Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Paul Dinger :: Townhall.com Columnist
Media Hiding Big Truth About Elections
by Paul Dinger
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The media was apoplectic. I'm not talking about the ad where Hillary Clinton pretended to be Santa Claus with "presents," like free health care, under a Christmas tree. No, I'm talking about Mike Huckabee's Christmas ad with a windowpane above his head that vaguely looked like a cross.

The media reacted like Dracula. AAAAAA!! A Cross!!! There's a cross above his head!!! Good Morning America declared Huckabee was starting a "holy war." After telling Americans for a half century that Christians are Nazis, the media now believes the cross is a swastika.

This incident is emblematic of the Grand Canyon between the worldview of the media and that of the American voter. Most Americans claim to be Christian and for our 230-plus-year history, the majority opinion has been: this is a Christian country, the redeemer nation of history – a view validated by history.

The media has hidden this truth from Americans for 50 years, with the giant hoax that the founders were early communists creating a secular utopia where Christianity had to be hermetically sealed in churches and not allowed to infect the public.

The media tells us George Washington was a deistic nominal Christian. History, on the other hand, says he kissed the Bible when he was sworn in and added, "so help me, God" at the end of his oath. In his farewell address, he said American Democracy could not survive without Christian morality. The media tells us Thomas Jefferson was a deist. So why did Mr. Separation-of-Church-and-State make the Bible the textbook for public schools? Why did he and Ben Franklin, propose a picture of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt for our national insignia? We are told John Adams was a Humanist Unitarian, yet he and his son wrote of their belief the constitution was Christianity in "civil government" form.

If you get your opinions from the delusional media, you will think the last thing America needs is another evangelical president! No, we need "change!" Change, of course, has been the rallying cry of the revolutionary monsters of the last century from the Bolsheviks and Hitler to Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. These agents of change made the 20th the most monstrous, murderous century in history.

So clearly, the greatest, most prosperous, freest nation in history, the place that draws people like a magnet, needs change! According to the media, we need to get over this Christian America thing.

Unfortunately, the history of the last 44 years of elections couldn't disagree more.

In the most liberal era of U.S. history, America has increasingly chosen exactly the kind of president the media tell us we absolutely don't need – an evangelical president. And Americans have rejected the kind of candidate the media keeps telling us we need.

Part one: WINNERS OF THE LAST 48 YEARS OF PRESIDENT ELECTIONS

1960: John F. Kennedy was portrayed 48 years ago as a good Catholic who looked and talked like a Boston Brahmin (i.e. Puritan). JFK seemed so Christian to1960s America that millions of U.S. homes had his picture on a wall next to a picture of Jesus. JFK's father got Billy Graham to informally grant JFK the evangelical seal of approval. So even though he was posthumously transformed into the mythic icon of liberal secularism, in 1960 he wasn't seen that way. If he was, he couldn't have won against Christian-America vice president Richard Nixon. Even so, JFK barely squeaked by in one of the closest presidential elections in U.S. history.

1964: Lyndon Johnson did not win the 1964 election by showing America what his faith really was: utopian socialism. Rather he posed as a good ole ranch boy with a Texas drawl who grew up in the fundamentalist Disciples of Christ denomination. He updated FDR's New Deal with his "Great Society" for Depression era Democrats who remembered it with fondness. But he knew the U.S. voter well enough to have Billy Graham at the White House as much as possible. It worked for JFK and it helped LBJ make voters think he was a Christian country boy. The Democrats used this strategy to trick voters and win the White House two more times.

1968: Richard Nixon's parents were Quaker evangelicals and his identity as a true Christian America patriot was cemented during his prominent role in the McCarthy exposes of communist spy rings in two Democrat administrations. Being vice president in the Republican "Christian America" 1950s didn't hurt. No one questioned that Nixon stood for conservative Christian America principles. And unlike JFK's wafer-thin win against him in 1960, Nixon won by a landslide.

1972: Nixon won re-election easily, which got Democrats to plotting his demise. The Watergate scandal while trivialized by the dark revelations of the Clinton era, were devastating in 1973 – the year Nixon ended Vietnam, the war JFK started. In hindsight, the drawn-out TV hearings and theatrical Democrat rhetoric were an obvious morality drama. The purpose of this national object lesson was to convince America: Republicans – not the communist-friendly Democrats – are evil.

