Perry leads in GOP polls–already!

Governor Perry is leading the other Republican presidential contenders, including among tea partiers and anti-tea partiers.  Romney leads him among moderates by only two points.

Rick Perry leads his Republican rivals by double digits in the first national survey taken since the Texas governor joined the race and Michele Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll over the weekend.

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday afternoon, Perry, who launched his campaign Saturday in South Carolina, attracts the support of 29 percent of likely Republican primary voters. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sits in second place with 18 percent. Bachmann garners 13 percent support.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who placed second in Ames, receives 9 percent support. Businessman Herman Cain trails him with 6 percent support, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has 5 percent. Former Sen. Rick Santorum and ex-Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman round out the field with 1 percent. . . .

Perry holds a strong 39 percent to 21 percent lead over Bachmann among voters who identify with the Tea Party, an influential constituency for which the two candidates will compete. Perry holds a 27 percent to 24 percent lead over Romney among voters who do not consider themselves members of the Tea Party. The same survey two weeks ago, however, put Romney ahead of Perry among this group by double digits.

The Texas governor wins the plurality of conservative support, topping Romney, 33 percent to 16 percent. Bachmann attracts 14 percent support from this group. Perry also appears competitive among moderates, a group Romney typically claims in national polls. The former Massachusetts governor edges Perry, 27 percent to 25 percent, among this group.

via RealClearPolitics – Perry Leads Republican Field in National Poll.

This sounds like a rush to positive judgment, as if Republicans are so eager for an alternative to the prior slate that they are jumping on the Perry bandwagon.  I haven’t even heard him speak yet, and I suspect the same can be said of lots of his other supporters.   He is making gaffes, but the key is whether he will be a teflon candidate, on which nothing sticks, or a velcro candidate, on which everything sticks.  Surely, though, Republicans need time to take his measure.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    As a Democrat, I’m 100% for Perry. Actually, I’m 100% for all of the current Republican candidates. I’d be happy to see any one of them become the GOP nominee.

  • Tom Hering

    As a Democrat, I’m 100% for Perry. Actually, I’m 100% for all of the current Republican candidates. I’d be happy to see any one of them become the GOP nominee.

  • Joe

    I think that Perry’s spot on the top has to do with the fact that we all know a little bit about him but we know 100% what we want him to be. And, so for many of us he’ll be that “generic Republican” candidate that polls so well against Obama until he proves us wrong.

    I am not sure about him yet, but I like him better than some of the other choices …

  • Joe

    I think that Perry’s spot on the top has to do with the fact that we all know a little bit about him but we know 100% what we want him to be. And, so for many of us he’ll be that “generic Republican” candidate that polls so well against Obama until he proves us wrong.

    I am not sure about him yet, but I like him better than some of the other choices …

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom,
    Interesting the way you phrase your comment. Is your denigration of all the Republican candidates (and FWIW, I actually agree with you insofar as I have zero enthusiasm for any of the candidates at this point. I think they are all one shade or another of stereotypical pandering politicos) simply that, or is there in the comment some sort of tacit acknowledgment that a good candidate could easily defeat Obama? I think that even a decent candidate (without glaring weaknesses and a competent campaigner) would win the election going away. That being said, I don’t know that the Republican party will nominate a decent candidate.
    I know that you are to the left of me politically (easily observed from your comments over time), but are you disappointed in President Obama or do you think he is getting a bum rap? Not interested in trying to beat you up with arguments or anything, I’m actually just interested in your perspective.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom,
    Interesting the way you phrase your comment. Is your denigration of all the Republican candidates (and FWIW, I actually agree with you insofar as I have zero enthusiasm for any of the candidates at this point. I think they are all one shade or another of stereotypical pandering politicos) simply that, or is there in the comment some sort of tacit acknowledgment that a good candidate could easily defeat Obama? I think that even a decent candidate (without glaring weaknesses and a competent campaigner) would win the election going away. That being said, I don’t know that the Republican party will nominate a decent candidate.
    I know that you are to the left of me politically (easily observed from your comments over time), but are you disappointed in President Obama or do you think he is getting a bum rap? Not interested in trying to beat you up with arguments or anything, I’m actually just interested in your perspective.

  • fws

    Tom brother, I think your thinking is wrong.

    To be patriotic is to want good candidates to be fielded. I would LOVE for the republicans to come up with a candidate to honestly represents the very best and most noble ideals of republicanism .

    And I would like the republicans to be better at being clear as to what those are. I would love to see a new barry goldwater, and I would love to see some honest debating between Obama and such a candidate. Goldwater was the last and only republican to honestly reject the new deal and the great society and social security and medical and all. and his reasoning was pretty good actually even if I don’t agree. But what I think needs to constantly be challenged and opposed by what Goldwater said to remain within the golden mean.

    And , to be honest, I am not sure Obama would be up to such a debate.

  • fws

    Tom brother, I think your thinking is wrong.

    To be patriotic is to want good candidates to be fielded. I would LOVE for the republicans to come up with a candidate to honestly represents the very best and most noble ideals of republicanism .

    And I would like the republicans to be better at being clear as to what those are. I would love to see a new barry goldwater, and I would love to see some honest debating between Obama and such a candidate. Goldwater was the last and only republican to honestly reject the new deal and the great society and social security and medical and all. and his reasoning was pretty good actually even if I don’t agree. But what I think needs to constantly be challenged and opposed by what Goldwater said to remain within the golden mean.

    And , to be honest, I am not sure Obama would be up to such a debate.

  • fws

    and why do i think that the best of republicanism also needs to constantly be opposed by what I think to keep it within that golden mean?

    Because I think it is a false separation to say that individuals are to do acts of Mercy and that the government is not required to step in when individuals fail to do enough Mercy.

    I think this is the Lutheran and Confessional position. The aim of all earthly morality is to drive us to do Goodness and Mercy (ie love) for our Neighbor. Mercy by definition is always undeserved).

    If we fail to do this as we ought, Luther and the Confessions and the Bible are full of telling us that in that case God will send punishments, in the form of the Government (!) or others, to make us do what we refuse to do willingly and joyfully as we ought.

    So I am fine with conservatives regarding social programs as a form of punishment. That is what they are! And we will eliminate those programs, morally, by first getting individuals to do this. And then pray for God to remove this punishment from us.

    But a christian will not avoid such punishment and suffering but will instead trust God in all of this as it being a part of his Will being done. And then we will fear God and so get busy in works of Mercy to avoid God requiring the application of even worse punishment on us personally and in society. We will cry: Lord have mercy ! We will not resent such punishment . That attitude is not the mark of a christian.

    Conservatives propose instead that the only “moral” option is to eliminate these programs whether individuals are taking up the slack or not. That is not quite it.

  • fws

    and why do i think that the best of republicanism also needs to constantly be opposed by what I think to keep it within that golden mean?

    Because I think it is a false separation to say that individuals are to do acts of Mercy and that the government is not required to step in when individuals fail to do enough Mercy.

    I think this is the Lutheran and Confessional position. The aim of all earthly morality is to drive us to do Goodness and Mercy (ie love) for our Neighbor. Mercy by definition is always undeserved).

    If we fail to do this as we ought, Luther and the Confessions and the Bible are full of telling us that in that case God will send punishments, in the form of the Government (!) or others, to make us do what we refuse to do willingly and joyfully as we ought.

    So I am fine with conservatives regarding social programs as a form of punishment. That is what they are! And we will eliminate those programs, morally, by first getting individuals to do this. And then pray for God to remove this punishment from us.

    But a christian will not avoid such punishment and suffering but will instead trust God in all of this as it being a part of his Will being done. And then we will fear God and so get busy in works of Mercy to avoid God requiring the application of even worse punishment on us personally and in society. We will cry: Lord have mercy ! We will not resent such punishment . That attitude is not the mark of a christian.

    Conservatives propose instead that the only “moral” option is to eliminate these programs whether individuals are taking up the slack or not. That is not quite it.

  • fws

    and this is not to deny the fact that there is corruption and waste and an intrinsic injustice as well in the ” income transfer ” that happens in a socialist system we now have and that, to be clear, both dems and republicans (with rare exceptions like Goldwater and Paul) have fully supported.

    These flaws, in and of themselves, do not constitute a sufficient argument to eliminate these programs. that would be my perspective.

  • fws

    and this is not to deny the fact that there is corruption and waste and an intrinsic injustice as well in the ” income transfer ” that happens in a socialist system we now have and that, to be clear, both dems and republicans (with rare exceptions like Goldwater and Paul) have fully supported.

    These flaws, in and of themselves, do not constitute a sufficient argument to eliminate these programs. that would be my perspective.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Not so sure I like Perry. I prefer a candidate who supports liberty, not Mengeleian forced vaccinations of pre-pubescent little girls (or of anybody, for that matter).

