AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Didn't Bush hide Haggard under his desk?

But now let's suppose for a moment that Bush DID attend a large, politically and socially active church, committed to white supremacy, anti-Gay, pro-life to the point of wanting abortion criminalized, and accusing black people of creating essentially all the problems of modern society and referring to them by racial slurs. He put the pastor of that church on his campaign staff and introduced him as his pastor, mentor, spiritual advisor, the one who brought him into the church. And when questioned about the controversial aspects of that relationship, he then said well he had never heard his pastor say those bad things and he certainly didn't agree with them, and if he had he would have quit, but since he didn't and the pastor was retiring he saw no reason to distance himself from either the man or the church.

Are you going to say that would not color your perception of the honesty and judgment of George W. Bush and it would not factor into how he saw the world, how he perceived various issues, how he might govern? Are you honestly going to say that it wouldn't matter to you at all?

Asherman wrote:

Rox and other apologists for Obama's and his long-time mentor, Rev. Wright, are merely trying to create a diversion to take the heat off their hero. The Left has a lot of experience with spin, diversion, double-think, name calling, and character assassination. Given almost any excuse they revert to innuendo and incendiary attacks on any target in view. They are far too often hypocrits, whose claims to objectivity and dedication to truth, justice and an ideal America founder on reality. Faced with unpleasant truths, they go into denial, they blame the big, bad conspiracy of conservatives, republicans, wealth, and old White men for everything... including their own failures.

During this primary season it has been somewhat gratifying to watch them utilizing their penchant for name-calling, accusations, and character assassination on one another for a change. But, they are naturally angry people and perhaps they just can't help themselves.

This gets my vote as thee number one posting illustrating delusional rantings.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So, Roxxxanne, referring to the article you posted, would you say that a person's close friendships and associations are an important issue in a campaign? That a person's advisors and personal relationships should be taken into serious consideration when we choose who to elect President?

I think a conservative principle might be that character does count and that there is room to at least consider the company that people keep when assessing that.

The ridiculous implication (Foxfyre rarely communicates any thoughts directly, it is always implications) is that Barack Obama's character should be questioned based on a few soundbites pulled out of hours and hours of speeches which attempt to demonize a respected pastor.

First, the image created by the right of Rev Wright is false. Secondly, Barack Obama explained the relationship and denounced the stuff Wright said in the few soundbites. The relationship between McCain and Graham is an entirely different matter and has to be examined on its own merit.

I agree that McCain and Gramm -- at least spell the fella's name right -- are a different issue than Obama and Wright and each should be examined on its own merit.

The implication you seem to be drawing with the article you posted, however, is that the relationship matters. So how does it matter with McCain and not for Obama?

It's a reasonable question. Take your time. I'll wait.

(Pertinance to the topic goes back to No. 4 on the list: the universality of conservative principles.)

Relationships do matter when the person is a surrogate and a potential cabinet appointee.
"Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he'd consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration."

I did spell his name right BTW and can you possibly be more clueless?


Could you spell pertinence right?

Rox wrote

Quote:

I did spell his name right BTW and can you possibly be more clueless?

Quote:

The relationship between McCain and Graham is an entirely different matter and has to be examined on its own merit.

QED

I did misspell pertinence. Thank you for the correction.

So let's compare. According to you

Quote:

Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he'd consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration

Wright was the 20-year spiritual advisor, mentor, and trusted friend of Obama and served on Obama's campaign until he was removed under fire. He campaigned for Obama from the pulpit and, again before it all started hitting the fan, was an invited guest on talk shows where he talked about his relationship with Obama.

Now given that the Secretary of the Treasury is the principle economic advisor to the President, scrutiny of such an appointment would certainly be in order and, of course, such appointee has to be approved by Congress. So, if he in fact is the appointee, we can assume that if Gramm has screwed up or been guilty of unethical practices that will certainly be brought out.

But how does the relationship affect or reflect on McCain, as a person and conservative, personally? Or should it?

And if it does, then how could Obama's relationship with Wright not count for anything?

Anyway, the April Fool stuff is funny but it is giving me a headache trying to figure out who's who.

... it's a no-brainer.

I believe that Sen. Hutchinson would make an outstanding President if McCain should be unable to finish a term, and why not a GOP woman at the top of the ticket in 2012? She's far better prepared to be President than either of the two Democrats currently battling it out. The more I learn of Sen. Hutchinson, the more impressed with her I am.

He (Michael Steele)made a much better speech at the RNC than Obama did at the DNC...

Sorry Fox, I thought you were asking a rhetorical question. I will answer.

Foxfyre wrote:

But now let's suppose for a moment that Bush DID attend a large, politically and socially active church, committed to white supremacy, anti-Gay, pro-life to the point of wanting abortion criminalized, and accusing black people of creating essentially all the problems of modern society and referring to them by racial slurs. He put the pastor of that church on his campaign staff and introduced him as his pastor, mentor, spiritual advisor, the one who brought him into the church. And when questioned about the controversial aspects of that relationship, he then said well he had never heard his pastor say those bad things and he certainly didn't agree with them, and if he had he would have quit, but since he didn't and the pastor was retiring he saw no reason to distance himself from either the man or the church.

Are you going to say that would not color your perception of the honesty and judgment of George W. Bush and it would not factor into how he saw the world, how he perceived various issues, how he might govern? Are you honestly going to say that it wouldn't matter to you at all?

I will be honest, yes. It would color my perception, but I'm diciplined enough to base my perception not on the color, but on the actions and actual words of the person.

GWB is an easy example of someone like him or not who is easy to read. His actions and words are out there for everyone to see and evaluate. No real need to look for extra material to base my opinion on.

T
K
O

In Foxy's metaphor, there is a difference between saving a man from drowning... and buying him a Mercedes. A civilized Society should do the first. The second should be left to the free market.

Well all this outside of the Wright/Haggard stuff this thread has been an interesting read from start to finish. (actually did it took me more than an half an hour; too much time on my hands I guess.) Anyway I was interested in how conservatives come to their views since they are so foreign to my own views.

From my left leaning perspective I have to admit ebrown summed it up best for me.

Quote:

In Foxy's metaphor, there is a difference between saving a man from drowning... and buying him a Mercedes. A civilized Society should do the first. The second should be left to the free market.

Agreed.

But as I don't want to be called on as being a troll and it seems this thread was only intended for conservative to figure out to get back to their true conservatism (mind boggling but oh well), I will just leave it at that. Today's is April the 2 so I guess I missed the day for true trolling.

Fox - Ted Haggard used to talk to Dubya or his staff weekly. I didn't make it up