« Cameron praises America's sense of identity | Main | Can Politics 2.0 cross the Atlantic? »

Comments

Denise

Tired and emotional, I actually did hear that Gingrich would throw his name into the hat later on IF he is unhappy with those running in the Republican party.

Frogg (USA)

Guliani currently has the most respect of all the candidates. I think he would do a great job if he wins the nomination. I do disagree with him on some of the social issues (but,he is a Federalist by nature and would prefer those types of issues rest upon individual states). He is considered a moderate Republican.

However, I think that once Fred Thompson enters the race and you Brits get to know him......he will blow you away. Fred also has the highest familiarity/support ratio of all candidates (those who are familiar with a candidate and would vote for him/her). No one comes even close to his ratio of either party (not Guliani, Hillary, Romney, Obama, McCain, Edwards, etc).

Daniel

How does Ron Paul an anti-abortion conspiracy theorist candidate get the sympathy of people here?

Ron Paul fails to get even 1% of the vote in polls for a reason, his policies and ideology is the worst of both sides of the political spectrum with none of the good.

Simon Newman

"How does Ron Paul an anti-abortion conspiracy theorist candidate get the sympathy of people here?"

People respect integrity; and Ron Paul is a genuine Constitutionalist, something that has been sorely lacking at the top for a long time.

Da Coyote

Not to be the spoiled sport here, but why exactly would it matter which candidate British subjects would or would not support?

But setting that to the side a moment, Mark McClelland has himself a good bet. Before this fall I expect Al Gore to "reluctantly" agree to be "drafted" for the Democratic ticket. But don't count on Newt Gingrich, with Fred Thompson's hat in the ring he just doesn't have the popularity to pull the nomination- and he knows it.

JF

Da Coyote, don't be too hasty. There has been a lot of hype surrounding the Fred Thompson cult of personality, but I don't anticipate it will last. At best, he's a weak imitation of McCain (almost identical voting records), and at worst, he's an empty suit career lobbyist. Thompson was interviewed on CNBC this week, and I think all can agree that Thompson comes out looking like a lightweight in all senses: politics, business sense, and, unfortunately, intelligence.

Gingrich, however, has proven himself to be an intellectual and effective conservative. He may yet ride out Thompson's slow-motion crash over the next few months and still enter.

Daniel

"People respect integrity; and Ron Paul is a genuine Constitutionalist, something that has been sorely lacking at the top for a long time."

Then we have different definitions of who can and can not be trusted. I would not trust a person who wishes to remove a the right of a woman to decide not to become a mother to safegaurd the individual rights of anybody, individual rights and indivudualism is what makes the Western World in general and the Anglosphere in particular so great, any restrictions that are not neccessary such as hate speech/crimes laws (a year ago a 14 year old schoolgirl here was arrested when she was assigned to a group of asians who couldn't speak English and requested that she be switched to a group of kids who could speak her language) as well as anti-abortion laws are wrong.

bundyfan

How can British conservatives give Obama and Hillary 10%. Don't you guys realize they are a couple of socialist peaceniks?

Da Coyote

What do we have?

Giuliani, who is pro-choice. Romney, who is pro-gun control and signed universal healthcare. And McCain, who has shot himself in the foot with both the campaign finance and immigration issues.

Though each has good points, there are an estimated 60% to 80% of heavy Republican donors still not committed, indicating a wide dissatisfaction with the current field.

Are they waiting for Thompson, for Gingrich? Maybe. But these things are certain:

1. Giuliani's pro-choice and pro-gay record isn't winning him any points from the Republican base. His primary advantage is his perceived electability over a more conservative candidate. But the polls are already indicating he's peaked and has nowhere to go but down.

2. Immigration is a hot button issue this time around- more so than even abortion. McCain was already hemorrhaging cash, now he's losing both donors and staff over his compromise immigration bill. If anybody's campaign can be compared to a trainwreck, it's McCain's.

3. Gingrich, Tancredo, and Hunter are all Republicans with strong ties to the base...but...the last time a Representative took the White House was, what? Lincoln? These guys have only a small chance to move up into the first tier. More than likely they'll be on the short lists for VP's or cabinet members.

There has been alot of hype over Fred Thompson, but I think labeling it a cult of personality is a bit over the top. We're not talking about Peron or Stalin here. In fact, the increasing level of venom directed at Fred Thompson and his wife, much more than for the declared second tiers, indicates that some consider Fred Thompson a credible threat to their designs on the White House.

And don't forget Michael Bloomberg. He could toss a major wrench in the works.

Denise

Daniel, a woman gives up her right not to be a mother when she chooses to have sex. Especially unprotected sex. And as for any woman who has been raped and doesn't want to become pregnant as a result (I wouldn't blame her for that)she should get to a hospital as soon as possible where messures are taken to prevent that, like an induced menstrual cycle. Sorry to get into such detail but I thought it was necessary to make my point.

Denise

Might I add that people need to understand their choices have consequences. If they aren't prepared to live with the consequences of the choices they've made, then too bad too sad. That's life, learn to live with it. Anyone with common sense should know they are taking a risk having sex, be it disease or pregnancy. If they aren't prepared or willing to accept the consequences of it, they should demonstrate some self control and keep their pants on.

Daniel

Denise a woman never gives up her right not be a mother untill she is one (i.e actually has a baby who has been born), human life does not start untill a baby is out of the womb.

Arguably a hacker taking a credit card number is the risk everyone takes when paying bills online, would that be a remotely acceptable argument to a people who lost their money?

Sorry for the spelling mistakes, but wether threatened by hate crime statutes and laws against even hate speach (the Left) or by no abortion (The Right) restriction of individual liberties are wrong, which is why in America a heavily conservative Supreme Court has consistently upheld a womans right to choose.

Steevo

I'm not gonna get involved in an abortion discussion other than this one comment: it is a rare moment for a pro-abortionist to actually make the claim "human life does not start untill a baby is out of the womb." Even most on the cutting edge will not directly state or imply that just because it is in the womb and throughout full term at that, is not a bonafied human being.

Simon Newman

Daniel, re Ron Paul:

"Then we have different definitions of who can and can not be trusted. I would not trust a person who wishes to remove a the right of a woman to decide not to become a mother to safegaurd the individual rights of anybody, individual rights and indivudualism is what makes the Western World in general and the Anglosphere in particular so great..."

Repealing Roe vs Wade is the Constitutionalist position; for the Supreme Court to mandate legal abortion across the USA was clearly Unconstitutional. I'm in favour of abortion being legal but under the US Constitution it's a matter for the States.

Matt

Daniel, just one question: how about the rights of the individual in the womb?

Denise

Daniel, you cannot tell me that my baby was not a living human being before he came out. I felt him moving and kicking me when I was only 4 months pregnant and saw the heart beating and limbs moving on the monitor. Just because the world doesn't see the baby yet doesn't mean it isn't yet a living person. Are you trying to tell me that a baby's heart doesn't beat, blood circulate, nerves work and brain function until it comes out? How ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is that the very people who think this way claim to be so damn intelligent. Educated fools, I call them.

Matt, exactly. Thank you.

Denise

I saw a video of a surgery being performed on a pregnant woman many months before the baby was due to be born. Even then, the baby was able to grasp the finger of the surgeon. Don't tell me that baby isn't alive and doesn't have a right to live. "Human life does not start until a baby is out of the womb." Yeah, right. I even heard some idiot claim that babies didn't feel pain until they were born. What B.S.!!! Unborn babies cry in the womb. Yes, cry! Why do babies cry? Some form of discomfort maybe? And they respond to bright light by turning away from it the same way we would do. Too bright for the eyes maybe? Pain, maybe? I would say so. Or maybe some moron will try to find some ridiculous scientific explaination for that other than the fact a baby can feel pain. It wouldn't surprise me. Any excuse to terminate a life.

Da Coyote

Simon Newman is right. The problem with the abortion debate is the wholesale abandonment of the Federalist principles the American Republic was founded on. If you want abortion to be legal, move to Connecticut where the legistlature has made it legal, or make an effort to legalize it in your own state.

Almost all of the pressing social issues of the day in America could be easily solved if the people in New York and Florida weren't fighting over what the law will be in Montana.

And that goes both ways. For those in favor of nation-wide gun control and those in favor of nation-wide gun rights need to learn the same lesson:

State Soveriegnty prevails over Federal Premption except in the cases of national defense, inter-state/national commerce, and foreign policy.

The sooner people learn that, the better.

Daniel

If life begins at conception here are some quetsions.

1. Why the lateness on naming the child? I have never heard of or seen a single person who gave a fetus a name, why is that?

2. Why didn't women who had miscariages before Roe v Wade in America who had miscarriages due things like a bad diet get arrested for manslaughter?

3. Why is it unable to survive outside of the womb?

4. Why is it that throughout history no country has ever had a census record a fetus inside a pregnant woman?

From what I know about abortion laws here is that abortions become illegal when the fetus no longer needs to be inside the womb.

Da Cayote I thought that in America it was just one soveriegn law that applied across the board so how does that work with the state vs federal powers?

Matt

Daniel, your questions 2 & 4 pertain solely to the bureaucratic framework of a state, I don't see how that's related to the matter at hand. Question 1 pertains solely to the human tradition, which also is not directly related to the issue. As for the question 3 - quite often ill people are unable to survive outside the hospital - are you suggesting they are already dead? You seem to rely on human/state traditions when forming opinion. I tend to trust science. Human fetus has unique DNA code, a human DNA code - and it is a form of human life.

Denise

Ok, a pregnancy is supposed to be approxamately 9 months but many babies have been delivered after only 5 months. Some die but many live. But anyway, life has to start somewhere. If we were all aborted at some point there would be no one here. Simple as that. As for miscarriages, many of them happen simply because something went wrong and the mother's body gets rid of it. Nature. Most miscarriages are of no fault to the mother. They just happen sometimes. If the woman is a drug addict or alcoholic, that's a different story. As for naming the baby, years ago people didn't name the child until it was born because they didn't know what it was. I'm sure any parent with any sense wouldn't want to name their son Susan, for example. Nowadays, we have the technology to know in advance what the sex is so many people name their child once they find out. But name or no name, he or she is still a developing person. Would you say a child is not human being simply because he or she isn't completely developed (haven't reached puberty and still immature)?

"Why is it that throughout history no country has ever had a census record a fetus inside a pregnant woman?" Well, when I had my miscarriage, I had to fill out a death certificate. Why do you think that was done? I was only about 10 weeks pregnant then. And the fetus was a lot more developed at that time than one would think.

winston

Guliani's strength is his "gitterdone" reputation. Even before 9/11 he was credited for making major positive improvements in NYC.

Keep your eye on Huckabee as a VP pick. Guliani/Huckabee would be a very potent combination.

winston

"Repealing Roe vs Wade is the Constitutionalist position; for the Supreme Court to mandate legal abortion across the USA was clearly Unconstitutional. I'm in favour of abortion being legal but under the US Constitution it's a matter for the States."

"I thought that in America it was just one soveriegn law that applied across the board so how does that work with the state vs federal powers?"

What's important here is the 14th amendment. It says a lot of things but the important part for this discussion is "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

So when the Supreme Court determined that abortion is a right under the 4th amendment then no state can stop someone from having one.

Many argue that Supreme Court erred in overstretching the meaning of the 4th amendment. That's a subject for personal opinion, but on a legal level the Supreme Court determines what is and is not constitutional.

I'm not arguing for or against abortion I'm just clarifying the Constitutional argument.

JF

Winston, and what is interesting about abortion in particular is that it wasn't legislated, it was imposed by activist judges. Let's not forget that the Supreme Court is itself an extra-Constitutional entity.

dave

I'm sorry -- but anyone who voted for the socialist Mrs Bill Clinton is NOT a conservative. End of story. They must nbe our version of the RINOs, the CINOs

And the idea that amongst British conservatives, Lady McClinton would poll 6% more than Fred Thompson is just... bizarre.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker