It’s tough being a Mark Neumann supporter

I have even wavered over the last few weeks. I mean, watching Klauser pop off again, I figured, and probably rightly so, that it was really the WisGOP and maybe even Priebus talking. Klauser certainly sent off some jilted-lover pheromones during the Republican gubernatorial primary. (I think Klauser’s real problem is the fear of being irrelevant, but I suppose time will tell.)

I don’t like Tommy Thompson. I’ve never really liked Thompson. I always figured him to be an opportunist, and once he made his move to federal government, I figured I was vindicated in my thought. I’m not wild about Theodore Kanavas. (Not to be confused with his wife and kids, who are quite charming.) I’ve always felt Ted suffered from wrong place/wrong time syndrome. He finally squeaked out a State Senate win, but even that went badly in the grand political scheme. He didn’t keep the spot. Shoot, even James Sensenbrenner doesn’t have the common courtesy to retire on Kanavas’ schedule, and now State Senator Rich Zipperer is on Kanavas’ heals for the position in a couple of years.

So, though I’ve tried to talk myself out of it, (Really!) I’ve decided that once again I am likely to be the only blogger fond of Mark Neumann in the upcoming U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin.

No, I’m not thrilled about that. I hate being the odd blogger out.

But let’s talk about this for a minute, folks. I am not some hair-brained idiot chasing the next big thing. You all, even my fellow bloggers, know that I’m (uhem) fairly conservative in my approach. By now many of you also know how much I hate to lose. It just chaps my backside to think that I’m setting myself up for another miserable election cycle in which I’m the only blogger supporting a candidate. Yet, Mark Neumann still gets my nod.

I came to the final decision in church this morning. Why, I thought (yes, fine, when I was supposed to be paying attention to something else) would I abandon the only candidate for several years that felt like the real deal when I met him? I have suffered through many a limp-wrist handshake in hopes of finding a candidate to float my boat. Ron Johnson certainly made the cut, and that came through when he was elected, but you all know I still have a hard time getting entirely behind Scott Walker. He’s done some great things in our state during his short reign, but his flaws are damning and could still really be trouble. Though I’m sure Scott Walker didn’t set out to be the consummate poster child for a handled candidate, I still can’t believe he’d be making the appointment mistakes he’s making on his own. (Something, or someone, is at play to keep Walker from being great. I do hope he figures it out soon.)

Contrast that to Neumann. Yes, I know, he’s really conservative. Neumann is not just Tea Party conservative; he’s Mark Neumann conservative. I let loose a “crap” in front of him that had me blushing for ten minutes. Yet, Neumann wasn’t judgmental that I could tell. I have to explain something I know about really successful people: they aren’t successful because they’ve spent a lifetime living according to someone else’s rules. Sure Neumann gets some bad press here and there, but so does Warren Buffett or Donald Trump. Successful people are so because they set rules for engagement that let them be better than anyone else in that field.

This is an admission that Neumann’s rules are unwavering, but that is pretty much the best thing about Mark Neumann. His sense of self, his success, and the adoration of his family and friends, well those things are absolute. Mark Neumann has no need to bow before the next big donor in hopes of floating the campaign. (I mean really. Have you seen the list of Thompson donors?)

Now when it comes to the final round, I’d have to say Mark Neumann is as right of center as Tammy Baldwin is left. There’s no need for a middle-of-the-road candidate. If you put those two up to the voters, Neumann wins. This state is still reeling from the damage the left created over the last few years. It’s a chance to get another genuine Tea Party conservative into the U.S. Senate.

Senator Ron Johnson is dynamite, and we are so lucky as Wisconsin voters to have his fresh approach and enthusiasm working for us. We have the opportunity to put another in Washington much like him. But unlike Johnson did, and unlike Kanavas, Neumann knows what DC has in store. It’s work. Neumann is up for it.