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Not so sure I like Perry. I prefer a candidate who supports liberty, not Mengeleian forced vaccinations of pre-pubescent little girls (or of anybody, for that matter).

  • John

    @Mike +1.
    Perry has always been a big/powerful govt. guy. I am not sure he represents the Republican ideal, but he does represent what the people want. And Clinton called him good looking, so I’m guessing he will be the GOP nom.

  • John

    @Mike +1.
    Perry has always been a big/powerful govt. guy. I am not sure he represents the Republican ideal, but he does represent what the people want. And Clinton called him good looking, so I’m guessing he will be the GOP nom.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe said (@2):

    I think that Perry’s spot on the top has to do with the fact that we all know a little bit about him but we know 100% what we want him to be.

    Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Everybody loves someone who hasn’t spent enough time in the national spotlight to be tarnished too much yet.

    Oh, and another reason state governors probably do so well in our presidential elections? They don’t have a federal voting record like Congressmen (or incumbent Presidents) do. And, given Texas’ weak governorship, Perry won’t have all that much state legislation/action hanging around his neck, either.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe said (@2):

    I think that Perry’s spot on the top has to do with the fact that we all know a little bit about him but we know 100% what we want him to be.

    Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Everybody loves someone who hasn’t spent enough time in the national spotlight to be tarnished too much yet.

    Oh, and another reason state governors probably do so well in our presidential elections? They don’t have a federal voting record like Congressmen (or incumbent Presidents) do. And, given Texas’ weak governorship, Perry won’t have all that much state legislation/action hanging around his neck, either.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike said (@7):

    I prefer a candidate who supports liberty, not Mengeleian forced vaccinations of pre-pubescent little girls.

    Oh good grief.

    Is there a state that doesn’t require vaccinations for public schools? Assuming there isn’t, are you therefore opposed, prima facie, to any and all state governors running for President?

    And, similarly, are you prepared to call every state governor “Mengeleian”?

    And, when you speak of “forced vaccinations”, are you intentionally ignoring the ability — in Texas, at least — to opt out of vaccinations for philosophical or religious reasons?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike said (@7):

    I prefer a candidate who supports liberty, not Mengeleian forced vaccinations of pre-pubescent little girls.

    Oh good grief.

    Is there a state that doesn’t require vaccinations for public schools? Assuming there isn’t, are you therefore opposed, prima facie, to any and all state governors running for President?

    And, similarly, are you prepared to call every state governor “Mengeleian”?

    And, when you speak of “forced vaccinations”, are you intentionally ignoring the ability — in Texas, at least — to opt out of vaccinations for philosophical or religious reasons?

  • Steve Billingsley

    Todd @9
    I generally agree with your take. But the 2008 election didn’t involve a state governor and in my opinion offered the most ridiculous example of rorschach test/wish fulfillment/projection of hopes-dreams fantasies upon candidates (Obama on the left/Palin on the right – which is interesting seeing that she was the running mate and not the actual candidate) that I am aware of. I think that sort of projection isn’t a bug in our system, I think it is a feature.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Todd @9
    I generally agree with your take. But the 2008 election didn’t involve a state governor and in my opinion offered the most ridiculous example of rorschach test/wish fulfillment/projection of hopes-dreams fantasies upon candidates (Obama on the left/Palin on the right – which is interesting seeing that she was the running mate and not the actual candidate) that I am aware of. I think that sort of projection isn’t a bug in our system, I think it is a feature.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I was specifically referring to Perry’s executive order to require Gardasil vaccinations of all girls prior to entering sixth grade.

    That, and all other state-forced vaccinations are what I call Mengeleian.

    Yes, I’m aware that states require all kinds of vaccinations of kids, and that most (if not all) states have a religious/philosophical exemption . So, what? Real liberty doesn’t require exemptions to exercise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I was specifically referring to Perry’s executive order to require Gardasil vaccinations of all girls prior to entering sixth grade.

    That, and all other state-forced vaccinations are what I call Mengeleian.

    Yes, I’m aware that states require all kinds of vaccinations of kids, and that most (if not all) states have a religious/philosophical exemption . So, what? Real liberty doesn’t require exemptions to exercise.

  • Tom Hering

    Steve @ 3, if the election were held today, any Republican – who didn’t see half the country as the enemy of real America- could defeat Obama. I just don’t think the current GOP is able to nominate someone with that point of view. So I’ll stick with Obama (as the least of the evils) and watch the GOP self-destruct. (It was instructive to watch my own state of Wisconsin turn red with the Tea Party wave, and in the last two weeks turn purple. I’m betting a return to blue isn’t far off.)

