T or F: Did USA elect a creationist to Pres?

[bignickel]

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db030420

I may have heard this or that about our currently elected leader over the last couple of years, but how did this escape the attention of the media before the 2000 election?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by bignickel
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db030420

I may have heard this or that about our currently elected leader over the last couple of years, but how did this escape the attention of the media before the 2000 election? Since the overwhelming majority of people believe in god and creationist are not seen as a threat to the god fearing regardless of acceptance of or rejection of evolution then I would say that it is a complete non-issue to the press.

Skeptics are the most politically tone deaf group on the planet. This should be seen as a compliment IMO. But it caries with it certain consequences.

On the other hand your question might actually be rhetorical in which case I don't have a response.

[Clancie]

His views were out there, but the press gave him a "pass" on so many things. Here's an exerpt and link to a Slate article about his views during the election:

http://slate.msn.com/id/1006378/

George W. Bush, The Last Relativist

George W. Bush deplores the relativism that liberals have inflicted on American society--the idea that nothing is right, nothing wrong, nothing true, nothing false....

But what about Bush's own relativism on the question of evolution? An Oct. 29 New York Times piece by Nicholas Kristof reports:

Characteristically, he does not believe in evolution--he says the jury is still out--but he does not actively disbelieve in it either; as a friend puts it, "he doesn't really care about that kind of thing."

As a matter of policy, Bush told The Associated Press last Nov. 14: "I'd make it a goal to make sure that local folks got to make the decision as to whether or not they said creationism has been a part of our history and whether or not people ought to be exposed to different theories as to how the world was formed."

His own preference, Bush said around the same time, was that "children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started."

...In an essay last year in Time, the Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould put it this way: Evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the earth's revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. In this sense, we can call evolution a "fact."

...Dubya's answer to Gould would seem to be that science, unlike morality, is a cafeteria of personal choices. What Chatterbox doesn't understand is how a presidential candidate can argue this position and still be taken seriously as an education reformer

[bignickel]

Not rhetorical. I really am looking for some confirmation.

As to the media: I normally would think that an issue like this would be big enough to at least be mentioned by the democrats. Unless this is an example of 'people in glass houses...'

Seriously: I would think that if GBjr had written somewhere that he and Whitney Streiber had played poker on a spaceship while waiting for an intergalactic proctology exam, it would have been mentioned prominently somewhere..

[bignickel]

Thanks for the link Clancy.

Once I read about Gore blurb, it all came back to me. I remember calling a local democratic HQ and asking if the Gore quote was a misprint; it wasn't.

I now have my answer: only issues that the candidates have different opinions on get press. Since GWjr and Gore both agreed on the 'science choices' method of local schools, the whole thing got pretty much no mention.

But what about a third candidate? "Sure: throw your vote away!"- Kodos

EDITED to add: I never read about Gore's retreat from the position. Sorry, Al: it cost you my vote.

[Tricky]

False.

Dubya doesn't believe this any more than he believes that killing is consistant with the teachings of Jesus. It is just a bone he tosses to the religious right in order to get elected (and stay popular). I doubt he gives a rat's ass either way or has even seriously thought about it.

Deep thinking is not George's forte.

[Dancing David]

I know he was a self confessed born again type, it is part of the package. Maybe god made all the oil he sells.
Peace
dancing david

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I know he was a self confessed born again type, it is part of the package. Maybe god made all the oil he sells.
Peace
dancing david

Well, who else made the oil?

JK

[Clancie]

originally posted by Dancing David

I know he was a self confessed born again type, it is part of the package

Absolutely.

originally posted by Tricky

It's just a bone he tosses to the religious right.

Sorry, Tricky, but its completely the other way around. Bush talks about the "various theories" as a bone he tosses to the rest of us, not those who share his views on creationism.

GWB is a born-again Christian. He is the religious right.

[Ben Shniper]

Most of America's presidents have been creationists.

Lincoln, Washington, etc...

-Ben

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Most of America's presidents have been creationists.

Lincoln, Washington, etc...

-Ben
Washington and Jefferson were Diests.

[Clancie]

Most of America's presidents have been creationists.

Well, I agree to the point of saying that Bush's ideas are a couple of centuries out of date.

And he's had the advantage of Darwin's work--plus all the work of other scientists for over a century since Darwin--something Washington and the brilliant and scientifically-inclined Jefferson didn't have.

But then, I'm quite sure Bush couldn't identify the issues in the far more recent Scopes Trial (1925) either.

As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. has kicked off the 21st century (okay, a few weeks into it) with a man who's a total ignoramus.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Well, I agree to the point of saying that Bush's ideas are a couple of centuries out of date.

And he's had the advantage of Darwin's work--plus all the work of other scientists for over a century since Darwin--something Washington and the brilliant and scientifically-inclined Jefferson didn't have.

But then, I'm quite sure Bush couldn't identify the issues in the far more recent Scopes Trial (1925) either. Good example of how Skeptics simply do not understand the voting public. Skeptics have few constituents and lots of contempt for people who believe differently than they.

The Skeptics are right but it will do little good when it comes to politics. Bemoaning the stupidity of the average American and the leaders they chose is an exercise in futility.

As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. has kicked off the 21st century (okay, a few weeks into it) with a man who's a total ignoramus. Well of course. All people who believe in creationism are ignoramuses and deserving of scorn and derision. And of course all people who believe in god are ignoramuses and worthy of scorn.

Isn't that right? Isn't that what you believe? If not could you please clarify?

Are all people who believe in god ignoramuses?

Are all people who believe in creationism ignoramuses?

[Thanz]

the doonesbury take:

http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury/2003/04/20/

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by RandFan
Are all people who believe in creationism ignoramuses?
Weeeell, if an ignoramus is someone who believes in something despite all evidence that that something isn't real... then yes.

[Clancie]

Are all people who believe in god ignoramuses?

Well, I wouldn't say that. After all, many intelligent people hold ideas that are false or based on ignorance or mis-information. (In fact, how many people can honestly state, with 100% certainty, that they themselves don't have such ideas? I certainly can't).

Are all people who believe in creationism ignoramuses?

On that particular topic, yes. With all that we know, there is absolutely no support for creationism (unless the admission is that its purely a "belief", with no attempt to justify it as more than that).

As for Bush, I've seen no evidence he's intelligent on any topic. People ridiculed Eisenhower's intellect, but he seems like a genius by comparison with Bush.

Has Bush ever said or written anything on his own that showed critical thinking, depth of understanding, originality...anything remotely interesting and intelligent on any subject?

If so, I've missed it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
Well of course. All people who believe in creationism are ignoramuses and deserving of scorn and derision. And of course all people who believe in god are ignoramuses and worthy of scorn.

Isn't that right? Isn't that what you believe? If not could you please clarify?

Are all people who believe in god ignoramuses?

Are all people who believe in creationism ignoramuses?
People who do not believe in evolution are ignorant of science. (I would not use the pejorative "ignoramus". There is no shame in this.) Lots of people are ignorant about lots of things. (I feel like a complete ignoramus when I try to discuss philosophy here). The only shame is in being willfully ignorant. If a person feels the need to comment on the validity of the theory of evolution, then that person should be at least well versed enough to know the basics of it.

It is not as if the evidence for evolution is hidden. It is practically ubiquitous. I can understand if someone is not educated enough in science to appreciate this evidence, but an honest person will admit this. People who actively push creationism (not those who simply listen) are willfully and obstinately ignorant about a subject they discuss at great length, a position that I believe deserves scorn.

[Clancie]

originally posted by RandiFan
Bemoaning the stupidity of the average American and the leaders they chose is an exercise in futility.
Yes, although Bush didn't even receive a majority of the vote.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Has Bush ever said or written anything on his own that showed critical thinking, depth of understanding, originality...anything remotely interesting and intelligent on any subject? Elitism, I don't know if he has or hasn't. I don't care. He has what it takes to become governor and president. I don't subscribe to Sellers "Being There" theory. He flew a jet, something that most could not do and he got through college. I don't want an Einstein for president. I want someone who is a leader, decisive and firm in his or her convictions. Bush is in my mind a great president. I have read of his leadership style from people who have worked close to him people who have gained great respect for him.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I just disagree.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Yes, although Bush didn't even receive a majority of the vote. Your point?

He received more votes than Clinton ever did. People who voted for Gore didn't vote for Gore because Bush believed in creationism.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by bignickel
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db030420

I may have heard this or that about our currently elected leader over the last couple of years, but how did this escape the attention of the media before the 2000 election?

Uh oh, the "leftist media" sure missed this one.:rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius


Uh oh, the "leftist" media" sure missed this one.:rolleyes:

Yeah, they were too busy trying to find ways to explain why Gore lost his home state in the presidential election. :rolleyes:

JK

[renata]

Originally posted by RandFan
Your point?

He received more votes than Clinton ever did. People who voted for Gore didn't vote for Gore because Bush believed in creationism.

I have seen people say this before. I do not understand it. He was not running against Clinton, so the fact that he received more votes than Clinton does not matter- Gore received more votes than Bush. Of course, that does not matter also, and even though Gore got bigger popular vote than Bush, Bush got the majority of votes in enough states to make him the rightful president. Any (perhaps justifiable) bitterness Democrats may feel over Florida should be channeled to the next elections. Bush is the president, he is the president legally and correctly. Next elections let's get a decent candidate, and beat Bush. Moaning about 2000 just makes Democrats look like poor losers.