I know many of you will push back to this post, but I have to ask you, why? Do you know Mark Neumann or are you working from the memory of a friend of a friend who said something once? I double-dog dare you: learn what makes Mark Neumann tick before you decide. Do not let someone else form your opinion. This is no time to turn into a Lemming.

Comments

  1. Great post Cindy… I’m with you that Neumann is my preferred candidate (at least for now, we’ll see who actually enters).

    Also agree that if it is Neumann vs. Tammy, Mark wins. Now Neumann vs. Kind…. not so sure about that one.

    Also, I really doubt he’ll run, but Dave Ross (strong fiscal conservative/former mayor of Superior) would be excellent as well.

  2. I’m hoping for a third option.

    In the view of many Neumann ran an unethical smear campaign and people are not likely to forget that.

  3. So the haters stand firm. Too bad.

  4. “Unethical smear campaign”?!?!?

    In the closing months of the election, Walker was 75% negative and Neumann was 100% positive. What the heck are you talking about?

  5. I said in the view of many Cindy, which is true. I’m not saying anything about his candidacy for this office. Not hating on anyone just stating an objective fact about how Neumann is viewed by some people.

    Ryan, one example was his showboating at the republican convention. Making a ridiculous claim that his supporters were not welcome when all they had to do was register.

    Things like that.

  6. I don’t think the example you cited, even if 100% true, constutites anything close to an “unethical smear campaign”. Do you have anything more substantial?

  7. I, too, hope for a third candidate to appear. TT and MN aren’t for me. I voted R until they went anti-science, anti-education and over zealot religious. I am, deep down, pretty conservative (in the old school defination), and it was guys like GWB and Sunspot Johnson that made me re-think my position.

    TT is a raging ego-maniac as you will agree, but MN strikes me as a loony, and just as much of an opportunist as TT.

    Show me a candidate with common sense solutions, real ideas (not just “I hate Obama”), and who isn’t wearing cross on their banner, and I may vote R again. Until we get away from the social and religious fringe, I’m not going R.

  8. Mark Neumann, loony? Hahaha. I actually find that quite humorous. He’s as serious a candidate as can be found. ‘Loony’, I’d save that for a few others.

    It’s rather amusing that one would post about an ‘unethical smear campaign’, when in fact such a blatant unsubstantiated post is actually an unethical smear, itself.

    As to the convention ‘issue’. The claim of grandstanding is simply not true. I know someone personally who was there and they were not allowed access in to even the
    public areas; they were shut out at the front door. Others without badges were let in.
    More than one person substantiated this on the Markforgov Facebook page when it happened.

    Good post, Cindy. Valuable insight, and bottom line, it is clear to me that Neumann has the experience and gumption to take on the fiscal challenges ahead at the national level. The others’ experience simply do not compare.

    If you love Ron Johnson, you’d have to want Mark Neumann in Washington also. Neumann’s resume and actual knowledge of budget issues trump Johnson, by a long shot.

  9. Sure Ryan, I do. Not sure you want to see it. Here is a letter from Jim Klauser who resigned from the Neumann campaign due to his mischarachterizing Milwaukee County budget numbers.

    It has been more than five weeks since I wrote to you requesting that you return the contributions Shirley and I made to your campaign. I asked for the return since you had assured us that you would run a positive campaign focusing on the Doyle-Barrett record. You haven’t done that. Even in these last weeks you have expanded your negative attacks beyond your primary opponent to everyone else.

    Your campaign treasurer, your son Matt, told me that you would return my contribution if I refuted your claims about your opponent’s record as County Executive. You echoed those comments as well. The numbers you cite for Milwaukee County include capital bonding of $251 million which is expended over a three year period and paid-off over 15-20 years. (This was done to obtain better interest rates) Your analysis of Jim Doyle’s spending did NOT include bonding (which is considerable under Doyle).

    You should know, but apparently don’t, that much of what a county government does is mandated and partially funded by either the federal or state government. County government has no control over increases/decreases in such funding. A care management organization is funded at $256 million entirely with state-federal Medicaid dollars.