  • Tom Hering

    Steve @ 3, if the election were held today, any Republican – who didn’t see half the country as the enemy of real America- could defeat Obama. I just don’t think the current GOP is able to nominate someone with that point of view. So I’ll stick with Obama (as the least of the evils) and watch the GOP self-destruct. (It was instructive to watch my own state of Wisconsin turn red with the Tea Party wave, and in the last two weeks turn purple. I’m betting a return to blue isn’t far off.)

  • Jon

    I agree w/Tom @13.
    I left the GOP (of which I’d been a member since ’76) during the Bush years when the party happily embraced torture and two underfunded, unnecessary wars, and refused even to reconsider tax cuts for the rich. I voted for Obama, but I would consider a moderate GOP nominee in ’12. But all that’s out there are Perry, Bachmann, Palin. Thus, I fully expect to vote again for Obama. The Teaparty take-over has soured me completely on Republicans.

  • Jon

    I agree w/Tom @13.
    I left the GOP (of which I’d been a member since ’76) during the Bush years when the party happily embraced torture and two underfunded, unnecessary wars, and refused even to reconsider tax cuts for the rich. I voted for Obama, but I would consider a moderate GOP nominee in ’12. But all that’s out there are Perry, Bachmann, Palin. Thus, I fully expect to vote again for Obama. The Teaparty take-over has soured me completely on Republicans.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom @13
    It certainly remains to be seen what the GOP will do and how the candidate they end up nominating holds up. I have been surprised, even with a tough economy, how far Obama’s popularity has fallen to this point. I thought that it would be stronger at this point and that he would be very difficult to beat in 2012 without an extraordinary candidate. Now, I’m not so sure that it will even take a good candidate. A lot can change in a year, however, one way or another.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom @13
    It certainly remains to be seen what the GOP will do and how the candidate they end up nominating holds up. I have been surprised, even with a tough economy, how far Obama’s popularity has fallen to this point. I thought that it would be stronger at this point and that he would be very difficult to beat in 2012 without an extraordinary candidate. Now, I’m not so sure that it will even take a good candidate. A lot can change in a year, however, one way or another.

  • Mike

    Any GOP candidate would be better than Obama. Actually, if everyone who called themselves a Christian in this country voted on Biblical principles in the voting booth, there is no way anyone from the party of abortion and gay marriage would ever win an election. And the GOP would straighten up to boot.

  • Mike

    Any GOP candidate would be better than Obama. Actually, if everyone who called themselves a Christian in this country voted on Biblical principles in the voting booth, there is no way anyone from the party of abortion and gay marriage would ever win an election. And the GOP would straighten up to boot.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I knew which specific vaccine you were referring to, Mike (@12). Not that it matters, since you then go on, all the same, to call “all” such vaccinations “Mengeleian”. Like the ones for polio, or measles.

    Because preventing disease and saving lives is so very much like involuntary amputation or outright murder. What a reasonable comparison.

    “Real liberty doesn’t require exemptions to exercise.” Does that even make sense to you? It seems like a parbaked talking point to me. Liberty is, quite literally, defined as “the power of choice”. Exemptions equal choice.

    Not to mention the fact that there is the additional choice to not attend public schools in the first place. As with most government programs, the so-called “mandatory” nature of vaccinations is only if you want to take part in the other government-run program of education.
    Or are you claiming that Texas (as well as every other state) literally (and this is the word you keep using — rather disingenuously, I’d add) “forcing” home-schooled children to have vaccines?

    If your problem is simply with government-run education, that’s a far more reasonable position to take, and I wish you’d just say to. But on what basis could you possibly compare the idea that children in a government-run school should be as protected from disease as possible to Nazi war crimes?

    And which Republican candidate, exactly, is it that has taken a stance against immunization requirements for public schools? Or are they all “Mengeleian”? If so, why did you single out Perry again?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I knew which specific vaccine you were referring to, Mike (@12). Not that it matters, since you then go on, all the same, to call “all” such vaccinations “Mengeleian”. Like the ones for polio, or measles.

    Because preventing disease and saving lives is so very much like involuntary amputation or outright murder. What a reasonable comparison.

    “Real liberty doesn’t require exemptions to exercise.” Does that even make sense to you? It seems like a parbaked talking point to me. Liberty is, quite literally, defined as “the power of choice”. Exemptions equal choice.

