01.30.06
Posted in politics at 12:26 pm by Brandon
I was musing this morning on my drive in to East Lansing as I listened to The Diane Rehm Show. I was listening to Rep. John Dingell (D - MI) talk about contemporary politics, and I got to thinking about the last election. Now, Rep. Dingell wasn’t particularly talking about what I got to thinking about–so if you go and listen to the segment, you’ll be wondering how exactly my head works that I got to thinking about the topic of this post (and I’d recommend you NOT get around to speculating about how my head works, it’s scary.)
Anyway, like I said, I got to thinking about the last election. I’m sure you remember the one. One candidate muttered three word sentences (sometimes in indecipherably poor english), none of which lacked either the words or phrases: resolve, stay the course, culture of life, sanctity of marriage, or flip flopper. The other candidate blabbered on about his three purple hearts at length and told us about how he voted for the war before he voted against it. Naturally, we chose the “three-word-sentence” guy without diction.
We didn’t really have much along the lines of realistic options, so I suppose I can forgive a few of you Bush voters.
However, I’m wondering if a couple of you aren’t really pissed right now. Sure, some of you voted on along the lines of your “conservative” beliefs–more military spending, etc. (And, “conservative” was in scare quotes because, really, GWB isn’t much of a traditional fiscal conservative.) And, sure, you probably don’t have much to gripe about. BushCo has done pretty much what they promised along the lines of more military spending (though, you may argue about where the money has gone, you know, with soldiers running around getting shot at and hoping that the bullets somehow fortuitously ricochet off from a well-placed zipper, what with no flack jackets n’ all.)
Some of you should be pissed, though. And, frankly I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more of an outcry against the gay-marriage issue. I mean, if we rewind back to the last election season (oh, how we USians are awful at remembering) you’ll recall that a major issue for reelection was the push for the federal government to outlaw gay marriage. Frankly, I haven’t heard word one from the Bush League about banning gay marriage since the election!
The current administration–if you buy what they sold last election–should be concerned after all. I mean they told us all about how activist judges were undermining traditional American values, you know, values like “dicks are for chicks”, “homosexuals are commies”, or the foundational “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Things every red-blooded American should believe in.
Yet, there’s no word from BushCo on the “gay marriage Amendment”.
There could be a couple reasons for this:
First, GWB the Great could’ve decided he was wrong. You’ll have to forgive me if this doesn’t strike me as a very likely conclusion to arrive at.
Second, similarly unlikely, and related to option number one: GWB could’ve looked around and thought, “Heh, well, ah…looks like them there gays aren’t so bad after all. I spose’ as long as they pay their taxes and cease and deeesist from humpin’ in public, things’ll werk out.”
Third, and I fear more likely, GWB never really cared about outlawing gay marriage. He saw an issue that would bring out voters in droves, siezed on it, and used it to win the election.
So, my question is this. For all of you BushCo voters (all 1 of you who reads this blog) who went to the poles in part because of the promise of saving the “traditional” American family: Where’s the public outcry? Don’t you feel a little betrayed / hoodwinked?
Tags: 2004 Election, Gay Marriage Amendment, Election Year Politics, BushCo
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/01/30/my-fellow-americans/trackback/
Posted in politics at 12:26 pm by Brandon
I was musing this morning on my drive in to East Lansing as I listened to The Diane Rehm Show. I was listening to Rep. John Dingell (D - MI) talk about contemporary politics, and I got to thinking about the last election. Now, Rep. Dingell wasn’t particularly talking about what I got to thinking about–so if you go and listen to the segment, you’ll be wondering how exactly my head works that I got to thinking about the topic of this post (and I’d recommend you NOT get around to speculating about how my head works, it’s scary.)
Anyway, like I said, I got to thinking about the last election. I’m sure you remember the one. One candidate muttered three word sentences (sometimes in indecipherably poor english), none of which lacked either the words or phrases: resolve, stay the course, culture of life, sanctity of marriage, or flip flopper. The other candidate blabbered on about his three purple hearts at length and told us about how he voted for the war before he voted against it. Naturally, we chose the “three-word-sentence” guy without diction.
We didn’t really have much along the lines of realistic options, so I suppose I can forgive a few of you Bush voters.