    You fail to mention the substantial reduction in the number of county employees under Walker’s watch. In 2000 county employees on an FTE basis numbered 7,263; in 2010 the number is 5,256. This substantial reduction indicates increased efficiency in Milwaukee County government and a savings to taxpayers.

    The bottom line is you aren’t comparing apples to apples; rather your analysis is somewhat akin to fruit salad. By the way you should know, but apparently choose to ignore, that the county executive vetoed increased spending every year; these vetoes were overridden by the county board with the result of increasing spending.

    You have used these misrepresented figures to claim that the county budget has increased 26% since 2006 while the state budget has increased 19%. In reality, Milwaukee County’s budget has increased 9% below the rate of inflation of 9.6% which gives Milwaukee County residents a spending reduction in adjusted dollars.

    Please return our contributions.

    James R. Klauser

    July 14, 2010″

  10. How about when Neumann claimed overwhelming support from the TEA party?

    That was based on a poll of 21 people in a non Tea party affiliated group.

    How about the Neumann campaign spreading false rumors that Walker was going to drop out of the race for governor?

    Look I only bring this up to mention the fact that Neumann will have to do a lot of convincing to turn people around that he disappointed by campaign tactics in his last race. If you want to turn a blind eye to that Ryan, that’s on you. It is reality though.

  11. As I previously mentioned, Fred Dooley, it appears you are content to continue to hate on Mark Neumann. You pitched huge mounds of crap on anyone who dared to say something bad about Scott Walker, yet you find it not at all a problem to do so with Neumann.

    Here’s the bottom line: You are part of the Republican establishment in this state who demand absolute control over any elected person. Walker will always give you what you want, even to his own detriment. Neumann will think for himself. I firmly suspect you will find a multitude of reasons to adorn Mr. Fitzgerald very, very soon. He has proven he will walk the establishment line without even asking questions. You go boy. As for me, I’ll keep my integrity and stand with Neumann.

  12. Too bad you have your defenses up Cindy we could have had an actual discussion. Ryan asked me to document so I did. He will face these issues with many people, that’s reality. Instead you just labeled me a hater and you choose to ignore this. I’m not the one behaving badly here.

    If you didn’t notice I’m not thrilled with Thompson either so please don’t list me as establishment.

    Threre is nothing fair about your views or ability to see the truth where Neumann is concerned.

  13. You are jumping on me without cause.

    I’m not hating on Neumann. I simply point out that he is going to have issues with some people due to the last campaign.

    Thompson is going have issues with people who thinks he is a RINO (you included, me included)

    I didn’t make any personal attacks on Neumann, you just reverted back to your protectionsist stance as you had in the Governor race. I’m willing to give the guy another chance and see what kind of campaign he runs this time.

    I always admired Mark, I did not approve of how he ran his last race. I hope he becomes the old Mark Neumann, that guy would get my public support and my financial support.

    Ignoring the issues fromt he last campaign won’t win him any favors in a primary. Primaries are about the base and Neumann needs to win that base back.

    Personally I am undecided in this race. I understand Fitzgeral stuck his toe in water, Neumann is in and Thompson is in though not yet announced.

    Frankly I’m hoping for another option, someone more in the Ron Johnson mold. Not a career politician but someone closer to the people and who understands the burdens of business and how to create jobs.

  14. You articulated issues, Fred, but you didn’t document them. I’m not defensive as much as standing firm. You never would admit that last primary was give and take, not just Neumann’s fault.

    You and I both know Thompson is not establishment anymore – Fitzgerald, your hoped for third candidate – very much is.

    No doubt we will disagree again. I just can’t give over to the organized party as easily as you do.

  15. Funny Cindy, I’m not decided about anything in this race..

    I have no idea how that relates to your perception that I am an organized party parrot.

    I guess I should call Priebus and ask him how I should think.

  16. Fred. So you are undecided as to which candidate you like right now, are open to supporting Mark Neumann, and indicate your are not part of the GOP establishment? You are not an ‘insider’ or ‘party parrot’, but you are cozy enough to call Reince Priebus ‘Priebus’, and I suspect, not only have his phone number, but are confident he’d take your call? Is my supposition far from the truth?

