In fact, the 1st 3 during Vietnam were Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

Republicans have always played mop up to every mess the democrats have ever created. The Great Depression actually started in 1913 when Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act.

I also come from a family who has owned a Christian bookstore for over 25 years and I will resist the urge to parse through your biblical rants and ideological perceptions. It’s literally too much work.

“Activists in the Democratic party are more able to affect national agenda items than within the Republican party, where activists are considered boot-soldiers there only to do the party bosses’ bidding.”

But of course. We see how well they shaped our nations handling of those without white skin over the last 150 years. HAVE YOU TOTALLY LOST YOUR MIND? It was not until the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s that we were able to mostly purge the racists who held down Black America. Republicans freed the slaves. Activists in the Democratic party are progressives seeking nothing more then sound bites, corporate extortion and free stuff. They are the embodiment of the drive for Socialism in the US.

Regarding

p.s. I really want to save you a lot of work, I did not spell check or grammar check again. My apologies.

I also wrote the reply in 15 minutes. Have it it if you will. Bottom line is I think it contemptuous (exhibiting lack of respect; rude and discourteous) of you to grab website visits from the campaign by virtue of cute page titles and key words.

Regarding ownership of the Democratic party, however, it is interesting, if you look at the structure of the two major parties, that where the Republican party is top-down, the Democratic party is more bottom-up. Activists in the Democratic party are more able to affect national agenda items than within the Republican party, where activists are considered boot-soldiers there only to do the party bosses’ bidding. This is partly why Republicans for so long seemed to be in lock-step, whereas Dems were all over the map, because labor doesn’t always agree with peace activists, etc. That is, until the compact between the fiscal conservatives and the cultural conservatives was broken — by George W. Bush, who was neither very compassionate OR very conservative, seemingly pissing off everybody. I always thought the best Republican candidate in 2008 would have been Mike Huckabee, who frankly governed as a moderate in Arkansas.

I long for a six-party system. I think the fiefdom that is our current electoral system, as controlled by the two parties, is a mess and a joke. I think we would be much better off if we found ourselves in a situation like Britain’s current dilemma, where more voices are at the table, coalitions MUST be formed, and people actually HAD to work together. I disdain the current polarization in American politics, which you seemingly embrace.

#1: In your item number 1, “then” should be “than.”
#2: Again, in the next sentence, “then” should be “than.”
#3: Same sentence, “out spend” should be “out spent,” past-tense. Also, I believe you’re confusing spending with the size of the deficit, which is admittedly higher than any other deficit in history, but Obama’s contribution to the deficit is still dwarfed by George W. Bush, who went from surpluses to the largest deficit in history in his FIRST term, and only increased that horrendous record during his second.
#4: “The guys a demagogue,” should either be written “guy is” or with an apostrophe. Since the apostrophe could be misconstrued as a possessive, however, implying that Obama is a guy who owns a demagogue, I’d go without the contraction.
#5: “lets” should be “let’s,” as a contraction for “let us.”
#6: There should be an apostrophe before “Cause,” though you’re already starting a sentence with a conjoiner, so let’s just give up on correcting this one.
#7: You really need to study up on the apostrophe: “mans name.”

I believe you’ve adequately impugned yourself with your disdain for intelligence coupled with your lack of facts and reliance on personal attack. I point to the fact that I have allowed people to comment on this post and not edited any of the comments as my willingness for open-minded debate, as took place with Mr. Kaskubar, above (though even he could not close without a swipe at my intelligence). I look forward to someone actually posting a rebuttal that does not rely on personal attack. Since you live outside the district of Mr. Faulkner, as indicated by your email address, you are just as guilty of sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong as I am.

PS: I suggest you read “God’s Politics: Why the Right is Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It,” as a primer on religion and politics.
PPS: Oh, and you may want to try reading the Bible sometime. You don’t have to be that smart to do so… especially if you get the New Living Translation or The Message. It’s clarity, however, does little to prevent humans from imposing all sorts of silly things on to it. After all, the Ku Klux Klan considers itself a Christian group (as do Mormons, whereas many evangelicals consider mormonism a cult). There are theologians that have spent their entire lives studying the minutiae of the Bible and still vehemently disagree on “disputable matters,” completely missing Christ’s command to “love each other,” which is why I read it spiritually and try not to make an idol out of interpretive methodologies like hermeneutics or induction. I bet you and I would find ourselves in surprising agreement regarding anti-intellectualism, at least where intellectualism is deified at the expense of common sense.

Love ya. Thanks for stopping by.

As a member of the faith community, I wholeheartedly support charity, and have many Republican friends who do as well. The difference is, I believe in fighting poverty, hunger, disease, etc., on ALL fronts, not limiting it to one sphere or another. I supported the expansion of federal funding to faith-based charities while Bush was in office. Especially because it was about unifying the good in religious and governmental institutions.

As a churchgoer, I feel safe calling out the church (in the biblical sense of the body of believers) for it’s failures, as much as government. The church has had 2,000 years to end poverty and hunger. How’s that working out?

I would hazard that there are enough tithes in the US alone to end poverty and hunger, but some people seem more intent on building their own personal ministries than partnering up and teaming up with existing ministries. Witness the well-intentioned Baptists that recently got arrested in Haiti rather than partnering with other Christian charities that have been on the ground there for decades. Literally. Working collectively has greater chance of success than working alone. Last I checked, Southern Baptists can’t get along with the First Baptists, just to name one denominational split. Government can be a force for collective good. It is small-minded to think otherwise.

The church failed often… thousands of years before Bastiat. Let’s at least give our democracy another 200 to see how it can do. Failing to fight moral failure by compartmentalizing your priorities is still failure.

“Democrats confuse the distinction between government and society. As a result, every time Republicans object to a thing being done by government, the Democrats conclude that we object to its being done at all.”

Republicans believe that individuals — with their families, neighbors, churches, and organizations — can do a lot of what Democrats want the government to do and believe it is better accomplished in that way. Apparently, Republicans are more optimistic about people than Democrats are. Yet, the government is only people, too, acting as a middle man and controller.

Government is subject to influences of many sorts — including changes in majority party — that affect priorities and funding. Groups focused on a cause need not suffer such distractions. If all the hours and dollars spent on petitioning the electorate and government were instead spent on the object of the petitioners’ plea, real goodness could be accomplished.

Finally, making people charitable through law is something the government is entirely incapable of doing. Government can only coerce. That is not charity or goodness. Those who claim the gospel as their guide can only be true to the gospel by their own actions. Living by proxy through government policy is a moral beggar’s conscience salve.

This Mr. Faulkner completely mis-reads the relationship between charity, the gospel, and government. I recommend Bastiat as a good read that will allow Mr. Faulkner to be only 150 years behind in his political thinking.

Christ certainly called out the religious hypocrisy of the Pharisees, which is the Biblical analogy most easily applied to Jerry Falwell and all Republican Pastors that choose to enter the political fray. Just look at the list of faith-based Republican politicians who have been caught in infidelity. God corrects those whom misrepresent Him and humbles each of us when pride takes hold. In fact He had very specific words for those who effectively preach “Do what I say, not what I do.”

Pastor Faulkner doesn’t need to prove himself to me. He needs to prove himself to the people of his district. His work helping the poor and needy in his district is to be commended… I just don’t see how someone truly operating in the love of God as such can align himself with the modern Republican party. It is a contradiction he will have to answer if he truly seeks political office for the good he can do.