After the Democrats disposed of Nixon, they got religion. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who started this whole evangelical president thing. For the next 30 years, the only way the Democrats could win the White House was by tricking voters with faux evangelicals. They did this right after selling America the idea that Republicans were the party of "dirty tricks."

1976: You'd never know from the media's constant, hysterical warnings about the "religious right" that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans who started the "religious right" thing. Evangelical posturing was key to the Democrats winning the Oval Office over the last 32 years. Sure, they do the Separation-of-church-and-state tango on one foot. But they do the Hee-Haw polka on the other.

They won the last two presidencies by tricking Americans into believing their candidates were conservative Christians. Oddly, they won by offering the kind of candidate they now insist can't be president anymore – an evangelical.

On the highly symbolic 200th birthday of America, when pundits were musing about the end of the U.S.A.. the Democrats gave America what it wanted: a born again, evangelical, southern Baptist candidate. We now know Jimmy Carter is as "born-again" as Hillary, but in 1976, the media cooperated with the Democrats in the Carter hoax. Magazines would run ominous headlines like, "Can America Afford An Evangelical President?" There was no shortage of pictures of Carter standing under a cross.

The media laid it on thick, pretending Carter was a scary fundamentalist, knowing this would bring Republicans to vote for a Democrat. The clueless GOP gave America what it is offering for 2008 – a liberal Republican (Gerald Ford) – and got trounced. Carter won in a landslide.

1980: Finally, the Republicans gave America what it had been waiting for: the most evangelical president since Abraham Lincoln. Ronald Reagan grew up in the same fundamentalist denomination LBJ did, the Disciples of Christ. Unlike LBJ, Reagan was a church Bible teacher during the Scopes Trial when the Bible was trashed as full of "fool ideas." Naturally, the media hid Reagan's authentic evangelical faith. Instead, they portrayed him as a B-movie-Hollywood-has-been upstaged by Bonzo the monkey. Why he's nothing but a senile old fogy, the puppet of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, a checkered pants-divorcee.

They were as wrong about Reagan as they were about JFK, Carter and Clinton. Reagan was exactly what the media pretended JFK was – one of the greatest and most powerful presidents in history. He was precisely what the media pretended Carter was: a true evangelical. The media told us over and over Reagan didn't go to church.

What they hid is: Reagan's plan was to do what John Adams and Benjamin Franklin advised: implement biblical principles in government. Naturally the media portrayed Reagan as the resurrection of Nixon.

Unlike the media pretense that JFK was the returning spirit of Lincoln, Reagan was the president closest in spirit to Lincoln. It's not just because both were Republican presidents. Reagan and Lincoln's familiarity with the Bible shaped their administrations, and both preserved America against enormous threats to its survival. Lincoln preserved the union of states from collapsing in the 19th century. And in the 20th century, Reagan preserved America from collapsing after Carter put it into a nosedive and helped Iran start Jihad against America.

Reagan did what his six predecessors couldn't: he ended the biggest foreign threat to the U.S. in the 20th century – the Cold War. He helped create a boom economy and a Great Awakening of the type of evangelical faith that spawned the American Revolution. He won two landslides.

1988: George H. Bush rode in on the coattails of Reagan. Bush was a GOP hybrid, a country club Republican with orthodox Christian sympathies and willing to make deals with the evangelical lobby. In office, he talked about God, Christianity and the New World Order, as if they went together.

1992: The wily Democrats – Bugs Bunny to the GOP Elmer Fudd – offered another faux evangelical, Bill Clinton. Reprising the Carter role as a Bible-believing Southern Baptist, Clinton happened to be the biggest tomcat to sit in the Oval Office ("Acting! Genius!!). No president toted a Bible around publicly more than Clinton. Bush Sr. didn't have a chance against Elmer Gantry.

Ole' Billy used the Good Book as a prop for photographers when the Clintons played Jethro and Ellie May goin' to Sunday mornin' meetin' for all the "hicks in flyover country." Hey. It helped win him reelection. And it gave a shocking insight into the increasing gullibility of U.S. Christians.

Clinton's evangelical posturing did not scare his socialist supporters. Under Clinton, America saw this strange anti-Christical Democrat religion emerging, a religion that offers messiahs, rather than presidents. When his supporters looked at Clinton, they saw the messiah who would deliver, as Barak Obama is preaching: "the kingdom of God on earth." They urged him to use his "bully pulpit" to preach liberal salvation. When Clinton offered Americans a "New Covenant" it wasn't that far from Jesus saying to his disciples at the last supper: this is the new covenant in my blood.

2000: Perhaps nothing says more about who the U.S. voter is than the fact that both George W. Bush and Al Gore opened their campaigns by claiming to be true believers in Jesus Christ. Bush was boldly evangelical, with Rev. Graham a part of his redemption story. Al Gore did a great impression of a black preacher. Of course we now know he's a true believer....in global warming.

2004: George W's bold evangelical talk coupled with his normal-American presence, not to mention the fact that World War III had been declared on America by people the Democrats told us were from a religion of peace, gave him a second term. John Kerry couldn't "believe I'm losing to this guy."'

2008: With the possible exception of Mike Huckabee, the American voter is being offered the kind of candidates they've rejected for the last 50 years – not to mention the kind of candidates who tend to be disasters as presidents.

How come the Republican leadership is unaware their big success story is an evangelical? The oldest president in history was one of the most powerful because he, like Lincoln, actually believed the national motto: In God We Trust. Reagan, like Lincoln, tried to do the will of the "God" referenced on our dollar bill, and that invisible king provided the power.

The two greatest Republicans, Lincoln and Reagan actually trusted God. And crazy as the media insists that belief is, their presidencies are testimonies to the raw power that "superstition" has supplied to America since 1776.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author


Paul Warren Dinger is a Boston journalist who is writing "The Hidden Meaning of America."
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

I never heard Reagan preach.
The kind of President we need is a moral man, who understands that the role of government is not to legislate morality. An evangelical Christian, for example, who recognizes that the freedom to be whatever kind of Christian - or whatever else - one believes in being, is among the most fundamental rights we have to respect in our fellow citizens.

Precisely such a man is Dr. Ron Paul.

Mr. Gay, I heard Reagan preach
Reagan's gospel was a gospel of conservatism. His conservatism was consistent with his faith and that's why it resonated with the American people.

Dr. Paul's "gospel" of isolationism isn't consistent with any faith; nor with any rational thought.

Why do you spread that lie, phileo?
Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a world of difference.

Reagan
was an example of by their fruits ye shall know them. Americans instinctively were drawn to him because he was authentic.
I fear for my country with the losers we are being offered but in a way I guess it's the government we deserve because for nearly 50 years we have rebelled against Him. The church as remained passive for the most part, more concerned about outward appearances, that their doctrine is the only correct one everyone else will be back benchers in heaven if they make it at all. They have cowered in fear of the IRS so that unlike the preacher/churches priot to LBJ's
amendment without hearings bill that stopped 501 3c organizations from politicing, they were silenced..and thus serve two masters. If they weren't so concerned about tax exemptions and more concerned with preaching the Cross, we wouldn't have 50 + million babies murdered since 1973. (I know this from personal experience,
called pastors of local churches that I knew were
pro life, these were protestant churches of all
flavors, to speak out and they didn't publicly;
was removed from my church newsletter because I wrote about it and wondering why the church never
spoke out. At the time I was unaware of LBJ's
tyranny.) So now we have three pigs in a poke and none worth a blue ribbon.

Tea Party,

Huckabee is not out of it. Hang in there, conservatives do not have to vote for John McCain. In fact, a conservative would have to be out of their mind to vote for Liberal John McCain in the primaries.

Remember, Romney does not command his delegates. They are free and are likely to vote for the leader who will keep them free. That leader is Mike Huckabee.

The Republican elitists and the

Washington insiders are trying to snow conservative Republican primary voters and convince them to give up. They want us conservatives to believe that McCain's nomination is a fait accompli. It is not.

Until McPain gets 1191 on his own, anything can happen. The odds are better than even that he does not win a majority of the votes in any of the remaining primary states. Should that happen, a convention might just be a little bit dynamic if it decides to try and stop Huckabee's momentum after he has clearly won a majority of Republican primary voters. This baby is a long way from over folks. Best of luck to you liberal McPain supporters. You will need it.

big government, rigged markets
I just read “An American Life, Ronald Reagan – the autobiography.” I thought there would be no better way to learn about small government, free market conservatism.

I was shocked to read this on pages 344 and 345.

“Through it all, the farmers who suffered most were those who had been encouraged to overproduce by the billions of dollars available in federal subsidies.”

and,

“In the farm crisis of the mid-eighties we gave farmers more billions than any administration in history. Frankly, I didn’t relish giving so much of the taxpayers’ money away, especially when we were battling to bring down the deficit. But farmers were facing a real emergency, and since government had produced many of their problems, I believed it had an obligation to help bail out the victims, then to work to return farming to the free market.”

Wow, looks like we are still BAILING out the VICTIMS 25 years later. I wish the government would treat unemployed software engineers, like me, with this kind of conservatism. I could have collected a large unemployment check every month for five years and when my job skills had deteriorated, I could be declared a “victim” and President Reagan would mandate an even bigger check, a so-called “bailout” from the federal government, perhaps several hundred grand.

And now, in the year 2008, with farm subsidy handouts and ethanol mandates approaching $35 billion, we are well on the way to a free market in agriculture and energy, right?

I am
I'm voting for him in my primary although he never was my first choice. I'm an evangelical, but there are some things about him that do bother me. However, especially after Gunny mentioned what I'd heard before, the Goldfinger connection..silly me I meant the Soros connection I cannot vote for someone who is in the pocket of an international criminal and I want to know why the Republican establishment are going along with it. Tells me he isn't the only one that's in his pocket. We expect that kind of criminality from the DemonRats not the
Repubs. but as I've said before, Washington is
infected with two carbuncles, one already surfaced with it's putrid insides and the second about to pop.

Sandra
This was an interesting analysis and reinforces the founding fathers designed the constitution with their core faith and values based on the Holy Bible. Over 80% of Americans believe in God even when the MSM and hedonistic culture wants to convince otherwise. I was drawn to Gov. Huckabee not because he was a Baptist minister, but because he speaks to the issues, principles and values I hold dear. Sadly, he was not acceptable to the old party guard elite ,some Christian leaders, professional politicians, and of course the media and talk radio. He marches on with "true grit" and I will continue to march with him until the 1191 delegates are committed to McCain.

Huckabee is committed. Still not 2 late
Statement by Mike Huckabee in Response to Gov. Romney's Endorsement of Sen. McCain:


"I am seeking the Presidency because I care deeply about important issues facing America—Life, Marriage, the Fair Tax, the Second Amendment, American Border Security and Sovereignty. I am as committed to those issues as I ever was, and my campaigning around the country has convinced me that the majority of Republicans want me to continue to fight for these and other conservative causes. So I will.

I know all about the rumors swirling around. That's why I just went on national news show this afternoon, to knock those rumors down. I am still in this race. As I have said all along, I am in this race until someone gets to 1,191 delegates. That has not happened yet, and so I will keep campaigning for the Republican nomination. Period. That’s my ironclad commitment to my supporters."

The Mayhem of the Media Mavens
Looking forward to your book Mr Paul Dinger. Good thumbnail analysis. Would that the money giants behind the media had a vibrant, vital and valued relationship with GOD. Media models would ask the right and important questions and the follow-up to both inform and inspire us. Sadly, most evangelicals do not know how nor are willing to do their own hard homework and become "sheeple" in the hands of religious leaders who covet power or being on stage with her. Join our Forum at EUKEL.us

The RNC
is also trying to convince us that McCain can win without the conservative base. We should all give up and go home. They want us to think the game is over and we lost.

No way, no how will he win anything.

Dinger rates Reagan most evangelical
An irony that Reagan made many policy decisions after consulting a medium/soothsayer/astrologer--an absolute abomination.

Carter barely beat Ford
Not a landslide at all. Carter won by less than 2%, winning Ohio by 11,000 (out of 4 million) and Mississippi by 15,000. Turn these two states around and Ford wins the eletoral college!

Also, Nixon in in 1968
win his "landslide" with 301 electoral votes. It wasdaylight Wednesday morning after election day before the result of that election was clear. The author of this column has has either monumental historical ignorance or a strange definition of landslide.

Media = capitalism at its best
It's so laughable how the conservatives always lambaste the media.

The media is a product of the Republicans' policy of allowing media consolidation. The Democrats want more competition in the media, the Republicans want less.

So, if the media is so liberal, why would the right be fighting for the media to have more control? It's because the Republicans, at least those in Washington DC, know that the media is actually owned mostly by conservatives.

Yeah, the low-level reporters might be liberal, but it's the guys in power, the editors and publishers, that are conservative.

Isolationism
Phileo said "Dr. Paul's 'gospel' of isolationism isn't consistent with any faith; nor with any rational thought."

I'm getting a little tired of non-interventionism being conflated with isolationism.

