This is the comment I most agree with. Until Bush’s re election, which he did achieve, he had everything given to him, but he thought he achieved it. This made him think that anything he attempted was bound to succeed. Bush liked to say that he went on gut instinct. Well, his gut told him that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would be easy, and his gut was wrong.
As far as his religious faith is concerned, that is hard to tell. Since Ronald Reagan, mouthing the concerns of Christian conservatives has been one of the ways Republican politicians win the support of whites who are not rich.
It is interesting, that although he was one more generation removed than his father from the need to earn a pay check, he had a folksy personality as his father certainly did not. It was easy to imagine GW as a successful football coach whose father had worked at a post office, or even as a popular high school teacher.
[QUOTE=New Deal Democrat]
It is interesting, that although he was one more generation removed than his father from the need to earn a pay check, he had a folksy personality as his father certainly did not. It was easy to imagine GW as a successful football coach whose father had worked at a post office, or even as a popular high school teacher.
[/QUOTE]
And yet he wasn’t any of those things. Dark Helmet Voice Fooled YOU!
Wilson had a stroke, not senility. Characterizing Wilson’s affliction as “senility” is like saying Abraham Lincoln became senile after his trip to the theatre.
I also have never heard any evidence FDR was senile. He was 63 when he died, so it sure as hell would have been early onset. FDr suffered from a variety of maladies, none of them Alzheimers’.
Out of curiosity, what was this in reference too? Was someone denying that the Bush family was wealthy, or was this just general reference to material everyone already knew? Sort of a ‘water is wet, and here is a cite to prove it’ kind of thingy?
I am always slightly embarrassed when I find fellow liberals insulting the apparent intelligence of W. Bush. They pick on him for the very qualities that make him somewhat sympathetic - who here hasn’t occasionally fumbled words during public discourse?
It’s just another example of partisan bickering. It ultimately serves as a distraction from worth while topics of discussion.
His apparent religiosity isn’t that important either. Attacking his likely contrived dedication to Christianity merely acts to polarize debate. What really matters is what he did. On this he would appear to have performed poorly, but perhaps any other president under similar circumstances would have failed as well.
Was Bush’s regime particularly imperialistic for initiating the Iraq / Afghanistan wars? I don’t see these actions - as horrendous as they may be - to be in heavy contrast with the actions of previous presidents. Is Iraq as bad as Vietnam? Does it compare with horrors of Pinochet, Mobutu or Batista?
I don’t claim senility and I did not say that nearlier. But there was a diminished ability to to the job. Reagan showed his Alzheimers. FDR was in bad health and many say Eleanor was doing a lot of his duties. Wilson was incapacitated for a while but it was kept from the people.
He was “sympathetic” by appealing to the sadistic, the greedy, the warmongers, the religious fanatics, the willfully ignorant, and the just plain stupid.
Nonsense. Most Presidents wouldn’t have done as he did.
Vietnam was somewhat worse than Iraq (but lasted much longer and took more than one President); Iraq was worse than the others however.
May I note that more Democrats oppose voting for a Mormon for POTUS than Republicans. So the whole fundies won’t vote for Romney thing is more bullshit than fanatical Der Trihsian atheists wont’t vote for Romney idea.
Sorry. I suspect that you have drawn the wrong conclusion from the (admittedly limited) data.
The numbers provided do not identify Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians separately, lumping them in with “Protestants.” At the same time, no one in this thread has claimed that Mormons would be opposed only by Fundamentalists. That some aggregate number of Democrats of various backgrounds amount to a higher percent of people opposing a Mormon for president than the number of Republicans who oppose such a campaign does not change the fact that Fundamentalists, generally, will be more opposed to such a candidate. The Democrat numbers probably include a significant number of Catholics and, since the poll did indicate that educational levels do correspond to acceptance or rejection of a Mormon candidate, it is no great stretch to guess that a number of less educated Catholic Democrats view Mormons with suspicion–but they will not play a significant role in defeating a Mormon in the Republican nomination process, whereas Republican Fundamentalists likely will.
A lot of Democrats would also oppose a Mormon candidate not so much on theological grounds, but because they have a reputation for social conservatism.
These kinds of polls always change when you put a name on them, though.
No mention yet of his choice of nominees for important positions:
“Heckuva Job” Brownie to head FEMA.
Harriet Meyers as SCOTUS (Thank you Senate Republicans for nipping that in the bud)
Alberto Gonzolas as AG.
The man put a huge premium on friendship and loyalty, and seemed incapable of recognizing or appreciating competence.
Secondly, after being (more or less) elected, he treated the most powerful position in the free world as a part time job…just something to do between brush clearing gigs. It took 9/11 to wake him up to the fact that maybe it might be a good idea to pay attention and take it seriously. It was like he failed a couple times in the Oil Business, then would have served the Rangers better as a bat boy or grounds keeper, and finally found out that getting himself elected was something he and Carl Rove could succeed at. I honestly don’t think he had much interest in actually leading the country before 9/12/2001, and other than NCLB, and privatizing Social Security didn’t seem to have much of a vision.
Using conservapedia as a source is like using The Protocol of the Elders of Zion as a historic reference for Judaism.
Or is this a whoosh?
OTOH, no Lutheran I’ve known (including the various senates ELCA, Missouri, Wisconsin, and waaaaay beyond that) would ever argue that a Mormon is a Christian. Lutherans find the whole idea of “spirit babies” and the Jesus vs. Satan sibling rivalry too wacky to even discuss.
Hell, I remember one of my “waaay beyond that” cousins who was crushed to hear that my uncle had married a Presbyterian woman. I could see the “he’s going to HELL!” written all over cuz’s face.
I should have said “Mormon,” but I wondered if my cuz would have burned a statute of Moroni on my uncle’s front lawn.
Saying Mormonism is a heresy is not equivalent to saying a Mormon shouldn’t be President. After all most Evangelicals would be willing to vote for someone who’s Jewish. And my point was that an overwhelming majority of Republicans (80%) are willing to vote for a Mormon.
Exactly. I believe Rep. Bachman is a member of a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod congregation. The WELS claims somewhere in the neighborhood of 350,000 members, while the more mainstream (and far more liberal) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, along with the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, have somewhere around 6,000,000 members between them.
WELS teaches strict creationism, Biblical inerrancy, does not ordain women, and that same-sex relationships and acts are always sinful, wtihout exception. The ELCA, in particular, disagrees with all of those positions.
