I just don't understand anything that you've said or how it relates to Christianity. As a Christian you should understand that your money does not belong to you... it belongs to God. Why, then, are you so in favor of tax breaks, when taxes are just a method of redistributing, amongst God's beloved children, what belongs to God? I can imagine being opposed to taxes that feed the American war machine, as the ethic of Christ is inherently pacifist, but since you are such a lover of Bush, I somehow suspect that's not your aim.

As a Christian, I cannot imagine any reason why anyone would vote for any of our current politicians, but the conservative Republicans least of all. They give tax breaks to the wealthy... very Christ-like indeed! They expand the military arm of the government, even though they claim to follow the Prince of Peace, while shrinking social services meant to help the least of God's children. They claim to worship the sanctity of human life when it is clear in the gospels that human life is not sacred at all! It is only when we give up our lives in Christ that we truly find salvation and purpose. Yet while they preach the sanctity of human life, they do not hesitate to bomb innocent civilians for the sake of "peace" and "democracy." They fight for the rights of Americans to own weapons designed for the sole purpose of killing other people. Assault rifles, pistols, and swords have much in common: Unlike some other weapons, like rifles and bows and axes, they were designed solely to kill human beings. And yet, while Christ tells us clearly that those who live by the sword shall die by it, our conservative Republican friends mistakenly tell us that living with assault rifles is the key to our liberty. And you believe them?

Christ, God made flesh, spent his time living among those shunned by society, those guilty of so-called sexual deviance and other social "illnesses." God loved them, and loves them, and God chose to live among them, and not to aspire to earthly power. And yet you brazenly claim that the God of Mercy, who is perfect love, is not delighted by His children who happen to be gay. God loves them all the more for the baseless scorn you show them. God will love them if no one else will. Because that is God's will, to have mercy upon whom He will have mercy. And there is nothing your arrogance or bigotry or patronizing will do to change God's love, even God's love for you.

So I cannot imagine how any true Christian could support the men who would be Caesar. Mind you, the Democrats are not much better. A true Christian's place, as exemplified by the early church in the Bible, is in his or her own community, loving and living among God's children. The Christian's place is firmly at the side of those in our society who have no other advocate: The poor, the weak, the shunned, the ill, the prisoners, the thieves and beggars and sinners. It is our duty in the name of Christ to hold hands with our fellow sinners and show them the love of God which has conquered everything, even sin and death. The Christian's place is not the head of society, dictating to other people what they claim to be the will of God. There is no Christian America. There is just a wealthy, pompous, powerful, militaristic empire that views its power as proof of God's favor. The Romans thought the same thing about their own power. Little good did it do them. Little good may it do us.

You can be a good capitalist and love the Republicans. You can be a good American and love them. Libertarians and gun-lovers and constitutionalists and secular humanists and atheists all have good reasons to support right-wing conservatives. But name me one good reason that a true Christian has to support such people, for I see none.

So the question is, I suppose, whether you are a red-blooded American, or a Christian. I do not think you can be both. God only knows.

At least Huckabee has the intellectual fortitude to actually write a book. Which raises him to somewhere between George Bush and Ann Coulter. Goodness, what fun this man might be as a president.

(Sorry for the flood of absent-minded letters)

It should also be noted that while JFK's thesis on Great Britain's policy of appeasement was well-written (and earned him his undergraduate degree from Harvard), it also fueled his early stance against the Soviets as something of a warhawk. It was only after the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis that Kennedy realized that nuclear diplomacy required far more subtlty and give-and-take than his thesis had allowed.

Even the ability to write and analyze history does not necessarily confer upon a person the ability to successfully engage in foreign relations. It's a good thing for the world that Kennedy turned out to be the most dovish member of his own administration.

It would be great if Obama were really a different kind of politician, if his goal was really to try to unite America based on its commonalities rather than its differences. It would be great if he was trying to change how we play the game itself.

Unfortunately, though he talks a good talk, he has no real platform. He has no basis from which he can claim to want to change things... the only thing he has going for him is that his voting record isn't big enough for anyone to really be able to use it as evidence against him (yet).

He is exactly like the other candidates except that he's a more inspiring speaker. He has to be: He's got no platform to speak about, so he's got to fill those 35 minutes somehow.

It is from 2008 because Salon publishes its daily articles the evening before the technical date of publication.