How would we want foreign nations such as China and Russia to treat us? They don't have any military bases on U.S. soil. Does that mean they're guilty of isolationism? How soon do you recommend they correct that??

Dr. Paul's non-interventionism is based on the gospel of peace (the same one found in the Bible!), and the time-honored Christian theory of just war.

The mentality that we should just bomb 'em all and ask questions later is what really isolates us from the rest of the world.

Scammers
Somewhere there is an operative that whispers into the ear of anybody contemplating national office in this country -- "join a church and attend regularly".

Seriously, there must be a secret play book somewhere.

Paul Dinger, do some research.
Why harp all over the liberals? Even conservatives didn't like Huckabee's ad.

Let me do some work for you...

Ron Paul: "It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, 'when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.' Now I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So, I don't think I would ever use anything like that."

Catholic League president Bill Donahue: "What he's trying to say to the evangelicals in western Iowa (is): I'm the real thing. You know what, sell yourself on your issues, not on what your religion is."

And, also, I tried but could not find any evidence for "Good Morning America declared Huckabee was starting a 'holy war.'" Could someone please give me a link to prove this?

The Leftist Media Has Won
They have so attacked Christians that Christians, curling up in a fetal position, blindly voted for Huckabee over the bettter conservative, more electable Romney.

This split gave us the back-stabbing McCain who is patiently unacceptible.

This means Hillary or Obama will be president.

The media drove many Christians into a oxygen deprived bunker. Then Huckabee appeared as a gush of fresh air.

Christians better be a lot smarter in 2012.

But remember...
Yes, ours is a predominantly Christian nation. But the THers make it abundantly clear that when legislators are making budget allocations, any form of Christian consideration must be stripped from the process. Yes, it's all a democratic process. But doing something Christian like providing equal opportunity to the poor might involve "confiscating wealth". And when legislators must choose between God and money, guess which one the THers prefer every time?

Equal Opportunity
Regarding "doing something Christian like providing equal opportunity to the poor.."

It is precisely because it does involve confiscating wealth that it is not a Christian thing to do at all.

Charity and coercion are two very different things, the former being Christian, the latter not.

Price to Pay
Evangelical Christians that voted for Mitt over their brother Mike must answer to God! We are expected to support and encourage one another. Obviously many Christians forgot this Paulian Principle! Unfortunately for the rest of us we too must endure the pain of Juan McNasty or worse yet Obama/Hillary.

Reagan was evangelical?
I don't think so. Evangelical Christianity was born in Jerusalem when Peter stood up and preached the gospel at risk of being killed by the Jewish leadership. It was further advanced when the church in Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to Asia Minor to EVANGELIZE the Gentiles.

Don't get me wrong. Reagan was a nice man, a great leader, and he might even have possessed a Christian worldview. Many non-Christians of his era did because they were raised in the culture mileau of the times. And, I'm not going to argue that he did or he didn't teach a Bible study -- although, he was only 14 in 1925 when the Scopes trial was decided. Maybe he was IN a Bible study, but it's rare to see teachers that young in most evangelical churches, even back then.

It's just he absolutely never seens to have talked about his faith and that is what evangelicals do that distinguishes us from anyone else claiming to be Christian. You can be a member of an evangelical church and not even be a Christian -- just walk an aisle and many churches won't question your sincerity. And, as I said, he grew up in that cultural mileau, so even if his Christianity wasn't soul deep, it was likely personality deep. But the fact that he never talked about his faith publicly nor, from what I've heard, privately, would indicate to me that it would be a misuse of the term "evangelical" to apply it to Reagan.

In this day and age, we've got a lot of people claiming of a sudden to be "evangelical" Christians. We who know what that means should make sure the proper definition is used. For that, we need to look to Jerusalem, Antioch and the New Testament.

Peter
You've chosen to live in a civilized society. That involves taxation. Democracies allocate funds based on a majority vote. If that system bothers you, try Somalia. No government will "confiscate" your wealth there. On the other hand, the deficits created by the Reagan and Bush administrations involve taxation of future generations without representation. That is confiscating wealth.

aurora: I agree with the teacher standard. Both Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton qualify.

Life in a Civilized Society
Cam, I do not object to all taxation... just most of it! In the case of my above remarks, I was objecting to taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution. If it would be wrong for a poor man to break into a rich man's house and steal his money, why is it that adding the government as the middleman in that action makes it acceptable? Even if we were a democracy, would it be all right for the majority to conspire to steal money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the poor? I was simply arguing that I can't find justification for that in the Bible.

