Bush has very definite ideas on what is permissible and what isn’t. He also has no concept of empathy. He absolutely cannot put himself in another person’s shoes. He operates on a very narrow platform of “Whatever seems like something “I’d” like to do is what I’ll do.”
I watched the 60 Minutes program with Bob Woodward a couple weeks ago. He said that Bush was smirking and mocking “intellectuals”. This is something high school jocks do to the braniacs. He believes that good ol’ boy, front-porch politickin’ is the answer to the world’s problems. We have lots of reasons to be afraid. In fact, the only GOOD thing I see in our future at the moment is the chance to vote him out of office in a few months.
Except, as the program made clear, Evangelical Christians (40% of Americans, cutting across all racial lines) are well-organized, and they vote. It’s also rare to have a sitting President voted out in the midst of a war. I hate to think it, but I’m convinced he’ll be reelected.
You may have a point there. The problem with Bush may be that he’s not religious enough—i.e. that he doesn’t value/practice Christian virtues like humility, patience, peace, etc. Jimmy Carter’s probably the closest thing we’ve had, at least in recent years, of a President who sincerely tried to live up to Christian beliefs.
By the way, is it fair to refer to Bush as a fundamentalist? Has he ever identified himself as such, or assented to the principles of specifcally Fundamentalist Christianity?
Americans on the average tend to be fairly conservative and fairly religious (not that these are necessarily the same thing)—maybe not as much so as Bush, but enough so that they are more comfortable with someone who talks the way GWB talks than with somebody who thinks all religious people are fanatics or who thinks traditional family values are a bad thing.
As I said, you are suggesting that he’d be perfectly content to see the world destroyed. Whether this is based on a “horrible feeling” or not is irrelevant. Literal or not, it still indicates an extreme and irrational attitude toward the man.
(sigh) For what it’s worth, I understood what Eve was saying. It’s the “creep factor”. That uneasy feeling you get from some people. Like the way the barker leers at you when you walk past the peep show in the worst neighborhood in town. Ya know…that kind of horrible feeling. Not a premonition…just a wrong feeling. Not at all irrational in my book.
I’m not getting a strong vibe either way right now, but I’m hoping we don’t run into another “deer in the headlights” situation, such as 9/11. People were so glad someone was doing something that they failed to notice Bush’s and Ashcroft’s hands dipping into the back pocket of the constitution. A big catastrophic event will seal it for him.
Good question. Though he sometimes quacks like a duck, so to speak, it’s not clear that he really is one. It does seem a number of folks in the fundamentalist community think he’s one of their own.
By the way, neat username, Thud; sounds like something Berkeley Breathed would have come up with.
Up to a point. The fundies certainly prefer Bush to Kerry, but they aren’t happy that Bush has been respectful to Islam, instead of declaring it to be a satanic cult.
The program last night made quite clear—through Bush’s friends and church members—that he’s an Evangelical who believes that the New Testament is the Word of God and inerrant*. Would that qualify him as “Fundamentalist?”
Though I notice he shaves, and I’ll bet he wears mixed fibers, too, making him a “Cafeteria Evangelical.”
Okay, so he creeps you out. You’re entitled to feel that way – but such feelings have no merit as evidence, and have zero value in a great debate.
Ditto for suggestions that Bush would eagerly welcome the destruction of the world, if it would lead to the Rapture. If this suggestion is meant literally, then it’s grossly irresponsible. If not – if it is just wild hyperbole – then it has no please in a rational debate, especially when directly mixed with other strongly phrased criticisms of the commander-in-chief. And if it is based on an “uneasy feeling” – a “creep factor” – then this grave accusation is based on a flimsy foundation at best.
While we’re at it, it is disingenuoys to describe Bush as “a self-professed religious fanatic.” You may personally consider him to be a fanatic, but that’s merely your judgment, and an entirely different matter. (Now, I know full well that some would say, “Well, that wasn’t meant literally!” but come on. I don’t expect absolute literality from everyone, but I do think we should expect accuracy rather than needlessly inflammatory language.)
Oh, and Kahlhoun, let me clarify that last statement… I’m not saying that you specifically called Bush a “self-professed religous fanatic.” I was referring to the OP, naturally.
Well, the creep factor is based on things he’s actually done. Telling the world he confers with his Father-with-a-capital-“F” rather than his Earthly father on matters of state, for starters. Yes, people turn to religion for guidance all kinds of things. I just think that sharing that information with the nation is creepy, considering we don’t all believe he’s actually TALKING to anyone. I’m creeped out that he appointed Ashcroft into such a powerful position. I’m doubly creeped out that he has so little respect for education and intelligence (but big respect for “Test Scores”). All these things add up.
No, that was meant literally, based on Bush’s own statements and actions. Of course, your definition of “religious fanatic” and mine may very well be at odds.
Sure. I don’t see a problem with this as long as his fanaticism doesn’t impact his ability to think logically and act professionally. That means not evoking the name of the Almighty whenever someone questions his decision-making strategies. To me, that would be inappropriate behavior for even a manager at Burger King to do. The fact that the POTUS keeps doing it tells me he does not know how to separate his religious convictions from his role as a chief executive of an entire country. I’m sure plenty of devout people are able to do their jobs on a daily basis without feeling that it is necessary to advertise their devoutness all the time. But for some reason, not Bush.
Al Sharpton could probably do a better job of acting like a president without a religious agenda. And he’s a freakin’ reverend.