« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Recent CNN poll shows Perry holding lead

By: Chris Wilson (Diary)  |  September 27th, 2011 at 10:53 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Recent post debate polling shows Texas Governor Rick Perry maintaining his lead in the race to capture the Republican nomination for president.   Despite attacks by opponents and Washington insiders, Governor Perry has not seen a significant drop in his numbers.

Perry continues to lead the field with 28% of the vote while his closest competitor, Mitt Romney, trails by seven points with 21%.

Since experiencing a dramatic assent in the polls following his entrance into the race, Governor Perry has shown himself to be a durable frontrunner capable of weathering attacks from opponents and enduring the harsh spotlight of the presidential campaign media.  While some in the media have been critical of Perry’s debate performances and predicted an impact on his lead, it appears GOP primary voters do not agree.

According to the Real Clear Politics polling average, Governor Perry held a strong lead over the field prior to the first Republican Presidential debate, capturing 29% of the Republican primary vote.  Nearly three weeks and three Republican Presidential debates later, polling continues to show Rick Perry with a similar lead over the field.

Real Clear Politics Average9/6/2011

CNN/Opinion Research Poll

9/23 – 9/25
Rick Perry

29%

28%
Mitt Romney

18%

21%
Ron Paul

8%

7%
Michele Bachmann

8%

4%
Newt Gingrich

7%

10%
Herman Cain

6%

7%
Rick Santorum

2%

3%
Jon Huntsman

1%

1%

The CNN/Opinion Research data also confirms what we have seen in other national polls: the race for the GOP nomination is currently headed to a two person contest between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikeymike143

    by the way, i was glad to see cain win the florida straw poll. but perry still seems to be the man to beat.

    • wonkish1

      You don’t know if that will hold for long or not.

  • comeridethewhale

    but the major parties are both controlled by the same people (the bankers). As a wise man once said, “Follow the money”. The nominee will be Romney. This entire primary show with the likes of folks like Bachman, Paul, Cain and Santorum isn’t anything more than a show to make us feel like we have a choice. I thought maybe Perry was acceptable to the ruling elite but it looks like they’ve buried him already.

  • comeridethewhale

    I’d love to see how Christie stacks up. I think he’s the only one that can beat Obama.

  • freentn

    has held the frontrunner spot despite the incredible smear campaign against him by demRats, romneyBots and “republicans” violating President Reagan’s 11th Commandment.

  • Martin Knight

    That type of statement is neither helpful nor true.

  • rkcon

    and then be overwhelming favourite against Obama. Christie can widen the map even more than Romney.

    I think other guys can beat Obama though. I don’t like Romney but he’s very electable.

  • freentn

    any Republican can beat BO.

    So the first priority is to rally around a Conservative who can beat romney.

  • comeridethewhale

    Romney, Huntsman or Christie have a chance. Anyone else (IMHO) will make Goldwater’s trouncing look like a landslide victory. Like it or not the U.S. electorate runs down the middle of the road. Obama won easily last time after being outed as a protege of Bill Ayers. The average voter doesn’t care for red meat rhetoric or candidates who think global warming is a liberal conspiracy.

  • freentn

    Any Republican but the LIBERAL romney, including the liberal Huntsman can beat BO/Hillary.

    I suspect that Hillary will be the demRat nominee and if romney is the Republican nominee, most voters will see no difference between Hillary and romney and with Trump running as an independent, hillary will win.

  • comeridethewhale

    it is about the economy and a lot will depend on how bad the economy is. Right now the stock market is up about 33% from its lows in the Spring of 09 and that makes a big difference to anyone with a 401k. Interest rates are low and unemploymnet is high. Obama will not get the full blame or credit for any of these things. Most voters remember that the implosion happened in the Fall of 2008 under GWB and I doubt that they will be that gung-ho to return to those policies.

    In other words, I don’t think beating Obama is a slam dunk based on the economy and anyone who wants to defeat him will have to appeal to a wide range of folks on a broad array of issues. I just don’t think nominating someone who wants to turn back the clock on science by denying evolution, climate change or stem cell research is in a good position to appeal to independents such as myself.

