CNN 2012 poll: Huckabee 34, Palin 32 among Republicans and independents
posted at 4:20 pm on December 5, 2008 by Allahpundit
Tough choice. Do we go with the blue-collar populist social con who’s soft on immigration? Or do we go with Huckabee?
Relax. It’s within the margin of error.
“It might come as a surprise to some that Palin does better than Huckabee among GOP men but that Huckabee beats Palin among Republican women,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Palin’s strength is also concentrated among older Republicans, but Huckabee may have a slight edge among conservative Republicans.”
Among voters who consider themselves born again or evangelical, Huckabee draws more support than Palin, with a 9 point edge. Meanwhile, Palin holds a 7-point advantage among non-born again or evangelical voters.
Mitt pulls 28, Gingrich 27, Giuliani(!) 23, and Jindal 19. The good news? If this is the race we end up with, come 2011 there’ll be a new Kathleen Parker “oogedy boogedy” column every week. Exit question: To the extent there’s anything newsworthy about this moronic poll, which, like all the rest thus far, shows Palin atop the field, what’s more significant? The fact that Huck seems to have a base of fanatic supporters as large as hers? (The 34/32 number comes from voters who say they’re “very likely” to support their candidate. If you include “somewhat likelies,” Palin leads by two.) Or the fact that the ‘Cuda leads significantly head to head among non-religious voters? Given her strict views on abortion and the media’s demagoguery of her beliefs, I’m reading that data less as a reflection on her than as a perception that Huckabee’s a hardline theocon.
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 3 4 5 Next »
To repeat myself on this thread: the three-legged stool of national security, fiscal responsibility and upholding America’s traditional values as expressed in the founding documents and the spirit of American exceptionalism must be re-established with none being superior to another; the same weight must be given to all three. Then add libertarianism and create a fourth leg of the stool and you provide an umbrella that ten of millions I believe could rally under. And to bring all four together i believe Sarah is the best candidate to do that.
technopeasant on December 5, 2008 at 5:11 PM
If thats the case, put me down for all of them except for Ron Paul. I’m for getting the Democrat Machine out of the whitehouse, thats the first step.
that said we should choose from the most electable, which is the hard part.
Mitt is not electable, Rudy probably isn’t, Huck maybe.
the Way the GOP base is, you need the most authentic candidate you can find(Sarah Palin).
Huck…governed as a liberal with a Dem. legislature in Arkansas
Rudy…is a liberal, especially on social issues although great on WoT and some Economic stuff.
Mitt….not electable, couldn’t win a single primary and only caucuses. Comes off as fake, has a liberal record.
jp on December 5, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I’m sure he doesn’t hate her, but he sure doesn’t give her any respect… otherwise why would he keep misrepresenting her as a “family values” “social con?”
He keeps fixating on her personal convictions, which I’ve seen no evidence she foists onto those she governs, and labels her a “social con.” Huck is a social con. Palin is no more a social con than Reagan was. A real social con places a very high priority on legislating social conservative issues (gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc).
Palin is a government reformer, first. She just happens to also hold a lot of personal views with which social cons are comfortable.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:12 PM
PDS is certainly alive and well. Check out all the stories from the last few days, and the Baba WaWa special from last night. I don’t think that will ever change frankly.
meltenn on December 5, 2008 at 5:13 PM
excpet most of today’s ‘libertarians’ are the left-wing variety that hate republicans and are to the far-left on national security.
see their idol, Murray Rothbard, August 1983:
Ronald Reagan, warmonger
in today’s environment, with new media outlets, internet, etc….Reagan would be hated
jp on December 5, 2008 at 5:13 PM
More than the lefties, you are to blame, along with the ‘independents’/conservatives/Republicans who did the same, or voted for the O, Barr, their spitting llama, or their turkeys, for all that will befall this country and its kids. May he blow your wallets into a million pieces. The rest of us will all pay.
Entelechy on December 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM
One word. ACORN. Running away from his leftist positions was secondary to the effect ACORN had on the election.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Hogwash!!! Just CNN starting early to go after Palin. Never believe what CNN or any of it’s enterprises says.
jeanie on December 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM
I can live with any of those, but please, no more Palin! (And, as for Huckabee, there’s no way in Hell–baptist or otherwise–that I’d vote for that despicable little man.)