Florida are you serious?
I couldn't tell if this was sarcasm or if you really believe that those voting for Romney will be castigated by God. How about if they voted for Giuliani, Paul, Thompson, etc? Was it only if we voted for Romney that we'll go to h**l?

By the way that was really classy with Gov. Huckabee did yesterday on the Neil Cavuto show. Wow what a class act. I can't wait for 2012 so I can vote for such a classy man.

In case you can't tell that was sarcasm.

Peter
Why is it "stealing" when it supports the health care of a full time worker but not stealing when it goes to a no-bid contract for Halliburton?

I'm sure you've heard "I was hungry but you did not feed me, naked but you did not clothe me". How about "I was an insured full time worker who lost his home because an insurance company found a ridiculous technicality and you voted for people who perpetuated that system"? How about "I was born into a community with schools you wouldn't dream of sending your own children to, and you voted for preserving this inequality."

Conservatives reject candidates who say they personally oppose abortion but vote to preserve it. Similarly, it's hard to accept people who personally give to the poor but vote to preserve a system that's rigged against them.

Stealing
It IS stealing when it goes to a no-bid contract for Halliburton (remember, you're talking to a Ron Paul supporter here).

I've recently said this elsewhere, but I'll say it here as well:
There is no virtue in charity if you have absolutely no choice in the matter. And there is no virtue in stealing someone's money to give it to someone else, even if the recipient really needs it!

Christ is not speaking to governments, nor to people as collective directors of government policy; he is speaking to individuals who are responsible - themselves - to be charitable to those less fortunate.

Cam & Peter
You're both partially correct. Income redistribution is wrong! Excessive taxation is wrong! We do need a tax system that is progressive and not regressive. But there comes a point where let the rich pay is not only counter-productive but economically indefensible.

There must be a balance. The government needs to act as a safety net not a parent. The government cannot be everything to everyone. SCHIP is a good program but it shouldn't be available to just anyone. The Great Society was not a success long-term and neither was the New Deal. Like John Handy (Saturday Night Live) says "The New Deal was neither new nor a deal".
Federal entitlement plans are a huge burden to our children and grandchildren and future generations. By expanding them we bequeath an unstainable government.

"I was an hungered and ye fed me" isn't not referring to the government. Private enterprise does a better job of caring for the needy than the government.

The government needs to encourage private entities to provide services and only in the case of mass destruction (i.e. hurricanes, etc.) should they be involved.

svpallava, The last time
I checked, Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan were in fact two separate individuals. SHE was the one who consulted horoscopes and the like. He most assuredly WAS a born -again Believer and had absolute trust in Providence.(God) He prayed constantly and knew intimately "The Peace that surpasses all understanding". I believe that true Believers do not need to advertise their Faith, if the Light of God be in them, it will be apparent to all who come into contact with them.

Peter & Sparky
I return to my original point that conservatives bring out the "predominantly Christian" argument when the subject is nativity scenes on city hall lawns (symbolic issues) but surpress it when the subject is government expenditures. A city that votes to tax itself to improve schools, homeless shelters, or drug rehabilitation centers is every bit as charitable as one where people pursue those goals independently.

This everyman-for-himself approach is neither Christian nor effective. The conservative approaches to education and health care succeed only in the minds of conservatives. Can you point to any place on the planet where your theories on education and health care are succeeding? The attached article shows the opposite is true.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713557,00 .html

Carter's non-landslide
Following up on jpip's comments. Ford was even closer if you use Hawaii instead of Mississippi. Out of more than 81 million votes cast nationally, turn just over 0.01% of them around (3,700 in Hawaii and 5,600 in Ohio, )nd Ford would have won the presidency, despite Watergate. Hardly a landslide, as jpip points out.

with the exception of Huckabee...
... not to mention the exception of Ron Paul.
Everyone seems to forget Ron Paul when claiming a candidate to be the "only" of anything... ("only evangelical candidate," "only candidate who didn't vote for the war," etc.) It's poor journalism, even if you're leaving him out because you know he doesn't have a chance at winning the nomination.

All that said, if your column is correct and voters really want an America as laid out in the Constitution, Ron Paul is the man for the job! And he isn't the kind of candidate we've been offered for the last 50 years, either!

----------------------
"With the possible exception of Mike Huckabee, the American voter is being offered the kind of candidates they've rejected for the last 50 years..." - Paul Dinger
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.