  • Martin Knight

    If we were not so busy smugly screaming “flip-flop!” at every turn in 2008, he would have given Obama something of a fight … unlike McCain who might as well have laid down the red carpet for Barack Obama.

    I’d rather it not be Romney at this point – hoping for someone better – but he very well could end up being the nominee, and I’d rather us not pre-sabotage the guy and end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy of an Obama victory.

  • freentn

    to understanding the problem that demRats now have. demRats want to fix on a Republican Target, but since the nomination is wide open they don’t who to aim at, much less what issues on which to fix the demRat aim.

    So the unfixed Republican race is a good thing. I will just Let GO and let things take care of themselves.

  • Martin Knight

    I’m guessing you’re making a non-too-subtle reference to Rick Perry here, right?

    Oh well, I was one of the folks most excited about Perry entering the race but since his underwhelming performance in the debates, I’m starting to look at Romney and Cain. Quite frankly, I’m more angry at Perry than anything – the guy obviously did not prepare – and I find that totally disrespectful of his supporters and the GOP Primary electorate.

    That said, let’s examine your “turn back the clock on science” … statement.

    First; so what if a President does not believe in evolution? Unless he signs an executive order or successfully pushes legislation through Congress banning the teaching of evolution as a theory (which is as close to impossible as it gets), how does this affect your life or science?

    Besides, America hasn’t yet had a non-Christian President. Which means each and every single President we’ve ever had has been a Creationist – because one cannot be a Christian (Muslim or Jew) without believing that a Supreme Being created the Earth, the heavens and everything in them.

    Second, climate change. The only non-falsifiable scientific theory. The only branch of science where your source of funding is dispositive as to the quality of your work. The only branch of science that allows researchers to hide and manipulate their data and then throw out the actual collected data. The only branch of science that instead of throwing out the model when it fails to match with real world measurements, you instead cling to the model and throw out the measurements.

    It’s the only branch of science that persecutes for heresy.

    Climate has changed throughout history – even drastically back when the number of humans on the Earth was less than 5% of what it is now. There are so many unanswered questions that many true scientists – most especially those who are aware of how important skepticism is in science – are aghast at announcements by politically influenced organizations that the “debate is over.”

    Perry has the right idea here. Too bad, he’s too lazy to figure out how best to express it.

    On stem cells, Perry is golden. He’s a major booster of adult stem cell research – the only branch of stem cell research that has yielded results. So much so that he’s actually undergone stem cell therapy for his back. You are aware of this, aren’t you?

    Look, if you’re going to oppose a Republican candidate, do it for Republican reasons, not Democrat talking points.

  • freentn

    romney by a landslide.

    I worked my butt off for McCain/Palin, if romney had been the nominee I would not have done anything to support romney and I would not have given a dime to the romney campaign.

  • freentn

    bo would have beaten romney by a LANDSLIDE! I personally worked my butt off for McCain/Palin. If romney had been the nominee, I would not have done a thing and not contributed a dime.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Yeah, Obama would have beaten Romney in 08. Or any other Republican in the field. This time out the dynamics are totally different, and if you can’t understand that, you’re an ignorant fool.

    Right now beating Obama is going to be a difficult, but doable, task. I’m not at all fond of Romney but he’ll have a reasonably broad appeal to Independent and moderate voters who are turned off by BO. If he can poll well with them, he wins. The election will be won or lost with the I/M voters and I’m not saying that we need to nominate a moderate, but we certainly have to nominate someone who can communicate with them.

  • Martin Knight

    … and we wouldn’t have ended up with 60 Democrat Senators.

    The only reason McCain didn’t lose by 15 points was because he put Palin on the ticket. The guy was approaching broke, and he couldn’t fill a mid-size hotel ballroom until he invited Palin on. Suddenly, money started coming in, and he was filling stadiums.

    All Romney would have needed was a running mate to round out his ticket and shore up the base (e.g. Peter Pace, Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, etc.) just like McCain did.