[Kopji]

Gee whiz, I think Bush is doing a great job!
(Hey I'm a newbie here and am expected to post stupid things).

I would agree skeptics do not have much political influence in the US (or anywhere else?). Religion is everywhere, I can't watch the news without 15 minutes per hour of "Worship & Praise 8" music commercials. It bothers me that they think the war news is prime time for religion sales.

Hard to no be numb to it all. Bush ran as a 'middle of road' guy, and he turned out to be a Religious Right guy instead. -shrug-

All sort of a vicarious 'Pat Robertson' experience. It will be hopefully all be over in a few years...

[RichardR]

Originally posted by bignickel
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db030420

I may have heard this or that about our currently elected leader over the last couple of years, but how did this escape the attention of the media before the 2000 election? False.

(Bush wasn't elected.)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by renata


I have seen people say this before. I do not understand it. He was not running against Clinton, so the fact that he received more votes than Clinton does not matter- Gore received more votes than Bush. Of course, that does not matter also, and even though Gore got bigger popular vote than Bush, Bush got the majority of votes in enough states to make him the rightful president. Any (perhaps justifiable) bitterness Democrats may feel over Florida should be channeled to the next elections. Bush is the president, he is the president legally and correctly. Next elections let's get a decent candidate, and beat Bush. Moaning about 2000 just makes Democrats look like poor losers.
Legally, yes. Correctly? Depends on who you ask. Whether or not Bush won will be debated in history books for years to come (I don't think he did), but it really makes no difference now. He is the president. He won't be the first president who relied on some shady politics to get into office (read some history about the Jefferson/Burr election) and probably not the last. It is a pretty good system, but no system is perfect. The fact that both the popular and electoral votes were so close indicates that a coin flip might have been as fair.

I'm over it. I still reserve my right to carp and criticize almost everything he does, and he gives me plenty of material. Creationism???:confused: Jeezle Pete!

[renata]

Originally posted by Tricky

Legally, yes. Correctly? Depends on who you ask. Whether or not Bush won will be debated in history books for years to come (I don't think he did), but it really makes no difference now. He is the president. He won't be the first president who relied on some shady politics to get into office (read some history about the Jefferson/Burr election) and probably not the last. It is a pretty good system, but no system is perfect. The fact that both the popular and electoral votes were so close indicates that a coin flip might have been as fair.

I'm over it. I still reserve my right to carp and criticize almost everything he does, and he gives me plenty of material. Creationism???:confused: Jeezle Pete!

I agree with what you say. Perhaps correctly was an incorrect term. How about correctly within the current electoral rules? There has been shady politics forever- JFK/Nixon election had soem serious problems as well. Trust me, I get almost visceral oppostion to pretty much everything Bush does when he is in office- reasons are too numerous to list. But too many liberals appear to be stuck with 2000 grievances, and that will not get a Democrat in office in 2004.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by renata
I have seen people say this before. I do not understand it. He was not running against Clinton, so the fact that he received more votes than Clinton does not matter- Hi Renata,

You are right, it does not matter. It does however provide context to the statement that "Bush didn't even receive a majority of the vote." Such a statement leaves the wrong impression. As though the "people" did not want Bush. Well more people voiced their desire to have Bush as a president than Clinton.

But in the end you are right. It does not matter.

[Segnosaur]

Up in Canada, we had a similar situation. The leader of the oposition a few years ago was Stockwell Day, who was right of center, and had very religious leanings (and a belief in creationism). He was severely criticized in the media up here. (Comments were made like "He thinks the Flinstones is a documentary".)

The question is, what are you (as a voter) willing to give up in order to select a politician with the same religious outlook as you? If you're right-of-center athiest, would you be willing to vote for someone who plans to raise taxes, just because he's an athiest? Or if you're a left-of-center athiest, would you vote for someone who wants to slash welfare payments, just because he says he doesn't believe in g*d?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
People who actively push creationism (not those who simply listen) are willfully and obstinately ignorant about a subject they discuss at great length, a position that I believe deserves scorn. Interesting,

What if such a person actively campaigned for seperation of church and state?

What if such a person actively campaigned for a woman's right to choose?

What if such a person worked his or her entire life fighting for civil rights or to improve the lives of others?

Would all such people be worthy of scorn?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kopji
Gee whiz, I think Bush is doing a great job!
(Hey I'm a newbie here and am expected to post stupid things). I think he is doing a great job. However I'm not a newbie. With that in mind, what do you make of me?

[Clancie]

originally posted by RandFan

I want someone who is a leader, decisive and firm in his or her convictions. Bush is in my mind a great president. I have read of his leadership style from people who have worked close to him people who have gained great respect for him.

Randfan,

You're entitled to your opinion, too, so please don't take my next comment the wrong way. But I just couldn't read the defense of Bush above without thinking how many of the qualities of "great leadership" it seems to be missing.

I mean (and here's the part I was warning about), we could also say that Hitler was decisive and firm in his convictions, a man whose leadership style was admired by many of the people who worked with him.

Now, of course I'm assuming you wouldn't consider Hitler great. But I'm wondering: are the things you list really adequate criteria for "greatness"?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Yeah, they were too busy trying to find ways to explain why Gore lost his home state in the presidential election. :rolleyes:

JK


Its real easy JK. Al Gore used to be a good kid who barbequed with us down here in Memphis. He was a good guy. He had his fathers name for getting elected, but noone really minded. He seemed to be a good kid. The best thing Clinton could have done for Gore is to have resigned and handed him the job. Instead, Gore played defense for Bill out of duty for 8 years and the shell of a man we were left with just wasn't that boy from Tennessee who knew how to baste a shoulder.

Some people think Gore started losing his "core" long before that. He apparently "shopped" his vote on Gulf I. But hey, nobody is perfect. Tennesseans are forgiving. Some people think he might have lost his senate seat here if he hadnt become VP, I'm not sure if thats true.

You have to remember, Tennessee was the home of General Forrest. He took it upon himself to run off the republicans who tried to gain a foothold in Tennessee after the civil war. Tennessee had a long democrat tradition stemming from historical roots like that.

I think the problem was, Bush seemed more like a Tennessee democrat than Gore did. Bush had his dui and his wild days. But nobody around here really gives a care. That made him more human. We had a governer partially socialize medicine here and it flopped bigtime. We have no income tax. The tennessee government is not in the business of monitoring how much you make. Many young men and women from Appalachia still go the military route to college. Much of Tennessee is still wild. Feral dogs roam some of the vast stretches of trees. You don't normally go into the wilderness unarmed. Many in the rural counties still hunt for their food. Tennessee democrats are usually not big on gun control, not big on taxes, and after learning our lesson on TennCare (the pathetic result of partial socialized healthcare) we aren't big on more government.

I don't feel like Tennessee turned its back on Gore. It felt like Gore had turned his back on us.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Segnosaur
The question is, what are you (as a voter) willing to give up in order to select a politician with the same religious outlook as you?

Frankly, I never expect to see that, or even someone who really shares my political views to any great extent. However, that much agreement isn't important to me as long as the president believes in the separation of church and state and demonstrates an understanding of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, looking at his comments on education and religion--as well as civil liberties--I don't think this President does either one.

[DavidJames]

I can't believe 3 years later and Bush vs. Gore/Clinton is still being debated. Well yes I can, because for some, the best rebuttal to an attack on Bush is an attack on Clinton. Which, coincidentally, is exactly why, IMO, Gore lost. Clinton made some huge mistakes in his personal life, was drug across the coals for them and Gore was tagged out in the run down. Period. Without Lewinsky (and friends), Gore would have, again IMO, won in a walk over. Without getting sidetracked by the impeachment, Clinton's coat tails would have been long and solid, Gore wouldn't have run away from Clinton policies and Bush would have not been in the hunt any more than Dole, a much stronger candidate was 4 years earlier.

Geez, Gore's gone, and so is Clinton, move on.

[RandFan]

{Godwin's Law} :D

Originally posted by Clancy
I mean (and here's the part I was warning about), we could also say that Hitler was decisive and firm in his convictions, a man whose leadership style was admired by many of the people who worked with him. Absolutely, we could say that about him. Of course he wanted to rule the world. He broke treaties, invaded the Sudetenland, divided Poland with Russia, broke his promise with Chamberlain, launched an attack against Brittan, launched an attack against Russia, urged Japan to attack the United States and if that wasn't enough he deliberately tried to exterminate an entire group of human beings based on their ethnic and religious affiliation. I would say that Hitler was an amoral human being. He was a meglomaniac who lacked empathy. He did have "some" good leadership skills however.

Now, of course I'm assuming you wouldn't consider Hitler great. But I'm wondering: are the things you list really adequate criteria for "greatness"? So, let me see if I understand you right. Any criteria for greatness must be measured up against Hitler to determine the validity of such criteria?

If Hitler was smart and I found "smart" to be a criteria for greatness then it would be invalid?

What about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Should my list of "adequate" criteria not be shared with such tyrants?

Clancy,

I think such an argument is fallacious. But I am intrigued. Screw Godwins Law, tell me more.

[Clancie]

So, let me see if I understand you right. Any criteria for greatness must be measured up against Hitler to determine the validity of such criteria?
Huh?
If Hitler was smart and I found "smart" to be a criteria for greatness then it would be invalid?
What about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Should my list of "adequate" criteria not be shared with such tyrants?
I think such an argument is fallacious. But I am intrigued. Screw Godwins Law, tell me more.
Here it is. You say, "I want someone who is a leader, decisive and firm in his or her convictions". My point is that good and bad leaders could share those particular qualities.

In other words, do you consider the only qualities you mentioned valuing in a leader sufficient for greatness? If not, what would you add?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
Interesting,

What if such a person actively campaigned for seperation of church and state?

What if such a person actively campaigned for a woman's right to choose?

What if such a person worked his or her entire life fighting for civil rights or to improve the lives of others?

Would all such people be worthy of scorn?
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I meant scorn only for their creationist position. I do not consider that a person who is ignorant about one issue to be ignorant about all issues. I would truly hope that some of the philosophy whizzes in here would not scorn my position on creationism because I was ignorant in philosophy.

However, it has been my observation that a person who is not willfully ignorant on one topic is usually not willfully ignorant on most topics. Once one has become addicted to critical thinking, it tends to pervade all aspects of ones life. There are exceptions.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Huh? Your argument is fallacious. That Hitler shares common traits with Bush does not make Bush amoral.

The traits I listed are good leadership traits. That Hitler also had those traits is entirely irrelevant.

Here it is. You say, "I want someone who is a leader, decisive and firm in his or her convictions". My point is that good and bad leaders could share those particular qualities. Bad leaders have both good and bad traits.

Hitler was an amoral, megalomaniacal butcher. Bush has exhibited no such negative qualities.

Here, let me see if I can demonstrate why your argument is fallacious.

John is strong and fast. He is a great athlete.

Mark is strong and fast. Unfortunately he also has self destructive behaviors. He stays out late drinking and does not get enough sleep. Mark is not a good athlete.

The negative behaviors of Mark are detrimental to Marks good qualities. They are not detrimental to John’s good qualities.

Hitler’s negative behaviors were detrimental to Hitler’s good qualities. They are not detrimental to Bush's good qualities.

Your argument is a fallacy of composition. Are you certain you want to continue? I often come off as patronizing and I don't mean to be in this instance. Please don't get upset with my question but do you understand what a fallacious argument is?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I meant scorn only for their creationist position. I do not consider that a person who is ignorant about one issue to be ignorant about all issues. I would truly hope that some of the philosophy whizzes in here would not scorn my position on creationism because I was ignorant in philosophy.

However, it has been my observation that a person who is not willfully ignorant on one topic is usually not willfully ignorant on most topics. Once one has become addicted to critical thinking, it tends to pervade all aspects of ones life. There are exceptions. Thank you,

A reasoned and well written response.

I had come across a list of christians including some who believed in creationism who had actively campaigned for the positions that I mentioned. To be honest I was surprised. I probably shouldn't have been. Humans are quite diverse.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Weeeell, if an ignoramus is someone who believes in something despite all evidence that that something isn't real... then yes.

Say for example the belief in an "atom" made of "matter"? Why is it as matter gets scientifically studied mor precisely there becomes less & less of it and more & more "nothing" with some bits of "energy" winking in & out of existence? :)

[Clancie]

originally posted by RandFan

Your argument is fallacious. That Hitler shares common traits with Bush does not make Bush amoral.
Please point out exactly where I have made this argument.
The traits I listed are good leadership traits. That Hitler also had those traits is entirely irrelevant
The question (which you still haven't answered) is if you consider those traits to be, in and of themselves, adequate criteria for determining a "great" leader?

I mentioned Hitler only to point out to you, as I said, that these traits you mentioned could be shared by good and bad leaders alike. In other words, do you consider "firm decisive leadership" your only criteria for Bush's supposed "greatness"? Don't you need to define "greatness" more than this?

Hitler’s negative behaviors were detrimental to Hitler’s good qualities. They are not detrimental to Bush's good qualities.
Your argument is a fallacy of composition. Are you certain you want to continue? I often come off as patronizing and I don't mean to be in this instance.

Please don't get upset with my question but do you understand what a fallacious argument is?

(Taking a deep breath....) Yes.

(Patiently moving on...)So, in answer to my real, not imagined position, is it fair to say that you are satisfied with your definition of Bush's "greatness" as posted so far (i.e. his greatness = his "firm, decisive leadership")?

Or would you like to add something to that criteria, in order to distinguish his leadership from those who also have the qualities you mentioned, but who would not be considered "great"?

In case you're still missing my point, let me say that I don't think much of "firm, decisive leadership" as an adequate definition of greatness in itself, as it seems something that could easily be shared by the "great" and "terrible" leader alike.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, that there's more to your definition of his greatness that you haven't mentioned so far, but will.

Or do you think "firm and decisive leadership" is a good enough definition of greatness?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
In case you're still missing my point, let me say that I don't think much of "firm, decisive leadership" as an adequate definition of greatness in itself, as it seems something that could easily be shared by the "great" and "terrible" leader alike. That it "could" be shared is irrelevant. I don't know why you harp on that. It serves no purpose. Being firm and decisive are good qualities. If Hitler had them then he had some good leadership qualities. Perhaps that is how he got to be leader of Germany. I imagine it difficult to reach such a position with out any "good" qualities. Wouldn't you agree? Had Hitler not had all of the negative qualities he may very well have gone down in history as a great leader, wouldn't you agree?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, that there's more to your definition of his greatness that you haven't mentioned so far, but will. I like those values. They are very important in my book. I also like decency and the willingness to do what is right even if it is unpopular.

One of my favorite Governors of all time is John Slaton. He commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank. He did so even though he knew it would hurt his political career. And it did. John Slaton wasn't a genius. He was a good man who was decisive and firm in his convictions. Years later evidence came out that exonerated John Slaton and proved that Governor Frank did the correct thing when he commuted Slaton's sentence.

I like that George Bush's style is to accept other points of view. He has worked hard to bring people together. He does not dismiss other politicians simply because of their ideology. He was very successful as a governor and was able to get many Democrats to support his agenda.

I want a leader that will consider the diplomacy and the needs of other nations but not be kowtowed into doing the bidding of others.

"The course of this nation does not depend upon the opinions of others,... " This statement means allot to me. Doing what is right is not about popularity. It is about doing what you believe is right. That is very much the mark of a great leader.

From his press conference before the war.
You clearly named some that -- France and Germany expressed their opinions. We have a disagreement over how best to deal with Saddam Hussein. I understand that. Having said that, they're still our friends and we will deal with them as friends. Bush realizes the importance of not burning bridges. Many people including politicians would have been tempted to lash out at France and Germany. I would have. Bush being the leader that he is did not lash out. That means a great deal to me. I think such a measured response is indicative of a great leader.

Another thing that I value in George W. Bush is the absence of superiority. His messages before and during the war were absent the vitriol and bombast of Saddam or other Arab leaders. We told them that we would succeed and we did. Saddam was warned simply that we would prevail.

Bush also is nonplussed by critics. With all of the retired commanders saying that the operation was botched and pundits talking about a protracted conflict Bush pushed forward. Again, firm and decisive. When history called for him he stood up and led. He knew what the goal was and he knew that the plan was good. He knew what the outcome would be because he understood all that had been presented him.

That is what makes a great leader. Most of us would have no idea if we should invade or not. If the plan would even work or not. Bush knew and he acted as a leader.

I should point out that Bush also acted during the Afghanistan war in a decisive manner.

I also would give Bush high marks in his selection of his cabinet and advisors. Bush did not select Cheney because he could help him politically. He chose him because he thought he was the best person for the job. That is also why he chose Rice, Powell and others. They have served him very well. That is why Bush chose Tom Ridge. Bush was more interested in doing what is right than creating new bureaucracy. Such a quality is refreshing in a leader.

From Steve Brill

One thing I will say is there has been a lot of unfair coverage of Tom Ridge. The media has misjudged what his job is supposed to be. He is much more important than the New York Times and Washington Post have given him credit for. The National Security Advisor has no staff or significant budget and no one would dispute that Condoleezza Rice is influential on national security issues. I would suggest that if Ridge had an agency he would have less power not more. He oversees all activities that deal with this war on terrorism. In the process he channels an incredible amount of money and power towards fighting that war. When a nation has been attacked as we were after 911 then it is important to have someone who will stand up and lead. Someone who is firm and decisive. It helps when that person is a decent and honest man. We were fortunate IMO that George Bush was at the helm at the time of the attack. That he is a creationist means little if nothing to me.

Pointing out that he is a creationist is a bit of poisioning the well in my opinion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Most of America's presidents have been creationists.

Lincoln, Washington, etc...

Washington wasn't, nor were Jefferson and Adams. That's 3-1 so far. Care to keep going?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Washington wasn't, nor were Jefferson and Adams. That's 3-1 so far. Care to keep going?

Wasn't the theory of evolution invented in the next century? Up until that time, if you were a deist or christian, you would have had no other theory to explain life on earth as other than creationism.

