends.
The undead among the living makes a very compelling story.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Yeah, well, you think about this:
I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to have seen the entire tortured slow and steady attempt of constitutionalists to win back the Supreme Court. We’re one justice away.
So when you, in your purity of purpose, help in electing the President who nominates the ambulance-chaser Edwards to fill the vacancy Stephens creates the day a Democrat is inaugurated, well, you can spend the rest of your life remembering that we had one chance…and we blew it.
Typhoon on March 4, 2008 at 8:44 AM
“It will be a monumental mistake to have McCain as the President. It will take many years to recover. And the Republican Party will lose its soul, its principles, its base and the very essence on which it presented itself to the American people.”
This is monumentally stupid. “Let’s win by losing.” How’d that work out in 2006? How does that ever work?
“Conservatives” who “think” like this need to form their irrelevant, whackjob third party and stop being being the dragging anchor on the Republican Party. You can lose elections for the next 10 centuries with your irrelevant “conservative” third party and you can complain about the government you get for as long. You’ll be in hog heaven.
John McCain is a patriot and a good man. The alternative is two inexperienced, unqualified, corrupt and incompetent pacifists. Anyone who cannot discern the difference can head for the exits now, for all I care and don’t let the door hit you.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Most people seem to think that the Goldwater nomination was a disaster for Republicans. Some of us old guys, who were around then, think that his candidacy provided the seeds of the Reagan win sixteen years later. Reagan was the only person elected President who I voted for without holding my nose in my five decades of regular voting. Goldwater’s slogan was, “A Choice Not An Echo.”
burt on March 4, 2008 at 8:53 AM
You gotta believe that the Clintons and their cronies (the really influential ones) are pulling strings all over the place, ginning up negative coverage of the Rezko trial, pushing the MSM to even up their coverage and give Hillary an even break, and if push comes to shove, do whatever else it takes to make sure she gets her turn in the oval office.
They scare me. Obama scares me, but he could break the stranglehold the Clinton era has with the public and the MSM.
Sloan Morganstern on March 4, 2008 at 8:55 AM
If even Rush Limbaugh is calling for Republicans to vote for HERSELF! she has a good chance of pulling out wins in both Texas and Ohio. A humiliating defeat in November is just the thing Conservatives need to drive the wooden stake deeply into the Clinton casket.
As regards the Republican VP – The LAST thing to do would be to get Mitt Romney on the ticket. Granted, Romney has strong credentials and tons o’money but this time, the Republican Ticket needs someone like a J.C. Watts or a Sarah Palin for VP to counter inevitable ‘White Men Only Need Apply’ attacks from the Democrat Party. Mitt Romney should be in the Cabinet, say SECTREAS or SECSTATE.
SeniorD on March 4, 2008 at 9:04 AM
“Most people seem to think that the Goldwater nomination was a disaster for Republicans. Some of us old guys, who were around then, think that his candidacy provided the seeds of the Reagan win sixteen years later.”
I don’t think we have sixteen years, old guy. The Iranians might have nukes NEXT year, do we want to then wait 15 years for the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan? While we have a socialist pacifist in office?
Sandwiched between Goldwater and Reagan was Nixon. He wasn’t at all perfect, but at least he saved us from the likes of McGovern. There might not have been anything left to pick up if McGovern had become President.
This idea that losing this election is a good strategy is really, really stupid. I cannot emphasize this enough.
The Republican Party is a coalition and not the sole possession of one faction or another. I am as conservative as anyone, but I am a realist. John McCain isn’t my ideal candidate either, but he is worlds better than either the geriatric hippie or the junior jackass the Democrats are going to offer up. Anyone with sense should know the difference.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Nodonkey,
Granted, John McCain is the least favorable of the Republican candidates; but speaking of taking years to recover from a McCain Presidency, how long will it take to recover from a Hillary! or Obama Presidency?
‘We don’t have to like it, but we have to do it.’ – Richard Marcinko
SeniorD on March 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Nightmare scenario:
Hillary wins today, but it’s really, really close.
Dems leadership start twisting Obamas’ arm – he can be at the top of the ticket, but she’s the veep.
Somewhere after the convention Obama becomes non-viable as a candidate. (Rezko brings up serious dirt, the Canada flap grows legs, Obama gets his whole foot in his mouth…)
Hillary’s right there, ready to pick up the pieces, plus she’s had Obama acting as ablative meat for X months, drawing all the attacks.
Ungood.
Anyone think Juan McCain can spin on a dime?
Mew
acat on March 4, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I love quotes from Navy Seals.
And the answer is – with Ms. Inevitable or Borat O’Maddrass in the Oval Office, there might not be anything left to recover.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Please, point to me the difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton?
Let’s examine some issues:
1 – McCain will grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. His advisor is a Mexican who wants to annex parts of the U.S.A. to Mexico.
2 – McCain will work with his friends -the Democrats- in Congress to screw the Republican Party, and the country.
Revenge from all the attacks against him by his “fellow Republicans” will be the first thing on his mind. So expect to have the Democrats’ agenda implemented. He is a “working across the aisle” guy, have you forgotten?
