Redstate

By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Sunday's much-talked-about Des Moines Register poll of Iowa voters shows, of course, Mitt Romney in the lead with 29%. He is trailed by Fred Thompson with 18%, Mike Huckabee with 12%, and Rudy Giuliani's 11%. This seems a rational result this early, given that Romney has spent far-and-away the most money in the State, Thompson is an attractive set of hopes, Huckabee is still playing with a surge, and Rudy doesn't do Iowa.

Something caught my eye, though, in a Dan Balz write-up of the survey. He posits that Mitt and Fred have benefitted from the slippage of John McCain and Rudy, with McCain's fall being an immigration thing and Giuliani's a product of his abortion stance and that he's a no-show in the State. But he looks beyond this, to a survey question about who these anonymous Iowans think would make a good President:

Neither Thompson nor Romney did as well on that question as their overall poll numbers would have suggested. While Romney led among the Republicans in terms of overall support, at 29 percent, just 20 percent said they thought he would make the best president. Half of Republicans surveyed said they are concerned about his flip-flops on abortion.

Thompson, who was at 18 percent on the ballot test, was cited by just 12 percent as making the best president. Also more than half said the fact that a candidate has had serious health problems would make them less likely to back them in the caucuses. Thompson revealed in the spring that he suffers from lymphoma, although he said it is in remission.

And the other half might perceive Romney flip-flops on any of a number of issues. He carries that baggage.

- Read More -

But Fred Thompson has lymphoma – "indolent lymphoma," according to a hematologist, who adds that Thompson right now "has no evidence of disease."

It could recur. Though I am not an oncologist – not fit even to play one on TV – I estimate that lymphoma could be considered a more serious issue that the President's (Reagan) benign colon polyp in nineteen-hundred and eighty-five.

So, would Americans elect a President who has been diagnosed with and treated for cancer? It's quite a question to ask, I think, but it's one of many: Would Americans elect a female President? Would Americans elect an African American President? An Hispanic? A Mormon? An Austrian-born? A Canadian-born? (No, forget about it, George. Jen's got her own problems.)

Granted, there is no equivalence between a diagnosed ailment and a religious or ethnic categorization, but they are factors which might be considered, by some, to be disqualifying. And the pre-existing condition mentioned in the title of this post could be just about anything.

With Thompson's cancer in remission, one would think it would not be an issue until Hillary has the leftist groups make one of it, frightening people; however, his veep choice would take a modicum of extra urgency.

So ask yourself: What condition or situation pre-disqualified a person from receiving your Presidential vote? What do you think might be so for the mass of the voting public? (My first disqualification would be for the condition of membership in and/or complicity with the previous Clinton Administration.)

BTW, I heard Mike Huckabee tell Tim Russert on MSNBC that he had the highest ratings in that Register poll for "solid support," meaning that more of those who said they support him were not going to flip-flop on their choice. Huckabee also told Russert that he had done this with very little money, and if he were the guy who had spent millions to get people to listen to him, "I'd have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with some razor blades right now," contemplating why he's not running away with it.