[Supercharts]

Could you possibly read some history books?
It would help a lot.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Could you possibly read some history books?
It would help a lot.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm



Early Deism was a logical outgrowth of the great advances in astronomy, physics, and chemistry that had been made by Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, etc. It was a small leap from rational study of nature to the application of the same techniques in religion. Early Deists believed that the Bible contained important truths, but they rejected the concept that it was divinely inspired or inerrant. They were leaders in the study of the Bible as a historical (rather than an inspired, revealed) document. Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book "De Veritate," (1624), he described the "Five Articles" of English Deists:

belief in the existence of a single supreme God
humanity's duty to revere God
linkage of worship with practical morality
God will forgive us if we repent and abandon our sins
good works will be rewarded (and punishment for evil) both in life and after death
Other English Deists were Anthony Collins (1676-1729), Matthew Tindal (1657-1733). J.J. Rousseau (1712-1778) and F.M.A. de Voltaire (1694-1778) were its leaders in France.

Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/desmond.htm



Darwin's Early Life
So who was this man shattering the complacency of ages? Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was the least likely at first sight to have capped this nineteenth century revolution. Being born into the Shropshire gentry and trained for the Church hardly boded well. Our familiar bearded-sage image comes from the short Autobiography that Darwin wrote late in life, a book which the old man laced with self-deprecating musings, smokescreens and anecdotes. But the tireless work of historians in the 1980s has replaced this with a dynamic image of the young Darwin, fresh ashore from the Beagle. We now have an annotated transcription of Darwin's evolution notebooks. No less important is the definitive



So, where am I wrong?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
He was very successful as a governor and was able to get many Democrats to support his agenda.
I saw this and I nearly choked. Bush was a successful governor? well, he got reelected if thats what you mean. He got almost no Democrats to support his agenda, but he was apt at borrowing their ideas when it proved profitable. He vetoed the patients bill of rights, then when the legislature passed it over his veto, he claimed credit for it.

Here in Texas, out government is almost completely bankrupt thanks to the tax cuts that Bush ramrodded through for his cronies. We have to cut all sorts of educational and health programs. It is a very dark time, and though some of it can be attributed to the terrible economy (under President Bush) much of it is due to the reckless profiteering (under Governer Bush).

Don't tell me he was a good governer. He was the worst thing that happened to Texas since Santa Anna.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

I saw this and I nearly choked. Bush was a successful governor? well, he got reelected if thats what you mean. He got almost no Democrats to support his agenda, but he was apt at borrowing their ideas when it proved profitable. He vetoed the patients bill of rights, then when the legislature passed it over his veto, he claimed credit for it.

Here in Texas, out government is almost completely bankrupt thanks to the tax cuts that Bush ramrodded through for his cronies. We have to cut all sorts of educational and health programs. It is a very dark time, and though some of it can be attributed to the terrible economy (under President Bush) much of it is due to the reckless profiteering (under Governer Bush).

Don't tell me he was a good governer. He was the worst thing that happened to Texas since Santa Anna.

In fairness to Bush, the seeds for the American dot.com bomb went back to Clinton's time. However, Clinton was doing no more than Bush, with the approval of a Republican head of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Corporate America was revelling in the time, along with all the people who were doing well out of it, and no one dared stand in it's way if they wanted to get re-elected.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Wasn't the theory of evolution invented in the next century? Up until that time, if you were a deist or christian, you would have had no other theory to explain life on earth as other than creationism.

Not true. Creationism was pretty much scientifically discredited about a century before Darwin's theories.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by shanek


Not true. Creationism was pretty much scientifically discredited about a century before Darwin's theories.

Really? How so?

JK

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


In fairness to Bush, the seeds for the American dot.com bomb went back to Clinton's time. However, Clinton was doing no more than Bush, with the approval of a Republican head of the Federal Reserve Bank.


The high tech sector VC gamblers drove us to surplus tax revenues and then when their house of cards collapsed damaged the old economy too. The boom, recession, and current slow recovery have little to do with Clinton/Bush.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
In fairness to Bush, the seeds for the American dot.com bomb went back to Clinton's time. However, Clinton was doing no more than Bush, with the approval of a Republican head of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Corporate America was revelling in the time, along with all the people who were doing well out of it, and no one dared stand in it's way if they wanted to get re-elected.
Somewhat true, but during the "boom" years, Clinton did not propose tax cuts, but rather he advocated paying down the national debt. In my mind, that was good fiscal planning. Using the boom years to model our economic future was very bad planning, but it is exactly what the Republicans did, both in Texas and in the US.

[Clancie]

Giant tax cuts for the rich combined with huge military expenditures was not the Clinton formula. In fact, it was widely discredited after the disasterous Reagan years in which this was his administrations cherished policy (a combination that was even called "voodoo economics" by GWB's dad).

Nevertheless, discredited as it is, Reagan's "big tax breaks for the wealthy plus big military budget" is a formula that Bush and his Republican team have revived and are now inflicting once again on the rest of us.

Its the same, old, discredited "trickle down" economics idea that (one hoped) went out with Reagan. I suppose its no surprise, since so many Reagan/Bush people are now advising this President.

Now, once again, we have military spending driving the economy (even including an extravagent "Missile Defense Shield" program--just like Reagan's "Star Wars" idea). Another muti-billion dollar boondoggle taking money from things of benefit and value to people.

Reagan II. Only more so.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky

I saw this and I nearly choked. Bush was a successful governor? well, he got reelected if thats what you mean. He got almost no Democrats to support his agenda, but he was apt at borrowing their ideas when it proved profitable. He vetoed the patients bill of rights, then when the legislature passed it over his veto, he claimed credit for it.

Here in Texas, out government is almost completely bankrupt thanks to the tax cuts that Bush ramrodded through for his cronies. We have to cut all sorts of educational and health programs. It is a very dark time, and though some of it can be attributed to the terrible economy (under President Bush) much of it is due to the reckless profiteering (under Governer Bush).

Don't tell me he was a good governer. He was the worst thing that happened to Texas since Santa Anna. Don't forget that not only was he relected but he won Texas in the presdiental election. Well I don't live in Texas so I can only repeat what I hear. And I remember a number of Democrat law makers from Texas who campaigned for Bush and offered him lots of praise.

I live in California where the economy went in the toilet under a Democrat governor. He spent every dime of our surplus and increased spending at an unprecedented scale.

In truth the economy cycles. It always has and always will. The economy was dramatically improving a full year before Clinton took office and was dramatically falling a year before Clinton left office. Economists were telling us there would be a correction to the market 2 - 3 years before it happend. Unfortunately everyone was buying the lie of the "new" economy and the dot com BS.

However, Bush is in office and will have to take any blame for the economy and Grey Davis will be forever be known as perhaps the worst governor in the history of California. Somehow I don't think that Grey Davis will win the presidency.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Nevertheless, discredited as it is, Reagan's "big tax breaks for the wealthy plus big military budget" is a formula that Bush and his Republican team have revived and are now inflicting once again on the rest of us. By every measure Regans formula grew the economy. The treasury took in more money and the economy grew at unprecedented levels. When one looks at a chart of the market one can't distinguish between the increase during Regan and Clinton. Just a small hiccup during the Bush years. Economys cycle.

It's true they spent at an unprecedented level but stating that Regan hurt the economy is simply not true.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
In my mind, that was good fiscal planning. Using the boom years to model our economic future was very bad planning, but it is exactly what the Republicans did, both in Texas and in the US. Don't forget Grey Davis did it in California and lots of Democrat law makers were acting like the boom was going to go on forever.

[DavidJames]

When I moved to CA in 95 it didn't take long to figure out who was behind the economic messes. Poor school funding, infrastructures needing repair. The problem was the voters and their approval of Prop 13. Increasing population and subsequent demands for services, existing services and infrastructure needing upgrades and no (or limited) ability to increase funding. Politicians will inevitably tell us what we want to here and when they tell us what we don't want to hear, we don't elect them. The CA voters screwed CA.

I moved to CO and damn, I find out we have the TAxpayers Bill Of Rights (TABOR), same thing as prop 13. Now we're taking money away from public schools to teach religion to children (vouchers). Gee, I wonder how the public schools will fare :rolleyes: I think it's about time we stop blaming those we elect for our problems, look in the mirror and realize we get what we vote for.

Politicians love to give people simplistic solutions, prop 13, TABOR, 3 strikes and the gullible electorate eat it up.

We can increase military spending, increase spending for homeland security, increase spending for health care and cut taxes, uh, yeah sure.

Oh yeah I forgot it's all the (insert other party here) fault. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
By every measure Regans formula grew the economy. The treasury took in more money and the economy grew at unprecedented levels. When one looks at a chart of the market one can't distinguish between the increase during Regan and Clinton. Just a small hiccup during the Bush years. Economys cycle.

It's true they spent at an unprecedented level but stating that Regan hurt the economy is simply not true.

Using classic Keynsian economics. However, instead of pouring money into infrastructure and eduction, he put it into military spending.

[Kashyapa]

it's pretty well established that our beloved Prez is a right-winger reborn Christian nutjob with a neo-conservative, highly religious agenda. It's been covered in a number of nauseatingly fawning articles in several news outlets. He even believes that he's some sort of chosen one to lead our country- talk about your ethnocentrism and arrogance!

Sorry if you're a Bush supporter. I'm not.

Originally posted by bignickel
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db030420

I may have heard this or that about our currently elected leader over the last couple of years, but how did this escape the attention of the media before the 2000 election?

[Clancie]

originally quoted by RandFan

By every measure Regans formula grew the economy

RandFan,

Really? How does that claim jibe with the following?:

Reagan:

* promised the American people a combination of huge tax cuts, a major defense buildup and a balanced federal budget.

* This Reagan formula was (rightly) called "voodoo economics" by the current president's father, George H.W. Bush

* The federal budget deficit doubled during Reagan's eight years in office

* The national debt quadrupled to more than $4 trillion during the Reagan years

* Under Reagan, the interest on the national debt grew to more than $200 billion annually.

Clinton

* Under Clinton (though not only attributable to Clinton), there was fiscal discipline, unpopular tax increases and spending cuts in order to address the problem Reagan had left us with

* Under Clinton was the longest peacetime expansion of the American economy in 50 years, four straight years of budget surpluses, record low unemployment, record low poverty rates and record high homeownership.

* During the last four years of Clinton's administration, the debt was reduced by $450 billion.

* Clinton left Bush with a $127 billion budgetary surplus

Bush:

* Bush is proposing a $600 billion dollar tax cut for the wealthy

* He budgets for increased military spending; perhaps amounting to hundreds of billions for military action in Iraq

* Bush is projecting a $307 billion deficit for next year

* The Bush director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, says that a projected $300 billion deficit would be "small"--even though it would be the largest deficit in American history

* Trying to blame it all on 9/ll doesn't work either. The Budget Office itself estimates that 45 percent of the budget deficit is a result of the enacted $1.7 trillion tax cut and other Bush economic policies

The Effect of "Bush/Reagan II Economics":

* Budget deficits increase the national debt (currently at $6.4 trillion).

* Interest payments on the debt are the third-largest spending item in the federal budget (after Social Security and defense). The only way to eliminate this "debt tax" is to eliminate the debt.

* But despite Bush saying that "paying off debt is a priority," it is rising again and will cost our nation an estimated $2.1 trillion over the next five years.

* Money spent to pay on this is money that isn't available for other things--like education and health care.

Alan Greenspan's opinon? "Abandonment of fiscal discipline eventually will push up interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth and force harder choices upon us in the future."

It didn't work with Reagan and it won't work with Bush either.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
It didn't work with Reagan and it won't work with Bush either. Of course you leave out the fact that Income to the treasury increased at unprecedented levels or that GNP increased at unprecedented levels or that personal wealth increased at unprecdented levels. Or that the Economy started improving before Clinton took office or that the economy under Clinton befifited from defense cutbacks that Bush started. I may have missed it but I don't think you point out that the Democrats called the shots for what was to be spent under Regan.

Again, look at a chart of the market and tell me that the trend didn't change when Clinton took office or that Clinton didn't benifit form defense cutbacks after we won the cold war.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Oh yeah I forgot it's all the (insert other party here) fault. :rolleyes: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

The most honest thing I have heard all day.

[Kashyapa]

Let's just all concede right now that all politicians (or at least the great majority) are full of manure. Yes?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Of course you leave out the fact that Income to the treasury increased at unprecedented levels or that GNP increased at unprecedented levels or that personal wealth increased at unprecdented levels. Or that the Economy started improving before Clinton took office or that the economy under Clinton befifited from defense cutbacks that Bush started. I may have missed it but I don't think you point out that the Democrats called the shots for what was to be spent under Regan.

Again, look at a chart of the market and tell me that the trend didn't change when Clinton took office or that Clinton didn't benifit form defense cutbacks after we won the cold war.

It is just backing classic liberal leftist economic theory, I'm afraid. Use the Government to stimulate economic activity. Pity he couldn't think of something better to spend the money on than better weapons in a world that doesn't need them. Tell me, what is the new tactical fighter supposed to be fighting against? Aliens?

[Clancie]

originally posted by A Unique Person

It is just backing classic liberal leftist economic theory

What exactly are you referring to? If it is still in the context of Reaganomics. I fail to see how the supply-side argument could be considered liberal or leftist, much less both.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Clancy


What exactly are you referring to? If it is still in the context of Reaganomics. I fail to see how the supply-side argument could be considered liberal or leftist, much less both.

A deficit in itself is not evil. People borrow money all the time, to buy a house or car, for example. Similarly, money borrowed by a government to build infrastructure, with an economic return, is not a bad thing. It also gets the economy moving if it is stalled, by creating jobs.

Reagan's twist was to put the money into the military and rich, when before such deficit financing was used to fund the poorer and middleclass sections. They were to benefit in this case from the 'trickle down' effect. Kind of like a the rich p**ing on the poor.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RandFan
Of course you leave out the fact that Income to the treasury increased at unprecedented levels or that GNP increased at unprecedented levels or that personal wealth increased at unprecdented levels. Or that the Economy started improving before Clinton took office or that the economy under Clinton befifited from defense cutbacks that Bush started. I may have missed it but I don't think you point out that the Democrats called the shots for what was to be spent under Regan.

Again, look at a chart of the market and tell me that the trend didn't change when Clinton took office or that Clinton didn't benifit form defense cutbacks after we won the cold war.

OK, here is a chart of the average annual growth of tax collections by president adjusted for inflation.


Average
President Annual Growth
Truman 3.7%
Eisenhower 2.4%
Kennedy 4.8%
Johnson 6.9%
Nixon 0.3%
Ford 6.4%
Carter 3.0%
Reagan 2.4%
Bush -0.0%

Now, what were you saying about REagan growing income to the treasury at unprecedented levels? Oh, you are right if you ignore inflation but are really being honest by doing that?


Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RandFan
Of course you leave out the fact that Income to the treasury increased at unprecedented levels or that GNP increased at unprecedented levels...

Where do you get these ideas? Do you back ANYTHING up with fact? I decided to check "GNP increased at unprecedented levels" claim of yours and surprise, surprise, it did not hold up. Unless you are dishonestly quoting absolute numbers instead of percentages. Take a gander at the GNP growth per year from the US Dept of Commerce:

1977 8.7%
1978 12.4%
1979 8.2%
1980 6.4%
1981 5.1%
1982 3.7%
1983 9.2%
1984 5.6%
1985 5.0%
1986 3.4%
1987 6.1%
1988 6.0%
1989 4.0%
1990 2.5%
1991 3.2%
1992 4.6%
1993 3.9%
1994 4.7%
1995 3.2%
1996 4.5%
1997 4.3%
1998 3.9%
1999 4.8%
2000 3.2%

So, what was unprecedented about the Reagan years? Carter had a higher increase back in 1978. Further, he had a higher average increase over his four years than Reagan over his eight.

So, what was unprecedented about the increase in the GNP under Reagan? I am all ears.

Lurker

[Smalso]

At the risk of being out of place here, I would like to return to the original point of this thread, leaving out references to previous presidents and almost-presidents, and even Hitler. (Hitler???)

I personally couldn't care less what George W. Bush's--or any other president's--personal beliefs are or are not. Whether we like it or not, he is a citizen of the United States and entitled to the protections of the Constitution, as are all citizens. The Constitution specifically forbids any religious test for public office and I think it is a good thing to consider the spirit as well as the letter of this clause. So long as there is no attempt by the administration to impose its beliefs upon others--itself a violation of the Constitution--its members have a perfect right to believe what they believe. I would be a poor liberal indeed if I thought otherwise.

[Lurker]

Smalso,

I agree. George Bush's belief in creationism doesn't matter much to me (other than I get to call him an idiot on that one) unless he tries to support that in the public schools. Until then, it is merely a privately held belief and he is free to have it.

I would question his wisdom that he holds this belief but since he did go to college and even grad school I will assume he has some smarts.

Lurker

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lurker
Where do you get these ideas? Do you back ANYTHING up with fact? I decided to check "GNP increased at unprecedented levels" claim of yours and surprise, surprise, it did not hold up. Unless you are dishonestly quoting absolute numbers instead of percentages. Take a gander at the GNP growth per year from the US Dept of Commerce:

1977 8.7%
1978 12.4%
1979 8.2%
1980 6.4%
1981 5.1%
1982 3.7%
1983 9.2%
1984 5.6%
1985 5.0%
1986 3.4%
1987 6.1%
1988 6.0%
1989 4.0%
1990 2.5%
1991 3.2%
1992 4.6%
1993 3.9%
1994 4.7%
1995 3.2%
1996 4.5%
1997 4.3%
1998 3.9%
1999 4.8%
2000 3.2%

So, what was unprecedented about the Reagan years? Carter had a higher increase back in 1978. Further, he had a higher average increase over his four years than Reagan over his eight.

So, what was unprecedented about the increase in the GNP under Reagan? I am all ears.

Lurker Hey, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. I was repeating what I honestly remember from books and articles that I have read. If I was wrong it wasn't an intentional attempt to mislead. Could you give me the links to the data that you have posted?

Thanks,

RandFan

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A deficit in itself is not evil. People borrow money all the time, to buy a house or car, for example.

There is all the difference in the world between people or businesses borrowing money and the government running a deficit. In the economy, borrowing money raises the amount of money in the economy, but since the banks want a return on their investment they have every incentive to only loan money to those who are going do invest it wisely, such as building a house or expanding a business. These actions not only add money to the economy but add to the goods and services available.

Government deficit spending doesn't do that. It adds to the money supply, but there's no similar incentive to actually add to the goods and services; they just spend it. Hence, inflation.

Similarly, money borrowed by a government to build infrastructure, with an economic return, is not a bad thing. It also gets the economy moving if it is stalled, by creating jobs.

If you think that the deficit spending actually does this, you're deluded.

It was Reagan's tax cuts, not his deficit spending, that jumpstarted the economy. We're paying the price for those deficits now. TANSTAAFL.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I can't believe 3 years later and Bush vs. Gore/Clinton is still being debated.