Tzetzes on December 5, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Well Stated! That is why I am attracted to her as a candidate.
ihasurnominashun on December 5, 2008 at 5:17 PM
I’m a Palinista and not a Huckabonehead, but Huck did pull a couple thousand at one rally in Georgia…at least some of which were chanting “Huck-A-Bee!”. However, it looks like it was also a Fair Tax rally, and that is Fair Tax country since it’s Boortz’s home turf.
Jim62sch on December 5, 2008 at 5:20 PM
there are two libertarianisms: von mises (rothbard, lew rockwell, etc..) and cato. they are not left and right. they are better identified as anarchist and republican (small “r”).
neither are leftwing. foreign policy isolationism, strategic non-interventionism, is not leftwing just because it is antiwar. in fact, the left is not antiwar. they are anti-any-war-america-enters-into-under-a-republican.
you’d be shocked to discover that the von mises wing of libertarianism is stridently pro-border-enforcement.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:21 PM
There aren’t enough Libertarians to worry about anyway.
But I hardly think they would “hate” Reagan f he ran on the Reagan campaign policy. And remember Reagan pulled out of, and decided to stay out of, Lebanon, remember? If anything, the Libertarians would be telling him, “told you so.”
Bush was elected on a non-interventionist foreign policy. He specifically condemned Clintons nation-building. Also promised lower taxes, small government, all those sweet conservative nothings. A lot like Reagan.
angelat0763 on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM
The compatible part of libertarianism is already in the morality and economy “legs”. What isn’t compatible are the pot smoking liberal and isolationist parts that jp mentioned.
Again?
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Wait until she is running her own campaign and is not muzzled by McCain idiot staffers. She wanted to answer media criticism directly, but she wasn’t allowed until she went “rogue.”
The constant Olbie sniping will eventually backfire on them. It’s happened before.
I read this in Kaylene Johnson’s bio of Palin:
And this part of the Johnson book also intrigued me:
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 5:24 PM
…which is a connundrum for the simplistic mindset by which ignorant hannitybots want to excommunicate anyone who disagrees with them and relegate them to the left. what if you have two competing litmus tests? how can you have an anti-intellectual purge when someone’s pro-gay but anti-mexican or vice versa?
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM
One of the reasons I didn’t vote for him the first time around. That, and I was being dumb about abortion.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM
There isn’t, since it’s as you said … moronic.
What person in their right mind pays an ounce of attention to a poll four years out?
fogw on December 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM
First of all, don’t get too upset. I live in a deep blue state and pretty much all of the local and statewide officials I knew anything about were either losers or had already achieved “for life” status. My vote wouldn’t have mattered much at all, either way I had decided to cast it.
Second, this is particularly funny to hear after all of the post-Fred!, pre-Palin crowing from true conservatives about staying home in November.
Third, you’re not going to change the minds of moderate Republicans with threats or insults, although you might succeed in shrinking your electoral coalition a little bit more. We happen to agree with Republicans a little bit more than we do Democrats, but if the Republicans insist on being insane, we’ll be happy to find a new political home. I do not have an ideology. I have positions on issues, and will vote for whatever candidates get closest to them. In the past, most of those candidates have been Republicans. I’m not so sure about that anymore.
Big S on December 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM
If you insist that Libertarians are isolationists, then you’re making a fallacious argument. Libertarians believe in free trade and a strong military used for defense of America.
They do not embrace the “American Exception” philosophy though – I’ll give you that.
angelat0763 on December 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM
I don’t have time to read the thread, so someone may have already pointed this out…
The media is maneuvering to set up “their” candidate – who, as well all know from recent history, cannot win. John McCain was the media’s darling – the left’s choice for the Republican candidate. McCain did not appeal to conservatives, and as a Dem-lite, was sure to lose.
I saw up close and personal how the media took out Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson, by ignoring them completely when they weren’t ridiculing and belittling them.
It’s a good rule of thumb to support what the media loathes, and the opposite is true as well: discard what the media praises. If the media HATES Palin (and they surely do with foam and spittle), there’s a really good reason to support her.
At this point, if CNN puts Huckabee at the top, they are showing their hand. Whatever CNN wants for Republicans is damn sure to be bad for Republicans.
Redhead Infidel on December 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM
would any of you support jindal if he were a practicing hindu?
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:28 PM
We will, but probably not as much as the rest of the world.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Hopefully Rudy runs again. Palin and Huckabee will split the social cons, which gives him an outside shot of winning a plurality. (kinda like McCain did).
He’d be a great president. He’s been tested by crisis, he’s smart and articulate, he’s got a record of turning things around (which will resonate if the economy still blows in 4 years), and he can relate to the Joe/Janet Plumber types.
He’s pro-choice, fine. That shouldn’t disqualify him. It just means social cons have to wait another 4 years for someone to pretend they’re going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
RightOFLeft on December 5, 2008 at 5:29 PM
I meant to use media and Left interchangeably above. Same difference.
Whatever or whoever the Left supports, we should shun. Simple rule of thumb that will save us the grief of another McLame candidacy.
Redhead Infidel on December 5, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Atheist. The flavor of your religion is irrelevant to me, so long as you have the right principles of governance.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:31 PM
cool.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:32 PM
I don’t know enough about Hinduism to know if it would preclude him from carrying out his responsibilities as POTUS fully… but assuming he continues to demonstrate that he is a reform-minded, fiscal conservative who believes that the U.S.’s national interests dictate that it not be isolationist (including maintaining military alliances and providing foreign aid to nations that strategically benefit us), then yes, I’d vote for him.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:32 PM
It shouldn’t, but apparently it does. Pretending to overturn Roe v. Wade is a central part of true conservatism.
Big S on December 5, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Who knows? I might be more inclined to support him if it meant that he was a little more moderate on social issues. The Intelligent Design thing makes me more than a little hesitant to support him right now.
Big S on December 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Palin would have been a good running mate for Rudy had he won the primary.
He might get by if he endorses federalism and states rights on social issues. Or maybe the excesses of the next four years will find him fundamentally on the same side of the issues as the rest of the Republican party.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM
cool. quick follow up: what features do you think could be present in a non-christian faith which would conflict with qualification for the presidency?
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Roe v. Wade is doomed by the advance of technology. It’s just a matter of time before it collapses under the viability issue.
But in terms of voting for a pro-choice president, I would do so if he/she made it clear that they were not making it their mission in life to promote abortion on demand (unlike Obama) or only seat SCOTUS justices who were pro-abortion. I’d settle for a state’s rights approach from an otherwise strong candidate.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:37 PM
cool.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Irrelevant. Jindal’s a Catholic, but even if he were a Hindu or a Muslim it would be irrelevant. Even if he were no religion except some vague liberation theology leftist clap trap it would be relevant — because we elected Obama and that appears to define his religious background.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 5:38 PM
you’d “settle” for a candidate holding the only authenticly conservative stance?
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Actually, I don’t see it as a Christian or non-Christian thing, but if someone were an avowed pacifist or were not willing to use military force against a country based on its religion (ie: it seems like most Muslims don’t want to ever attack other Muslims, at least that seems to be the stated position), that would keep me from voting for him/her.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:39 PM
As far as Hinduism goes, I worry a bit about the Gandhi type passifism–but, then, Catholicism has some of the same issues, officially, and that doesn’t seem to be a problem.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM
so you would support him then if he were a hindu or muslem?
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Yes. And fyi I was raised in the Baptist church. I don’t care what religion or faith someone practices or if they practice or believe in one at all. Personal faith is personal.
meltenn on December 5, 2008 at 5:41 PM
okay.
as an aside, dave galerntner, i think, wrote a pretty good book on the selectiveness of gahndi’s supposed pascifism.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM
You don’t have to support the criminalization of abortion to realize that Roe v. Wade is grotesquely unconstitutional.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM
very cool!
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I’m against abortion and I am comfortable with an anti-abortion position being part of the Republican platform, but I would have definitely voted for Rudy over Huckabee.
There are other conservative posters on Hot Air who are pro-choice (although none that I’ve seen who are for abortion on demand) but nevertheless identify themselves as Republicans. If you’re looking to get a flame war started between the hard-line social cons and the others, you may have a little bit of trouble here.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM
+1
meltenn on December 5, 2008 at 5:43 PM
I may have read it.
Ever see a cartoon called “Clone High”?
The clone of Gandhi had ADHD. After reading more about Gandhi, I suspect that it wasn’t accidental.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM
okay. i think muslems are evidently eager to go to war against one another quite frequently. but, cool.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM
As one (on of?) the resident biochemical scientists in these comments sections, I assure you that any technologies that would collapse Roe v. Wade are very, very far away. It’s far more likely that the decision is rendered practically obsolete by better and more widely-available pharmaceutical birth control methods. Unfortunately, they are being opposed by those who pretend to think that a fertilized egg should have all of the same rights as you and I.
Big S on December 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM
nope. just noting the emphasis.
eh on December 5, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Why should you have a problem with a politician’s private beliefs? I’m intrigued by supposed tolerant swing voters who fear “social conservatives” but don’t seem to have a problem demanding their own litmus tests for what a politician thinks. The most socially conservative president we’ve ever had is arguable George W. Bush. What scary theocrat things has he done to you? Has he mandated prayer in school? Abstinence education isn’t forced on schools – they can opt out of it. The creationism thing was a state’s issue. What’s your big beef with these “scary” social cons? Have they forced you to read the bible? Have they turned America into the dystopian world of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”?
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Michael Williams (R-TX) for Senate This guy is our Barack Obama only 1 thousand times better!!!!!
http://wordpress.redstate.com/
Mercy4Me on December 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Let’s see this for what it is: The MSM wants to paint Palin as a loser because they are afraid of her prowess and her winnable candidacy.
Huck is another McLame. I can’t suffer through another nicety between rivals.
I want the Barracuda unleashed!
Also, Jindal might make a mark in 2012. Don’t underestimate the guy.
It will be either Palin/Jindal or Jindal/Palin in 2012.
The combination spells D-E-F-E-A-T for the liberals.
jencab on December 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM
I’m not so sure about that. It seems to me that we already have viability pre-implantation (via IVF) and that preemies are surviving after shorter and shorter gestations.
I fall into that category. Wrap your mind around that.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM
http://williamsfortexas.com/
Forget Huckster! I say Willaims/Palin ’12
Mercy4Me on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM
PS. My Ph.D. is in Developmental Biology from the University of Chicago.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Definitely a sticking point. As something like 2/3 or 3/4 of fertilized embryos don’t make it to the second trimester naturally, I hesitate to make a judgment, and when the judgment is unclear, we should default to local control. I say, let the individual municipalities decide on what practices they will not allow in their own boarders, and go up from there.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM
You go, girl! ;)
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM
It’s going to be difficult to get a large majority to believe that any law or decision dealing with abortion or reproductive medicine – which is not mentioned in the Consitution – is unconstitutional. The Constitution makes room for the rights of the states as well as the rights of the individual, and in Roe the Court sided with the individual. For Roe opponents, the opinions of the majority matter more than the opinions of individuals, and for Roe supporters, it’s the other way around. I don’t see the decision as being unconstitutional in its primary goals, although the incrementalist in me thinks that the judges probably should have waited to deal with all of the details in other cases.
Big S on December 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Watch The video on redstate.com
9 stories down from top. Michael Williams (R-TX) for Senate
Mercy4Me on December 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM
guys this is a cnn poll. They havent exactly been fair when reporting anything on sarah. Nonetheless though she still tops this poll like all the others. Its just a fact that she is a republican star and will be the future GOP leader and possibly next republican president.
ousoonerfan15 on December 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Huck rhymes with suck.
jay12 on December 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Just say no to Sarah Quaylin!
Noneya on December 5, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Thx!
It gets under my skin that a degree in science is supposed to somehow dictate how someone comes down on an issue like abortion.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Good for you. It won’t help you make a case for ensoulment at fertilization, or whatnot, though. Those are religious arguments.
Also, you’re twisting the “viability” argument, which has little to nothing to do with IVF.
Big S on December 5, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Yeah right! Ramming their religion down people’s throats and sticking their noses in people’s bedrooms is all the current GOP cares about these days. If they are stupid enough to nominate Sarah Quaylin they will get the thrashing they deserve.
Noneya on December 5, 2008 at 6:01 PM
You know, considering that Dan Quayle now runs a very successful multi-billion dollar private equity firm, I’m not so sure comparing anyone’s brain power to his is a very effective way to measure a person’s supposed stupidity.
I wish I were as stupid (and rich) as Quayle.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 6:02 PM
?
If it was a federal law, as apposed to a ruling, it would be unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress wasn’t given the power to prevent the states from banning medical procedures. But, as a ruling, it is even worse, as it is the courts making up a right that the states can’t violate.
If it was a state law, it would still be preventing municipalities from banning the procedure, and that might also be unconstitutional, but I am less sure of that.
Congress might have the power to ban the practice on the grounds that it violates the right to life. The States certainly can, and I think that municipalities should be able to as well.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM
One word: projection.
Consider that what you said might more aptly apply to you than to me.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Nah, OSame (aka Clinton III) might be easy pickin’s 4 years from now. Anyway, if you really thought that, you wouldn’t bother to say so.
ddrintn on December 5, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Sarah proved her ability on Tuesday to fire up Georgians and triple Chambliss’ margin from 5 points as projected to a 15 point landslide win. Ed Morrisey and Duane Pattersson on their weekly get-together tried to speculate why Saxby’s margin grew so rapidly. I think so as to not to appear to be gushing schoolboys they talked about turnout, weather, Obama’s lack of presence on the stump, buyer’s remorse, a better GOP ground game and barely mentioned Sarah’s presence on the last day before the vote. But here again is the bottom line RCP had it at 5.3% on November 30 and Insider Advantage had it at a 4 point spread on December 1. On December 1 Sarah spent the whole day campaigning in various cities in Georgia drawing record audiences for the run-off. Chambliss himself called her dynamic. Sure Sarah may not account for the 10 point difference but I think you would all agree based on the polls she made at least at 5-7 difference in the results; for anybody from the outside to have that impact in a 24 hour period on a race is rare indeed and may be unprecedented. Sarah is a powerhouse, a human dynamo that will not be stopped, in my opinion, unless she wants to stop herself. She is a once in a generation candidate and I’m glad she’s on the GOP side.
technopeasant on December 5, 2008 at 6:07 PM
We would have a better chance sending out McCain again than if we nominate Huckabee.
lavell12 on December 5, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Just say “Obama voter” and shrug it off. Their level of perception is pretty well known.
ddrintn on December 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Hmmm, I would be interested to see any evidence that Palin has ever done that – as a matter of fact, I was under the impression that she did the opposite, by vetoing a bill that would have limited gay rights in Alaska and declining to promote an anti-abortion legislative agenda.
But the trolls like Noneya never give any evidence.
Jim62sch on December 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM
My reference to IVF was simply that the zygotes they produce are viable outside the womb.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM
The only person seriously thinking about 2012 is Mr. Obama. We need to let the cream rise to the top.
Cindy Munford on December 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Sarah hunts Quail too? Awesome!
Brian1972 on December 5, 2008 at 6:09 PM
No more polls please… Low profile is key.
An Era of Hate on December 5, 2008 at 6:09 PM
When has any social conservative “forced their religion” down your throat? And when has any social conservative stuck their noses in your bedroom? Has anyone forced you to attend church on Sunday? Forced your kid to pray in school? Prevented you from viewing junk on tv? Stopped porn on the internet? Silenced your free speech? Taken away your condoms?
Your rhetoric is mindless hyperbole. You’re more intolerant than any social conervative.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Evidence and liberal is oil and water. What’s important is destruction. Any “evidence” will do.
ddrintn on December 5, 2008 at 6:10 PM
The viability requirement was kind of an artificial threshold, anyway. They had to draw the line somewhere, they weren’t quite sure where to draw it – voila: 2nd trimester. If we ever have the technology to grow humans outside the womb, it just means the threshold will have to be determined along a different criterion.
Not that it’s ever likely to happen. I don’t think society will ever accept the kind of experimenting you would have to do to actually develop the technology to grow fertilized eggs outside the womb; and if they do, they’re not likely to use the technology to justify banning abortion.
RightOFLeft on December 5, 2008 at 6:11 PM
You brought up your science degree as somehow relevant, then made a disparaging remark about people pretending to believe that human life (and rights) begin at conception. I only brought up my degree, which appears to be in a field at least as relevant as your biochemistry degree, to help remind you that intelligent, educated people fall on both sides of this issue.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 6:11 PM
+1
Brian1972 on December 5, 2008 at 6:11 PM
It’s a nice template for them to use, but Dan Quayle just didn’t have Palin’s crowds or ratings. Won’t fly, in the long run. They should worry more about Barackarter. Er Baracklinton.
ddrintn on December 5, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Sarah is the complete opposite. Again she believes that people should be allowed to live their lives as individuals and not constrained by government with the government not interferring with what goes on in people’s bedrooms. That is one of the main reasons I like her, although I appreciate very much that she has a strong moral compass. In the future Sarah must communicate that aspect of her philosophy that was overlooked to a great degree during the campaign. I think she will.
technopeasant on December 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM
How about animal experimentation?
One of the reasons I don’t have a lot of sympathy for complaints about bans on human embryonic stem cell research is that they could perfect methods and find cures on animals first as a proof of concept.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Are you over on Ace with the same handle? I agree that Palin has not legislated her personal faith. I think part of that is pragmatism and priorities. She wants her development stuff passed, and she knows that Alaskans, while conservative, are pretty live and let live (or they seem to be anyway).
meltenn on December 5, 2008 at 6:15 PM
I would rather abortion go away by the vast majority of people believing that an unborn child is life so termination is wrong and I think that is happening. But the HUGE stumbling block for me is that minor girls can have this and only this medical procedure done without parental notification. It’s not logical.
Cindy Munford on December 5, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Time to get over immigration as an issue for 2012. Whatever legislative and executive direction immigration will take is going to be decided in the next few months by the Dems and Shamnesty crowd. There will be no going back on shamnesty citizens.
The likely problems for 2012 are going to be fixing the mess the Democrats have made of things — tax reform, energy development, corruption, Entitlement insolvency, wars/terrorists/nutzoids on a couple international fronts, and more stuff like that. And doing all of this against the tide of those who have been assimilated and amnestied into the Obama welfare state.
droofus on December 5, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Right on!
My personal favorite line of argument comes from Ramesh Ponuru’s book “Culture of Death”. If you are unwilling to decide when life begins, then tell me when it’s okay to kill life and explain your criteria for coming to this conclusion? Or, as Rick Warren, very ably worded the question, “At what point does a human being gain human rights?”
This isn’t a religious issue. It’s a question of human rights. When do they begin.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Huckabee has turned out to be a whiner and both he and Obama are on board with McCain’s Shamnesty Bill.
Sarah Palin for President of the United States and Bobby Jindal for Vice President in 2008!
sinsing on December 5, 2008 at 6:18 PM
I agree. I happen to be Catholic, but I know that I would still be opposed to abortion even if I were an atheist.
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Quite.
Count to 10 on December 5, 2008 at 6:23 PM
I’m Catholic too and ditto about being opposed to it even if I were an atheist. In fact one of my best friends is a former atheist who converted to Catholicism three years ago. Long before she converted she was opposed to abortion for principled philosophic reasons.
ramrocks on December 5, 2008 at 6:23 PM
To find its way back to the Promised land the GOP must first find a strong, charismatic, modern, high-tech savvy, media-conscious RNC chairman who will dedicate himself or herelf to the taking back Congress in 2010 and Congress and the WH in 2012. One of the first priorities should be to develop ways and means to neutralize the power of the MSM from diminishing its candidates and driving a wedge between them. Again the 3 legged stool must be re-established but we must have a candidate leading the party who speaks to fiscal conservatism and advocates free enterprise without apology. McCain simply was not up to the task when it came to the economy. And finally we must start building the ground game now and not wait until the nominee is selected. We must not give Obama the head start in 2012 that he had in 2008.
technopeasant on December 5, 2008 at 6:24 PM
No it isn’t a religious issue, as atheist pro-life lefty Nat Hentoff would attest. The “opposing abortion = shoving your religion down my throat” argument is crap.
ddrintn on December 5, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I’m no expert, but I think the embryonic environment for each species is sufficiently unique that you couldn’t perfect the technique with only animal experimentation. Sort of like how drugs have to go through human trials before the FDA approves them (I’m pretty sure). Same goes for stem-cell research. There’s a leap between proof-of-concept and implementation that requires human tissue.
RightOFLeft on December 5, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I guess my question is — threshold for what? It seems to me the threshold the justices were defining using viability was when individual rights begin for the other person. I assume that the argument is that before viability, the fetus is not an individual, but after, the fetus has rights.
So I don’t really know what other criterion would be applied… unless they decide to assign rights to the fetus at the point that the central nervous system is established or brain waves can be measured or voluntary motions can be tracked.
Personally, I think Roe v. Wade is a badly flawed decision. I wish I had gone to law school…
Y-not on December 5, 2008 at 6:26 PM
He also dropped out of the race before Iowa in 2000 because he garnered very little support from the people there, who are smart enough to spot a sure loser early on. Sarah Quaylin will get laughed outta that state and with good reason.
Noneya on December 5, 2008 at 6:26 PM
We’ll see in 2012. I’d say though that our love for Sarah Palin pales in comparison to your hatred. Choke on it.
ddrintn on December 5, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »