He was a typical born again Christian. He used religion as a form of evasion to hide himself from his past. He also used money to hide his politics from the his public persona. He is the one who started the debt trouble. Even though Obama would make Bush's efforts look like those of a child.

I never understood the Bush religious boogeyman. While he espoused faith, I didn't see him do anything to bring church and state closer together. My issue with him was how much government spent under him.

I love Peikoff. Bush went too far. But I would never lean toward a Democrat since they tend to move toward collectivism as a philosophy in general. I would say that 2006 article was an error in judgement. But I love the article posted. Thanks! I hadn't seen that yet.

I think it's a contradiction. It's something I've noticed in many Objectivists, a tendency to overestimate the dangers of religion and faith-based perspectives. While I disagree with faith and religion, I don't think it's anywhere near as dangerous as relativism or social constructionism.

Peikoff on the 2006 Elections - http://goo.gl/CB2Es

From Peikoff's article in 2006: "The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican. "
At the time he saw an imminent "Theocracy", which I think was and is an absurdity in this country.

So is this current article just a revision of his positions, or is there some contradiction here?
PS. Also not the first time I have disagreed with Mr Peikoff.