Funny thing about this we had people on the floor of the Senate saying "These votes have been counted and recounted, lets move on."
FUNNY THING ABOUT HOW THE VOTES HAD NOT BEEN RECOUNTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The disenfranchisement of voters in Florida was a real thing. That is why it is still being debated. believe me , if Gore had forced a shady election the Republicans would be still harping on it.

On Slick Willy's coattails, I thought there were some polls that showed Clinton would have beat Gore or Bush in the election.

My feeling is that Gore lost his nerve, I remember the days when he was the Senator from Tennesse and his wife was bashing Twisted Sister. He lost his rudder and forgot his voters. I think he lost because he went too mainstream instead of sticking to his conservative views.

Peace
dancing david

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hey, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. I was repeating what I honestly remember from books and articles that I have read. If I was wrong it wasn't an intentional attempt to mislead. Could you give me the links to the data that you have posted?

Thanks,

RandFan

Dude, I apologize. I looked it up real quick on the Internet and now I cannot find it. It had the GNP by quarter so I created a worksheet to crunch the numbers and come up with the % growth per year.

I am not implying that the years under Carter were better than the years under Reagan, economically speaking. GNP is just one facet of measuring an economy. In this case, it favors Carter over Reagan.

Lurker

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Really? How so?

JK

As I recall there may have not been attacks upon creationism per se:
There was a geologist who was studying Mt. Etna and the various lava flows. By studying the layeres and deposition he concluded that Mt. Etna was at least 30 million years old. There were many other geologists making similar studies and they all pointed to the fact that the earth was older than the Bible might lead one to believe. Some thought that this meant that the creation had taken longer than previously suspected.

Peace
dancing david

[RandFan]

How Bill Clinton Rode The Reagan "Supply-Side" Boom (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=752)

An article in the Wall Street Journal [published in March 2000] by the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, Martin N. Baily, shows that much of the economics profession is stuck in clichés and out-of-date economic thinking. Baily tries to claim that the long expansion set off by President Reagan's cure of stagflation is really two separate expansions, with the second expansion - President Clinton's - being superior to President Reagan's.

In Baily's crude macroeconomics, there are two variables: government-induced demand and interest rates. President Reagan's expansion in the 1980s was second-rate, Baily says, because it "was heavily driven by the stimulus of government-induced demand" from "fiscally irresponsible tax cuts" that increased the national debt, raised real interest rates and killed the economic expansion.

In contrast, President Clinton's expansion is based in "fiscal discipline" and budget surpluses that have lowered real interest rates.

The problems with Baily's claims are obvious.

First, if the long expansion of the 1980s was based on deficit spending, how was it possible in Baily's demand-side economic framework for inflation to fall so dramatically over the course of the expansion?

When President Reagan began in office, inflation was measured in double-digits. Economists of Baily's ilk maintained that output could not increase without inflation rising higher. President Reagan's tax cuts, they said, would be wildly inflationary, because they would over-stimulate demand in a period of high inflation.

Baily's brand of economics is wrong because it misunderstands the purpose of a reduction in tax rates. President Reagan's expansion was based on changing the economic recipe. Instead of stimulating demand with easy money, while killing output incentives with high marginal tax rates, Reagan's supply-side recipe relied on tight money and improved after-tax incentives.

President Reagan's new recipe killed stagflation and banished the "Phillips curve" trade-off between economic growth and inflation. A historic expansion unfolded while inflation declined.

Second, President Clinton inherited a fundamentally improved economic environment. He and his advisors did not have to contend with double-digit inflation, a traumatized bond market or a Federal Reserve that saw the specter of inflation in every increase in employment.

Reagan slayed all these dragons. All President Clinton had to do was coast.

Even this proved challenging for Clinton, who raised taxes to grab more money for Democratic constituencies. But the tax rates remained far below the pre-Reagan 50 percent and 70 percent rates that had killed productivity and output growth. Moreover, as inflation continued to decline, the increase in the real values of business depreciation allowances offset the adverse effect of the Clinton tax hike. The effect of Regan's supply-side economics was to dramatically lower inflation and create sustained growth and an economic environment that was much better when Clinton took office than when Regan did.

Mr. Mankiw seems unaware of, or else he has negligently ignored, the economic reality that tax revenues doubled between 1980 and 1990. Where was the loss of revenues that Mr. Mankiw moans about? Mr. Mankiw should read Larry Lindsey's book "The Growth Experiment," which carefully documents the increase in tax revenues from high-income individuals after the Reagan income tax cuts. This is typical of the quotes that I read. It is possible that they are propoganda. I am looking into it and waiting for Lurker's links. I will of course be willing to admit if I was wrong.

So, what is the truth of "Reganomics"?

Reaganomics (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html)

Any evaluation of the Reagan economic program should thus address two general questions: How much of the proposed policy changes were approved? And how much of the expected economic effects were realized? Reaganomics continues to be a controversial issue. For those who do not view Reaganomics through an ideological lens, however, one's evaluation of this major change in economic policy will depend on the balance of the realized economic effects.

In retrospect the major achievements of Reaganomics were the sharp reductions in marginal tax rates and in inflation. Moreover, these changes were achieved at a much lower cost than was previously expected. Despite the large decline in marginal tax rates, for example, the federal revenue share of GDP declined only slightly. Similarly, the large reduction in the inflation rate was achieved without any long-term effect on the unemployment rate. One reason for these achievements was the broad bipartisan support for these measures beginning in the later years of the Carter administration. Reagan's first tax proposal, for example, had previously been endorsed by the Democratic Congress beginning in 1978, and the general structure of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was first proposed by two junior Democratic members of Congress in 1982. Similarly, the "monetarist experiment" to control inflation was initiated in October 1979, following Carter's appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The bipartisan support of these policies permitted Reagan to implement more radical changes than in other areas of economic policy.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lurker
Dude, I apologize. I looked it up real quick on the Internet and now I cannot find it. It had the GNP by quarter so I created a worksheet to crunch the numbers and come up with the % growth per year. Not a problem. I only care about the truth. You have sparked an interest in me and I just ordered Larry Lindsey's book "The Growth Experiment". Hopefully he footnoted his book and can justify his claims. In any event the information is out there and I will find it. (sounds like a TV series) :)

Thanks Lurker.

[Clancie]

RandFan,

Just wanted to note, since you mention the possible bias of the articles you've linked to....Your first article above links to Capitalism Magazine which then supposedly is paraphrasing the Wall Street Journal article that is mentioned.

Just wanted to make that clear, in case someone doesn't go to look at it and assumes its a direct quote from the WSJ.

As for the second link, from the economist with the Cato Institute, I disagree with his point of view, but found him posting an interesting reminder about how drastic Reagan's tax cuts were:

The top marginal tax rate on individual income was reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent. The corporate income tax rate was reduced from 48 percent to 34 percent.

[Clancie]

originally posted by Lurker
I agree. George Bush's belief in creationism doesn't matter much to me...unless he tries to support that in the public schools. Until then, it is merely a privately held belief and he is free to have it.
Lurker, You mean that you don't see how this belief is already informing his appointees, his public statements and public policy (from the Inaugural Address reference right on to the Iraqi war)?
I would question his wisdom that he holds this belief but since he did go to college and even grad school I will assume he has some smarts.
I'm surprised you would think that every college graduate has some smarts. Guess you didn't go to my college where name recognition (athletics or, as at Yale, family connections) could go a long way toward advancing someone to a degree.

I'll continue to evaluate Bush by what he says and does, which imo, are so far not only unimpressive intellectually, but an embarrassment.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
RandFan,

Just wanted to note, since you mention the possible bias of the articles you've linked to....Your first article above links to Capitalism Magazine which then supposedly is paraphrasing the Wall Street Journal article that is mentioned.

Just wanted to make that clear, in case someone doesn't go to look at it and assumes its a direct quote from the WSJ. It seemed pretty clear to me but you are correct and that is fine.

Clancy
As for the second link, from the economist with the Cato Institute, I disagree with his point of view, but found him posting an interesting reminder about how drastic Reagan's tax cuts were: I'm curious, what about his "view" did you disagree with?

Niskanen, it seems to me, makes the argument that the final analysis of the results of Regan's economic policies are a mixed bag.

Niskanen
President Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped. The annual increase in real (inflation-adjusted) federal spending declined from 4.0 percent during the Carter administration to 2.5 percent during the Reagan administration, despite a record peacetime increase in real defense spending. He doesn't offer a view so much as he states the impact of the policy.

In your view does Niskanen misstate that impact?

Does Niskanen give more weight to the positive than the negative?

Niskanen
Moreover, the growth of defense spending during his first term was higher than Reagan had proposed during the 1980 campaign, and since economic growth was somewhat slower than expected, Reagan did not achieve a significant reduction in federal spending as a percent of national output. Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of his administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989. This part of the Reagan record was probably the greatest disappointment to his supporters. Do you disagree with the points I highlighted in my post.

Niskanen
For those who do not view Reaganomics through an ideological lens, however, one's evaluation of this major change in economic policy will depend on the balance of the realized economic effects. Is there something askew with this line of reason?

Niskanen
Similarly, the large reduction in the inflation rate was achieved without any long-term effect on the unemployment rate. I would be very interested if you could give more analysis of Niskanen's article than "I disagree with his point of view". Further I would be interested to see your commentary on the dramatic decrease in the tax rate.