    Not to mention the fact that there is the additional choice to not attend public schools in the first place. As with most government programs, the so-called “mandatory” nature of vaccinations is only if you want to take part in the other government-run program of education.
    Or are you claiming that Texas (as well as every other state) literally (and this is the word you keep using — rather disingenuously, I’d add) “forcing” home-schooled children to have vaccines?

    If your problem is simply with government-run education, that’s a far more reasonable position to take, and I wish you’d just say to. But on what basis could you possibly compare the idea that children in a government-run school should be as protected from disease as possible to Nazi war crimes?

    And which Republican candidate, exactly, is it that has taken a stance against immunization requirements for public schools? Or are they all “Mengeleian”? If so, why did you single out Perry again?

  • steve

    tODD, #17, True, liberty is the power of choice. But, in this case, it seems to me that a program that truly respects individual liberty would be an opt-in choice rather than an opt-out choice. We know that many children don’t have actively participating parents–especially true in public schools–and those children have no choice in an opt-out program. If Gardasil was, at that time, a tried and true vaccine for a group of diseases that was unrelated to sexual activity, there probably wouldn’t have been an uproar about it (since undoubtedly the closest most grade-schoolers and many high-schoolers will ever get to HPV will be the vaccine itself). If there was an opt-in program there probably wouldn’t have been as much of an uproar. If it were not mandated for girls entering the sixth grade it may not have caused as much of an uproar. All of the above combined, I think Perry’s detractors on this subject have a very valid point. Does it make him akin to a Nazi? No.

  • steve

    tODD, #17, True, liberty is the power of choice. But, in this case, it seems to me that a program that truly respects individual liberty would be an opt-in choice rather than an opt-out choice. We know that many children don’t have actively participating parents–especially true in public schools–and those children have no choice in an opt-out program. If Gardasil was, at that time, a tried and true vaccine for a group of diseases that was unrelated to sexual activity, there probably wouldn’t have been an uproar about it (since undoubtedly the closest most grade-schoolers and many high-schoolers will ever get to HPV will be the vaccine itself). If there was an opt-in program there probably wouldn’t have been as much of an uproar. If it were not mandated for girls entering the sixth grade it may not have caused as much of an uproar. All of the above combined, I think Perry’s detractors on this subject have a very valid point. Does it make him akin to a Nazi? No.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Steve, you said (@18):

    We know that many children don’t have actively participating parents

    as if that argument could only be construed as opposing vaccinations for school children. But that same argument could easily be used to argue for why vaccinations should be required for (most) children in public schools: because their parents wouldn’t otherwise bother to get them. And, let’s be clear, this would result in more sick and dead children.

    If Gardasil was, at that time, a tried and true vaccine…

    Okay, I’ll bite, in what manner, exactly, is it not “tried and true”? The National Cancer Institute says it prevents nearly 100% of what it targets, and the FDA and CDC both consider it safe.

    …for a group of diseases that was unrelated to sexual activity

    You’ll forgive me if I think that’s the main reason behind this brouhaha: legalism, particularly of the sexual kind: Let’s let the sexual sinners catch some disease. That’ll teach ‘em! It’s God’s punishment for sin!

    Undoubtedly the closest most grade-schoolers and many high-schoolers will ever get to HPV will be the vaccine itself

    I’m going to go ahead and doubt your assertion, all the same. According to the CDC, “at least 50% of sexually active people will have genital HPV at some time in their lives.” Presumably, you’re not so naive to think that only a very small number of students are having sex of some sort. So the odds of someone being exposed to — much less contracting — HPV are not so small.

    Oh, and if you’re going to argue that by “most”, you meant “at least half”, then ask yourself: what percentage of students will be exposed to polio, and is that likewise an argument against vaccinating students against that disease?

    Seems to me this is little more than the confluence of (Evangelical) Culture Warriors and the anti-science/anti-virus crowd. Of course, without the sex aspect, I agree, the story wouldn’t have as much legs — because, you know, vaccines are an inarguable good except to the most scientifically deluded — but that doesn’t mean the anti-HPV-vaccine-and-Perry crowd actually has a “valid point”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Steve, you said (@18):

    We know that many children don’t have actively participating parents

    as if that argument could only be construed as opposing vaccinations for school children. But that same argument could easily be used to argue for why vaccinations should be required for (most) children in public schools: because their parents wouldn’t otherwise bother to get them. And, let’s be clear, this would result in more sick and dead children.

    If Gardasil was, at that time, a tried and true vaccine…

    Okay, I’ll bite, in what manner, exactly, is it not “tried and true”? The National Cancer Institute says it prevents nearly 100% of what it targets, and the FDA and CDC both consider it safe.

    …for a group of diseases that was unrelated to sexual activity

    You’ll forgive me if I think that’s the main reason behind this brouhaha: legalism, particularly of the sexual kind: Let’s let the sexual sinners catch some disease. That’ll teach ‘em! It’s God’s punishment for sin!

    Undoubtedly the closest most grade-schoolers and many high-schoolers will ever get to HPV will be the vaccine itself

    I’m going to go ahead and doubt your assertion, all the same. According to the CDC, “at least 50% of sexually active people will have genital HPV at some time in their lives.” Presumably, you’re not so naive to think that only a very small number of students are having sex of some sort. So the odds of someone being exposed to — much less contracting — HPV are not so small.

    Oh, and if you’re going to argue that by “most”, you meant “at least half”, then ask yourself: what percentage of students will be exposed to polio, and is that likewise an argument against vaccinating students against that disease?

    Seems to me this is little more than the confluence of (Evangelical) Culture Warriors and the anti-science/anti-virus crowd. Of course, without the sex aspect, I agree, the story wouldn’t have as much legs — because, you know, vaccines are an inarguable good except to the most scientifically deluded — but that doesn’t mean the anti-HPV-vaccine-and-Perry crowd actually has a “valid point”.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > what percentage of students will be exposed to polio, and is that
    > likewise an argument against vaccinating students against that
    > disease?

    Yes, it is. Well, at least is an argument against compulsory vaccination against that disease. Polio has been effectively wiped out in all the world except some parts of deepest darkest Africa. It’s a completely unnecessary vaccination now (except to those who make money from its manufacture).
    However, whoever is afraid they might nevertheless get somehow exposed to the disease ought to be free to vaccinate.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > what percentage of students will be exposed to polio, and is that
    > likewise an argument against vaccinating students against that
    > disease?

    Yes, it is. Well, at least is an argument against compulsory vaccination against that disease. Polio has been effectively wiped out in all the world except some parts of deepest darkest Africa. It’s a completely unnecessary vaccination now (except to those who make money from its manufacture).
    However, whoever is afraid they might nevertheless get somehow exposed to the disease ought to be free to vaccinate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike said (@20):

    Polio has been effectively wiped out in all the world except some parts of deepest darkest Africa.

    Yeah, if by “Africa”, you mean Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Which raises questions about the factual nature of the rest of your argument.

    It’s a completely unnecessary vaccination now

    Sure. Provided that no one from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan ever travels to the United States or to other countries where there are people who travel to the United States, I completely agree.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike said (@20):

    Polio has been effectively wiped out in all the world except some parts of deepest darkest Africa.

    Yeah, if by “Africa”, you mean Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Which raises questions about the factual nature of the rest of your argument.

    It’s a completely unnecessary vaccination now

    Sure. Provided that no one from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan ever travels to the United States or to other countries where there are people who travel to the United States, I completely agree.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I thought that polio is extant in the environment and therefore will likely never be eradicated. Hepatitis b is spread by intimate contact or direct contact with the blood of an infected person. The argument against polio vaccination seems much weaker than the argument against hep b. I can’t imagine not wanting to vaccinate. The risk from a vaccine is tiny. On the other hand, the diseases they prevent are extremely dangerous and can quickly become epidemic. Not vaccinating puts others at risk as well.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I thought that polio is extant in the environment and therefore will likely never be eradicated. Hepatitis b is spread by intimate contact or direct contact with the blood of an infected person. The argument against polio vaccination seems much weaker than the argument against hep b. I can’t imagine not wanting to vaccinate. The risk from a vaccine is tiny. On the other hand, the diseases they prevent are extremely dangerous and can quickly become epidemic. Not vaccinating puts others at risk as well.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    FWIW, I seem to remember learning as a student in health class basic information like the modes of transmission of the diseases we commonly vaccinate against as well as the mortality and morbidity rates for those who become infected. That was in the early 80′s. Don’t they still teach that? I hope so.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    FWIW, I seem to remember learning as a student in health class basic information like the modes of transmission of the diseases we commonly vaccinate against as well as the mortality and morbidity rates for those who become infected. That was in the early 80′s. Don’t they still teach that? I hope so.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X