However, I’m wondering if a couple of you aren’t really pissed right now. Sure, some of you voted on along the lines of your “conservative” beliefs–more military spending, etc. (And, “conservative” was in scare quotes because, really, GWB isn’t much of a traditional fiscal conservative.) And, sure, you probably don’t have much to gripe about. BushCo has done pretty much what they promised along the lines of more military spending (though, you may argue about where the money has gone, you know, with soldiers running around getting shot at and hoping that the bullets somehow fortuitously ricochet off from a well-placed zipper, what with no flack jackets n’ all.)
Some of you should be pissed, though. And, frankly I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more of an outcry against the gay-marriage issue. I mean, if we rewind back to the last election season (oh, how we USians are awful at remembering) you’ll recall that a major issue for reelection was the push for the federal government to outlaw gay marriage. Frankly, I haven’t heard word one from the Bush League about banning gay marriage since the election!
The current administration–if you buy what they sold last election–should be concerned after all. I mean they told us all about how activist judges were undermining traditional American values, you know, values like “dicks are for chicks”, “homosexuals are commies”, or the foundational “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Things every red-blooded American should believe in.
Yet, there’s no word from BushCo on the “gay marriage Amendment”.
There could be a couple reasons for this:
First, GWB the Great could’ve decided he was wrong. You’ll have to forgive me if this doesn’t strike me as a very likely conclusion to arrive at.
Second, similarly unlikely, and related to option number one: GWB could’ve looked around and thought, “Heh, well, ah…looks like them there gays aren’t so bad after all. I spose’ as long as they pay their taxes and cease and deeesist from humpin’ in public, things’ll werk out.”
Third, and I fear more likely, GWB never really cared about outlawing gay marriage. He saw an issue that would bring out voters in droves, siezed on it, and used it to win the election.
So, my question is this. For all of you BushCo voters (all 1 of you who reads this blog) who went to the poles in part because of the promise of saving the “traditional” American family: Where’s the public outcry? Don’t you feel a little betrayed / hoodwinked?
Tags: 2004 Election, Gay Marriage Amendment, Election Year Politics, BushCo
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/01/30/my-fellow-americans/trackback/
Dan Lewis said,
January 30, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I wasn’t a Bush voter, but I have been watching CSPAN2 all morning, the Alito cloture debate. The “traditional family” voters got theirs back in spades. They used to get that faraway look in their eyes and say, “Someday we’re going to get enough justices on the Supreme Court to change that law.” (Seinfeld) Now someday is Tuesday, and they’re having rallies about the end of Roe. With all due respect to gay marriage, abortion has been the right-wing Emmanuel Goldstein for three decades.
Jacke said,
January 30, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Lol, Dan said a mouthful. We are very happy with John Roberts and Alito. Bush WILL remain in the W.H. until 2009, Karl Rove has not been frog-marched out of the W.H. in handcuffs, etc., and all this, in spite of all the Bush haters and Rove haters best efforts.
In seriousness, Brandon, I didn’t, personally, vote for Bush because of any traditional marriage legislation. I’m not sure how I feel about the Federal Government playing a role in that issue. I don’t support gay marriage, but neither do I necessarily support the idea of outlawing it at the Federal level. I was much more interested in the National security issue, myself. And I passionately did NOT want to see John Kerry become the Commander in Chief, I did not feel it was in the best interest of our military or our country.
Does that answer your question? Oh, by the way, you are right, I am not very impressed by Bush’s brand of (non) “conservatism,” however, I do feel the good of his Presidency outweighs the bad and I feel that he will eventually be recorded in the history books as one of the greatest Presidents of our time.
Kevin said,
January 30, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Just out of curiousity Jacke, what exactly do you think George Bush has done that makes him one of the greatest Presidents of our time?
Jacke said,
January 30, 2006 at 6:42 pm
History is going to tell that tale, Kevin. I would merely be speculating into the future and I’m not very comfortable about doing that, especially not in this particular forum. But, nonetheless, that is my opinion.
holy moly! said,
January 30, 2006 at 10:08 pm
brandon, your point about gay marriage is illustrative of thomas frank’s thesis in What’s the Matter With Kansas, which you should read if you haven’t.
What? said,
January 31, 2006 at 1:30 am
Like Jacke I did not vote for Bush based on any traditional marriage legislation. I had other reasons. However, I do tend to be in line with the views of those who would put foreward such legislation on both the local and federal level. Keep in mind that the “pro-family” movement is a reactionary one and one that is politically quite broad and mainstream.
Being a “progressive” all to often means being for the progress of bad ideologies and the whole of the pro-homosexual agenda when put together is one that is anti-CHRISTian, anti-american, and anti-democratic. Of coarse there are strains in the “pro-family” movement which are anti-CHRISTian, anti-american, and anti-democratic. I think we can agree, that you have to separate the chaff from the wheat. From my POV the homosexual agenda is ultimately based in a core of Idolatry and thus it’s “wheat” would always be the wolf in sheeps clothing. Do you understand What? i am saying?
The state of affairs as we have it today is that in most cases the “pro-family” movement wins politically on the common sense, local, and federal level, while the tide has been turned against radical libertine/progressive activism. As long as that is the case, tides have a way of reversing themselves you know, you don’t need the whole of the federal stuff and getting your undies in a bunch over it would be a waste of time. Being able to have yours be the view at the Constitutional level is like having all the Ace,s in the hole. Nice Yes, but having a winning hand in the now is the important thing in politics.
Bush is a winner and thus he is hated and loved with a righteous wrath.
Jacke said,
January 31, 2006 at 10:51 am
I don’t agree with everything What? said but I do agree with a lot of it.
The fight for traditional marriage, in whatever form it takes, is reactionary…
and I think the sentiment here…:
…is right on.
philbs said,
January 31, 2006 at 11:16 am
As a Bush voter and a family man, I don’t feel too outraged.
I think the whole Bush camp realized it’s a fight that’s not worth picking at the present.
And Like the abortion commentary a few blogs back, it is a lot like prohibition. Legislation won’t stop the homosexual community from living together, raising children, and practicing homosexual acts. Legislate all you want, I’m still waiting for the church to decide that the homosexual community isn’t “untouchable” and that they should be embraced with the love of Christ, not the condemnation they currently receive.
benjamin said,
January 31, 2006 at 11:27 am
*stunned silence*
uhm, but, what about -
*stunned silence*
Okay, well, nevermind all that greatest president stuff and all because everyone needs some fantasy to cling to - whether it’s assless chaps and whipped cream or the idea that history will vindicate G-Dub - we all need something to get us through the day.
So I’m listening to NPR the other day and they’re down in the heartland asking regular folks what they think about all this “wiretapping” and “domestic spying” and I had to turn off the radio because I was starting to drive erratically what with all the profanities I was shouting and the invective that I was spewing.
See, there was this lady, and she was all for a little Big Brother between consenting adults because this president could be trusted and this president needed to keep us safe and this president was neato and abfab and the bees fucking knees and I wanted to tell this lady that we’ve got a president not a king for Christ’s sake and that she needed to go down to the courthouse and turn in her citizenship because we couldn’t trust her to use it responsibly any more.
Because (and I’m paraphrasing here you understand) someone once said that anyone who would trade liberty for security deserved to be shot in the head but I’m a pacifist so I’ll settle for public mockery instead.
Hey, how about them Seahawks?
Recovering said,
January 31, 2006 at 11:56 am
I’m with Jacke on this one.
I understand people’s frustration with Bush on many issues. I understand if his hardcore belief in spreading democracy, pre-emptive strikes on terrorists and nations that sponsor terrorists, and his unwillingness to “just get along” with everyone makes you uncomfortable.
But can anyone seriously look at John Kerry and say “there’s a man who would keep America’s best interest in mind and wouldn’t look weak to our enemies.?”
Reagan was right - peace through strength is the only philosophy that has ever really worked for us. Kerry’s “Rodney King Approach” to world affairs would have gotten us in a world of trouble.
benjamin said,
January 31, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Because “Better a bully than a pussy” is just so Christian….
Leighton said,
January 31, 2006 at 12:33 pm
I think where most people who don’t like Bush differ from Bush supporters isn’t over Bush at all, necessarily; it’s over this bizarre notion of patriotism that implies that speaking badly of our leaders somehow impairs their ability to do their jobs, that at some level it’s deeply wrong to raise questions about whether the way we’re going is wise. My extended family talks about Bush using the same reverential tones they used to reserve for conversations about Jesus; last Thanksgiving they spent longer saluting the flag than they did praying over the meal. We’ve never agreed on things political, but it didn’t bother me until they started worshipping America like they used to only worship God.
Brandon said,
January 31, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Not only can I do this, but I HAVE DONE this.
zalm said,
January 31, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Jacke,
You really sidestepped an honest question from Kevin. I know how much you don’t like it when people do that to you.
He was asking what you thought , not what you thought historians would think. For what it’s worth, I’d be interested in hearing that answer, too.
Dan Lewis said,
January 31, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Bush has not weathered the storms of his presidency well. The counterexamples I hear always seem to contain the word “bullhorn”.
“I understand if his hardcore belief in spreading democracy, pre-emptive strikes on terrorists and nations that sponsor terrorists, and his unwillingness to “just get along” with everyone makes you uncomfortable.”
I appreciate the sympathy, but I am a little more uncomfortable with the preemptive use of chemical weapons by Americans on civilians in Fallujah, the preemptive use of torture and “rendition” on Iraqis and other Muslims who may or may not be terrorists and may or may not know anything, the preemptive endless imprisonment of Americans who may or may not know someone who knows someone who once saw a man that looked like Osama bin Laden, and the preemptive wiretapping of Americans who may or may not be on the phone having conversations that sound terroristic, or providing “aid and comfort to the enemy”, or at least disagreeing with the President. I hear that disagreeing with the President helps the terrorists these days. Maybe you can adjust these issues for me so they are a little less uncomfortable. I’m all ears.
“Reagan was right - peace through strength is the only philosophy that has ever really worked for us. Kerry’s “Rodney King Approach” to world affairs would have gotten us in a world of trouble.”
I don’t get it. Are we at war right now or in an era of peace? So far our strength has bought us iraqbodycount.org (28287 Iraqis dead from our war, minimum) and icasualties.org/oif (2243 Americans). Two Americans got blown up in Baghdad on Saturday. Know their names? I didn’t.
So it looks like we actually have war through strength. And now in Palestine we have terrorism through democracy. Not to mention we have strengthened the hand of Iran in the Middle East. And strained our armed forces to the point of collapse. And we still don’t know why we went to Iraq. Our credibility as a leader for human rights and as a force for peace has collapsed around the world. Bush’s foreign policy has been remarkable for its stunning lack of success! So I’d like to know what world of hurt Kerry could have put us in that is worse than the world of hurt that Bush has actually put us in.
Jacke said,
January 31, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Zalm writes:
I figured someone would come out with that, just didn’t know who would do the deed.
What I said was this:
While I agree with you that Kevin’s question was an honest one, I merely stated that I feel he’ll eventually be recorded in the history books as one of the greatest Presidents of our time. That is my opinion, I don’t mind that someone asked me why I feel this way, but any answer I give would be my opinion and would definitely be argued with in this forum. Is it a crime that I am not particularly in the mood to argue back and forth in endless comments about my opinions? Much of the time I don’t mind stating my opinion, you know this, but this will open a big can of worms and I don’t feel up to defending every single opinion and position I have on the President right now. Do I have the right to respectfully decline to engage in such discussion for the time being? I am currently thinking about and considering my reply to Greg at your own blog, Zalm. I really don’t want to start another complicated and indepth discussion. I just don’t have that much time. Surely, you understand my position?
I will say this, we will not know the ramifications of Bush’s actions in this war on terror for years to come. Some would argue that they will be dire, some will argue that they will cause a chain reaction which will result in good. It just isn’t an argument I have the patience or time for right now. Maybe after I get off this blasted diet! Arrrrgggghhhh.
Logan Bennett said,
January 31, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Hmm well first of all Brandon I want to thank you for writing all of this “Political Stuff” on here. I for one am not very in tuned to politics, so I am learning a lot. I grew up in the country where I was born and raised by conservative Republicans who rallied behind GWB. I moved out of the country and then I became a leader of a College age group at my church, and Got a girlfriend that is a “on fire liberal” My mind is swaying away from Republicanism, and going more towards a liberal view. I just see so many flaws in “Conservative” Christians. Who think that if you are not a republican then you are not a Christian and that makes me sick when people make those assumptions. Thank you Brandon for enlightening me
wildwest said,
January 31, 2006 at 5:26 pm
“But can anyone seriously look at John Kerry and say “there’s a man who would keep America’s best interest in mind and wouldn’t look weak to our enemies.?””
Good heavens, NO!! A President who served in combat and won three purple hearts would definitely look weak to our enemies compared to a rich kid gone AWOL! Heaven forbid!!
Recovering said,
January 31, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Aside from wildwest’s enlightening comment I would encourage those who disagree with my “peace through strength” comment to take a broad survey of the Scriptures (assuming that you believe in the inerrancy and relevance of the Scriptures) and see how God feels about nations responding to evil, tyranny, and terror. I believe that the Gospels and the Epistles speak very little on how nations are to interact with each other (the emphasis was on the individual) but I believe that greater context of the Old and New Testaments spell out a balanced approach that justifies our aggressive defense of our nation from terrorism.
I respect your aversion to war and aggressive policies in defense of our nation - I just believe it is impractical and I don’t believe God wants us to be a doormat for terrorists who hate our freedom, our religion, and our way of life. As a student of history, I have yet to find examples of appeasement working when one side is not rational and is bent of violence.
As far as the average conservative vs. Gore or Kerry - both of them have laid out plans of appeasement and timidity that I believe would be exploited by terrorists, not respected by them.
This is not to say that I don’t respect liberals on their desire to act on many other subjects (although I don’t always agree on who should administer services or who should pay for it).
Good blog, Brandon. Thanks. I’ve enjoyed getting into the head of someone who feels similarly about the church but is on the other end of the spectrum politically.
Dan Lewis said,
February 1, 2006 at 12:40 am
I don’t disagree with the need to defend our country, and I don’t have an aversion to war. However, I do have an aversion to unprovoked invasions and unjust wars. I do have an aversion to immoral foreign policy and immoral government. Our foreign policy is not only immoral, though; it hasn’t worked at all. I explained that earlier.
So for me, you are answering the wrong questions. You seem to think that all I am doing is making a case for pacifism. Far from it. The foreign policy you advocate, based on shows of strength and preemptive aggression, has been tried in the real world. But we don’t have Reagan’s peace through strength, we haven’t defeated our Communists. The policy has failed.
The dichotomy you set up between preemptive aggression, which we have now, and “appeasement and timidity” is false. The way out of the dichotomy was to act from the moral high ground, hunt down terrorists, and in the long run, use soft power to change our relations with the Muslim world. Instead we played into the Manichaean worldview of the terrorists and we changed for the worse.
I’m a Protestant. I disagree with you that “greater context of the Old and New Testaments spell out a balanced approach that justifies our aggressive defense of our nation from terrorism.” Here’s my text:
What this says to me is that God is in the business of loving without limit, even those who hate him. In fact, undeserved grace and love of the unlovable is the Christian revelation. Calling the terrorists irrational and violent does not change that.
This is what has happened to our country in the single-minded pursuit of national security. We have crossed so many lines to prevent another 9/11 that we are eavesdroppers and invaders and jailors and torturers, and finally we are damned devils. It wasn’t worth it and it never will be.
wildwest said,
February 1, 2006 at 9:04 am
Thank you, Dan Lewis. You said it. Now I don’t have to.
I anticipate Recovering’s response to your quote from the sermon on the mount will be along the lines of “that was for individuals, not nations.” If you read the Old Testament, you will find God condemning diplomacy and justice and actually demanding that Israel/Judah make pre-emptive strikes and kill not only the guilty ones, but, like a bull in a china shop, kill every man, woman, child, and beast in sight. More like our “war on terror” than simply catching terrorists, then working with other nations to maintain law and order in the world.
Only one thing separates me from you, though. Although I’m not a pacifist, either, and I believe there is such a thing as a just war, I still have an aversion to it. Is that something you think I should work to overcome? Do you think that if I like watch lots of war movies or something I could desensitize myself to it?
timmer k. said,
February 1, 2006 at 11:45 am
Wow. Recovering….wow.
Do you read the Bible as God’s story or just use it as a book of proof texts? The book is meant to be read as a whole. You can’t flaunt God’s condemnation of the Canaanites as a viable course of action for the Republican party to duplicate at its whim. If that’s your hermeneutic, let’s forget about “just war” and devise a way to engineer a worldwide flood. Isn’t the whole world evil? Let’s do the job right, if we’re going to do it. Someone needs to make it crystal clear to Conservative Evangelical Republicans that we don’t live in a theocracy. The United States is not Israel. The empty tomb means EVERYTHING for Biblical interpretation.