    Also. If you do a rudimentary review of the actual resumes of Ron Johnson and Mark Neumann (Wikipedia has outlines for both men’s careers) you’ll see that Mark Neumann out does Ron Johnson on being a Ron Johnson kind of candidate. I would think you can objectively see the parallel experiences, ages and pathway to office.

    I think you need to get on the Mark Neumann bandwagon and put the old party politics aside.

  17. Shazam! I’m pretty sure Mr. Priebus would reply with a “Cindy who?”

    RL, you just earned your Fairly Conservative high-five for the day. 🙂

  18. I’m not sure I’ll be on the list of bloggers who support Mark Neumann (I still don’t have a clue who I’ll support), but I certainly don’t get the vile coming out of the GOP blogger militia against him.

    Clearly, the only thing that Mark Neumann actually did wrong, was have the temerity to run against Scott Walker at all. The GOP establishment made it perfectly clear that Scott Walker was supposed to be the candidate b/c he stepped aside for Mark Green. It was Scott’s turn.

    Apparently Mark Neumann didn’t get the memo, and made the foolish mistake of thinking that the voters in the primary got to decide.

    What you’re seeing against Mark Neumann now, including the “Open Letter” currently circulating, is part of the payback that is required to keep others in line in the future.

    The reality is that the primary campaign was pretty clean all things considered. I think everyone has seen far worse. The “smears” and “lies” that people bring up now (which may or may not be true) are all pretty minor… and being blown out of proportion simply to give some meat to this argument that Neumann shouldn’t be trusted now.

  19. Nick. Rational, observant, sardonic, Nick. Good post.

    I actually think there is growing support in the state GOP ranks for Neumann. Whodathunk.

  20. Thanks, Nick.

    I need to get to that open letter. I’m easing into the connected world. Maybe tomorrow.

  21. Bill Elmhorst Sr. says:

    Was looking for info on Neuman and found your website. Neumann would be the best choice of the current candidates.

  22. the present cadidates for both sides of the aisle have nothing new to offer except to have enough money to run a campaign. there used to be “first try, nice try” candidates. both parties have failed in training ambitious people to jump in and run. baseball has the minor leagues. the pols strike out before they get there.

  23. I am a conservative – so I will vote accordingly.
    I hopped off Mark’s bandwagon the last time around because of his smear attacks on Walker.
    He did change his tactics later on in the campaign – but to me the damage was done. You DO NOT sling mud on another Republican. Now I see he’s slinging it again – the latest ad shows (though quickly) a check for $500,000 written to ex governor Jim Doyle – when in fact, he did contribute $600 in the past. I thought things would be different this time around.
    I’m going to see what Jeff Fitzgerald has to offer.

  24. Funny. My Anti-spam word was goat today.

    HarryW. This is my issue with race. People like you throw our ‘facts’ in righteous manner when in FACT you are using smear tactics, slinging mud, and misrepresenting the truth, all in the name of Conservatism. Look at the ad. I made a screenshot. THE ACTUAL AMOUNT on the check you mention is $500 NOT $500,000. Sheesh. I don’t know if this is an honest mistake on your part, or just another covert and hypocritical ploy by an ‘insider’ trying to discredit a decent candidate.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually were on Mark’s ‘bandwagon’ at one time. If so, you’ll not have a problem acknowledging your own actions of misrepresentation.

    BTW. Neumann put his money where his mouth is. He is the only candidate that did not just offer lip service to supporting Walker in the recall. Check the records. Neumanns $2500 (from my recollection), MYTommy! ZeeerO, Hodve Zilch, and even Fitz couldn’t spare a $50 bill for his ‘Im joined at the hip with Scott Walker’ buddy. Actually opening the checkbook, I think , is a better testament to character of a candidate than what comes out of his mouth.

  25. I thought I saw where Hovde had money into Walker’s campaign.

    The comment came in from a google search, so yes, they are trolling. Nice job catching the facts.

    Below is a link to a screenshot of the check in question.

    http://fairlyconservative.com/wp-content/storage/2012/07/hovde-check.jpg

    I’m still rather convinced it’s still all over for Neumann, but I’ll be voting for him as he is the best fit.

  26. If you want to go neo-con, Eric Hovde is your man. Let me remind you that Marc Neumann abandoned his post, basically went AWOL, when we were in yet another fiscal crisis in the House; he went deer hunting in WI, when he should have been working to solve the problem. Some how he’s spun this as a virture — honoring his commitment to his son. I think not. (T’were it me, I would claim to be honoring my commitment to my local bar tender, as a rationalization for being AWOL). He was elected to represent Wisconsin, once, and that’s what we got; a great representation of his commitment to public office.

    Neumann’s attack ads have centered on the fact that Eric Hovde can actually work with the other party, and make Washington work. He supported the economic stimulus plan, which every mainstream economist would support. The guy is rational.

    Neumann has proven to be obstructionist, intractable, uncompromising, and ultra-partisan; none of these are virtues, because it leads to nihilism, which doesn’t do anything for the country, it just creates an expensive bottleneck. (Remember it costs money to run Congress, and if they are nonproductive, that’s millions of wasted dollars; recently, they spent over a week, wasting time, voting against Pres. Obama’s healthcare and insurance plan, even though it couldn’t alter the course — a costly (millions) waste of time.

    So, please come up with an educated, conservative alternative. Neumann, Walker, and Paul Ryan are serious lightweights in scholarship, and times like these call for more educated leaders.
    Best, Chris

  27. Randy in Richmond says:

    CH
    “Neumann has proven to be obstructionist, intractable, uncompromising, and ultra-partisan”

    You can insert any elected Senator’s or Representative’s name into that sentence’s subject and make it realistic. Senator Harry Reid comes to my mind quickly but your description covers all political persuasions. And equating leadership to scholarship has absolutely no merit but just for discussion’s sake Ryan has a B.A. in economics and Neumann graduated with honors with a B.S. in mathematics before earning his masters degree.

  28. Eric Hodve squirmed through his interview with Mark Belling yesterday afternoon. Hodve’s frat-boy arrogance-toned responses were intriguing
    ( yet repelling) to me. Overall, the impression he gives is unappealing as he seemed to make a lot of excuses for his mismanagement of his own actions– not voting in DC, donating to Doyle, confusion over not agreeing to participate in the WISN upcoming debate –None of that is HIS fault- heck, he’s such a busy and important man, he can’t possible remember to do that kind of mundane stuff. He revealed a very defensive personality in that interview. Not very Statesmanish; very Politicianish and very not Senatorial, in my estimation.

  29. They do love to show up and prove how perfect their candidate is to the rest of us, huh?

    No way I could vote Tommy! Hovde has hacked me off from the very beginning. He may be God’s gift to Washington, D.C., but it’s going to be impossible to convince me. I just see Hovde as a bored rich guy wanting a very special hobby. Last thing we need is another James Sensenbrenner in DC.

    That leaves Neuman and Fitzgerald. I can’t even recall which Fitzgerald is running there’s been so little out there about him, so I’ll stick with Neumann. He’s not perfect. No candidate is perfect. But he’s good with numbers, already knows and has support of responsible Republicans in the Senate, and will have to do.

  30. The ‘Best’ at the end of that rant was choice, and a dead give away of intention. Almost like The Campaign sent out a memo to diffuse attention.

    Also made me wonder if Tommy’s not the true contender as considered. Belling actually praises all the candidates in his interview yesterday but started out with a strong and positive statement about Neumann being the perfect kind of candidate to send to DC precisely because he’s not a Go along to Get along kind of guy. Pretty strong turnaround for Belling.