Niskanen
The top marginal tax rate on individual income was reduced from 70 percent to 28 percent. The corporate income tax rate was reduced from 48 percent to 34 percent. Would you favor a return to the pre-Regan tax rates?

Do you feel that a reduction in the tax rate was wrong or just too much?

Do you find any value to the significant decrease in inflation?

Do you think Regan's economic policy had anything to do with this decrease? If no can you cite any evidence?

Thank you,

RandFan.

[Clancie]

originally posted by RandFan

I'm curious, what about his "view" did you disagree with?

In your view does Niskanen misstate that impact?

Does Niskanen give more weight to the positive than the negative?


Do you disagree with the points I highlighted in my post?

Is there something askew with this line of reason?

I would be very interested if you could give more analysis of Niskanen's article than "I disagree with his point of view".

Further I would be interested to see your commentary on the dramatic decrease in the tax rate.

Would you favor a return to the pre-Regan (sic) tax rates?

Do you feel that a reduction in the tax rate was wrong or just too much?

Do you find any value to the significant decrease in inflation?

Do you think Regan's (sic) economic policy had anything to do with this decrease?

Lol, RandFan. I'll get back to you on all this when I quit my job and have a few more hours to spare.

(Seriously, I'll try to answer one or two of them later).

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Clancy

Lurker, You mean that you don't see how this belief is already informing his appointees, his public statements and public policy (from the Inaugural Address reference right on to the Iraqi war)?

I'm surprised you would think that every college graduate has some smarts. Guess you didn't go to my college where name recognition (athletics or, as at Yale, family connections) could go a long way toward advancing someone to a degree.

I'll continue to evaluate Bush by what he says and does, which imo, are so far not only unimpressive intellectually, but an embarrassment.

Actually, I do not see how his belief in Creationism is effecting his appointees, public statements but would be happy to have you show me.

And no, I certainly do NOT think every college grad has some smarts and since I used to teach in college I know that for a fact! :) But Bush also has an MBA from Harvard. I am not saying you have to be a genius to get an MBA but an MBA from Harvard probably means you are at least average intellect.

Yes, do evaluate Bush by his words but keep in mind he is not the greatest speaker. But just because someone is not as eloquent as, oh say, Clinton does not make them an idiot. I give Shrub the benefit of the doubt.

Lurker

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy
Lol, RandFan. I'll get back to you on all this when I quit my job and have a few more hours to spare. :D You know I am spending too much time here myself. And looking at the list it is a bit much. Sorry.

Your post has convinced me to give the forum a break.

(Seriously, I'll try to answer one or two of them later). That will be fine.

Thanks,

RandFan.

[Lurker]

Randfan:

Still looking for my original source. But check this out:

http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/budget_facts/cguide03.pdf

Page four has a nice graph of spending and revenues over the last years and it is adjusted for inflation.

One needs to look at the relative slopes of each curve for the years of interest to get an idea of the rates of increases.

Total receipts under Clinton appeared to increase at a higher rate than under Reagan and/or Bush.

Total spending increased at a higher rate under Reagan than under Clinton. Interestingly enough, under Bush Sr spending increased at the lowest rate between Clinton/Reagan/Bush.

At least, that is what I gleaned from the graph.

Lurker

[Smalso]

Lurker:Actually, I do not see how his belief in Creationism is effecting his appointees, public statements but would be happy to have you show me.

Bush's appointees also have the right to their beliefs. They, too, are covered by the Constitution.

Yes, do evaluate Bush by his words

But more so by his actions.

[Kashyapa]

He mentions God all the time. He's said privately he thinks he's some sort of chosen one to lead the US. I don't evaluate him by his words but his actions- and those repel me.
Originally posted by Lurker


Actually, I do not see how his belief in Creationism is effecting his appointees, public statements but would be happy to have you show me.

And no, I certainly do NOT think every college grad has some smarts and since I used to teach in college I know that for a fact! :) But Bush also has an MBA from Harvard. I am not saying you have to be a genius to get an MBA but an MBA from Harvard probably means you are at least average intellect.

Yes, do evaluate Bush by his words but keep in mind he is not the greatest speaker. But just because someone is not as eloquent as, oh say, Clinton does not make them an idiot. I give Shrub the benefit of the doubt.

Lurker

[Smalso]

RandFan: You know I am spending too much time here myself.

C'mon, RandFan. You love it and you know it.:p

[Kopji]

I think he is doing a great job. However I'm not a newbie. With that in mind, what do you make of me? -RandFan

LOL, I think its almost axiomatic that newbies make every effort to annoy long time posters. I am just upholding that time honored tradition. :D (I know many intelligent people think he's doing fine).

I am one of those people who did not vote for Bush, but were ok with "getting on with things" because it was for the good of the country. Bush had run as a moderate, and he made attempts to minimize implications of his religious beliefs.

A watershed point was 911, when I think he fell into his true comfort zone of making decisions based on how he feels.

On topic, I agree that "believing in Creationism" should not and does not disqualify someone for public office. (& Bush's statements indicate more a skepticism of evolution, which is slightly different).

The rationale behind the dogged pursuit of Iraq over possibly non existent WMD needs to be questioned though. Despite denials, he KNOWS Iraq has them. If they don't, they were moved to Syria, etc etc. We have all seen the best evidence at the UN, and it was either lies (in the case of the fabricated nuclear "evidence") or turned out to be something else. To think they were saving better evidence for later seems highly optimistic.

We have invaded and conquered a country over the irrational fear that they were an ominous danger to us.

This style of thinking is indeed nurtured and promoted by the fundamentalist crowd he runs with. Iraq had no chance of proving a 'negative'.

I suppose a lot of our judgments are subjective. I look at the stated goals for these military actions, and we do not seem to have met many. Polls indicate most americans feel the war in Iraq was a big success. Saddam was not captured, OBL is still out there, we have more terrorists, no WMD have been found yet, (barring the finding of these illusive horrible weapons).

This is government led by feelings, faith and hunches. -shrug-

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kopji


This is government led by feelings, faith and hunches. -shrug-

What would you suggest? Watch the public opinion polls & shift course to follow?

Faith in a course of action tends to achieve a goal as set, anyway.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lurker
Page four has a nice graph of spending and revenues over the last years and it is adjusted for inflation.

One needs to look at the relative slopes of each curve for the years of interest to get an idea of the rates of increases.

Total receipts under Clinton appeared to increase at a higher rate than under Reagan and/or Bush.

Total spending increased at a higher rate under Reagan than under Clinton. Interestingly enough, under Bush Sr spending increased at the lowest rate between Clinton/Reagan/Bush. Thanks Lurker,

It's a great graph and I think it verifys much of what you said.

The explation for the decrease in spending would IMO have to be the reduction of military spending which began under Bush Sr.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
Your post has convinced me to give the forum a break.

LOL. RandFan, you may have just broken Jedi Knight's record for shortest forum hiatus.:D

(j/k, of course. We don't want you to leave)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky

LOL. RandFan, you may have just broken Jedi Knight's record for shortest forum hiatus.:D

(j/k, of course. We don't want you to leave) It was at least 2 hours! :D Hey, at least I got something to eat.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by RandFan
It was at least 2 hours! :D Hey, at least I got something to eat.

Yeah, me too. It was a stuffed bell pepper left over from yesterday but just as good as it was then. Just love them microwave ovens.

Re: The graph:

The explation for the decrease in spending would IMO have to be the reduction of military spending which began under Bush Sr.

Also, the economy was in one of its up cycles which added more to the treasury from taxes. And, if I may go out on a limb here, Clinton's economic policies may have had something to do with it. His first budget, remember, passed the Senate by one vote--a tie breaker cast by Vice President Gore. Later, when congress was at odds with the White House and the government was partially shut down (non-essential services) Clinton held firm and, along with public opinion, made congress cave and give him what he wanted. He was a stronger president than a lot of people give him credit for.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
Yeah, me too. It was a stuffed bell pepper left over from yesterday but just as good as it was then. Just love them microwave ovens. My wife makes the best stuffed bell peppers that I have ever had.

Also, the economy was in one of its up cycles which added more to the treasury from taxes. And, if I may go out on a limb here, Clinton's economic policies may have had something to do with it. His first budget, remember, passed the Senate by one vote--a tie breaker cast by Vice President Gore. Later, when congress was at odds with the White House and the government was partially shut down (non-essential services) Clinton held firm and, along with public opinion, made congress cave and give him what he wanted. He was a stronger president than a lot of people give him credit for. President Clinton was one of the best politicians ever. I give him credit for getting his plans through and beating the stuffing out of the Republicans after they took control of congress. Of course he was a bit more willing to embrace trational right leaning ideas, wealfare reform and line item veto (struck down by the courts).

One could argue that Clinton didn't hurt the economy. I have argued that his policies helped it, allot.

Clinton's "legacy" has yet to be written but I am willing to give him credit for the state of the economy.

[Smalso]

President Clinton was one of the best politicians ever. I give him credit for getting his plans through and beating the stuffing out of the Republicans after they took control of congress. Of course he was a bit more willing to embrace trational right leaning ideas, wealfare reform and line item veto (struck down by the courts).

True, that. He was not quite the "flaming liberal" some have tried to make him out to be. One of the marks of a good politician is the ability to compromise and make it look like he won.

Clinton's "legacy" has yet to be written

Yes, it's a bit soon for that. Hell, in a lot of ways Roosevelt's is not complete yet. The ramifications of his administration are still echoing. It is a shame, not only for Clinton or the Democtraic Party, but for the nation that the main thing Clinton will be remembered for is that he was impeached, not for a principle as in the case of Andrew Johnson, but for getting a bj from a fat girl.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
The ramifications of his administration are still echoing. It is a shame, not only for Clinton or the Democtraic Party, but for the nation that the main thing Clinton will be remembered for is that he was impeached, not for a principle as in the case of Andrew Johnson, but for getting a bj from a fat girl. It's unfortunate. Politics can be brutal and some are artful at going for the juggler. Take passion, extremism and money and you have a significant group of conservative Republicans doing proctal exams on every aspect of a president’s life. The Dems aren't too bad at it either but they have a way to go to catch up. Clinton should have had sex with someone older and more discreet and had his affair in a hotel. You know, respectable like.

He deserves some blame for acting stupid when he should have known better. And for christs sake, if you are the leader of the free world, arguably the most powerful man in the world then get a BJ from someone like Hiedi Klume (http://mitglied.lycos.de/aktaper/heidi_klum006-gross.jpg).

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's unfortunate. Politics can be brutal and some are artful at going for the juggler. Take passion, extremism and money and you have a significant group of conservative Republicans doing proctal exams on every aspect of a president?s life. The Dems aren't too bad at it either but they have a way to go to catch up. Clinton should have had sex with someone older and more discreet and had his affair in a hotel. You know, respectable like.I've often wondered what would have happened if he had just 'fessed about Monica up right from the start. Certainly would have prevented the whole impeachment thing and it's not like he had to worry about another election, even assuming that anyone would have been surprised enough to care. If nothing else it would have been refreshing to see a politician own up to his actions before being forced to.

[Smalso]

RandFan:He deserves some blame for acting stupid when he should have known better

He deserves ALL the blame for being stupid in that respect. An astute a politician as he is should have known that something like that could not be kept a secret.

VernorsRush: I've often wondered what would have happened if he had just 'fessed about Monica up right from the start. Certainly would have prevented the whole impeachment thing and it's not like he had to worry about another election, even assuming that anyone would have been surprised enough to care. If nothing else it would have been refreshing to see a politician own up to his actions before being forced to.

Yup!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Smalso
RandFan:He deserves some blame for acting stupid when he should have known better

He deserves ALL the blame for being stupid in that respect. An astute a politician as he is should have known that something like that could not be kept a secret.

I don't know why he should have known that. After all, most people didn't know about John Kennedy's affairs until long after he was dead. Both Henry Hyde and Dan Burton (two of Clinton's major gadflies) had affairs which escaped with barely a notice (Burton has an illigitimate child). Newt Gingrinch got comparitively little flak for his pecadillos.

Why did Clinton get so much? Because the Republicans were looking for ANYTHING to destroy him with. Maybe you don't remember, but the initial investigation was about Whitewater. That proved a bust, so they had to find something else. Was he stupid to have done this? Yeah, but men have been "stupid" like this since the species began. Was it an impeachable offense? Well, he did lie about it. I can't see how as that lie made a big difference to the country. Surely it was not as important as lying about whether or not the government gave arms to our enemies in exchange for hostages.

Really, Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans. Not only was he closer to their policies than any Democrat in history, but they could demonize him for being a horny bastard and blame him for everything (or at least compare their waward sons to him) for all eternity. Ungrateful wretches.

[Smalso]

Tricky: I don't know why he should have known that. After all, most people didn't know about John Kennedy's affairs until long after he was dead. Both Henry Hyde and Dan Burton (two of Clinton's major gadflies) had affairs which escaped with barely a notice (Burton has an illigitimate child). Newt Gingrinch got comparitively little flak for his pecadillos.

None of these guys had just been elected president defeating twelve years of Republican administration and none of them had a special prosecutor breathing down their necks. Clinton's sessions took place, not even in the private quarters of the White House, but in the Oval Office which is never completely private. In the line of business I was in, I have had women come on to me hoping for an inside track on preferred job assignments. I resisted them because: 1. I am not so vain as to believe they wanted to jump my bones because I am that irrestible, and 2. It was wrong. If Clinton should not have known it would not be kept secret, he should at least have strongly suspected it.

Why did Clinton get so much? Because the Republicans were looking for ANYTHING to destroy him with. Maybe you don't remember, but the initial investigation was about Whitewater.

Exactly.

Was it an impeachable offense?

The Senate said "no."

Really, Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans. Not only was he closer to their policies than any Democrat in history, but they could demonize him for being a horny bastard and blame him for everything (or at least compare their waward sons to him) for all eternity. Ungrateful wretches.

Ha! Okay. And embarrass the Democratic Party in anticipation of the 2000 election thrown into the deal. I cannot help but believe that but for Clinton's bjs, Gore would have won in a walk.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Smalso
It was wrong. If Clinton should not have known it would not be kept secret, he should at least have strongly suspected it.

Yep. It was very stupid. I blame the lack of blood to the brain. It is also a story as old as humanity, and in no way criminal. Yeah, lying about it was technically criminal, but why did they have any business asking that question? If you were asked on a job interview if you have ever had sex outside of marriage, wouldn't you find that question inappropriate?


(Tricky asked, "Was it an impeachable offense?")

The Senate said "no."
Actually, they said yes. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.

Okay. And embarrass the Democratic Party in anticipation of the 2000 election thrown into the deal. I cannot help but believe that but for Clinton's bjs, Gore would have won in a walk.
Agreed. So maybe the BJ was a serious crime, since it brought GWB to office! DAMN we should have shot the bastard in mid-zip!:D

[Smalso]

Tricky: Actually, they said yes. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.

Of course. I stand corrected. (Actually, it was the House that said it was impeachable, but who's splitting hairs?)

Agreed. So maybe the BJ was a serious crime, since it brought GWB to office! DAMN we should have shot the bastard in mid-zip!

Hee-hee!
"mid-zip"
hee-hee!

[Clancie]

Lurker, re: the influence of his evangelical Christianity on Bush

First of all, there's so much evidence of it--from his speeches, to giving tax dollars to "faith-based charities" to support for taxpayers subsidizing those who choose religious school over public school, and to prioritizing the "choice" to pray in school as something he frequently mentions, etc.

1. But, just for starters, here's a quote (which I find very alarming) about Bush's faith from Don Evans (USA Today):

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.
...The thought of another assault on the United States horrifies Bush. Aides say he believes history and heaven will judge him by his ability to prevent one

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm

2. Then there's Iraq

from the Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0317/p01s01-uspo.html

New Scrutiny of Role of Religion in Bush's Policies: The President's Rhetoric Worries Even Some Evangelicals

By Jane Lampman
The Christian Science Monitor

President Bush has never been shy about injecting his faith into the public arena - his campaign remark that Jesus Christ was his "favorite political philosopher" was an early signal.

But his rising use of religious language and imagery in recent months, especially with regard to the US role in the world, has stirred concern both at home and abroad.

In this year's State of the Union address, for example, Bush quoted an evangelical hymn that refers to the power of Christ. "'There's power, wonder-working power,' in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people," he said.

Forty evangelical leaders, for instance, wrote the president last summer seeking an "evenhanded US policy" toward Israel and the Palestinians and rejecting "the way some have distorted biblical passages as their rationale for uncritical support" for Israel.

...Others applaud Bush's clarity in a time of national crisis. "He has reintroduced into the culture the language of morality and moral distinctions," says Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif.

Yet Dr. Mouw worries about explicitly Christian phraseology that Jews and Muslims hear in the light of their own histories.

Some express concern, too, about Bush's tendency to demonize the enemy, whether it be Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or the nations of the "axis of evil."

And more are beginning to question how the evangelicalism of Bush, key aides such as Condoleezza Rice, and his political constituency might play a role in Middle East policy. According to evangelicals, the vast majority of them are very supportive of Israel for religious reasons.

..."The idea that evangelicals support Israel because they want to hasten the Second Coming is absolute nonsense," says Dr. Land. "No human being can do anything to hasten or retard that."

Evangelical support rests, Land explains, on God's biblical promise to give the land of Israel to the Jews forever, and on God's statement that he will "bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews."That statement holds considerable power among some evangelicals.

...(Other evangelicals are disappointed) in Bush's failure to see the moral ambiguity and complexity in the Palestinian-Israeli question. "We went from an honest broker to one-sided emphasis," says Dr. Sieple. "It may play well with his base politically, and he might believe it theologically ... but it's not where I would give him high marks for moral leadership."

"Iraq as Babylon - I've been hearing that a lot lately," Mouw says. "The two prominent images are the glorious city of Jerusalem and the wicked city of Babylon ... and there's no question [that] the fact Iraq is the site of ancient Babylon is a motif that influences evangelicals."

An intriguing question is the extent to which Americans share the apocalyptic views of some evangelicals that we are heading into the last days of the final battle between good and evil. Polls indicate that some 40 million do.

What's clear is that while evangelicals greatly value the renewed moral tone and religious conviction in the presidency, they, like other Americans, differ over how the president expresses that conviction and the implications for his decisionmaking.

Bush has said he tends to make decisions by gut instinct. Many Americans are wondering which religious instincts might hold sway as he acts to determine the course of history.