If you don’t think the New Testament speaks to our interaction with tyrannical, evil rulers read it again. In New Testament times, the most evil power in the world were the Romans. When Paul tells us “Jesus is Lord,” the subtext is always “and Ceaser isn’t.” When Jesus urges his followers to “walk the second mile” he was telling them to be radically subversive by loving and serving brutal Roman soldiers.
Please start reading the Bible as if it were God’s word and not an apologetical defense of your agenda. Remember, 100 years ago, people using the words “inerrant and relevant” wielded the Bible as a club to protect the institution of slavery. I could care less about your stance on imperialism, but DON’T pretend like Jesus is on your side.
(Suggested reading along these lines, “Manana” by Justo L. Gonzalez).
Recoveringg Evangelical said,
February 1, 2006 at 11:52 am
Dan - thanks for the reply. First of all, I wasn’t replying to you directly but to the sum total of comments supprting Brandon’s initial post. So I wasn’t trying to answer your arguments specifically.
I don’t think there is any way for us to agree on this so I’ll keep this short and let you have the last word if you wish:
I find your last paragraph disconcerting because it is very clear you are believing everything thing you hear in the media. I have a number of friends serving overseas right now and they have a much more optimistic view of what’s going on around the world than our “learned media.” I also try to get my news from both liberal and conservative news outlets. It’s amazing the details both sides leave out of their coverage. It’s also amazing what we can get out of any story based on what kind of mental filter we are putting on it.
Finally, I don’t believe you are not giving our current strategy time to work. Comments like yours were spewing out all the time in the 80s before Reagans “Peace through Strength” campaign had time to work. On the flip side, we have seen time and time again how inaction, pacifism, and a lack of response to direct attacks (verbal, threatening, or otherwise) has led to disaster. The latest and hugest example of this is Europe in the 20s and 30s in dealing with the rise of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Scripturally, we can go around and around. We all have the same Book. Let’s just keep reading it and take our interpretation to the voting booth…
Recovering said,
February 1, 2006 at 11:58 am
timmer k,
you’re reading more into my comment than you should. I never said that the Scripture justify tyranny or random agression in response to an attack…I believe the New Testament speaks as loudly as the Old Testament - I just think it’s easy to pick any number of Scriptures and justify either side of the argument without taking the whole Book in context and asking yourself - what is it saying and how does it compare with what works pragmatically in the world. I don’t expect to win this argument or change your mind on whether we should be in Iraq - but I do expect you to understand my respect and reverance for the Scriptures.
If you read my blog at all, you’ll know that one of the most annoying things to me is Christianity’s lack of love and compassion for individuals who are not believers. But when it comes to the United States confronting evil in the world, I believe we can be loving and compassionate, and still respond vigorously and with overwhelming strength to those who are out to kill us regardless of how loving we are.
Tom said,
February 1, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I quite agree. Unfortunately, the current administration didn’t go after those who seek to kill us; it wasted lives, resources and the goodwill of the entire world to invade a country that posed no threat to the US whatsoever.
wildwest said,
February 1, 2006 at 1:37 pm
“let’s forget about “just war” and devise a way to engineer a worldwide flood. Isn’t the whole world evil? Let’s do the job right, if we’re going to do it.”
Are you crazy??? You might think you’re exaggerating, but with nutcases like Pat Robertson out there, someone might take you seriously! Don’t give them any ideas!!!
Kevin said,
February 1, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Re: the OP:
Wait until September. That could be September 2006 and/or 2008 depending on how things are going in Iraq.
Mainline Protestant said,
February 2, 2006 at 10:20 am
There are a lot of assumptions going on here - a lot of strawmen being paraded around in support of Bush’s war in Iraq. The main one is that it was a preemptive strike against terrorism. This is nonsense. No WMDs, no serious ties to al Queda. And there was PLENTY of evidence of these facts before the war so don’t drag out the “bad intelligence” crap either. Not to mention that the Bush administration was talking about attacking Iraq before 9/11.
In terms of Gore and Kerry laying out plans of appeasement: prove it.