3 – Consequently, those who think that he might or will appoint “Conservative” judges on the Supreme Court, you can forget about it.
Again, how can you expect someone who is working with Liberals in Congress against his own Party, and who is hiring a former Mexican government official as his advisor on immigration to trust him on appointing the kind of judges who might oppose Liberals on Amnesty and other host of liberal issues?
And do you think that the Liberals in Congress will let him do anything against their wish anyway, especially when they get their 60 votes in the Senate?
4 – McCain will close GITMO. He even opposes interrogations techniques to save American lives. Is this “being tough” on national security?
What is the different between Hillary and McCain?
Hillary is a Liberal. McCain is a Liberal in “Republican/Conservative” clothes.
At least Hillary is honest about it.
“Straight talk” my ass, Mr. McCain.
Well, that’s about it. You can apply the above to all other issues, not just Amnesty, Judges and National Security.
Indy Conservative on March 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Let these two Liberal fools go at it with gusto; neither of them stands a chance in the General. John McCain will be the next President, as American’s will not put Clinton back in the WH, and Obama is not ready for this position & the American people will see that clearly come November. Obama just might be the first black President, but that would be down the road some years if it happens at all.
Keemo on March 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Indy,
Doesn’t matter, we stand a much better chance of having a voice at the table under McCain than either of these two Liberals. Bush tried to give us Harriet Miers; our voice was heard loud & clear! We must secure the Supreme Court if we are to keep our country from sliding to the far left… This election is about winning the GWOT, and securing the SC. The Libs will have their day, but not now…
Keemo on March 4, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Thanks for the cut and paste pile of nonsensical nonsense here.
Oh please, he’s not going to give amnesty. No, we’re not going to have a 700 foot wall topped with machine gun nests and we’re not going to be lassoing illegals and herding them into ranches. Ronald Reagan Jr. ain’t gonna do that either, pard’ner.
“McCain will work with his friends -the Democrats- in Congress to screw the Republican Party, and the country.”
This means nothing. While I consider Democrats to be the enemy, at some point, the President has to deal with the duly elected representatives of the people. Unfortunately, some people elect Democrats. What can you do.
“Consequently, those who think that he might or will appoint “Conservative” judges on the Supreme Court, you can forget about it.”
And you know that, how? Who do you think Ms. Inevitable or Borat O’Maddrass is going to appoint, Robert Bork? Maybe they won’t be ideal judges, but they won’t be freak show nutcases from Lunatic Left U. Remember Lani Guinier who thought minorities should get more votes?
“McCain will close GITMO. He even opposes interrogations techniques to save American lives. Is this “being tough” on national security?”
GTMO is almost irrelevant at this point and the CIA rarely uses waterboarding anyway. These are not substantive issues. He’s also not going to swaddle terrorists in snowy white robes and hold parades for them, like the Democrats are going to do.
MORE IMPORTANTLY – John McCain is not going to surrender in Iraq and then once that’s done, surrender in Afghanistan like the Democrat traitor scum surely will do, once their lunatic left base demands it. Which they will do, once the election is won by their beloved Democrat.
Furthermore, Democrats will back a huge unionization effort and a trade isolation movement that will wreck the economy. They will export Michigan’s basketcase economy to all 50 states.
You are seriously delusional if you think that a Democrat President will provide anything at all positive for conservatives.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Bravo!
Red Pill on March 4, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Can’t you see? There is no way McCain can or will appoint Conservative judges on the Supreme Court.
Assuming that he picks a Conservative. His friends, the Liberals, will oppose it and he will go along with them after lying to us Conservatives saying that “he tried his best.”
Again, why people forget that McCain is a “work across the aisle against Republicans” type of guy?
Indy Conservative on March 4, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Your argument on the Court is one of the very few which keeps me from finding McCain not to be totally negative. However, this argument is itself very weak. McCain is noted for leading the opposition to reform of the Courts of Appeal.
The USSR got nukes about 1956, and they had ICBMs. You young pups may not have any incite into contemporary history but in 1964 people thought we didn’t have time to wait for Reagan either. The USSR was a greater threat in 1964 than Iran is in 2008.
burt on March 4, 2008 at 9:50 AM
“but in 1964 people thought we didn’t have time to wait for Reagan either.”
Sure, we lived through it then, let’s chance it again.
After all, LBJ didn’t do much everlasting damage to the country. Neither did Carter.
Disagree about the USSR. MAD doesn’t work with death cultists and the Soviets couldn’t detonate a nuke in NYC and then say “wasn’t us”.
Obama and Hillary are socialist/pacifists. Give this country over to either of these idiots and their George Soros/MoveOn.org left wing lunatics and we might not get another chance at another election.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 10:03 AM
What a tool. I thought these pseudo-Republican shrills had gone to ground.
Go retreat to your fundamentalist land of ideological purity or head over to the Kos.
Pax americana on March 4, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Latest RCP polls have Obama winning TX narrowly – he may get 97 delegates and Clinton 96 – but Clinton wins Ohio by a few points. My math says on the day, Clinton gets 188 delegates out of the deal and Obama 182.
