They have a word for that.  It is called hypocrisy, and they are hypocrites.

So who will run?

I think moderates now want a conservative candidate, and by "conservative" I mean "normal"; something in the general Bill Clinton - George H. W. Bush - Ronald Reagan region. Someone who will run the economy as it used to be done but is totally open to gay marriage and other new causes. And it seems to me like Americans want a somewhat stronger foreign policy than current.

I don't believe we'll know until the first or second quarter of next year. Why announce early so the Democrats can use their favorite "return to the Bush policy" syndrome and attempt to drum that into the voters heads. Palin is doing a good job as a moving target. Like her or not (and I know you don't) people are getting fed up with the mindless bashing of her, so it could only help.

As for a candidate "totally open to gay marriages and other new causes"... this is irrelevant. The people don't want pandering, they want jobs. I haven's seen a plethora of rainbow flags on the tea party footage. IMO the majority of people are tired of special interests seeking additional rights. I'm not sure if what you speak of polls in the top ten among conservatives. These things, as far as president goes, amounts to lip service to appease core voters, as this administration demonstrates. It is the farthest thing from the average Joe's mind in this economy. I doubt that many of the folks concern by gay issues will cross party lines anyway, as they traditionally vote to the left. It would seem a big risk to a conservative, in an attempt to capture a non-traditional voting block with promises they have minimal control over, to isolate more solid supporters that are concerned with jobs and the debt.

I believe both left and right are fed up with the foreign policy. Burnt out after almost 10 years of war (more if you count the failings in the 90's to respond to the threat when it was more manageable). But yes I think people want to feel like the gov. knows what they are doing and not being lead by the nose by every despot that pops their head up.

Job, economy, debt... that is the three main things the challenger needs to focus on with a good plan.

LOL - Sorry, Reagan does not belong with the others.  I hope we get a Reagan II, but as Nitro indicates, we will not know for almost a year.

Let's see who rises to the top.  Any speculation is simply a crap shoot at this point.

Nitro, they need to be open, otherwise liberals won't vote for them. Liberals will happily vote for a candidate who is against gay marriage (like Obama), but they won't vote for one whom they they cannot present to their friends as an "open-minded" candidate.

Guy, Reagan belongs with them. They are a list of real-world presidents pre-George W. Bush. I am not saying they are the same, just that they all fit into the general type of normal candidate people will want after Obama. Whatever his shortcomings, Bill Clinton knew what was going on in the world.

Perfect.

I believe Newt Gingrich is running.  He can say that he helped balance the budget since he was the majority leader when there came a surplus as well, for its funny how every says Clinton balanced the budget. Don't get me wrong, Clinton did do his part.

I think the Democrates will have some opposition on their side as well.  The problem is that its never good if one party controls everything, which could happen if the Democrats lose the house.  The 2000s have been essentially almost that. 

I hope one of the parties divides to stop this monster known as the two party system.  If there was ever a monopoly it is this. 

Leauki, gay marriage is not that big of an issue.  Its only made to seem like a big issue.  Probably less than 10% of the population is gay and that's a very liberal number (I've read that number some where).  I haven't had time to respond to your email, but I will, LORD willing.

Nitro, you forgot the border up there which falls under immigration mostly illegal immigration.  Unless you think it'll be resolved by 2012.

You'd have to show me proof that any liberal will vote for a conservative to begin with (not to be confused with Democrats). Liberals make up about 20% of the population. Liberals want more spending on programs and entitlements, why vote for someone that would put an end to that? Perhaps there are some liberals against gay marriage (I would believe those would be rare), but as I said the key is jobs, and who the majority of folks believe can deliver that. I just don't feel that gay marriages will snap the economy back, so it is not a pressing election issue for anyone but the activists. The best that could occur would be for liberals (and progressives) to stay home on election day, as many conservatives did in 2008. Conservatives were angry about the Republicans shift away to progressiveness. The left didn't seem to like it much either, considering how much they still blame Bush. I guess they are only happy when they are the ones spending out of control.

True, I didn't mention the boarder directly, but I view that issue as an economic one. The cost of doing nothing is huge. I am aware that the left wants to make it a race issue. I'll stick to it being economic with national security overtones. Jobs are still #1 IMO. Conservatives usually put more emphasis on matters of national security, independents a bit less, and liberals almost nil.

Newt Gingrich is not terrible. I think he managed to keep his reputation as it was in the 90s, which is now a good thing.

You misunderstand. Gay marriage was never a big issue and I am not saying that it is. Being "open" towards gay marriage is a big issue to liberals. Liberals are very much into words. That's why they can vote for an anti-gay-marriage President. But they will not vote for a "closed-minded" anti-gay-marriage President because that would feel wrong.

Liberals certainly prefer Obama over Dick Cheney or Mrs Bush (both of whom came out in favour of gay marriage). So gay marriage is not a major issue for them, at least not in elections.

However, liberals do need an "open" President, someone who they reasonably (in their world) can claim is nearly in favour of gay marriage and only holds back because evil Christians would not vote for him if he came out (in favour).

Bill Clinton was such a candidate. Even Ronald Reagan would qualify. And so would Mitt Romney and a few Republicans.

Know what was going on in the world?  I would say that with the exception of Carter and Obama, all did.  That is hardly a classification for a president.  And you make a critical error that most foreigners do.  The American people do  not care a whit about how a president perceives or is perceived by the rest of the world.  They vote domestic, even though he can do little more than jaw bone.

The problem I have with your grouping is that Reagan was principled.  The others were not.  Even if I was a lefty and loved Bill Clinton, the one thing that is clear is he was a smart opportunist, not a principled leader.  Bush 41 was the same way (although not as smart as Clinton).  The left loves to say Reagan was not smart.  I think he was smarter than most of them, but I will concede he was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  But he was principled and knew how to lead (the problem with being super smart is that it makes you a terrible leader).

The propagated myth that Obama is super smart continues to abound, even when all evidence points to the fact he is not even smart.  But that is the wishful thinking of the left, egged on by the media.  Of all the presidents in my life time, Obama may be the stupidest.  LBJ is running close to him in that field, so only time will tell which one takes the cake.

It is a myth perpetuated by the gay lobby.  I would say that the 10% are the active participants in organizations like GLBT, but not all of them are gay. (in other words, 10% of the population will vote on the issue as primary during normal times).

The actual (and more scientifically derived) estimate of the gay population percentage is about 4%.

Obama and his blackmail have made it an issue that will turn a lot of people out of office this year.  However I do not think it will be a big issue in 12 because neither party wants to do anything about it.  If something is to be done, 1 of 2 things will have to happen.

1. A 3rd party gets serious

2. la Raza goes on the war path and causes a lot of death and destruction.

I'm not sure if you were disagree or conferring here.  My point was and is that its people who are the most vocal and since the media caters at their functions this gives the perception that its only that mean angry bigot christians that are against this.  This is also why the news make sures to cover what Westboro Baptist is doing because it plays this part up. The 10% was just a liberal estimate, the 4% to 6% is where most feel the Gay population is.  The whole thing is a political stunt for people are equating that this is some how a civil rights thing and it is not a civil rights.

I'm not against gay unions.  I'm against the term marriage being used.  On a further note is that if you look at Babylon, Rome, and Greek civilizations the down fall started not by someone invading but internally and internally with moral decay.   This is why I am somewhat against it.

I think it'll be a combination of one and two.  Past behavior predicts future.  If you look at the U.S. history, our behavior has generally been reactiontory (is that a word?).    A Mexican mayor just got kidnapped and probably will be killed.  Eventually, a U.S. elected offical will have the same fate.  Once this happens, that is when the U.S. will finally do something.  Now the question is will we do something at the first situation or wait till its someone of high importance.

The States is going to need someone that is a leader.  An individual who doesn't pander to everyone (Leauki, I'm not talking at about a ponce here or caters to whatever is the most recent trend.

I'm not sure why anything gay is "moral decay".

However, I find your examples weird.

Babylon fell not because of moral decay but because the Persians invaded and took it.

The Roman Empire fell first in the west, while the "moral decay" could be found in the decadent and rich eastern half, which survived for another 1000 years.

I don't know when Greek civilisation fell. But I can come up with three possibilities.

One was when Philip and Alexander of Makecon made the Greek world into a Makedonian-led Greek world. However, at that time the Macedonians revered Greek culture and wanted to be accepted as fellow Greeks. They also spread Greek (and not Macedonian) culture towards the east.

The second was when the Macodonian Greek empire(s) fell to the Sassanids.

And the third was when the Byzantinian Empire and ultimately Byzantium fell to the Muslims, first the Arabs and then the Turks.

Not sure how moral decay contributed to Greece's fall. In fact I find it difficult to imagine how one could possibly define how exactly "moral decay" shows in a society that is based on slavery, pedophilia and polytheism. Which moral system did "decay" and how could it go any worse?

I didn't say anything about how the president is perceived by the rest of the world.

And I disagree. I think that knowing what is going in the world is an excellent classification for a president.