This question stumps Republicans

Greenville, South Carolina (CNN)It's a simple question, but one that stops Republican presidential hopefuls in their tracks: Who do you think is the greatest president alive today?

CNN posed the question to several White House contenders gathered here recently at the Freedom Summit, a daylong conference with conservative activists ahead of next year's primary in this crucial early-primary state.

"Obviously the greatest president of my lifetime is Ronald Reagan," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

"I'll leave that to the people to decide," said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, which is his guaranteed go-to line for questions he doesn't want to answer. "Certainly the greatest president of recent generations was Ronald Reagan."

"I was a big fan, a very big fan of Ronald Reagan," real estate mogul Donald Trump said.

Ronald Reagan, as you might recall, has been dead for 11 years.

There are reasons why these White House hopefuls are suddenly shy when pressed on their thoughts about the five surviving presidents.

They can't say Jimmy Carter, whose presidency is synonymous in GOP circles as weakness, or President Barack Obama, a man whose legacy they all have spent years trying to vanquish. Bill Clinton is a Democrat and the husband of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton -- so he's out.

That leaves the two Republicans: George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, father and brother, respectively, of Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida who is preparing his own bid for the Republican nomination. And an endorsement for a Bush could be construed as affirmation for Jeb Bush by proxy.

They also know that if you say George W. Bush is the greatest living president, well, then you're on camera saying you think George W. Bush is the greatest living president, and Democrats will have a field day. In 2008, GOP nominee John McCain didn't want to tie his campaign lasso to Bush, and neither do these contenders eight years later.

That might explain why former Texas Gov. Rick Perry ignored the question completely, walked away and hooted, "Bye y'aaaaall" on his way out.

Or why Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, paused for several seconds before he just gave up. "I don't know," he said.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum gets partial credit for threading the needle: "Probably a Bush," he said, and then escaped up a wheelchair ramp.

Well, at least almost everyone on the Republican campaign trail can agree: The late Ronald Reagan is America's greatest (previously) living president.

boards of FL wrote:Vote for objective people who employ real world problem solving and critical thinking.  Vote for people who can answer questions like "Do you believe in evolution?", "Is climate change real?", or "Who is the best living president?".  

Don't vote for people who simply repeat ideological mantras and who can't answer the fairly straightforward questions mentioned above.

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Vote for objective people who employ real world problem solving and critical thinking.  Vote for people who can answer questions like "Do you believe in evolution?", "Is climate change real?", or "Who is the best living president?".  

Don't vote for people who simply repeat ideological mantras and who can't answer the fairly straightforward questions mentioned above.

Seems shallow.  

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Vote for objective people who employ real world problem solving and critical thinking.  Vote for people who can answer questions like "Do you believe in evolution?", "Is climate change real?", or "Who is the best living president?".  

Don't vote for people who simply repeat ideological mantras and who can't answer the fairly straightforward questions mentioned above.

Seems shallow.  

How is it shallow to prefer evidence based, real world solutions over unchanging ideology?

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Vote for objective people who employ real world problem solving and critical thinking.  Vote for people who can answer questions like "Do you believe in evolution?", "Is climate change real?", or "Who is the best living president?".  

Don't vote for people who simply repeat ideological mantras and who can't answer the fairly straightforward questions mentioned above.

Seems shallow.  

How is it shallow to prefer evidence based, real world solutions over unchanging ideology?

Evolution has what to do with health care?  Jobs?  Continuing to grow and economy???

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

SheWrites wrote:

boards of FL wrote:Vote for objective people who employ real world problem solving and critical thinking.  Vote for people who can answer questions like "Do you believe in evolution?", "Is climate change real?", or "Who is the best living president?".  

Don't vote for people who simply repeat ideological mantras and who can't answer the fairly straightforward questions mentioned above.

Seems shallow.  

How is it shallow to prefer evidence based, real world solutions over unchanging ideology?

Evolution has what to do with health care?  Jobs?  Continuing to grow and economy???

Floridatexan wrote:
OK...ignoring the evolution question entirely...what platforms or programs do you support in casting your votes for public office?  It's not sophmoric to focus on actual issues when supporting a candidate; it's common sense.

(...although I'm curious to know why you don't seem to want to answer the evolution question.)

SheWrites wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
OK...ignoring the evolution question entirely...what platforms or programs do you support in casting your votes for public office?  It's not sophmoric to focus on actual issues when supporting a candidate; it's common sense.

(...although I'm curious to know why you don't seem to want to answer the evolution question.)

Government does not sink or swim over evolution or creationism - whatever one believes.

So if a candidate chooses not to discuss their personal view on either is not a big deal.  

Common sense tells me to have a candidate that deals with the issues that a government needs to deal with and not the same debates over issues that have been established by a court (abortion) or in academia (evolution) and certainly not religious (creation.)    

Come together on the things that are the issues:  jobs and economic growth, etc.

The deal with Boards and Wordslinger is they want to be sure no Christian is in or near the WhiteHouse and their selective process of questions assures them they won't have to deal with anyone less than their desired outcome.

SheWrites wrote:Government does not sink or swim over evolution or creationism - whatever one believes.

So if a candidate chooses not to discuss their personal view on either is not a big deal.  

Common sense tells me to have a candidate that deals with the issues that a government needs to deal with and not the same debates over issues that have been established by a court (abortion) or in academia (evolution) and certainly not religious (creation.)    

Come together on the things that are the issues:  jobs and economic growth, etc.

The deal with Boards and Wordslinger is they want to be sure no Christian is in or near the WhiteHouse and their selective process of questions assures them they won't have to deal with anyone less than their desired outcome.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

SheWrites wrote:Government does not sink or swim over evolution or creationism - whatever one believes.

So if a candidate chooses not to discuss their personal view on either is not a big deal.  

Common sense tells me to have a candidate that deals with the issues that a government needs to deal with and not the same debates over issues that have been established by a court (abortion) or in academia (evolution) and certainly not religious (creation.)    

Come together on the things that are the issues:  jobs and economic growth, etc.

The deal with Boards and Wordslinger is they want to be sure no Christian is in or near the WhiteHouse and their selective process of questions assures them they won't have to deal with anyone less than their desired outcome.

I have been following this thread and I think you pretty much nailed it. Zealotry swings both ways. You don't necessarily need to be religious to be a zealot. On this forum there are represented right-wing religious zealots and left-wing atheistic zealots. They are all zealots just the same.

Perhaps there needs to be a "Religion Forum" and keep this one restricted to politics only.