Walker: Women mostly worry about rape pregnancies in the "initial months."

[Bull Moose Base]

Walker has a real knack for saying things in the most controversial and inflammatory way possible, doesn't he?

It's a habit he can't seem to break, and it's going to turn him into a joke candidate (if he even runs).

He is going to run. That's been obvious from the moment he won reelection.

He's unofficially running already. But I'm wondering if his "campaign" isn't going to follow a similar trajectory to Pawlenty's, where he ends it before we even get close to the actual primaries. (I know Iowa is looking increasingly unimportant, but other things could lead to him dropping out.)

Pawlenty never polled at the top of the pack like Walker is now. Pawlenty mania was a media/sabato fascination with him that never truly trickled down to the actual electorate, Walker mania is clearly already resonating with the electorate.

This is right and it's also not accurate that Iowa is increasingly unimportant. Huckabee and Santorum ended up losing but both had moderate records on economic issues that turned off many conservatives and big donors who helped put them at a huge financial disadvantage. That isn't the case for Walker. And with New Hampshire still wide open, it could end up won by someone like Paul who (like Buchanan in '96) would drive party leaders into the Iowa winner's arms. Also possible that, like John Kerry 2004 or Romney 2012, the Iowa winner (real or declared) could pick up momentum to win the first 2 states. On the flip side, losing Iowa could be fatal for Walker. Which is why he isn't worried about what the rest of us perceive as gaffes but Iowa Republicans agree with.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Walker has a real knack for saying things in the most controversial and inflammatory way possible, doesn't he?

It's a habit he can't seem to break, and it's going to turn him into a joke candidate (if he even runs).

He is going to run. That's been obvious from the moment he won reelection.

He's unofficially running already. But I'm wondering if his "campaign" isn't going to follow a similar trajectory to Pawlenty's, where he ends it before we even get close to the actual primaries. (I know Iowa is looking increasingly unimportant, but other things could lead to him dropping out.)

Pawlenty never polled at the top of the pack like Walker is now. Pawlenty mania was a media/sabato fascination with him that never truly trickled down to the actual electorate, Walker mania is clearly already resonating with the electorate.

This is right and it's also not accurate that Iowa is increasingly unimportant. Huckabee and Santorum ended up losing but both had moderate records on economic issues that turned off many conservatives and big donors who helped put them at a huge financial disadvantage. That isn't the case for Walker. And with New Hampshire still wide open, it could end up won by someone like Paul who (like Buchanan in '96) would drive party leaders into the Iowa winner's arms. Also possible that, like John Kerry 2004 or Romney 2012, the Iowa winner (real or declared) could pick up momentum to win the first 2 states. On the flip side, losing Iowa could be fatal for Walker. Which is why he isn't worried about what the rest of us perceive as gaffes but Iowa Republicans agree with.

I think Iowa would have been much bigger for Santorum if he had been determined the victor on Caucus Night, and not long after the fact.

[Skill and Chance]

I believe that men (including myself) have every right to express our opinions about abortion. Passing laws which restrict the reproductive rights of women, however, is a different story. I will say that even if you agree with his position, it's hard to deny that he didn't use ideal wording.

One opinion I'd like to hear pro-choice men, as well as pro-choice women, express explicity if they are running for office is the opinion on at what point they believe a fetus becomes a HUMAN life.  Because we were all at the stage of being a fetus once.  Indeed, we were all at the stage of just being a fertilized egg at one time.

When does HUMAN life begin.  There is no question that a fetus is, at some point a HUMAN life.  The question is:  At what point does HUMAN life begin?  This is the 800 lb gorilla in the room on this for liberals, because (A) legal abortion opens up the possibility that INNOCENT HUMANS are being killed LEGALLY, and (B) many (though not all) of these same liberals oppose capital punishment because of both the POSSIBILITY of the mistake of executing an INNOCENT man and the LIKELIHOOD that it will happen as long as the Death Penalty is law.

If it were not for the HUMAN LIFE issue, I would have no more problem with abortion than I would with breast augmentation, sex changes, vasectomies, etc.  But Human Life IS the issue; indeed, it's the ENTIRE issue regarding abortion.  I'm trying not to sound like a clinic bomber or one of the crazies that due the Pro-Life cause more harm than good, but how can you be intellectually honest and refuse to discuss in specific terms the point at where HUMAN life actually begins when you discuss abortion?

I agree that it is difficult to reconcile an implied absolute right to abortion at any point during pregnancy with it being clearly criminally wrong to kill/abandon your 17-year-old.  English Common Law had a primitive fetal viability standard called "quickening" which is similar to what we are trying to work out scientifically now.  For some, the word "born" in the 14th Amendment settles when life begins to be legally protected, but of course non-physicians knew next to nothing about human gestation in 1868.

[Skill and Chance]

BTW as someone who leans left, I almost hope Roe does get overturned under the next GOP president.  If the decision leaves it to the states, it would be the best thing that ever happened to downballot Democrats since Watergate.  Especially if Griswold also got reversed and birth control for unmarried women is on the line in the state legislature, imagine what that would do to youth turnout in midterms.

[Beet]

BTW as someone who leans left, I almost hope Roe does get overturned under the next GOP president.  If the decision leaves it to the states, it would be the best thing that ever happened to downballot Democrats since Watergate.  Especially if Griswold also got reversed and birth control for unmarried women is on the line in the state legislature, imagine what that would do to youth turnout in midterms.

True, but the point of winning elections is to influence policy, not vice-versa. The extra turnout would only be from people who want to protect abortion rights, and if they succeeded, we would be back to where we are today. If they didn't succeed, then you just used their vote to get elected but didn't do anything for them. In that case, it's a bit disrespectful, IMO.

[Skill and Chance]

BTW as someone who leans left, I almost hope Roe does get overturned under the next GOP president.  If the decision leaves it to the states, it would be the best thing that ever happened to downballot Democrats since Watergate.  Especially if Griswold also got reversed and birth control for unmarried women is on the line in the state legislature, imagine what that would do to youth turnout in midterms.

True, but the point of winning elections is to influence policy, not vice-versa. The extra turnout would only be from people who want to protect abortion rights, and if they succeeded, we would be back to where we are today. If they didn't succeed, then you just used their vote to get elected but didn't do anything for them. In that case, it's a bit disrespectful, IMO.

Sure, but what about all the other issues?  They would practically get to enact New Deal 2.0 in 2/3rds of the states in the process.

[Ebsy]

I hope Walker stays in, wins Iowa, and picks up a bunch of delegates in the Midwest while doing poorly elsewhere. Makes a brokered convention all the more likely.

[Beet]

BTW as someone who leans left, I almost hope Roe does get overturned under the next GOP president.  If the decision leaves it to the states, it would be the best thing that ever happened to downballot Democrats since Watergate.  Especially if Griswold also got reversed and birth control for unmarried women is on the line in the state legislature, imagine what that would do to youth turnout in midterms.

True, but the point of winning elections is to influence policy, not vice-versa. The extra turnout would only be from people who want to protect abortion rights, and if they succeeded, we would be back to where we are today. If they didn't succeed, then you just used their vote to get elected but didn't do anything for them. In that case, it's a bit disrespectful, IMO.

Sure, but what about all the other issues?  They would practically get to enact New Deal 2.0 in 2/3rds of the states in the process.

Not really since the issue splits 50/50. Also, this issue is important to me. I wouldn't want the SCOTUS to overturn gay rights or social security overturned just because it would help in elections. And I don't want abortion rights overturned for that reason either.