Number 13,765, and a continuing mystery. Why did Sandy Berger get off with such a light sentence from the Justice Department?

Frankly, I would love to see the Republicans lose power, because they deserve to. Unfortunately, there's no way to do that without having the Democrats win, which they don't deserve, and the country would suffer for it. And not fake, hysterical suffering like the fantasies of the Bush haters.

Oh, and if we had more Republicans like Dick Armey, who came down with both feet on idiotarian bully James Dobson, the party would be in a lot better shape. What we need is an army of Armeys.

I like James Dobson. I don't know much about Dick Armey, but any citizen who tells a Congressman that we elected you and we can send you home has almost always said the right thing. Most Congresspersons need to be taken down a peg or two.

Maybe Armey is an extraordinarily humble man and he has therefore correctly characterised James Dobson as a bully. But Armey does not write like an extraordinarily humble man.

Yours,
Wince

Dobson has degenerated into a stopped clock that's right twice a day. I suspect that Armey could have said much more. His description of the need for Christians to embrace freedom and shun the temptations of political intervention was as good as any I've seen. Social conservatism ≠ economic conservatism.

In general, I'll side with the people who think less government is better government. I think political power can indeed have a corrupting influence on anybody, including Christians who might start with pure motives. I also believe the outward actual practice of my Christianity has a lot more to do with how I treat my wife, how I treat my children, how I treat my coworkers, how I help those in need--not just physical need--and how I live my life, than with how I vote, how politically active I am, and how hard I try to get my thinking represented in our government.

But that doesn't mean I'm just going to ignore politics. Given the choice, I'm going to work for a government that makes it easier rather than harder to live according to my values--so at least I don't want the antithesis of my values imposed on me by my government.

I also generally like James Dobson, although frankly I've always liked him for things he's written and done that have absolutely nothing to do with politics. I'd bet he'd claim, and it could be a debateable claim, that his political activities are not for imposing his ideals on everyone but trying to keep the government from imposing anti-christian ideals on everyone.

And also: there seems to be certain cases where almost everybody is in agreement that "big government" is a good thing. Although a certain percentage of people will say that the Civil War was more about state's rights than slavery, there seems to be a pretty universal agreement that having a national law against slavery is a good thing. At the inception of anti-slavery laws, it was quite clearly a case of using the government to enforce something as right that not everybody agreed was right, while in retrospect we've all pretty much agreed that was right.

I remember the stuff in the Alabama tax fight about "what would Jesus do," and I was offended along with Dick Armey (and apparently opposite James Dobson and the national Christian Coalition) with the apparent certainty that that what Jesus would do would be to raise taxes a bunch and give lots more money to giant government programs.

Apparently I'm conflicted.

Being a conservative and a Christian, I've seen similar trends to what Dick Armey describes with Dobson. I formerly attended a mega-church whose pastor openly stated he wanted to be the next Jerry Falwell, since Falwell, Graham, etc., are old and near their end.

These men who measure success by head counts, dollars and societal change have moved away from the historical role of the Biblical Christianity. They have forgotten that governments have been one of the worst enemies of the church and religious freedom through the centuries. Even the freedom to be an agnostic, or atheist, or even a Scientologist (and that is not meant as a snark).

And if I mentioned that man's name, Jay Manifold would know who I'm talking about since we both live in the same city. Probably he could guess just from this.

I'm guessing the pastor of First Family Church, (the name of which I am not making up) which -- for the moment, at least -- the Biblical prohibition of gossip is constraining further commentary on my part.

Bingo!

This First Family Church? Cool place. I like the pastor. And we need a new Jerry Falwell. The old Jerry Falwell is getting old.

Yours,
Wince

I think Jay stated it correctly that fiscal conservative does not equal social conservative. The problem being that most social conservatives see government as the answer to the problem.

I believe many of the things the social conservatives believe, but as a small government conservative, I cannot support their efforts to impose those beliefs with the Federal Hammer.

They need to step back and ask themselves why society is not responding to the Christian message instead of taking a reactionary response by making a pact with the devil (government).