  31. You can add my name to your list of Neumann supporters. I guess that should now make about three of us.

  32. Chris claims, “Marc Neumann abandoned his post, basically went AWOL, when we were in yet another fiscal crisis in the House; he went deer hunting in WI, when he should have been working to solve the problem.” Funny how he earned a 96% conservative record by being AWOL. Chris continues “— times like these call for more educated leaders.” Obama is highly educated. He is an “educated fool” and your comments are little different.

  33. Yay, Bill!

  34. Hovde\’s \”conservative values\” are \”evolving\”, like he was for TARP before he was against it, and he was for embryonic stem cell expermentation before he was against it. Tommy on the other hand is a proven socialist and traitor as he went to Bavaria in Dec. 1998 and signed an agreement to implement Agenda 21 (UN Policies/ law on sustainable development). As for the allegations of him being a drunk and womanizer, those are just allegations.

  35. My good friends,

    I can’t promote Arthur Kohls-Riggs enough, as your candidate for Republican Senator from Wisconsin; this is your man to represent us, in the manner that we want to be represented by a Republican senator; he is the true Lincoln Republican. (Please review him on Youtube, and you’ll see he’s the candidate for you).

    Again, Marc Neumann is an attempted career politician, who is a demonstrated slacker, he went AWOL to recreate during a crisis; most other Wisconsin workers would be fired for such an offense, unless they had union representation. Just sayin…

    We need someone who can enact our Repulican ideas, not stonewall, go nowhere, and look really bad.

    Arthur Kohl-Riggs beats all of these other Republican pretenders, Paul Ryan, Marc Neumann, Eric Hovde, Tommy Thompson, Jeff Fitzgerald, Scott Walker, hands down; please review his website; this is the type of Republican we need.

    Best wishes, Chris

  36. From the AK-R website, “I first encountered the Arthur Kohl-Riggs campaign for governor running as a Republican,—“. NOT a Republican, running [as] a Republican.

  37. Correction: previous quote was from Blogging Blue website as is this, ” I DO NOT encourage Democrats to cross the party line…we need everyone on board to select the best Democratic candidate to run against the incumbent.” AK-R is a phony/fake candidate supported by nincompoops.

  38. Bill

    I must say I respect you in all sincerity. I think you’ve unmasked me, fairly quickly, as a fake conservative. What led me to this conservative chat area was Marc Neumann pop ads that bedeviled me when watching Youtube; whether it’s TV or Youtube, these attack ads raise my blood pressure, and the only relief is firing back at whoever ran the ad: e.g. Club for Growth, etc. Well, Marc Neumann has wised up, and doesn’t present any convenient way to email on his website; fairlyconservative.com pops up when when googles, “Marc Neumann”. That’s what led me to your chats. I would call myself moderate, having voted for George HW Bush once, but you would call me liberal.

    I’m impressed by everyone that’s commented. I’m not saying I’ll vote Republican, but I”m impressed that you folks sincerely care about how to make government work. What I would say is we need less divisiveness on both sides, and to find a way to compromise. That’s what I was taught in 8th grade Civics, but I think it’s been completely lost in the last 35 years. We need to come together as Wisconsinites, and Americans.

    You guys actually give me hope. How do I know you’re legit? Bill posted at like 5:45AM. Anyone that’s functioning at that hour is an honest, productive citizen. Me, I’m posting at 10-11PM. Oh well!

    Best, Chris

  39. Chris, Maybe we can now have a civil conversation. The issue of “compromise” is where we may never agree. Conservatives are uncompromising on Biblical truth and the Constitution. Life, liberty and property can NOT be compromised. There are few areas in government that can be compromised (negotiated). Only those legitimate functions of government can be mitigated. As a nation we have strayed from Biblical truth and the Constitution. We will not, and can not recover, until we return to the moral and cultural values that we once held to.

  40. It doesn’t really matter. According to Rasmussen, Baldwin is leading all challengers.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_senate_elections/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_senate

    The GOP need to end its fixation with biblical “truth.” Taken to its extreme, the bible permits concubines and prohibits collection of interest on loans.

