Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Quote:

One describes Bush's seemingly inexplicable confidence that Republicans will maintain control of both houses of Congress in the upcoming elections

JTT

This one is entirely explicable...it's the only option open.

Their PR campaign has always had a central projection which they've very carefully and ubiquitously worked to maintain - we are strong, we are certain, we are manly, we are winners.

There are political advantages to this aspect of their self-marketing, if quite Machiavellian advantages. This generates a father-figure persona which appeals to a lot of people who seem to find comfort and a sense of safety and release from the tribulations of actual independent thought from perceiving authoritarians at the helm. And it tends to put them constantly on an offensive attack or at least make it look as if that's what they are doing.

If Rove/Bush now admitted or acted as if they were worried - that is, did or said anything to imply that matters were out of their control - that would produce an opposite consequence to what they need electorally...activist pawns who deludedly believe they are winners too, and on the side of the right and holy.

0 Replies

Several years back, at the onset of the faith-based initiatives program, I found myself in the odd position here of mounting a defense of church involvement in social service endeavors. I pointed to the history of such involvement in America (de Toqueville notes it) and I marked the convergence of christian values of charity/humility/compassion and the liberal values/traditions which head in the same direction; eg, helping those worst off, discouraging hierarchies of wealth/power which tend to keep many down and a very few up, and actually giving a **** about others in the community.

My defense of the program was tempered through an understanding of:
- Marvin Olasky's singular theocratic goals (christianization, specifically)
- through an understanding of the extremism of some powerful christian organizations in the US
- the intersection of these groups with Republican electoral goals
- the authoritarian mindset or propensities evident in both and
- a lousy track-record from both groups in demonstrating any sort of real "compassion" in the christian or liberal sense of that word.

This column by Dionne on Kuo's experiences seems to me precisely how we ought best to comprehend what's gone on. I'm going to paste it in its entirety...

Quote:

A Faith-Based Battle for Voters

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006; Page A21

The very fact that it took David Kuo's book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," to put President Bush's faith-based initiative back into the news proves that the author's thesis is right.

His argument -- Kuo went on the record with it long before this book appeared -- is that the White House never put much money or muscle behind Bush's "compassionate conservatism." It used the faith-based agenda for political purposes and always made tax cuts for the wealthy a much higher priority than any assistance to those "armies of compassion" that Bush evoked so eloquently.

As a result, the faith-based initiative has largely been off the public radar for years. And after Sept. 11, 2001, the president made the war on terrorism his central cause, both for substantive reasons and because (until now, at least) it proved to be a great vehicle for winning crossover votes. Compassionate conservatism gave way to martial conservatism.

The headlines that have come Kuo's way have focused on the author's claims that White House staffers ridiculed some of their evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" and that public events surrounding Bush's faith-based initiative were geared toward Republican electoral fortunes. As a former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Kuo has a fair claim to knowing what he's talking about.

Exposés of hypocrisy are the mother's milk of Washington journalism. Yet the most useful thing that could flow from Kuo's revelations would not be a splashy exchange of charges and countercharges but rather a quiet reappraisal by rank-and-file evangelicals of their approach to politics.

I hope Kuo's book promotes serious discussions in religious study groups around the country about whether the evangelicals' alliance with political conservatism has actually made the world, well, more godly from their own point of view. What are evangelicals actually getting out of this partnership? Are they mostly being used by a coalition that, when the deals are cut, cares far more about protecting the interests of its wealthy and corporate supporters than its churchgoing foot soldiers?

Kuo is being cut up by some administration loyalists. That's not surprising, but it's painful for me. I met Kuo in the 1990s through a conservative friend and was impressed by the power of his religious faith and his passion for developing a conservative approach to helping the poor that would be as serious as liberal efforts but, in his view, more effective.

The faith-based initiative was one of the few Bush policies I defended against liberal attacks during the administration's early months -- before I concluded that it was not really an administration priority. Kuo and I are both friends of John DiIulio, who briefly headed the faith-based office and brought Kuo in. DiIulio and I collaborated on research into religiously inspired social service work in the 1990s.