However, with the media in the tank for Obama, the lead stories will be “Will Hillary bow out now that Barack wins Texas, the big prize of the day”, ignoring the fact that she gets more delegates on the day as a whole.
playblu on March 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM
As much as I dislike McCain, it is clear that the 2 Democrats would do serious harm to the economy, the markets and our foreign policy.
McCain must be tolerated for no other reason than the Congress is going to remain in Democrat control.
In that case, his fat ego may be a benefit if he feels he’s getting rolled by Reid and Pelosi.
Admittedly a pretty thin reed to hang our hopes on.
jjshaka on March 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Indy,
Put down the bong.
This from a previous post at Captain’s Quarters:
“The ascent of John McCain to the apparent Republican nomination has discouraged some conservatives, who have expressed a willingness to sit out 2008 and let a Democrat win the White House. They claim, hyperbolically, that no real policy differences exist between McCain and either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, and that having a Democrat take the blame for the coming debacle will make it easier to elect Republicans later.”
Anyone who makes and believes that statement is not a conservative. What they are instead are brain dead. To not see a measurable difference between Clinton/Obama and McCain speaks to their qualities as imbeciles. While John McCain was my fourth choice, with Rudy being first, McCain with all his warts-ugly as they are-is on a bad day a better candidate than the dems are putting forward. In fact as Obama etal keep talking it is not a stretch to imagine a majority of independents voting for McCain. Obama has forced Hillary to the extreme left where she did not want to campaign. If her original strategy had worked she would have been running as a centrist and the dems would have won the election 53/47ish. Now they have a good chance of losing. McCain should keep his head down and let them two get ugly with each other. After they choose there will be plenty of time to define his message vs the dem choice. He was never going to get the messiah vote. What he has to concentrate on are the independents…..
Captain, as to the VP choice, McCain had best be thinking of the independents. The Huckster definitely does not appeal to independents. Hell he doesn’t even appeal to rank and file repubs!
patrick neid on March 4, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Your binary logic is flawed. There are four candidates still in the race, not two.
I think you and I agree that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is not a good choice.
You and I clearly agree that John Sidney McCain III is not a good choice.
That leaves two candidates remaining, of which you think Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is the best choice for conservatives. I strongly disagree with you here, as I think it is clear that Michael Dale Huckabee is a far better choice.
1) The Supreme Court. We have 4 justices on the court with whom most conservatives agree: Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito. The other five justices are 68 years old or older. The probability of one or more of those five justices dying or retiring in the next 4 years is very high…especially if they can retire and be replaced by a Democrat president.
Clinton and Obama both voted against the confirmation of both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
Mike Huckabee has committed in writing that:
Mike Huckabee is the clear choice for conservatives.
2) Border Security. Clinton and Obama are now against the Secure Fence Act they both voted for.
Mike Huckabee has committed in writing to:
Mike Huckabee is the clear choice for conservatives.
3) Sanctity of Life. Clinton voted “NAY” on the bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.
In other words, Hillary believes it is perfectly OK to take a full-term baby and kill it when it is partially born.
Mike Huckabee has committed in writing:
Mike Huckabee is the clear choice for conservatives.
4) Taxes. Both Clinton and Obama would let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and replace them with their own redistribution of wealth plans, giving larger tax breaks and credits to the people who already pay the least taxes.
As Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million. He left a surplus of nearly $850 million, which he urged should go back to the people.
Mike Huckabee has committed in writing:
Mike Huckabee is the clear choice for conservatives.
Red Pill on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 AM
For anyone thinks that losing this election will be good for “conservatives”, they need to read this from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/03/uk_conservatives.php
Conservatives in the UK thought this as well and now the Thatcherites are completely marginalized.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Welcome back redpill. I was seriously concerned after your breakdown following the Potamac primaries – glad that you are still in the game.
Looking forward to tonite’s events. I have a feeling that Tax Hike Mike, the friend of violent criminals and one of the 10 most corrupt US politicians is going to struggle.
Pax americana on March 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Mike Huckabee – please. I’ll vote for any Republican against a Democrat, but it would be a long, cold slog to the voting booth to pull the lever for Huckabee. Worst candidate by far in the Republican field. Pretty much John Edwards as far as economics.
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM
It wasn’t a breakdown. You haven’t been paying attention.
On the day after Roger Waters said this:
On the day after Roger Waters said this:
On the same day that Michelle ran this:
On the same day that war was declared against Israel and I pointed out that the next President of the United States supports Israel…
I (not Roger Waters, but I) was silenced on HotAir.com.
I thank God that Ed Morrissey’s arrival at Hot Air gave me a chance to get my voice back.
Let’s hope sharia doesn’t return to Hot Air. If it does, however, and my Godly worldview of current events is silenced again, I will start blogging on my own blog.
But keep in mind that silencing me would only prove me right. Again.
I leave you with a quote from a rational Hot Air reader, (not one of the plethora of nasty ones who can’t seem to debate without getting vile):
Red Pill on March 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
“If it does, however, and my Godly worldview of current events is silenced again, I will start blogging on my own blog.”
Did God approve of this message?
NoDonkey on March 4, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Yes.
Godly worldview = Biblical worldview
Red Pill on March 15, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Comment pages: