Christianity Today

The author also claimed that the misdeeds of Presidents Kennedy and Clinton sapped the country of its moral vitality. This is a very strange statement when put into perspective. Does the author remember that the impeachment trial of Mr. Clinton led to the resignation of congressmen who were trying to impeach him, but who were found to be acting in ways very similar to Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy. On the other hand, both of these presidents have inspired the country in positive ways that neither President Bush of Mr. Romney can (if he gets elected). Do we have here a serious evaluation of historical data, or is it propaganda to make certain people look better than they deserve? I cannot imagine anyone who has read Scott McClellan's book or the book written by a christian working in the Bush white house who indicated the extent to which evangelicals were welcomed openly to their faces but were ridiculed behind their backs. The article looks like more republican propaganda.

The author seems to have a special perspective on history which can only happen if you deliberately ignore a mass of facts before you. In view of the numerous books about the GW Bush administration, the author still has the temerity to refer to his "stalwart leadership.". It raises the question as to whether the author is referring to a fictional GW Bush instead of the actual one who was president. Scott McClellan, who worked for GW Bush since he was governor of texas to when he was at the white house, wrote a book named "What Happened" after he left the white house. He detailed in his book the the high level of deception and manipulation that was an intrinsic part of the everyday strategy there, and indeed said it applied to the republican party as a whole. This is not a democratic liberal writing but a republican who was close to the president and all of the players around him. Does the author have full knowledge of the facts or is he just trying to paint a rosy picture?

Rick Dalbey, you said ALL evangelicals believe like you about Mr. Romney's policies. Unfortunately, some evangelicals can count and can see through the deception of Romney and Ryan. In 2002 Ryan was preaching the virtues of using a stimulus to create jobs, but now that Mr. Obama is president, he is against the stimulus. In the budget document introduced by Mr. Ryan, he places an introductory statement reminding everyone that only congress has the authority to determine the budget, and consequently economic policy. Today, he blames Mr. Obama for high unemployment when as head of the budget committee he could have changed that. So many seem ignorant of how our government works. Romney says he will repeal Obamacare on day one when in fact only congress can do such a thing. He can afford to say that to those who are ignorant, and his words remind me of the cynicism of PT Barnum, one of the people who started Barnum & Bailey's circus. He said "there is a sucker born every minute".

Rich Dalbey, are you not aware of the exhortation to avoid bearing false witness? Since when di President Obama create any civic religion? Please stop promoting deception. I am reminded of Scott McClellan's book "What Happened". He describes the policyof deception and manipulation of information in the Bush white house, and goes so far as to label it a part of the republican strategy. You should stop "making stuff up" like those in McClellan's book did. The amazing thing you said was about Romney's "economic policies". I wonder which policy you are referring to but you should know that Mr. Romney has no record of being a job creator, or even someone who expands business. You need to know how he handled companies like Accuride and many others long before he left Bain capital in 1999 (as he claims). I suppose if you believe he can fix the deficit by cutting taxes, something that GW Bush already tried, then you will readily believe anything that he says.

I have voted in many elections and have never yet voted for a "Christian" candidate, simply because no one in the electoral races in which I voted presented themselves as such. When presented with two choices for Prime Minister, I never ask which man is "better" but which is better for the country. It makes little sense, in my view to ask which person agrees with me doctrinally, when what I really should be asking is who will best serve the interest of the the majority of the nation' people. There is no doubt that a Mormon President would be a big boost to the "Latter day saints", but that is of much lesser importance if he comes better equipped and more capable of doing what the majority of the people want done than the other candidate. The angst over a Mormon candidate for president, however, should serve as a wake-up call to Christians in the USA. What is the state of the Church when the "faithful" must find solace in a "cult" at best or a different religion at worst.