All of which is to say that I once hoped -- and, for the future, still hope -- that left and right might meet in some compassionate center to offer support for expanded government help to the needy while also fostering the indispensable work of religious and community groups.

Kuo has always thought that nongovernmental groups could carry a larger share of the load in fighting poverty than I do. Kuo, you see, really is a conservative, although he does acknowledge that not all past efforts by government to help the poor are failures.

Despite our disagreements, I have always shared Kuo's view that liberals who care about the poor should be less squeamish about building stronger alliances between government and religiously based social action work. Government can do things the religious and community groups can't, but the religious and community groups can do things government can't.

Kuo's book comes on the eve of an election in which the odds suggest that voters will administer a strong rebuke to Republicans and the administration. It will thus be read as another argument for why such a reproach is merited.

But the power of his case should be felt after the election. Kuo suggested on "60 Minutes" that evangelical Christians take "a fast from politics." Personally, I don't favor "fasts" from political participation, even if the one Kuo proposes might help the sort of candidates I support. Instead, I hope Kuo's reflections will encourage a less rigidly partisan approach to the role of religious faith in our public life.

When Kuo says there's something wrong with "taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy," he sounds a trumpet that makes you want to follow him into the battle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601017.html

0 Replies

But does Blotham know about this? He should know because gays never get heart attacks.

BOSTON, Oct. 15, 2006
By JAY LINDSAY Associated Press Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(AP) Former Rep. Gerry Studds, who became the first openly gay member of Congress when his homosexuality was exposed during a teenage page sex scandal, died early Saturday. He was 69.

Studds died at Boston Medical Center several days after he collapsed while walking his dog, his husband said. Doctors determined his loss of consciousness was due to a blood clot in his lung, Dean Hara said.

Studds regained consciousness and seemed to be improving, but his condition deteriorated Friday because of a second blood clot. The origin of the second clot was not immediately determined, said Hara, who married Studds shortly after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004.

Hara said Studds gave courage to gay people by winning re-election after publicly acknowledging his homosexuality.

"He gave people of his generation, of my generation, of future generations, the courage to do whatever they wanted to do," said Hara, 49.

Studds was first elected in 1972 and represented Cape Cod and the Islands, New Bedford, and the South Shore for 12 Congressional terms. He retired from Congress in 1997.

Hara said Studds was never ashamed of the relationship with the page.

"This young man knew what he was doing," Hara said. "He was at (Studds') side."

Studds told his colleagues in a speech on the floor of the House that everyone faces a daily challenge of balancing public and private lives.

"These challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as am I, both an elected public official and gay," Studds said at the time.

In Congress, Studds was an outspoken advocate for the fishing industry and was hailed by his constituents for his work establishing a limit for foreign fishing vessels 200 miles from the coast. After leaving Congress, he became a lobbyist for the fishing industry and environmental causes.

"His work on behalf of our fishing industry and the protection of our waters has guided the fishing industry into the future and ensured that generations to come will have the opportunity to love and learn from the sea," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement. "He was a steward of the oceans."

In 1996, Congress named the 842-square-mile Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary after him in recognition of his work protecting the marine environment.

In addition to Hara, Studds is survived by a brother, a sister and four nephews.

NOTE-

In his early career, Studds was known for opposing the Vietnam War and military intervention in Central America. Studds later became an advocate for a stronger federal response to the AIDS crisis and was among the first members of Congress to endorse lifting the ban on gays serving in the military.

In 1983, Studds acknowledged his homosexuality after a 27-year-old man disclosed that he and Studds had had a sexual relationship a decade earlier when the man was a teenage congressional page.

The House of Representatives censured Studds, who then went home to face his constituents in a series of public meetings.

At the time, Studds called the relationship with the teenage page, which included a trip to Europe, "a very serious error in judgment." But he did not apologize and defended the relationship as a consensual relationship with a young adult. The former page later appeared publicly with Studds in support of him.

The scandal recently resurfaced when Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned after exchanging sexually explicit instant messages with a page. Republicans accused Democrats of hypocrisy for savaging Foley while saying little about Studds at that time.

************************************************************
A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WHEN THE MAN WAS A TEEN AGE PAGE---NOT E MAIL OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS-- A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP.

BUT STUDDS WAS A DEMOCRAT--NOT A REPUBLICAN--THAT IS WHY HE WAS EXCUSED--BUT NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THE CRITICAL QUESTION.

WAS HE THE PITCHER OR THE CATCHER?

0 Replies

Your capacity for long, irrelevant postings knows no bounds.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Your capacity for long, irrelevant postings knows no bounds.

The thing about Possum R FartBubble is that he/she/it may be an irritant to liberals, he/she/it is more an embarrassment to rational conservatives (ok, so maybe not to the likes of foxfyre) Long live the Possum.

0 Replies

Quote:

Several years back, at the onset of the faith-based initiatives program, I found myself in the odd position here of mounting a defense of church involvement in social service endeavors. I pointed to the history of such involvement in America (de Toqueville notes it) and I marked the convergence of christian values of charity/humility/compassion and the liberal values/traditions which head in the same direction; eg, helping those worst off, discouraging hierarchies of wealth/power which tend to keep many down and a very few up, and actually giving a **** about others in the community.

0 Replies

I think the article is written poorly. Extreme islam doesn't just threaten "european liberalism". It threatens the entire western way of life. They are instructed to kill those that won't accept their god.

Knowing this, we need to be fully prepared to respond to the threat and kill them before they kill us.

0 Replies

Is the war in Iraq the sole reason for violent fundamentalism throughout the world? I'm not in any way rationalizing the Iraq war - but am wondering if the rise of violence would have commenced had there been no September 11th attack, or ensueing invasion.

I ask the same questions regarding the Sudan.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Is the war in Iraq the sole reason for violent fundamentalism throughout the world? I'm not in any way rationalizing the Iraq war - but am wondering if the rise of violence would have commenced had there been no September 11th attack, or ensueing invasion.

I ask the same questions regarding the Sudan.

All you have to do is look at the track record over decades, the many MANY terrorists attacks that occured and are occurring, and the horrendous abuse of human rights, including genocide, going on all around the world to know that 9/11, though larger scale than most, was just one more event; albeit the one event that made America and Britain say enough is enough.

The Islamofacist terrorists have one goal in mind and that is to put the world under the authority of Allah and Sharia. They use Iraq as propaganda and much of their efforts are now focused there, but they never needed Iraq for an excuse or incentive.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Long live the Possum.

And long live your fascination with him.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And long live your fascination with him.

At least, it seems, you noticed the "personality change" by now as well Laughing

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

And long live your fascination with him.

At least, it seems, you noticed the "personality change" by now as well

It just strikes me as odd, as I suspect it does Tico, that somebody so starved for attention so as to be intentionally outrageous would be so handsomely accommodated by the Lefties in the group. Why is that do you think?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Why is that do you think?

Since those six, seven years I've followed him changing his usernames (here and on Abuzz), I suppose, not only leftleaning members were somewhat amused by his posts.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It just strikes me as odd, as I suspect it does Tico, that somebody so starved for attention so as to be intentionally outrageous would be so handsomely accommodated by the Lefties in the group. Why is that do you think?

Don't know about Tico, and I don't think I'd use the term Lefties, but I do generally find it odd that a particular subset of the A2K community continues to respond to that particular multi-id'd poster with such diligence. It has been a matter of some discussion in my home.

Expressing amusement is one thing, attempting to engage in discussion/provoke is another entirely.

0 Replies

Columnist Jonah Goldberg Admits:Invading Iraq a 'Mistake'
Columnist Jonah Goldberg Admits: Invading Iraq Was a 'Mistake'
By E&P Staff
Published: October 19, 2006 10:45 AM ET

One of the those fervent defenders of the Iraq war -- and critics of those who questioned it -- faced up to the setbacks in that conflict today in his syndicated column.

"The Iraq war was a mistake," Jonah Goldberg states near the start of his column today. He reveals, "I've never said it before. And I don't enjoy saying it now. I'm sure that to the antiwar crowd this is too little, too late, and that's fine because I'm not joining their ranks anyway."

He elaborates: "I must confess that one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my general distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side.

"But that's no excuse. Truth is truth. And the Iraq war was a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003."

Goldberg had opened a post-invasion April 2003 column this way: "I want to rub it in the anti-war crowd's face so badly."

Now he writes: "The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is a side issue. The WMD fiasco was a global intelligence failure, but calling Saddam Hussein's bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do. Washington's more important intelligence failure lay in underestimating what would be required to rebuild and restore post-Hussein Iraq. The White House did not anticipate a low-intensity civil war in Iraq, never planned for it and would not have deemed it in the U.S. interest to pay this high a price in prestige, treasure and, of course, lives.

"According to the goofy parameters of the current debate, I'm now supposed to call for withdrawing from Iraq. If it was a mistake to go in, we should get out, some argue. But this is unpersuasive. A doctor will warn that if you see a man stabbed in the chest, you shouldn't rush to pull the knife out. We are in Iraq for good reasons and for reasons that were well-intentioned but wrong. But we are there."

Later he comes to a unconventional conclusion: "I think we should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay. Polling suggests that they want us to go. But polling absent consequences is a form of protest. With accountability, minds may change and appreciation for the U.S. presence might grow."
------------------------------------------

The entire column can be found at www.latimes.com and other sites.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

And long live your fascination with him.

At least, it seems, you noticed the "personality change" by now as well

Um .... yep.

0 Replies

hi stradee

First of all, let me speak to something foxfyre said in response to your post... it is utterly idiotic to forward or entertain the proposition that western civilization is in danger of being overrun or destroyed by Islam. If there is a stupider idea floating about in the minds of foolish people, I don't know what it might be. The PTA in Akron Ohio and the Rotary Club in Saskatoon Saskatchewan and the school boards in Swiss hamlets and lawn-bowling clubs in Brazil and tinsmith unions of Spain and the parliament of England are going to be infiltrated or squashed by Islamists?!

That there is a dream amongst some to establish a worldwide caliphate is as relevant (relevant to any real danger) as the American Dominionist's desire to achieve something similar for their faith/political ideas.

The real dangers are as the founders suggested, along with Lincoln and Eisenhower... we'll do ourselves in from within through quest for empire, militarization, and authoritarian governance to bolster those two dynamics.

As to the piece you pasted... large migrations of peoples always produce cultural problems and stresses, that's simply unavoidable. Equally certain is that some segment of the resident cultural group will respond with fear and bigotry and hatred regardless of whether such responses are warranted. They almost never are warranted. Somewhat ironically, the cases I can think of where resident groups really were in danger of being destroyed by immigration of another cultural group are the native north and south americans when Europeans arrived.

But this particular cultural group (violent fundamentalist Islam) now seems clearly to present an acute problem for a number of European nations and for America (I'll leave aside the historical genesis of the problem which we in the west have much to account for). The threat is violence, of course. But it really isn't a great threat. Even Israel, with far more acute demographic and geographical problems manages to carry on voting and shopping and dating etc. Religious and nationalist groups here frequently also demand the censorship of images/words/ideas that they find profane.

I think we (and those affected European communities) ought to push for maximal freedom of expression, though I'm not absolutist about this.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Your capacity for long, irrelevant postings knows no bounds.

The thing about Possum R FartBubble is that he/she/it may be an irritant to liberals, he/she/it is more an embarrassment to rational conservatives (ok, so maybe not to the likes of foxfyre) Long live the Possum.

and yeah Ticomaya as well.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

And long live your fascination with him.

At least, it seems, you noticed the "personality change" by now as well

Um .... yep.

He's risen again, btw Laughing

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

And long live your fascination with him.

At least, it seems, you noticed the "personality change" by now as well

Um .... yep.

He's risen again, btw

Yeah - "Young Hybrid", now...

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know