A member of the Studio Audience wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, conservatives and Republicans in general are not backing Newt as much as they did in 2008. He's hard to take seriously anymore, so the odds that he'll actually win the nomination and defeat Obama are very slim.
In response to this, I would like to say that I would like to support a limited-government, limited-spending candidate for public office. However, let's look at who the Republicans are so far willing to back in the next election.
A recent survey of Republican leaders shows that the it top candidate for 2012 is Mitt Romney.
In the 2008 election, Romney said,
Let me -- let me offer just a thought, and that is, one of the great things about this great land is we have people of different faiths and different persuasions. And I'm convinced that the nation -- that the nation does need -- the nation does need to have people of different faiths, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country.
We may assume, of course, that this means not only that the President cannot be an atheist, but neither can any person in the chain of command.
This would include the Vice-President, the Speaker oh the House, and, in order, the president pro temples of the senate, the secretary of state, the secretary of treasury, the secretary of defense.
Indeed, we may inquire as to whether Romney believes that everybody elected or appointed into public office must be a person of faith and whether he shares Bush's belief that no person is qualified to be a judge who does not believe that our rights come from God.
Shortly after he made that comment above he gave a speech addressing religion in which he said,
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. . . . Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
This pretty much equates atheism with immorality, tyranny, and injustice. With religious people in office, our freedoms are secure. With atheists running the show, there can be no freedom.