    The nation cannot, and will not recover so long as a significant percentage of the people cling to pigheaded beliefs supported by a selective reading of the bible. After all, the bible was once used to justify slavery.

    Gay marriage and abortion rights are just as important as economic rights. We as a nation are better off when when free people to make their own choices.

  41. KPOM, Not sure what Bible you’re reading, maybe the quoran. My Bible speaks of hope, forgiveness and eternal life. Sorry to hear you are so angry and bitter.

  42. Ezekiel 18:8-17, 22:12, Psalm 15:5 Nehemiah 5:7-11 Luke 6:35.

    This chart is very enlightening: http://i.imgur.com/4BWCh.jpg

    Let’s face it. The “hope and change” bible you speak of is mostly a selective reading of some of the better parts. If we’re dependent upon the bible for a free society, then we are hopeless as a society. Our founders generally were not Christian, at least not the way today’s fundies think of Christianity. Most were Deists. They were enlightened, and they bequeathed to us the greatest political system every created by man.

    If Jefferson, Washington, etc. came back, they’d be alarmed about a lot more important things than abortion or gay marriage.

  43. Randy in Richmond says:

    KPOM
    I tend to agree with your statement, sans the ‘pigheaded’, ” so long as a significant percentage of the people cling to pigheaded beliefs supported by a selective reading of the bible.”
    Therefore when you resort in comment #42 to doing the very thing you condemn, your credibilty and reasoning drops significally.

  44. KPOM, Your “revisionist history” does not agree with the historical record. John Adams said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
    He (Adams) claims the fathers adhered to the principles of Christianity. I highly advise that you do likewise.

  45. @Bill, John Adams was our most monarchist and least reliable founder (e.g. Alien and Sedition Acts). Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were all Deists.

  46. KPOM, ” In his manuscripts on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison wrote:

    Christ’s Divinity appears by St. John, chapter xx, 2: ‘And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!’ Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts iv, 33: ‘And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'”
    So Madison DID in fact believe in Jesus Christ as Lord! What’s your excuse?

  47. The founders were nominally Christian, but in reality were Deists. It was somewhat controversial at the time (the Bible Belt apparently was alive and well in some form back then, too), so often their public speeches vacillated. In private writings they were usually more explicit.

    http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring09/deism.cfm

    I think even then it was clear that a strict reading of the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, was problematic for an Enlightenment-era nation founded upon reason. Jesus was a socialist, after all. Democrats, not Republicans, would find more to agree with in his social and economic philosophies.

    Many of the founders were also free masons. Freemasonry requires acknowledgment of a “supreme being” but otherwise is a bit vague. Membership is automatic grounds for excommunication from the Catholic church, and even in Anglican early America it was viewed with suspicion.

  48. KPOM, Once again your revisionism is at odds with the truth; “That book [Bible], sir, is the rock on which our republic rests.” Andrew Jackson
    God’s Word is the essence of reason; without it confusion reigns.

  49. Andrew Jackson wasn’t a founder, Bill. The revisionists are people like you and other “conservatives” who imagine this country as a theocratic dictatorship like Iran. Religion has no place in government.

    Capitalism is incompatible with Christianity. It’s plainly obvious to anyone who actually reads the bible. We need to make a choice. I chose capitalism because it is the only economic system that rational people would ever choose.

    Jesus was a pacifist (“turn the other cheek”), supported taxation (“Render under Caesar what is Caesar’s), and of course, it was the OT god who claimed that we are our brothers’ keepers.

  50. Randy in Richmond says:

    KPOM
    You say “religion has no place in government”. Based on your collective reasoning I would conclude your primary belief is that ‘religion has no place,’ period.

    Your attempt to label Christianity as an economic system is laughable. I am aware of no religious ‘ism’ that is purely compatible to capitalism. It is impossible to separate one’s religious convictions from other aspects of life and using your premise infers we should only vote for atheists. I, for one, reject your premise.