December 3rd, 2011 at 3:37 pm

few people, male or female, have been 100% faithful in their lives.

M J R wrote, in part:

December 3rd, 2011 at 4:09 pm

GoneWithTheWind, I know many many people, including me personally, who “have been 100 percent faithful” in my life to my/their spouse.

GoneWithTheWind wrote, in part:

December 4th, 2011 at 10:40 pm

I never said 100% faithful to your spouse. Therefore the idea that I was trying to say everyone cheats on their spouse is dead wrong.

M J R NOW REPLIES (in full):

Gotcher point this time. See ya.

The bastards–meaning the press and the dems–don’t care how often they’re busted. Maybe it’s because, so far, it hasn’t mattered. That’s the scary part.

A slower approach on getting government out of education doesn’t bother me. It actually sounds like Romney and Gingrich are more aware of how entwined the feds and the states are and how states might need some time to take over. They will have to build some sort of non-fed conference to share information and cooordinate standards between themselves; you cannot expect Wyoming to have the same resources as a populous state, so states have to work together. The great advantage will be that the people responsible for education in the states will be more likely to come up with down-to-earth programs if they are freed from the lure of federal money and the need of national politicians to meddle for the sake of votes.

It is so easy to say we should get the government out of …, but in fact, a company that has to change its product to meet standards for 50 individual states would find this a nightmare. Imagine having Georgia say widgets have to be made of steel while Vermont wants them to be made of aluminum because they have a a pol with an aluminum widget factory. If we need the feds to create a legally binding minimum standard, that’s OK with me. The real problem is finding a way to prevent federal agencies from growing their power beyond the original intent and hiring ever more workers who think they can create a utopia. That, of course, is much harder to do than just shouting to shut the agency down.

We all need to remember that our founders did not decide to throw out all government after the revolution. We kept what we felt we needed from the British system. That perhaps saved us from the anarchy of the French revolution. We should be cautious now about what we throw out and how we throw it out. I sure don’t want an inexperienced enthusiast to make the decisions. We have more than enough of these types in the government right now on the other side of the aisle and in the various NGOs that influence them.

The latest example of this is the California move to recognize illegals and allow them to work. Do we really want Nevada and Oregon to build fences on the California borders so these people can’t migrate to their states? Imagine having to obtain state passports to go to Disneyland.

The Huckabee forum you described sounds like a really good way to change the way we discuss such problems. Thanks for sharing this.

Your right, I couldn’t vote for Gingrich. Thanks.

It primarily concentrated on the issues of states rights versus the Federal government. Each candidate explained their stances on such things as Obamacare, federal involvement in education, the role of the EPA, illegal immigration, etc.

In this format Gingrich did not come out as the masterful debater that he has in the previous debates. I thought they all acquitted themselves reasonably well, but Bachmann, Santorum and Perry were the most conservative. (I expected that.) Paul defends states rights and the Constitution well, but he has done no homework on the threat of Islamism since 9/11. He still thinks we were attacked on 9/11 because of our foreign policy (which he detests) and calls the attacks “crimes.” IMO, that disqualifies him to be C-in-C.

Perry is very likeable and pro states rights. However, he still gets a bit tongue tied, even in this format. I like him, but I don’t think he would not do well in debates against Obama

Both Gingrich and Romney are pro states rights, with exceptions. Both would get the Federal government out of education, but not so enthusiastically/quickly as Perry, Santorum, or Bachmann. Both are less conservative than the others. (I also expected that.) However, if they are the two front runners, we have one who has been married and, to all apperances, faithful to his wife, and one who has botched two marriages and is on his third. Interestingly, the other candidates all seem to have spotless family lives and marital faithfulness. So, Newt’s marital and fidelity problems, though now in the past, do stand out in this group. He needs to work hard to craft answers to the charges that will be coming if he’s the nominee.

Of course I can look at each of the candidates and see how they would be attacked by Obama and the MSM no matter their marital fidelity records. It’s just going to be a nasty, negative campaign coming from the Obama and his minions.

I liked this format. It gave each candidate equal time and the questions coming from attorney generals who are defending their states from the inroads being made by the Feds were good.

“If Christian Americans hate a sin, they love a sinner. Let’s face it: Forgiveness feels good. Gingrich not only has been forthright in admitting his flaws, but he also converted to Catholicism.
[…]
One doesn’t have to be a Catholic to appreciate the sublime duet of confession and redemption. The ability to shed the burden of sin in a confessional booth, submit to the humility of shame and accept the grace of forgiveness is an appealing exit from the turmoil of personal transgression.”

I think it is all three of your conjectures, plus a fourth:

most voters will not be swayed by infidelity.

I mean this: sexual harassment is considered abuse of a powerless victim. Most voters believe they would never commit sexual harassment. Most voters never feel tempted to commit sexual harassment.

Conversely: most voters have, many times, felt a temptation towards infidelity. Also, most voters know fine human beings who also commit infidelity, i.e. most voters have experience of watching unfaithful persons who do excellent work and who contribute to society.

Therefore, infidelity, in and of itself, is easily forgiven. Either most of us or all of us know what that temptation feels like.