Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:25 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:14 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 2158
Likes: 4
Liked: 32
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... rs_in_2012

For Rasmussen this is encouraging (firstly, the fact that he included Mike)

As for 2012 choices, Romney is at 25, Palin at 24 and Huckabee at 22 -- which is basically a three-way tie.

Importantly, Huckabee has the best favorable/unfavorable ratio at 78-19.

And 21% DON't want Palin to get the nomination (she is tied with Haley Barbour) for that; Romney and Huckabee do the best at 9% and 10%, respectively.

Bottom line -- even in the republican party, too many people don't want Palin.

If they both run, it will be a race between Huckabee and Romney.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:20 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 2158
Likes: 4
Liked: 32
Minor correction -- Huckabee's unfavorables are only 17% (n0t 19%) and the margin or error is +/-4% -- so they are well within it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:34 pm 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 1175
Likes: 0
Liked: 3
When was this poll taken/before or after Governor Palin's announcement? Will people have a different view of her (for better or worse) a week from now?

_________________
______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:45 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
This is great news considering that Romney and Palin are always mentioned as 2012 contenders (with Romney being the front funner :roll: ) and Huckabee's name is always left out.

Rassmussen is a reliable poll and as much as I would like to see Huck at the top I realize the dangers of being an early percieved front runner. I just keep thinking back to Hillary and Rudy.

Seriously, though, do we know what the ramifications for the Republican party will be if someone like Romney is the nominee. We thought McCain was bad when it came to stabbing conservatives in the back. At least McCain didn't lie about his record. We have Christian leaders and conservative talking heads all over the country flat out lying to the voters for Romney. I wonder how many of these people who voted for him in this poll realize if we nominate him it would be the first Republican nominee for president who helped institute gay marraige in his state, signed into law $50 taxpayer funded abortions, and instituted a form of nationalized health care.

Somebody tell me the stark difference between him and Obama besides personality and Obama has got Romney beat by a mile on that.

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:19 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 2158
Likes: 4
Liked: 32
It was a one-day poll (which in itself sort of makes it less reliable), yesterday, 7/6. Rasmussen provides certain crosstabs to its paid members (I'm not one of them but someone was posting them on race42012). '

Clearly, he is strong among evangelics (which works to his advantage) but look at the other crosstabs. In the younger crowd, he performs very well; he and Romney practically reverse positions in the older vs. younger crowd. And they are tied in the “married” group. In the “never go to church” group Romney does better and, to the extent Palin doesn’t run (or has little impact), those voters will most likely go to Romney (but we don’t know what numbers those percentages represent). And in the “frequently go to church” Huckabee grabs the lead, so we need to likewise give Sarah’s (as well as Newt’s) numbers more to Huckabee than Romney.


There is nothing in these crosstabs that speaks to region or type — it is a head-to-head between Mitt and Mike (because I do not think Sarah or Newt will be a factor).

Among those 750 likely Republican voters between the ages of 18-29

Palin 34%
Huckabee 31%
Romney 18%
Newt 3%
Pawlenty 3%
Barbour 0%

Among those 750 likely Republican voters 65 and older

Romney 34%
Huckabee 19%
Palin 18%
Newt 16%
Pawlenty 2%
Barbour 0%

Evangelical Christians

Huckabee 35%
Palin 21%
Romney 17%
Newt 15%
Pawlenty 2%
Barbour 1%

Married

Romney 26%
Huckabee 25%
Palin 21%
Newt 14%
Pawlenty 1%
Barbour 1%

Not Married

Palin 33%
Romney 23%
Huckabee 14%
Newt 13%
Barbour 2%
Pawlenty 1%

Tommy Boy Says:
July 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Rarely or Never attend church

Palin 31%
Romney 28%
Huckabee 14%
Newt 13%
Barbour 2%
Pawlenty 0%

More than once a week

Huckabee 41%
Palin 20%
Gingrich 13%
Romney 11%
Barbour 2%
Pawlenty 1%


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:28 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:37 am
Posts: 1623
Likes: 0
Liked: 31
Why are Palin and Huckabee so far apart among:
Not Married & Never go to Church


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:47 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 2158
Likes: 4
Liked: 32
Steves, of course this is a one-day poll and you can never tell with crosstabs. But this sort of supports what I have thought all along. Given a choice between Huckabee and Palin, most religious people may like Palin, but will vote for Huckabee. They came out to support her in the general election, but given the choice, they will go to Huckabee. Palin's strong support comes from women (and I suspect divorced women if you look at the "not married" demo) and those who might have otherwise voted for a Ron Paul or Mark Sanford type (more liberatarian).

Palin's supporters will go to Romney in certain cases and to Huckabee in others.

I don't think she is an issue -- the real issue -- and Huckabee's real challenge --is Romney.

But Huckabee has great favorabilities, which count for a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:54 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
I think we all knew Huckabee did well among the younger crowd. Surprised that his numbers were not higher with the 65 and older crowd. That may mean that some of McCain's older supporters are going to Romney. But Mike can fix that with his show as I assume a lot of older people watch his show on Sat/Sun nights. Maybe he can address a few issues that pertain to them so he can clarify his message to them.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:00 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 am
Posts: 3019
Likes: 0
Liked: 190
A friend of mine (one who voted for Romney in the primaries and had since come over to Huck) called and told me he saw Huck give an interview on FOX and that he had all but said he will not run in 2012! This is the same interview my sister saw and she came away with the same opinion!! Ths is not good, not even good that Huck is giving off this opinion (even if it isn't true.) If folks believe he is not running his supporters will start looking elsewhere...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:19 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:23 pm
Posts: 2158
Likes: 4
Liked: 32
No need to worry about where support will go. No one is looking right now for a candidate. I think he is simply being honest, and racheting down the volume -- strategically, it is smart. It is way too early to be talking 2012. And everyone is assuming he is running -- so he is trying to keep the suspense alive -- plus, he really doesn't know and he is being honest.

Once the campaigning begins for real, people will begin to focus in -- until then, they are not going anywhere at all.

And in the new Rasmussen poll, it is a three-way tie within the MOE, so doesn't look like anyone has lost faith in him.

I just heard a radio YouTube from Brian and the Judge with Governor Huckabee. They both really, truly love him. He will grow on people -- they will not grow away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:53 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:52 pm
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
Liked: 5
voter wrote:
No need to worry about where support will go. No one is looking right now for a candidate. I think he is simply being honest, and racheting down the volume -- strategically, it is smart. It is way too early to be talking 2012. And everyone is assuming he is running -- so he is trying to keep the suspense alive -- plus, he really doesn't know and he is being honest.


This is very true. The cycle has not started yet and you don't want to "peak" too early, especially before the campaign begins. Let the pundits speculate and entertain until the anouncement is made.

Personally, I'm hoping that our man will make the anouncement to run. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:25 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Quote:
I just heard a radio YouTube from Brian and the Judge with Governor Huckabee. They both really, truly love him. He will grow on people -- they will not grow away.


Very True.

Huckabee wears far better than his current rivals. Romney, Palin and Gingrich all have a certain "prickliness" at times that can be quite off-putting. While Governor, Huckabee was often described in the same way by the Little Rock press. If it was ever true (and I never really saw it in ten years) he seems to have altered that particular media "meme."

I also agree that Mike is NOT helped by being thought the "last man standing" for 2012 at this point. While the implosions or disappointing débuts of Jindal, Cantor, Daniels, Huntsman, Sanford or Palin, all improve the odds of a successful 2012 nominating run for Huckabee, they do not effect (except perhaps negatively) Mike's chances to become President in 2012 against Obama.

We are at least a year away from the failsafe moment of whether Obama is vulnerable, and whether Mike can get the nomination.

Right now he is doing everything right:

1.) Maintain a public profile (without looking like a egotist)

2.) Maintain your core supporters

3.) Build a network of political allies and contributors by supporting down ticket candidates and fundraising.

4.) Use the less constrained time-frame to broaden your appeal within the party of constituencies suspicious of your previous candidacy (one rubber-chicken meal at a time).

5.) Deepen your knowledge of both key issues and the world as a whole.

6.) Strengthen your own personal understanding and public association with a clear, consistent, political ideology/philosophy.

7.) Improve personal connections with the press corps.


The above list is what Reagan did and Mike is doing. I personally hope 2012 is the year, but some things really are above our pay grade :wink: .

Huck is right on track with the choices under his control.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:55 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
Someone was reading this thread and left his comment on my blog in response to what I contributed because he said he could not comment on Huck's Army. I told him that I would post his comment here for him. I have already responded to him on my blog.

Quote:
http://forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?p=167690#p167690

I’d like to comment concerning your post at Huck’s Army linked to above. I’m commenting here because I can’t at HA.

I take issue when you call me, along with others flat out liars concerning Romney’s record. I have studied his record for 3 years now. I examined ALL of the stones you have thrown at him in accusations to gay marriage, $50 abortions, and “nationalized health-care”. I am not calling you a liar because you clearly believe all you are saying. But I will openly declare that people will believe what they WANT to believe. I’m sure I’m also guilty of this in some degree or another.

I will offer only one counter-point to your claims. We will then see if you will recognize truth or if you will continue spouting false claims that Romney is responsible for millions of tax funded abortions.

FACT: The Massachusetts Health Plan Benefits Package Was Developed By The Connector Authority – An Independent Body Separate From The Governor’s Office. Unfortunately, Under State Law And Court Precedent, If The State Is Funding Health Care Benefits It Cannot Refuse To Provide Abortion Coverage:

The Commonwealth Care Package Is Designed And Administered By The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. “The Connector administers two separate programs; Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care offers subsidized insurance to people whose annual incomes are up to 300% or the Federal Poverty Level.” (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

The Commonwealth Heath Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney Administration. “The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is an independent public authority created to implement significant portions of the new landmark health care reform legislation. The Connector assists qualified Massachusetts adult residents with the purchase of affordable health care coverage if they don’t already have it.” (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On “The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right” Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.” (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)

Did Romney’s healthcare plan legislate $50 abortions. No. It was already a part Massachusetts law (by Court precendent) long before Romney came to the scene. I will be watching to see if you possibly have a rebuttal, or if you will change your rhetoric. Who knows, you might actually do the honorable thing and actually make reparations to those you’ve mislead? I won’t hold my breath.


http://myronaldreagan.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/governor-huckabees-interview-at-the-reagan-library/

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:26 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1599
Location: Richmond, VA
Likes: 146
Liked: 215
Iowans Rock wrote:
Someone was reading this thread and left his comment on my blog in response to what I contributed because he said he could not comment on Huck's Army. I told him that I would post his comment here for him. I have already responded to him on my blog.

Quote:
http://forum.hucksarmy.com/viewtopic.php?p=167690#p167690

I’d like to comment concerning your post at Huck’s Army linked to above. I’m commenting here because I can’t at HA.

I take issue when you call me, along with others flat out liars concerning Romney’s record. I have studied his record for 3 years now. I examined ALL of the stones you have thrown at him in accusations to gay marriage, $50 abortions, and “nationalized health-care”. I am not calling you a liar because you clearly believe all you are saying. But I will openly declare that people will believe what they WANT to believe. I’m sure I’m also guilty of this in some degree or another.

I will offer only one counter-point to your claims. We will then see if you will recognize truth or if you will continue spouting false claims that Romney is responsible for millions of tax funded abortions.

FACT: The Massachusetts Health Plan Benefits Package Was Developed By The Connector Authority – An Independent Body Separate From The Governor’s Office. Unfortunately, Under State Law And Court Precedent, If The State Is Funding Health Care Benefits It Cannot Refuse To Provide Abortion Coverage:

The Commonwealth Care Package Is Designed And Administered By The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. “The Connector administers two separate programs; Commonwealth Care and Commonwealth Choice. Commonwealth Care offers subsidized insurance to people whose annual incomes are up to 300% or the Federal Poverty Level.” (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

The Commonwealth Heath Insurance Connector Authority Is An Independent Public Authority And Their Decisions Were Made Separate Of The Romney Administration. “The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is an independent public authority created to implement significant portions of the new landmark health care reform legislation. The Connector assists qualified Massachusetts adult residents with the purchase of affordable health care coverage if they don’t already have it.” (Commonwealth Connector Official Website, http://www.mass.gov, Accessed 2/5/07)

In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Ruled That The State Constitution Required Payment For Abortion Services For Medicaid-Eligible Women. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

According To The Decision, When A State Subsidizes Medical Care, It Cannot Infringe On “The Exercise Of A Fundamental Right” Which The Court Interpreted As Access To Medically Necessary Abortion Services. (Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981)

In 1997, The Supreme Judicial Court Reaffirmed Its Position That A State-Subsidized Plan Must Offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.” (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, 1997)

Did Romney’s healthcare plan legislate $50 abortions. No. It was already a part Massachusetts law (by Court precendent) long before Romney came to the scene. I will be watching to see if you possibly have a rebuttal, or if you will change your rhetoric. Who knows, you might actually do the honorable thing and actually make reparations to those you’ve mislead? I won’t hold my breath.


http://myronaldreagan.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/governor-huckabees-interview-at-the-reagan-library/


Thanks for posting that Iowans Rock. We obviously don't want to be to be spreading false information. If the information is true, though, we need to be able to answer defenses like this one. This reminds me of a Proverb I like a lot as a soon-to-be law student:

Proverbs 18:17 wrote:
The first to plead his case seems right,
Until another comes and examines him.


In this case the claims about Romney's $50 abortions sounds right until examined in light of the statements made by your pro-Romney friend. After doing some digging around the Internet, though, it appears the cycle repeats itself. You did a good job answering him on your blog. I'd just like to add a few things I found when I went digging myself.

Here's what I learned, in a nutshell:

Quote:
1) The information your pro-Romney friend cited is copy and paste from a Romney press release from the '08 primary, far from an independent source. It can still be found online here:

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/fron ... _healt.php

2) As your friend cites, Massachusetts Supreme Court precedent stated that Medicaid had to offer coverage for "medically necessary abortions." However:

3) The Supreme Court's ruling regarded Medicaid, and thus did not apply to Romney's health care legislation.

4) The Massachusetts Supreme Court can't make law anyway, only the legislature can do that, and they never passed any law mandating government funding of abortion services.

5) As your friend cited, the Supreme Court stated that Medicaid had to cover abortions for "medically necessary abortions." Romney's health care legislation covers all abortions (i.e. "abortion on demand).

6) The bill Romney signed didn't have anything in it about covering abortions. That was added later by the "independent body" your friend refers to. However, that "independent body" is made up of members half of which were appointed by Romney.

7) One of the provisions of the bill mandated that someone from Planned Parenthood be a member of that so-called "independent body" even though no provisions were included mandating the inclusion of someone from a pro-life group.

8) While Romney used his line-item veto power to kill 8 different provisions in the original bill, he left the Planned Parenthood provision in the one he signed.

9) While the bill Romney signed didn't have anything in it about covering abortions, he certainly could have demanded a provision be added preventing the funding of abortions, or at least prohibiting the funding of all abortions other than those deemed "medically necessary," though such deference to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's opinions wasn't even necessary for the reasons cited above. Such a provision would have seemed to have been an obvious necessity, especially considering the Court's previous rulings regarding Medicaid coverage.


