If Huntsman changes that R to D, he would be the President in 2016.

Gulper Eel: Seeing as none of the Democrats who profess to loathe Obama so much for going back on his word have the conviction to walk it like they talk it and mount a primary challenge, what the hell...Huntsman could give it a shot from the right.

So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

WTF Indeed: Gulper Eel: Seeing as none of the Democrats who profess to loathe Obama so much for going back on his word have the conviction to walk it like they talk it and mount a primary challenge, what the hell...Huntsman could give it a shot from the right.

So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

You mean like Obama?

I have serious issues supporting anyone who thinks the gold standard is a good idea.

Gulper Eel: What about Alan Grayson?

He's an amusing firebrand, but pretty dumb.

I think he's angling for a VP nomination. Crazy is going to need non-crazy to try to get a few independent votes.

FlashHarry: Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

2/10 nice try, though.

while abortion may be waning on the right as an issue, it's still a HUGE issue on the left. the specter of a republican president appointing a conservative justice who tips the SCOTUS balance to overturn roe will turn out massive numbers of liberals who will hold their noses to vote for the right-of-center-but-still-pro-choice obama in 2012.

It's a moot point. Roe will be nullified by viability sooner or later(sooner rather than later).

FuturePastNow: I think he's angling for a VP nomination. Crazy is going to need non-crazy to try to get a few independent votes.

I would loooove to see the fundies have to vote for a magic pair of underwear.

bhcompy: Roe will be nullified by viability sooner or later(sooner rather than later).

<curious>
What do you mean by viability?
</curious>

qorkfiend: bhcompy: Roe will be nullified by viability sooner or later(sooner rather than later).

<curious>
What do you mean by viability?
</curious>

A heartbeat.

sprawl15: qorkfiend: bhcompy: Roe will be nullified by viability sooner or later(sooner rather than later).

<curious>
What do you mean by viability?
</curious>

A heartbeat.

Don't we already have such laws, in the form of bans on third-trimester abortion?

i think he means level playing field amongst the candidates....

Who?

Yeah. Reality is often harsh.

Too bad. Huntsman is the only one with a brain that isn't a suck puppet.
I hope he makes another run in 2016.

Unfortunately, he gets no air time during the debates. The last one (before NV) over the entire hour he was on for maybe 3 minutes total.
About half the time it to Mbachman to plea "Anderson Anderson Anderson Anderson...."

qorkfiend: bhcompy: Roe will be nullified by viability sooner or later(sooner rather than later).

<curious>
What do you mean by viability?
</curious>

Slate article that touches on viability

Basically, Roe v Wade holds that abortion is legal up until viability. Viability is defined as when a fetus can survive delivery, and it includes the use of life support.

From the article: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.

Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

I get what you're trying to say about Huntsman but you're off. I'm a liberal, looking at the GOP race and I see a bunch of derptards plus Huntsman. He looks sane, reasonable, intelligent, moderate and so on in the context of the GOP primary race. Were Huntsman to run against the D's, were he compared to actual D candidates, he would no longer look so appealing. He would be a good solid candidate but he is not far left enough to win a D primary. One of the major reasons why would indeed be abortion and his views on gay rights.

Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

I'm neither and I give a giant poop.

bhcompy: Slate article that touches on viability

Basically, Roe v Wade holds that abortion is legal up until viability. Viability is defined as when a fetus can survive delivery, and it includes the use of life support.

From the article: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.

Very interesting. It seems that there's a certain point past which technology can't do much, though, unless we start speeding up some of the developmental processes (lung development appears to be the tipping point).

WTF Indeed: If Huntsman changes that R to D, he would be the President in 2016.

Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: If Huntsman changes that R to D, he would be the President in 2016 2012.

Seeing as none of the Democrats who profess to loathe Obama so much for going back on his word have the conviction to walk it like they talk it and mount a primary challenge, what the hell...Huntsman could give it a shot from the right.

Looks like neither of you has seen Huntsman's jobs plan. It involves lowering the top rate to 25% AND elimination of capital gains taxes. So... no, he would not survive a primary challenge to Obama.

It's not a good sign that he's on Colbert. That means his campaign is desperate for any kind of attention.

Gulper Eel: GAT_00: Because I really have a shot at getting elected President and have the money sitting around to make the bid. Plus I'm a little under a decade shy of legally taking the office.

Ted Kennedy stepped up in '79 to challenge Carter and had a solid lead until the Iran crisis happened and Carter got the rally-round-the-flag bounce.

There's lots of rich mouthy liberals around. What about Alan Grayson? He's supposed to be this speakstruthtopowery pinnacle of left-wing superawesome courageousness.

The dude served one term in Congress. That's the entirety of his government experience. Now you're going to say something about Obama, but Obama served 4 years in the Senate versus Grayson's 2 years in the house. Plus, Obama was a state senator for 8 years before the US Senate.

Grayson's loud. He's not any sort of leader at the moment.

WTF Indeed: Gulper Eel: Seeing as none of the Democrats who profess to loathe Obama so much for going back on his word have the conviction to walk it like they talk it and mount a primary challenge, what the hell...Huntsman could give it a shot from the right.

So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

I would.

The Onion had this in its TV-listing for the republican debate:


For 35 minutes, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman tries and fails to shoehorn his sensible opinion into the debate before finally blurting out "People on welfare should starve to death" in order to get the moderator to acknowledge him.


\it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

mrshowrules: Dafatone: Grayson's loud. He's not any sort of leader at the moment.

He's not technicall "loud" but his statement's do does resonate.

/sorry, pet peeve

There is a way to put everyone on a level playing field; maybe try capitalism for a change, instead of the disastrous mixture of regulatory micromanaging and political favors that created the mess we're in now.

/drtfa

All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

So wrong.

Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

I do. As a gay man, if homosexuality is shown to have any genetic component no matter how small, the CHRISTIANS WILL MANDATE ABORTION OF BABIES WITH THAT ALLELE!

lennavan: Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

I get what you're trying to say about Huntsman but you're off. I'm a liberal, looking at the GOP race and I see a bunch of derptards plus Huntsman. He looks sane, reasonable, intelligent, moderate and so on in the context of the GOP primary race. Were Huntsman to run against the D's, were he compared to actual D candidates, he would no longer look so appealing. He would be a good solid candidate but he is not far left enough to win a D primary. One of the major reasons why would indeed be abortion and his views on gay rights.

This. Huntsman is a small government, socially conservative candidate. What he isn't is a useful idiot whose political ideology has been shaped by right wing talking heads. Perry, Cain, and Bachmann are what happens when the chronically ill-informed conservative base actually gets elevated onto the main stage. Huntsman is a reasonable opponent. I would be thrilled if conservative politicians were actually like him because he can be reasoned with. The base seems him as a RINO because he isn't a raving fanatic, not because he doesn't share their values.

This dipshiat sits home at night wondering why he's not the darling of conservatives. Why is he even in this party?

mrshowrules: dababler: Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

I do. As a gay man, if homosexuality is shown to have any genetic component no matter how small, the CHRISTIANS WILL MANDATE ABORTION OF BABIES WITH THAT ALLELE!

Self defeating strategy, who will replace the leadership of the anti-gay movement?

Lizard People.

otherginger: All of a sudden abortion is big issue again? Nice try, but no. This isn't 1979. Only the hardest hard-core holy rollers and feminists give a shiat any more.

So wrong.

Damn right. Amongst people who give a shiat, 100% of them give a shiat!

CBS News Poll. Sept. 28-Oct. 2, 2011. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

Economy and jobs
54

Budget deficit/National debt
6

War/Iraq/Afghanistan
4

Partisan politics
3

Health care
2

Education
2

Politicians/Government
2

Religious values
2

Moral values/Family values
2

Other
19

Unsure
4

I don't think ABORTION! is going to resonate this election cycle. It will appear that such a candidate is trying to distract from his lack of economic policy if he or she starts to holler about abortion.

Do you have any data that indicate the opposite? That abortion remains a critical issue to voters today?

Here's more support (new window)

Lost Thought 00: WTF Indeed: Gulper Eel: Seeing as none of the Democrats who profess to loathe Obama so much for going back on his word have the conviction to walk it like they talk it and mount a primary challenge, what the hell...Huntsman could give it a shot from the right.

So your saying liberals would vote for a pro-life conservative?

You mean like Obama?

Hah! It's funny 'cause it's true.

I think it's Huntsman's tone that sets him apart. He has not borrowed the vocabulary of people like Rush Limbaugh or the Tea Party, and he has not used any superficial buzzwords about creationism and gays to get superficial evangelicals to pay attention; instead he uses the vocabulary and intonation of NPR. Now his views and political record are solidly right. But superficially he looks more like Obama.

Gulper Eel: WTF Indeed: If Huntsman changes that R to D, he would be the President in 2016 2012.

Seeing as none of the Democrats who profess to loathe Obama so much for going back on his word have the conviction to walk it like they talk it and mount a primary challenge, what the hell...Huntsman could give it a shot from the right.

To be fair here, the "year-long primary" is pretty much a GOP invention. Any Democrat candidates would only just now be announcing, although I'm not seeing a substantial primary challenger in the cards. Democrats are just having too much fun watching the GOP self-destruct

BeesNuts: I don't think ABORTION! is going to resonate this election cycle. It will appear that such a candidate is trying to distract from his lack of economic policy if he or she starts to holler about abortion.

Abortion isn't the first issue on everyone's minds right now, but when the election finally arrives, I think it will be in the top five. Why? At the national and state level, the Republican party has MADE abortion an issue because of all the abortion and birth control related legislation the Republican party has put forward this year.

Additionally, Mitt has said that he would be in favor of a Constitutional amendment stating that life beings at conception. If he is the Republican candidate for President, that is going to come up again.