    The only difference is that he would been a much better candidate. Can you imagine Romney standing in front of crowd of Republicans at a rally in the last two weeks of the campaign and assuring them that Obama would make a fine President? McCain actually did that.

    Do you think Romney would have kept a guy on staff who openly said that he would quit McCain’s campaign if Obama is the Democrat nominee because he liked Obama too much? McCain kept the guy until the guy quit.

    Do you honestly think, any member of Romney’s staff, much less his campaign director, would tell a reporter, that his primary goal was to make sure Romney came out as an “honorable loser” when the campaign was over? That was Mark Salter – McCain’s campaign director.

    Romney would have made it a fight. McCain threw in the towel from the very beginning.

  • progressivelibertarian

    ‘Or any other Republican in the field.’

    Except Huckabee, whose pro-growth as well as pro-people record and populist views would’ve made for a far tougher road for Obama in 2008. In fact, many campaign insiders have since reported that the Obama campaign feared facing Huckabee the most.

  • freentn

    to bo by a landslide in 2008, but your meme that romney has a chance of beating bo/Hillary in 2012 is ridiculous. Any Republican but romney will beat bo in 2012.

  • freentn

    I agree. Huckabee had a chance of beating bo in 2008 and a much greater chance of beating bo in 2012.

  • rkcon

    Romney was way too close to Bush back then – he was the favourite of the Bushies&Co – and Obama’s leitmotiv of change and no more politics as usual would be even more powerful against someone like Romney – who’s pretty much a caricature of the unprincipled politician who will say everything to win. It’d be a brutal contrast.

    I’d expect Romney to lose by 5 points more than McCain in the popular vote.

  • wonkish1

    I remember the conversations back then intimately well. Remember most folks were worried about the party being destroyed than winning the election. Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee really did 1 he!! of a job splitting the SoCon and FiCon’s up. In most elections they coalesce around someone that does them both justice.

    That year SoCon’s hated Romney and Giuliani with a passion. And FiCon’s hated Huckabee with a passion. McCain was everybody’s 2nd or 3rd choice because of a lack of better options. So he won by default.

    “I’ll be damned before I vote for a Giuliani.” “I’ll be damned if I vote for a Huckabee”. Was a pretty common occurrence. In the end everybody voted for McCain to prevent the “other guy” from destroying the party.

  • Martin Knight

    … to prevent McCain from getting the nomination. To no avail.

    McCain was the choice of the establishment – the idea being that his eight years of being one of Bush’s most vociferous GOP critics gave him enough distance from Bush’s toxicity to make him a viable candidate.

    All the so-called moderate Governors and newspapers endorsed him. Furthermore, he focused his attention in the open primary states and made no bones about getting Democrats to vote for him. We were all pretty much raging about it for weeks and months afterward, even after the election and McCain’s joyous concession speech.

    And if I remember correctly (and I think I do) Romney was no more identified with Bush than Huckabee.

  • freentn

    in 2008 and there will be another Anbody but romney Victor in 2012.

  • rkcon

    My point was that McCain was the best from an electability perspective. Also for those reasons.

  • wonkish1

    I knew a lot of people who were casting votes for McCain because they couldn’t stand Huckabee.

    Free, I don’t know what part of the country you’re from, but states that didn’t have strong Evangelical populations hated Huckabee’s guts. Many GOP primary voters didn’t think he have 1 clue about economics and so they were going to everything in their power to stop him from being the nominee.

  • freentn

    romney will be against romney every time he runs. We Conservatives simply can NOT stand romney. No matter how much he Flip-Flops we will always be against romney.

  • wonkish1

    He has written in both his books and seems to say it on air at least once a year for the last 23 years.

  • rkcon

    Romney was clearly the establishment candidate. He was the candidate of talk-show hosts and the crowd that supported Bush till the very last moment and were annoyed with McCain’s criticism of Bush on spending, wars management, etc.

  • freentn

    I have no problem with any Republican except romney. It has nothing to do with where I have lived. romney is a LIBERAL and I will NOT vote for romney.

  • wonkish1

    But Romney would for sure be considered a FiCon, barely. I have been able to piece together his economic belief’s over the last few years. They are actually slightly to the right of W., and typical of your average Wall Street Trader, Investment Banker, or right leaning economics professor.

    I’ve been around a descent amount of those kind of guys for most of my life. I usually get into heated arguments with them over certain things, but I would say they agree with us on most fiscal issues. Doesn’t mean he wont sell us out on an issue here or there for political expediency.

    Also, Romney is way, way to the right of McCain on fiscal issues. McCain was probably the most liberal Republican presidential nominee of the last 100 years aside from Nixon. The only difference was that McCain was better than the alternative for FiCons and better than the alternative for SoCons.

    In terms of the other issues, Romney has flip flopped enough I’d say its anybodies guess.

  • wonkish1

    No Offense!

    Nobody would make your comment if they actually listened to people like Rush. It is wrong on so many levels.

  • gekster

    Read this and tell me if you still think he was right of Bush.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

    disclaimer: I know, wiki, spoon if salt

  • wonkish1

    Romney doesn’t sell out his own beliefs for political expediency.

    But I do know Romney’s personal economic beliefs.

    In a private conversation with a friend he gave a very long answer to the question, “What makes rich countries rich, and poor countries poor?” That answer perfectly coincided with the beliefs of Romney’s choice as his key economic adviser in 2008, Prof. Gregory Mankiw.

    Now I don’t like Mankiw much at all nor did I particularly like Romney’s answer, but feel free to read Mankiw’s articles and his textbooks(which I believe are the standard textbooks given to Econ students at college). Read those and you’ll see where Romney’s economic beliefs come from.

    But Mankiw’s econ beliefs were way better than dip$hit CBO director, McCain tapped to be his economic adviser in 08. He was practically a mirror image of Larry Summers.

    Mankiw was also Bush’s chairman of economic advisers between 2003-05. As was the more Keynesian Harvey Rosen, the Dove Ben Bernanke, and Edward Lazear who was a labor economist(the worst).

  • gekster

    “But Romney would for sure be considered a FiCon, barely. I have been able to piece together his economic belief

  • wonkish1

    I was referring to his personal views(which you hope bore out as president which is way less liberal than Mass) not his public record in Massachusetts.

    I realize that is little comfort to those of us that realize that a record is more telling than someone’s personal beliefs.

    But I’m just trying to provide some comfort to folks on here in the event that Romney does take the nomination which there are at least reasonable odds that it could happen.

  • gekster

    be reflected in the way he Governed.
    Any one can talk a good game.
    And Romney has had practice in knowing what to say to get voters going.
    But regardless of what he says, what he actually did when in charge speaks louder than words.

    I’m not saying you are wrong or right. I am just saying that “I” don’t see him as being right of Bush, and I povide his record of being Govenor as a base for my opinion.

    The one thing I would point out is his increases in taxes and fees, his cutting spending that in a way forced the locals to increase taxes and fees as to what he might do as President.
    Until he gets the nod and actaully governs, we won’t know.
    I am just looking at prior behaviour.

  • freentn

    I listen to him every day and I have never heard him say anything good about romney.

  • strangebuttrue

    (He was a Romney supporter in 2008, but is certainly not in 2012))

  • rkcon

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/05/rush-limbaugh-endorses-mitt-romney/

    “One candidate now represent all three legs of conservatism. The choice is clear.”

    I agree with Morrissey: it’s obviously an endorsement.

    [And again, Rush was, as he often is, wrong. McCain's fiscal record was vastly superior to Romney's. But Rush and other talk-show hosts make the Team Red vs. Team Blue thing the bedrock of their political philosophy so McCain's criticism of Bush, even from the right, made him persona non grata. In any case, it's completely puzzling that a Romney can go from representing all three legs of conservatism to be a RINO because of Romneycare. If it was something that he did in the last 4 years...]

  • aesthete

    Rush didn’t endorse anyone until it was clear that McCain (ugh) was going to clean up in the primaries, at which point he “endorsed” Romney in desperation. I’m not a Rush listener, though, so I could be wrong.

  • avagreen

    I’ve seen so many bits of disinformation put out against him. I can understand the opposition IF someone has actual facts, not myths, outright lies, and twisting of facts to support their case.

    This isn’t what is going on.

    Some folks are deathly afraid of this man………..telling. And, also tells me that I’m on the correct path in supporting him.

    Go Perry!

  • avagreen

    according to the Conservatives in NJ.
    “…….there exists a growing list of words and deeds that cast him in anything but a conservative light: ”
    http://conservativenewjersey.com/the-myth-of-christie-conservatism-intro

    Don’t know if I can post links to other sites, but I’m gonna try.

  • rkcon

    Nobody is a conservative. Especially politicians who have to actually govern and not write on blogs, talk on the radio or vote in the Senate.

    I remember Murray Rothbard’s brutal attacks on Reagan – today he’d call him a RINO.

    There are lots of Rothbards in today’s conservative movement.

    Chris Christie is a conservative. He isn’t the king of New Jersey, no.

  • wonkish1

    And he uttered those words purely because it was down to McCain and Romney and Rush **hhhhaaattteeesss** McCain with a passion.

    Nor was Rush ever a “Bushie” he definitely was much more willing to defend Bush after 9/11 and throughout most of Iraq, but he wasn’t a big Bush fan before he won in 2000 and he was beating on him at least once a week in 06 and almost every other day in 07.

    Rush doesn’t make Endorsements. It will be huge news the first time Rush does endorse, but it will never happen.

    McCain’s fiscal record was dog$hit. McCain sold that to America and the average GOP primary voter bought it hook line and sinker. McCain never found a tax cut he liked in the entirety of the 90s and 2000s until he was running for president in 2008. His supposed push for less spending, non-existent. He picked a couple of tiny appropriations in the Defense budget to advocate cutting so he could get nice puff pieces written about him. He never objected to large GOP appropriations at any point in the 90s and 2000s. He was a supporter of Cap and Trade legislation. The list goes on and on and on.

    And the ultimate slap to McCain was that he was the ultra RINO from ARIZONA? Really? Arizona? If he was the elected Senator of Massachusetts I could maybe understand. But from him to his wife and kids they were all stinky liberal Republicans. And the worst part about it is that he bucked the party’s legislation every time purely so that he could get nice puff pieces written about him, and he would grant the interviews just grinning ear to ear each time.

  • gekster

    he imposed steel tarifs

  • wonkish1

    And Immigration, prescription drug benefit, Harriet Myers, spending was brought up all the time at the end, etc.

  • comeridethewhale

    if Christie doesn’t run the nominee will be Romney and the Tea Party will have lost it’s bite as it meekly follows along to do the bidding of the bankster Republican elites. Nothing has changed. Don’t believe me? Let’s talk the day after Super Tuesday.

  • comeridethewhale

    if Christie doesn’t run the nominee will be Romney and the Tea Party will have lost it’s bite as it meekly follows along to do the bidding of the bankster Republican elites. Nothing has changed. Don’t believe me? Let’s talk the day after Super Tuesday.

  • comeridethewhale

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/rick-perry-mitt-romney-polls-huffpost-patch-gop-power-outsiders_n_983659.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=092811&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

  • comeridethewhale

    Hey MK–

    I totally disagree with you that all Christians are creationists. There are many flavors of Christianity and many of them embrace the theory of evolution.

    I think voters are interested in a candidates worldview as it makes a huge difference in how one governs. For instance, new discoveries in science are welcomed by those with an evolutionary view and oftened resisted by those who view the world from a literalist religious view point. I’ve known pastors who insisted that the earth was only 6,000 years old and any scientific evidence to the contrary was dismissed as falsehhods spawned by Satan. Since the government does fund medical research such fundementalist views can hinder research.

    As to singling out Perry, I think all of the major candidates, except Huntsman have expressed similar views. Kudos to the governor for supporting stem cell research. I’ve never heard the question put to the candidates thus far.

    As to global warming, over 90% of the world’s scientists agree that man made global warming is a problem. Dragging feet on this issue is just a sign to independents that the GOP is indeed more interested more in dogma than science.

    I’m not interested in Dem or Rep talking points. I consider myself an independent although the 1st Dem I voted for since I started voting in 1972 was John Kerry in 2004. I voted for Kerry than because he had come to oppose the Iraq war which I consider one of the costliest blunders in American history. So far the only Republican candidate that seems to agree with that assesment is Ron Paul (maybe Johnson?). I’d love to hear the candidates asked if they believe the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were mistakes.

  • Martin Knight

    So … it would appear your concerns (albeit only hinted at) about Perry are not particularly well-founded then? Since he seems to have no problems with supporting medical/scientific research in TX (in fact, TX has become major center for scientific research in the last ten years), while at the same time believing in a Supreme Creator.

    Again, deny it all you will, but you’re obviously paying too much attention to liberal/Democrat talking points – that Republicans (or religious people) as a whole are generally anti-science. Take a good look at Congress, most of the people with a background in the physical sciences (including medicine) are Republicans.

    As to global warming, over 90% of the world

  • comeridethewhale

    No, I don’t speak for all indies–just one little vote down here in Georgia so I’m not expecting my views to rock this process in any stretch of the imagination.

    I don’t know a lot about Perry but I have heard him say that down in Texas they teach both creationism and evolution. That worries me a lot. It is fine to teach evolution as a theory but teaching that the universe was created by a Supreme Being can only be an article of faith not science and as such (true as it may be) should never be tought in a public school science classroom. It could be taught in a history of religion class along with all the other creation stories but it does not belong in a science class.

    As to climate change you can always find a sub group of scientists who foster an alternative view. I think that’s healthy. The 90% number that both Jon Huntsman and Chris Christie have cited probably comes form this CNN poll done in 2008 http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

    What bothers me are politicians who ignore the data pandering to the base. This is a world wide problem that we need to face not politicize. I’m not a scientist but the U.N. and all of the other developed countries in the world feel that this is a huge problem. Have they all been duped?

    Another science issue that should be asked of the candidates is their stand on medical marijuana. Why can I get a script for morphine in Georgia but not cannibis? Once again I think this has a lot to do with religious values trumping science.

    Your’re right about hindsight being 20/20 but the priciple of adhearing to the Constitution would have kept us out of Iraq and Vietnam. The last war we fought with a declaration of war passed by Congress was WWII. As far as I know, among these candidates only Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist on this point and it is a MAJOR issue for me.

  • Martin Knight
    1. Who says Creationism as a theory is inherently inimical to science? I think it requires just as much faith to posit that the universe came about as a spontaneous combustion of concentrated nothingness i.e. “The Big Bang”.
      The fact is that I’m basically agnostic about whether or not kids should be taught that there are alternative theories to the so-called “scientific” ones on the origins of the universe in schools. What I find risible is the automatic assumption that anyone who believes in a Supreme Being is somehow less capable or inclined to understand biology, chemistry, physics, etc.
      I personally know a brilliant surgeon who spends the night before a major surgery on his knees, praying for God’s assistance and guidance for the next day. Trust me, you could not be in better hands than his.
    2. It’s nice you think it is healthy for there to be dissenting voices in the climate debate. Too bad so many so-called climate scientists disagree with you.
      Whether or not the the U.N. and all of the other developed countries in the world have been duped is not something I care to ponder, but I submit that it is in the best interests of the political elite of those nations to go with the flow and not look too closely. Whatever the case may be, neither Tuvalu nor the Maldives are under water and the sea levels have not risen around either of them.
    3. Ever heard of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force? It is something passed by Congress. The Constitution is silent on the title of the resolution – the real meat is what it says in the resolution.
      You can call a piece of legislation “The Lick-A-Lollipop Act” and inside have it say that all income would now be taxed at 25% and not mention lollipops even once. You can bet that you would still go to jail if you don’t pay up.
      Understand?

    Please do not be a Ronulan. It rots the mind.

  • chipbennett

    I don

  • chipbennett

    …with every comment you leave.

    You trolls aren’t very good at hiding your true colors.

  • comeridethewhale

    I don’t believe faith needs to be in opposition to science. I consider myself a Believer and I’m also interested in the latest scientific research. What bothers me is Perry bragging about how they teach “creationism” in Texas schools. That topic (although I believe in some type of intelligent design) just doesn’t belong in a public school..

    I think its time to recheck your views when you feel that 90% of the world’s scientists and dozens of world leaders have been “duped” because they disagree with your opinion.

    The bigger issue is when religious beliefs are the basis for government policy. An outstanding illustration of this is the resistance to the legalization of medical marijuana. I’ll reply to that in my answer to chipbennet below.

    As to the war powers act, sometimes words do make a difference. The reason they don’t want to call these action “declarations of war” is because the politicians know the American people would not back such a declaration. In both Iraq and Vietnam Congress was given false evidence in support of war. These wars are two of the greatest blunders in American history and all of the current crop of candidates should weigh in as to their opinions on the wisdom of those wars.

  • comeridethewhale

    I’m not arguing for or against the theory of evolution. I’m arguing that teaching that a Supreme Being created the universe does not belong in the science curriculum.

    As to climate change I’ll side with Gov. Christie who defers to the 90% of scientists world wide that believe that climate change is a problem created by human activity.

    Medical marijuana is an important issue for me personally because I saw two family members buy pot illegally to lessen their suffering as they were dying of cancer. But as a bigger issue it illustrates how religious beliefs get in the way of science when brought into the area of government. We know pot has beneficial effects for cancer sufferers but it is kept illegal because of the opposition of religious groups who don’t like it because it is a source of pleasure.

    I’m not a “Paulian”. I disagree with RP on a lot of issues but I like his stance on foreign affairs.

    If you want to label me go ahead. I’m pro-life, in favor of smaller government, less taxes, a balanced budget, local control of public education and the death penalty.
    I also feel that both the Vietnam and Iraq wars were terrible blunders that made billions of dollars for select corporations and that the environment would be totally despoiled if the government did not check polluters. Likewise, I feel that the government has important roles to play in protecting workplace safety and safeguarding the food supply. I think that the government has no jurisdiction in sexual practices between consenting adults and that same sex couples have the right to marry. So what does that make me? A “troll” at Redstate?

  • chipbennett

    I

  • comeridethewhale

    for my words that you took as an insult to your faith. I should not have characterized religious opposition to medical marijuana as “anti-pleasure” since I don’t know the motive of the opposition just that it is religious groups leading it.

    I’m all for smaller government, a balanced budget and lower taxes. What I object to from the Right is religious convictions influencing public policy in a way that restricts the freedom of others. The criminalization of marijuana is one obvious example as are such issues as condom distribution and same sex marriage. Foreign policy that supports Israel without forcefully objecting to their illegal settlements on the West Bank is another area where religious views drive public policy.

    Intelligent design is not science. It does not belong in the science curriculum of a public school. It is a religious position not an alternative scientific view. If you want to teach children that theory at home or in church or in a private school, fine but it does not belong in the public school science class. What could be taught are various arguments disputing the theory of evolution if they are based on scientific research but belief in an intelligent designer is not science.

    Science has a lot to do with consensus as to which way a problem should be tackled. Denials of our climate change problem inhibit our implementation of solutions. This is is similar to Reagan’s refusal to take on the AIDS virus in the 1980′s, Thousands were dying but Reagan, playing to the Religious Right, kept insisting that AIDS was a moral problem not a medical one. As a result the drugs eventually developed in fighting AIDS were retarded in their development.

    There has been a lot of research on the usefulness of cannabis. Most of it is being done overseas because of the religious war against the plant in the U.S.
    This article outlines some of this research:
    http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002