I learned all this through running a simple Google search on the words "Romney $50 abortions." I cross-checked with various sources to make sure the stuff I posted here had been confirmed by multiple sites. Also, I couldn't find any pro-Romney material directly disputing anything posted above.

In summary, perhaps instead of saying Romney "signed into law $50 taxpayer funded abortions," we should be saying he "failed to prevent his government health care program from funding abortion on demand and chose to mandate that a representative of Planned Parenthood be included on the advisory board responsible for overseeing the program."

The latter is, perhaps, more technically accurate, though in principle there's little difference.

I'll be interested to hear whether or not your friend has a rebuttal of his own. Feel free to post any parts of my comments over at your blog if you want.

The best summary I found of the whole issue can be found at the link below. The one caveat I would give is that the article implies the language covering abortion was actually in the bill Romney signed, while it was not, as I addressed above.

http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=321

_________________
ATTENTION GUESTS: Thanks for checking out our Discussion Forum. Before you go, please take a minute to click on the image below and get registered to join the discussion. You'll enjoy all the perks, such as being able to track which posts you've read already. It will also allow us to contact you with important news and information. Plus, we'd just love to hear what you have to say!

MEMBERS: Want to put the "Get Registered" image in your signature? Learn how here.

______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:21 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:50 pm
Posts: 2363
Location: Iowa
Likes: 51
Liked: 211
My new Pro-Romney buddy left another comment on my blog for Huck's Army.

Quote:
Could you post the following in response to cschande post on the forum:

cshande: Though I don’t agree with you arguments, yours so far are the most reasonable. It is not correct, in fact it is misleading, to say that Romney signed into law $50 abortion. Unfortunately this has been repeated so many times that people actually think it’s true.

I do have response to a few of the points you quoted above that aren’t entirely correct.

#6: Half of the “the independent body” that decided on abortions was not selected by Romney. Romney selected half of the members of a council. (though he had to select from very specific groups as outlined in the legislation, none of the these were “at large” selections) This council later contracted (as directed by the legislation) with the independent group later to be known as the Commonwealth Connector. THIS group, far removed from Romney’s administration, is who dictated the costs and procedures included in the insurance policies.

#7: Again this is not entirely correct. Planned Parenthood had an one automatic seat on an appointed “advisory board” that had 13 members. This advisory board is not the aforementioned “council” nor the “independent agency”. Also of note is this group IS NOT who determined that MA would ultimately provide abortion for copay. Further note is that Romney only got select 2 members of this advisory board, again from very specific health organizations.

#9: For Romney to seek such a provision would have been in campaign promise to have a “moratorium” on abortion laws in Massachusetts, and as there was no change in the law in regards to abortion it would have been presumption to think that the state would actually provide on demand abortion for copay. If it were, he would have certainly vetoed the provision.

Please check Iowans Rock’s blog for a more thorough rebuttal to the claims that Romney is any way responsible for copay abortions.


It looks like Gregg Jackson updated his blog about this.

http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=321

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976


TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:11 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1599
Location: Richmond, VA
Likes: 146
Liked: 215
Thanks for the update. I appreciate his reasonable response. I'll accept Nate's corrections to 6 and 7. I'm definitely far from being an expert on the issue, and I trust his facts. However, I still disagree with some of his conclusions. Here's where I still differ:

Quote:
On #6: I still doubt the group responsible for the $50 co-pay for abortions was "far removed from Romney’s administration." I have no way of proving this (or at least no time or resources to do so), but the guy whose email Greg Jackson posted would seem to agree with me.

On #7: Regardless of whether the mandated Planned Parenthood rep was on a board or a council or an independent agency (I'm getting a headache trying to keep them straight...haha), the point remains that Romney refused to use his line-item veto to remove such a mandate. I'm also hard-pressed to believe a rep from Planned Parenthood would have no influence on the inclusion of the abortion co-pays, even if the group he/she was a member of in theory didn't have the final say on the matter.

On #9: I'm having a little trouble understanding what Nate's saying here, but it sounds like he's saying Romney didn't seek such a provision because to do so would have been to violate a campaign promise he made not to change any abortion laws. Even if he allowed the co-pays for abortion by failing to put in a provision preventing such coverage because he was trying to uphold a campaign promise, that doesn't change the fact of what he did. Very few pro-lifers would be satisfied with a candidate's explanation that he only refused to protect unborn lives because he promised not to protect them during his campaign.

I'm also not sure how presumptuous it would have been to expect the program to cover abortion on demand in a state with the far-left reputation of Massachusetts.


Romney has often claimed that as Governor with every piece of legislation that came to his desk he always came down on the side of life. Whether through negligence (i.e. the failure to provide the provision preventing abortion-on-demand coverage) or through poor judgment (allowing the Planned Parenthood rep) or through intentionally clearing the way for $50 abortion co-pays while claiming he had nothing to do with them (we can't know his heart and we may never know for sure exactly how this all went down), I think the fact remains that at least on this particular piece of legislation Mr. Romney DID NOT come down on the side of life.

_________________
ATTENTION GUESTS: Thanks for checking out our Discussion Forum. Before you go, please take a minute to click on the image below and get registered to join the discussion. You'll enjoy all the perks, such as being able to track which posts you've read already. It will also allow us to contact you with important news and information. Plus, we'd just love to hear what you have to say!

MEMBERS: Want to put the "Get Registered" image in your signature? Learn how here.

______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:11 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
I was listening to Scott Rasmussen talk about this latest poll (can't remember which radio show it was on) and he basically said it was a three way tie. Plus he said it was too far out from 2012 to mean much yet.

He also said that he received a lot of complaints from the Ron Paul folks who felt Ron Paul should be included. So it will be interesting to see if he includes Ron Paul next time.

So the lesson to be learned from the Ron Paul folks is that when these pollsters don't include Huckabee, we need to contact them and ask for him to be included.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rasmussen 2012 Poll
PostPosted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 1658
Location: The Occupied Territory of Northern VA
Likes: 257
Liked: 169
Debbie wrote:
I was listening to Scott Rasmussen talk about this latest poll (can't remember which radio show it was on) and he basically said it was a three way tie. Plus he said it was too far out from 2012 to mean much yet.

He also said that he received a lot of complaints from the Ron Paul folks who felt Ron Paul should be included. So it will be interesting to see if he includes Ron Paul next time.

So the lesson to be learned from the Ron Paul folks is that when these pollsters don't include Huckabee, we need to contact them and ask for him to be included.

Good point about politely asking pollsters to include Mike.

Funny thing about the Ron Paul folks. You'd think that now, after at least two years of the same pattern, they'd get the picture. Here's the story. In real life, Ron Paul has always polled no more than 5% of the U.S. population. In various individual state polls (esp. in states with a large percentage of white supremacists and right-wing revolutionaries like Idaho), Ron Paul might get 10-15%. But in the U.S. as a whole, and on election day anywhere -- the max is 5%. BUT....Whenever they run an on-line poll, Ron Paul cleans up. That's because all his PaulBots are highly skilled at running macros that wildly skew those polls. Then they get all excited and point to those on-line polls and crow, "SEE?! Ron Paul IS a major candidate!!!" It's so pathetic, it would make me laugh if the state of total denial weren't so scary.

The sad thing about Ron Paul is that while a lot of his views truly resonate with a lot of Americans, it's the candidate himself that turns off most Americans. People read or hear about his positions, and say, "I agree with state's rights, extremely limited government, American sovereignty, no foreign entanglements, pro-life, and liberty first." Then they check out the actual man, Ron Paul, and.... well, anyway, I'm just sayin'. :shock:

_________________
Recovering Huck-a-holic


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY