Looking for Mr. or Mrs. Right

Newsweak ^ | 12/8/10 | Arian Flores

[pissant]

Surveying the crop of would-be Republican presidential contenders in 2012, some Christian leaders can’t muster much enthusiasm.

“The supposed frontrunners have all got problems,” says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a prominent leader of the religious right. Mitt Romney? “He put ‘Obamacare Light’ in place in Massachusetts,” says Land. “It’s going to be awfully difficult for him to surmount that.” Sarah Palin? “Her problem is her very high negatives. Evangelicals want somebody they like, but they also want somebody who can beat Barack Obama.” Mike Huckabee? “The problem Mike’s got is that he and Sarah Palin are appealing to the same base, and Sarah has stronger appeal to that base.” And Newt Gingrich? “Two ex-wives is one ex-wife too many for most evangelicals.”

[MaggieCarta]

You know, I'm almost beginning to understand what was meant by an earlier remark to the effect that perhaps social issues should be taken off the front burner.

I agree with Bolton that these are issues best resolved at the state level.

Actually, they are best resolved at the personal level, without any government involvement.

[SoConPubbie]

Watch, he’ll change his tune on DADT. And his federalist approach to gay marriage is satisfactory to most conservatives.

Pissant, I can't believe I'm seeing you post such nonsense as that.

I thought you were a Christian.

Much more than half of conservatives will never support Gay Marriage, either at the state level or the federal level.

Can you see the founding fathers supporting it at any level?

Can you really see the founding fathers arguing that it is a States-Rights(Federalist) issue?

You're better than this.

[SoConPubbie]

Actually, they are best resolved at the personal level, without any government involvement.

The founders would have never agreed with you.

They danger homosexuality and the acceptance thereof poses to our culture demands that we take a strong stance against it at every level of government that we can.

It should not be tolerated, and it should not be given victim status.

[pissant]

Hey, all the candidates have their weaknesses. The gal you so admire is rank federalist on abortion, of all issues. So there you go.

[SoConPubbie]

Actually, they are best resolved at the personal level, without any government involvement.

Then you are on the wrong site.

Statement by the founder of this site, Jim Robinson:

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

[firebrand]

Bozo has said that nothing will persuade him to run.

[SoConPubbie]

Hey, all the candidates have their weaknesses. The gal you so admire is rank federalist on abortion, of all issues. So there you go.

And yet if a Personhood Amendment came across her desk as POTUS, is there any doubt she would sign it?

[MaggieCarta]

The founders would have never agreed with you.

Guffaw.

The Founders would have politely listened to me, smiled and then advised me to not meddle in men's business.

They might have danced with me, though...

[Chunga]

The gal you so admire

Her name is Sarah Palin, ya dumbass troll.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, piss on you. Our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the fruits of our labor were granted to us by God. No government, no state, no man can deprive us of same.

DON’T TREAD ON ME!!

Thought you opussed out already?

[SoConPubbie]

The Founders would have politely listened to me, smiled and then advised me to not meddle in men's business.

They might have danced with me, though...

Like hell they would have.

IF they actually had thought or dreamed of this becoming an issue it is today, it would have been included as an admendment.

They were almost completely all devoted Christians. They would have viewed Homosexuality as the bible views it, an abomination.

[MaggieCarta]

Hey! Thanks for pinging JimRob!
Tattletale.

What I mean by "resolve these issues at the personal level" is personally doing your best at living an upright and moral life. I don't think that is inconsistent with conservative principles.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jim Robinson]

zot

[Jim Robinson]

bye

[SoConPubbie]

What I mean by "resolve these issues at the personal level" is personally doing your best at living an upright and moral life. I don't think that is inconsistent with conservative principles.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong!

Are country and our system was meant by the founders for a Christian nation.

In fact, they were emphatic that if this nation walked away from God, this experiment in a Representative Democracy would fail.

Furthermore, they never meant for there to be a separation of God from our Political Lives.

Read their statements and speeches on the subject.

[adamjefferson]

Even Time magazine can be right once in a bluE moon. The 2008 crop were unelectable.. a fresh face is needed... And Pallin isn’t it.. Demint.. ? Maybe Newt if he hadn’t divorced his cancer stricken wife...
Think this question is key though... I can just see the GOP electing another McCain or Dole...

[Jim Robinson]

We could (and probably will thanks to the turncoat RINOs and outright progressives in the GOP) do a lot worse than Sarah Palin.

[SoConPubbie]

Even Time magazine can be right once in a bluE moon. The 2008 crop were unelectable.. a fresh face is needed... And Pallin isn’t it.. Demint.. ? Maybe Newt if he hadn’t divorced his cancer stricken wife... Think this question is key though... I can just see the GOP electing another McCain or Dole...

Unelectable?

By whose standard?

BY what standard of historical fact?

Here are some facts concerning Reagan's poll numbers and unelectability just before the 1980 General Election:

11/05/2010 11:26:39 AM PDT · 24 of 36
Al B. to onyx; SoConPubbie

Harris Poll January 29, 1980:

CARTER NOW FAR AHEAD OF BOTH REAGAN AND BUSH

"President Carter so dominates the American political scene now that his margin over Ronald Reagan in a post-Iowa trial heat has risen to an overwhelming 65-31 percent."

Also, Time magazine ran a big story in March of that year basically saying Reagan was unelectable. Gallup had a poll in that time frame with Reagan down 25 points.

Here's another blast from the past, March 10, 1980. The GOP establishment had decided they needed another candidate besides Bush to stop Reagan and started recruiting Gerald Ford:

ABC News - Harris poll: FORD LEADS BOTH CARTER AND REAGAN, ALTHOUGH STILL UNDECLARED CANDIDATE

"Former President Gerald Ford is the first choice of Republican and independent voters to head the GOP ticket, even though he has not yet declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination.

Ford also leads President Carter among the general electorate."

Here's another one for your collection:

Historic Whispers: Ronald Reagan Had Little Chance of Winning the Primary

White House political strategists have concluded—regretfully—that Ronald Reagan is fading and will have little chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. Why the regrets? Because Carter's aides are convinced that the conservative, 68-year-old former California governor is an easy target. (April 2, 1979)

Here's another one for your collection:

Historic Whispers: Ronald Reagan Had Little Chance of Winning the Primary

White House political strategists have concluded—regretfully—that Ronald Reagan is fading and will have little chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. Why the regrets? Because Carter's aides are convinced that the conservative, 68-year-old former California governor is an easy target. (April 2, 1979)

[Politicalmom]

Which part of cheating on and divorcing not one, but TWO ill wives proves that Gingrich has a “Christian morality” stance?

[BenKenobi]

The problem is that marriage *isn’t* a personal matter. Never has been, never will.

There are good reasons why it’s not. Imagine getting married to someone and not realising that they were already married to someone else. If marriage is a personal matter only, then there is no reason to disclose things like bigamy.