http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=352443&widget=1

(Well-documents the hit job done on Glenn Beck, and how we were made to think he “lied” about Barbara Walters)

California will take care of illegals and indigent, but reduce welfare payments to the poor, to finance that.

Homosexuals must be allowed to practice their lifestyle in public without inteference, this is why athiests must remove any sign of the christian faith from the public view.

Obama said no new taxes on the poor under $250k; we will finance green technology by driving up the price of travel and electricity.

N.O.W. supports professional women, and vigorously defends women’s right to be equal in the marketplace, except Alaskan Governors, who should stay home and take care of the kids

Huge amounts of money needed to be allocated for economic stimulus, but all of it was spent on political favors, so huge amounts more will need to be collected, to do the job we would have done with the two previous huge amounts, if we hadn’t needed to make political payoffs first, although some worry that this will ruin the US economy.

It is okay to pass laws to prevent army recruiters from making soldiers out of our kids, to carry guns on the border. Instead, we will create a civilian corps to patrol the border without guns, to protect us from violent drug cartels, but allow the good clean undocumenteds to pass without too much scrutiny.

We will reduce greenhouse gasses by driving the companies who create them, overseas to countries where they won’t regulate these industries.

Commenting on the election in Iran would be interfering, commenting on restoring the dictator of Honduras is just the right thing to do

If we care about polar bears, then the guy who has studied them for 30 years, gets an invitation not to attend our scientific meetings, because he says there are 50 times more now than 100 years ago, which does not fit our agenda, and ruins our “consensus”.

If you google “hypocrisy conservative”, you get 2.2 million hits

If you google “hypocrisy liberal”, you get 2.4 million hits

Let’s end with, “liberals are intellectual, and very superior thinkers”, they just aren’t very good with facts.

All of the aforementioned acitivies should be local or state decisions to make in regards to how they see their communities. They have an impact on families. The Constitution, on the other hand, is not the Ten Commandments, ergo the Federal Government (and we have to be clear about which government we mean) has no business in the morality business. That’s not what it was set up to do.

Angela, you say you will not vote for a known cheat. Will you then vote for an unknown cheat? Unbeknowst to them South Carolinians in 2006 did vote for a cheat. And yet despite being a cheat some think Sanford isn’t doing a bad job. As I said, vote your morals if that’s what’s important to you. But to think that vice just rests one party or another when all are equally human is nothing more than talk show tripe.

WRW, the state can not advance morality, but there is clear Biblical support (both Old and New Testament) for the civil government to attempt to restrain vice. To the degree that the civil government has to do so, however, reflects a failure at a lower level – individual, family, church.

“stop saying the government must “create strong families” because that is not something government can do nor should do”

The “Right” enlisting gov’t in “faith-based initiatives” is just warmed-over 19th Century Progressivism. It validates the State’s interference with the family (as to other well-intentioned things like child welfare laws and the social workers) that, when Leftists gain the reins, can and will be used to undermine families as they are traditionally, and properly understood; that is, excluding homosexuals, unmarried, etc.

And Dr. Phillips is correct that in decades past, there was a firmer compact in favor of traditional moral principles that the public did not need to worry about skeptics/secularists (Truman) and philanderers (Kennedy) supporting destructive and immoral policies like homosexual marriage and adoptive rights. And it’s true that compact no longer holds. But rather than refuting Sean’s point, it supports it.

Are “values voters” better off crippling themselves electorally by joining in the hypocritical feeding frenzy of immoral leftists towards the failing of politicians who, while personally inadequate, nonetheless would not brook the use of the state against their values? In other words, are we better off with an Obama, who is faithful to his wife but a radical toward the family, his paens to “fatherhood” notwithstanding; or with a JFK, who philandered with Marilyn Monroe and every other attractive woman he could get hold of, but wouldn’t contemplate such radicalism?

The use of the state to “advance morality” is a true failure. The best that can be hoped for in politicians is not engage in radical experimentation. But a philanderer can do that as well as a faithful man (and if the latter is an ideologue or in thrall to radical pressure groups like feminists and homosexuals, the philanderer can do it better.)

As for Kevin’s point, all his reference to Cleveland and Clinton shows is that the GOP has been demagogueing this point for decades.

You can tell me why morals don’t matter, but I still won’t vote for a known cheat.

You can tell me why I shouldn’t care, but I do.

No point in being a Republican if they’re going to behave like Democrats.

That said, there’s nothing stopping the people from pointing out hypocrisies on the democratic side. It just seems odd to be whining about possibly being punished for one’s own hypocrisy — its not as if the Democrats forced “family values” upon the Republican platform…

The loss of traditional values being understood and unchallenged has led people who aren’t necessarily personally morally committed to them to have to affirm them.

The idea of “family values” however inchoate, is more a reaction to liberal encroachment than it is an affirmative attempt to “impose” them.

Does this try to depict a traditionally American habit as a mere Republican one? Haven’t politician adulterers always fared badly in the US? Between Cleveland and Clinton, did any widely-accused adulterer ever win the presidency or his party’s nomination?

“they need to (hint, hint Mitt Romney) stop saying the government must “create strong families” because that is not something government can do nor should do.”

Of course it’s something the government can do or assist, depending on the state and federal levels. Strengthening divorce/marriage requirements, suppressing pornography, reworking tax policy, encouraging a father-friendly economy, and permitting (or encouraging) private discrimination against cohabitating couples and single people are all policy possibilities that have been in force in the past. (See Allan Carlson and profam.org for more)

Perhaps most of these options have been ruled out of bounds by SCOTUS or national legislation, but overturning such precedents may be necessary to halt familial decline.

The trouble with family values rhetoric is that it substitutes for sound family policy. If caddish pols had more policy proposals at hand besides the odd tax credit, primary voters could be more willing to overlook dubious character in exchange for practical results.