Please tell me Bush does not actually have Hussein’s gun as a war trophy in the Oval Office.
USATODAY.com - Bush has war trophy: Saddam Hussein's pistol. Not in the Office, but in the next room.
It’s also almost expected for a leader to take as a token a ceremonial weapon from the enemy. I won’t bore you with cites, there are plenty of threads on these boards discussing the issue.
I think you’re confusing Bush with Rove. Rove has a proven track record for getting his candidates in office by any means necessary. On some levels, it’s actually quite impressive.
Rove and BushII are so closely linked anymore they’re rather one in the same, in my mind at least. BushII has certainly been Rove’s consuming concern for the past 4 years.
Unfortunately the razor-across-the-throat tactics that can win elections don’t often translate well into actual leadership. Brawling into high office is one thing. Building widespread, workable consensus once in the office is quite another.
I didn’t admire the Rove/BushII tactics last time for much beyond pure gutsiness. I admire them less even now because the approach has just forged more discord, nationally, internationally and notably even within the Republican party.
It’s far from an admirable track record in the wider view.
Veb
There are also plenty of thredas which indicate Bush’s possession of this particular war trophy is illegal. Why don’t you bore us with those cites now?
Did you happen to watch any newscasts or read a paper in the 6 weeks after the elction of 2000? The discord was well entrenched *long * before Bush took the Oath.
Remember the ppt presentation on winning regional Congressional elections? Bullet #1: “Focus on war”
duffer tell me, do you not see how this is inappropriate? That Bush should ask the Vatican to CAMPAIGN for him?
That doesn’t bother you?
It’s actually a very easy trick – you simply purge any and all traces of morality from your soul.
IMO war is a valid issue for all citizens, Dem, Pubbie and Indy. Religious beliefs and people’s bedroom habits are not within the legitimate pervue of Big Brother.
Look, there have always been political divisions and always will be. BushII–and Rove–have widened the scope of those divisions, and needlessly, equally IMO. An interview was broadcast this evening w/ the king of Jordan, one of our staunchest allies in the middle east. He commented, with great concern, that hatred against Americans is at an all time high–and fundamentally different in nature. I’m paraphrasing, but the gist was that whereas there had been widespread hatred of America’s policies, now there is hatred for Americans.
It isn’t the role of government to split its people apart along religious lines. Fair’s fair. I don’t want churches interfering in government and I don’t want government trying to pimp churches. Or using gays as a stalking horse in an election. Or single-mother familes or anything else. That’s not leadership.
I’m not slagging conservatives; the exact opposite, actually. It’s more than a little worrisome when significant names within the Republican party split off, calling for the defeat of a one-term Republican president running for reelection. This is the sign of a crisis in conservatism. I hope, truly hope, it’s a sign of healthy change, because the conservative counterbalance is needed, very badly. I just don’t think BushII/Rove’s tactics have served the country or their party well, judging them by the fruits of their labors doncha know.
Veb
Well, not really This is a routine meeting that may include discussions regarding the response to more pro-gay (and pro-abortion and pro-death penalty) activities by politicians, but it does not even appear to be their highest priority and there is already substantial disagreement among the US. bishops on the topic. From this link:
Absolutely not. Why would it bother me? Any politician can solicit support from world figures. What’s telling is how the Pope and various Bishops are, in essence, NOT supporting Kerry.
I was trying to avoid the political angle and offer an opinion based on religion. They are sometimes different.
I wouldn’t dream of boring you with links to what you obviously know exist. :rolleyes:
I understand that there is disagreement among the bishops but it doesn’t appear from reports that any of them think that Catholic politicians who vote in opposition to certain aspects of church doctrine should take communion. Some of them think it should be a voluntary abstention; others think it should be mandatory. Apparently some not only want to punish politicians, they also want to withhold communion from any Catholic who merely votes for such a politician should be barred from communion until they confess and do penance.
Yet not on the agenda is the idea of withholding the sacraments from pro-death penalty Catholics or those who vote for pro-death penalty candidates.
From the Washington Post, via Talking Points Memo:
So this guy is at least fairly explicit about what he wants. I, for one, agree; if the church really wants to help defeat Kerry, they need to stand up and do it more openly, straight from the pulpits. Then they need to start paying taxes.
I really don’t understand how this could apply to a pro-choice politician and not equally to one who supports the death penalty. Can anyone explain this discrepancy to me in terms of doctrine, and not just as the obvious political ploy that it is?
Well, for one thing, the death penalty issue has never been discussed as doctrine within the church. The pope opposes it and various national councils of bishops have opposed it. However, the discussions surrounding the morality of the death penalty are fewer than 50 years old and not every national council of bishops have even considered the question. It has never come up in an ecumenical council of which I am aware.
In contrast, the church’s position on abortion has been fairly solid and universal for several hundred years and its position on homosexuality has been consistent for much longer.
As to the “obvious political ploy,” you might consider that outside the areas of homosexuality, contraception, and abortion, the general positions of the NCCB have been rather closer to Kerry’s position than to Bush’s. On economics, poverty, the death penalty, the War in Iraq, and even on “faith based initiatives” the general statements by the bishops would not make them friends of Bush.
I disagree with any number of statements by individual bishops and with a few statements by the NCCB, but I think that one can disagree with them without trotting out an unfounded claim of hypocrisy. (Even the old curmudgeon in Lincoln probably actually beleives much of the nonsense he spouts.)
This is why Bush would most likely like them to limit the denial of communion to Kerry alone: then there wouldn’t be room to ask pointed questions about other issues, or deny communion to the many influential pro-choice Republicans.
If the church lets it be used in this way, I’m not sure it’ll hurt Kerry as much as they hope. But it would most certainly hurt the church, in a big way, to look like puppets being ordered around by the President for his needs.
I was only talking about the tactics that Rove/Republican party used in congressional elections where they sought to exploit the fear and uncertainty of war to win votes. I sure wish they were out to seek a honest debate and referandum on their war policy but I don’t think that was the case.