Posted on 07/08/2011 5:30:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Christian Right leaders are not rallying behind Michele Bachmann for president and it’s “probably” because they are sexist, contends a writer for Time.
.....“Totally unfair and inaccurate” is how Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, described [Amy] Sullivan's characterization. Nance was invited to join the conference call but was unable to do so.
“Social conservatives are ready for a woman president,” Nance said. “In fact, the McCain campaign really took off,” added Nance, “after Sarah Palin was nominated.”
Nance remembered that during the 2008 election she was mostly standing on the sidelines until Palin was added to the ticket. Then, she began volunteering for McCain and she has many friends that did the same. Palin “was a woman they identified with,” Nance said.
Regarding a Perry candidacy, Nance said, “It's still very early” and “it's good for the country to have lots of choices.”
While Perry has a good relationship with social conservatives, they have not always seen eye to eye. In 2007, Perry proposed requiring all school-aged girls to receive the HPV vaccine. Concerned Women for America was one of the groups that thought that the vaccine should carry an opt-in provision, in which parents would sign their kids up to receive the free vaccination, rather than Perry's proposed opt-out provision, in which all female school children would automatically receive the vaccine unless their parents explicitly requested that they not receive the vaccine.
Ann Hettinger, Concerned Women for America's state director of Texas, was instrumental in convincing Perry to change his proposal to an opt-in provision. When asked if Perry's original plans for the HPV vaccine would be an issue if he were to run for president, Nance replied, “It would've been an issue if he had not fixed it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at m.christianpost.com ...
Yet.
I’m a social conservative. I’m looking for the candidate who can win, and I’m not convinced that Bachmann is that candidate.
I am convinced she is our worst candidate (other than Romney and the soon to be departed Gingrich), there are better ones that have declared already, and I would be surprised if neither Perry nor Palin jump in.
That said, if she were the nominee, I would vote for her.
I totally agree. I just hope it doesn't come to that.
I think the article is explaining why so many so cons are holding back, they are waiting for a better alternative than Bachmann. She has been great as a congresscritter, but congresscritters simply are bad candidates for a number of reasons.
Ah yes, the ‘Christian Right’. I wonder why the ‘Athiest Left’ doesn’t have enthusiasm for Backmann.
“I’m a social conservative. I’m looking for the candidate who can win, and I’m not convinced that Bachmann is that candidate.
That said, if she were the nominee, I would vote for her.
I prefer Perry or Palin, neither of whom is running.”
This pretty well sums up my position.
I would also throw Herman Cain in the category of a candidate I’m not convinced would win, but I would definitely vote for if he’s the nominee. Oh wait, I guess that makes me a racist too...
The last member of the House to win the presidency was James Garfield, a long, long time ago, and, iirc, he won because of his Civil War veteran status.
I’m sure there are reasons why House members do poorly, but I’d suspect it has to do with the relatively small size of House districts and the inability of House members to gather a significant human or financial base. I’d also guess that they will be viewed as having relatively little broad experience and near zero executive experience.
Those might be unfair evaluations, but that wouldn’t stop an opponent from using such an argument.
I agree about Cain, and I was a strong supporter of Ken Blackwell here in Ohio.
Cain has some excellent experience in business, finance, and media. His stumble over pro-life troubled me, and I’m still not sure because of it, where he stands. Until he convinces me he’s pro-life, he’s a non-starter for me.
Gardasil Important Questions and Answers
Is Gardasil a “cervical cancer vaccine”?
No. Gardasil has no effect on cervical cancer whatsoever.
Does Gardasil actually “protect your daughter’s future from cervical cancer and genital warts”?
No, it doesn’t.
Why not?
Gardasil offers SOME protection against SOME of the Types of HPV that have been linked to cervical cancer.
There are over 40 Types of HPV, and 15 of them have been linked to cervical cancer and/or genital warts. Gardasil has been developed to vaccinate against the 4 Types that have the highest correlation with cancer and genital warts.
However, unlike the smallpox vaccine, for example, Gardasil does not grant full immunity to those 4 Types of HPV. Additionally, in the studies offered to the FDA in Merck’s application for approval, data indicated that Gardasil MAY INCREASE your daughter’s risk of developing cervical disease if she already had one of the relevant strains of HPV at the time of vaccination (Appendix E, p13 & 25).
Yo, TIME, why do you think Liberals are so hateful of Sarah Palin?
It HAS NOT been properly tested and there is more than enough data to suggest that it is actually dangerous.
The fact remains that most HPV is sexually transmitted and while many girls are at risk here, many are not.
You post multiple pro-Perry threads here every day, so do you yourself have any connection to Perry, his administration, or his fledgling campaign?
I like her as a congresscritter, but she's our weakest candidate for president.
What is relevant to me about Gardasil is that:
1. It was voluntary.
2. HPV according to some research is not always spread sexually.
There are other vaccines that are not “always” effective. I remember the anthrax immunization I received in the military, about which there was such an uproar. It had a low rate of effectiveness.
Huntsman would be running for VP.
the MSM is just pushing for the next mccain.
a weak RINO who obama can beat and the wall street cronies can run roughshot right over President do nothing weak kneed indicisive Obama.
The research I posted says that virgins daughters of HPV positive mothers have a risk level that is undetermined.
That makes it a communicable disease outside of human contact.
In other words, we must be careful placing a moral evaluation on HPV infection.
The same with male partners being unwitting carriers for years and then marrying. A woman could be totally innocent of any appropriate behavior and still become HPV positive.
The research I posted says that virgins daughters of HPV positive mothers have a risk level that is undetermined.
That makes it a communicable disease outside of human contact.
In other words, we must be careful placing a moral evaluation on HPV infection.
The same with male partners being unwitting carriers for years and then marrying. A woman could be totally innocent of any inappropriate behavior and still become HPV positive.
No.
Also the CDC states that: Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. This decline largely is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical precancer before it turns into cancer.
Cervical Cancer Statistics - 2007
On a 2007 thread I posted this:
11,820 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2003,
3,919 women died from the disease that same year.
Dividing 11820 cases by 144 million women comes out to 0.0008208 or 0.08208%.
This is not an epidemic. But it is a moneymaker using scare tactics.
Tell me how many are not? How many years have you been locked in your room with no contact with the outside world?
Here is a more recent one.
High risk genital papillomavirus infections are not spread vertically
Dillner J.1, *, 2; Andersson-Ellström A.3; Hagmar B.4; Schiller J.5
Reviews in Medical Virology, Volume 9, Number 1, March 1999 , pp. 23-29(7)
Abstract: ... The conclusions arrived at can be summarised as:
(1) There is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that
the only quantitatively important mode of transmission of infection
with oncogenic genital HPV types is sexual.
(2) There is also evidence that benign genital HPV types
can be transmitted sexually, but the epidemiological data
on the benign virus types are less extensive and less clear.
(3) Perinatal HPV transmission is unequivocally demonstrated
only for the rare disease juvenile respiratory papillomatosis.
You got a response that you didn't like. Then you shouldn't have given an opinion on a relationship that you knew nothing about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.