In terms of Bush’s place in history. The writer said that it was his opinion that Bush would be remembered in greatness. And that he didn’t want to back that up because it would just be an argument about opinions. This is wrong. While it is true that his initial statement is an opinion, any meaningful discussion would involve facts and data - the things that inform that opinion. The writer claims no wish to put forth the facts that inform his opinion leaving us with the understanding that his opinion is indeed, a fantasy.
I don’t believe Bush will be considered great at all. He took a budget surplus and blew it out to insane levels of deficit. His War on Terror is poorly conceived and after four years has very little to show for all the effort: OBL remains at large, Iraq is a total disaster. He has broken the law in spying on Americans “to keep us safe” yet he has absolutely nothing to show for the spying.
While enjoying republican control of every branch of gov’t, he hasn’t delivered on any of his conservative social promises: abortion is still legal, no gay marriage amendment, a half-hearted gesture at ending stem cell research leaving it open to be done at the state level.
No, this man will not be considered one of greats. It’s time to stop fantasizing and start facing reality. The Bush administration is completely incompetent and dishonest. Latest example: one day after the SOTU, Bush administration officials have already backed off Bush’s promise to reduce middle-east oil. Read about it here
Leighton said,
February 2, 2006 at 2:09 pm
(For future reference, all posters should be sure to click the “close tags” button on the submission form; this particular script isn’t very sophisticated about closing hyperlink tags on its own, and forgetting a [/a] tag can screw up the entire page.)
Brandon said,
February 2, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Thanks Leighton! I appreciate your help keeping on top of the tag issue…seems I could’ve picked a better plugin!
Jacke said,
February 3, 2006 at 9:36 am
Mainline Protestant writes:
As far as your statement of strawmen, you are correct, there are plenty of strawmen arguments being put forth by BOTH SIDES in this argument. It is my intention to write an entry at my own blog explaining my reasons for believing that history will be kind to GW, but it is likely to be next week before I have the time and/or energy to write it. I will drop a note here when I have completed it.
Just an aside, it is very generous of you to make the assumption that because I have not had the time or the will at the moment to defend my opinion with facts and data that I therefore have none. Thank you for that generosity.
benjamin said,
February 3, 2006 at 11:45 am
History would be kindest if it allows The Beloved Leader to fall into the same gentle obscurity as Fillmore, Pierce and that guy who came between Van Buren and Tyler.
At best, he can hope to be remembered as the next Hoover, a nice enough guy who happened to be left holding the potato when the music stopped. Dubyaville has a nice ring to it as well - they actually started to build one across the street from my friends house this winter.
At worst, he’ll be Nixon II: The Undead Never Die.
On the other hand, everyone thinks Ronnie was the greatest thing since microwavable pork rinds, so what do I know?
wildwest said,
February 3, 2006 at 2:18 pm
The top three: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson
The bottom three: Grant, Harding, Dubya.
No question about it.
Brandon said,
February 3, 2006 at 3:44 pm
No Nixon, wildwest? Por que?
wildwest said,
February 6, 2006 at 8:34 am
Nixon may have been a crook, but he wasn’t a total incompetent.
Julie said,
February 9, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Hoodwinked was a great movie. Really.
Regarding why I voted for Bush… let me see. I could vote Bush or vote Kerry or waste my vote on some no-name third party.
Kerry. Kerry. Think about this man. Kerry. And Theresa. Dear God.
Lesser of two evils, maybe, or the thought of another volume or two of Bushisms. I admire the devil-may-care attitude, though I’m worried that the devil may care too much. I’m not thrilled with all the wiretapping. But I can’t stand to hear about the purple hearts ever again.
Ever. Again. Droning on and on. “My glorious Vietnam service.” “See me be vague and abstract and talk down to you plebes.”
Another incompetent you may want to consider for your presidential list is, of course, Clinton. And how about Jimmy Carter? Carter for sure.
wildwest said,
February 9, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Rigged voting machines, corruption, re-districting, diminishing health care, Social Security threatened, Osama on the loose, Iraq becoming a hotbed of terrorists, illegal wiretapping, 2,000+ dead soldiers for a vaguely defined misson and no exit strategy, Enron, free speech zones, Katrina and the lack of response, John Bolton, Guantanamo, torture, Halliburton, global warming and lack of response, cuts in social programs to fund tax breaks for billionaires…
I admit it’s a hefty price, but it sure beats hearing the words “Purple Heart” one more time!