Is George Bush Conservative?

[archangel]

Hey, if you guys are so outraged that that lowlife Bush would associate himself with Jesus, then take it up with him! I think this picture clearly illustrates Bush's conservatism. Afterall, the thread is called "Is Bush really a conservative" isn't it? This image was designed to send a message: that Bush holds traditional Christian conservative ideals!

I think the only right thing to do is repair the unwarranted attack on my reputation. :halo:

one that is so bent on self destruction and idealism based on liberal university teaching?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

WTF? Your last post is unintelligible gibberish. Please type in complete thoughts.

 

[archangel]

WTF? Your last post is unintelligible gibberish. Please type in complete thoughts.

I truly believe you need a remedial course in "Reading Comprehension" It was very simple and direct!

 

[Annie]

Mark Steyn is also ready to :firing: at Bush and spending:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn25.html

Politicians not giving us much of a choice

September 25, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


American politics seems to have dwindled down to a choice between a big government party and a big permanently-out-of-government party. The Senate Democrats had two months to cook up a reason to vote against John Roberts and the best California's Dianne Feinstein could manage come the big day was that she'd wanted to hear him "talking to me as a son, a husband and a father." In that case, get off the judiciary committee and go audition for ''Return To Bridges of Madison County,'' or ''What Women Want 2'' ("Mel Gibson is nominated to the Supreme Court but, despite being sensitive and a good listener, is accused of being a conservative theocrat").

That slab of meaningless emotive exhibitionism would make a good epitaph for the Democratic Party. The reality of life as a bigshot Dem is that what John Roberts is like "as a father" is less important than what George Soros is like as a sugar daddy. The more money shoveled at the party by Moveon.org, Hollywood, NOW and other unrepresentative fringes, the less it's able to see over the big pile of green to the electorate beyond. A party as thoroughly Sorosized as the Democrats is perforce downsized.

To be sure, they have many institutional advantages: If you watch the TV news, you'd still think Cindy Sheehan was an emblematic bereaved army mom, rather than a pitiful crackpot calling for Bush to pull his troops out of "occupied New Orleans." Her Million-Moan March washed up in Washington on Thursday to besiege the White House. As the Associated Press put it, "Sheehan, Supporters Descend On The Capital." There were 29 supporters. Can two-and-a-half dozen people "descend" on any capital city bigger than the South Sandwich Islands'? Surely her media boosters were cringing with embarrassment at their own impotence. Since its star columnist Maureen Dowd got the hots for Mrs. Sheehan's "moral authority," the New York Times has run some 70 stories on Cindy -- and every story they ran attracted another 0.4142857 of a supporter to her march on the capital.

Nonetheless, Hillary Rodham Clinton has yielded to "pressure" from all those 0.41428s and agreed to meet with Mrs. Sheehan to "explain" her vote for the Iraq war. The dwindling stars of today's Democratic Party expend most of their energy jumping through the ever smaller hoops of an ever kookier fringe.

These days one party raises a ton of money from George Soros and the other raises a ton of money from you. George Bush has committed to spending $200 billion on Gulf Coast "hurricane relief." The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore put the figure in perspective: There are supposedly half-a-million families displaced by Katrina. For $200 billion, you could give every family 400,000 bucks, and they could build their own beachfront home virtually anywhere in America except next door to Barbra Streisand's pad.

For 400 grand, they could all move into the Plaza Hotel -- with a view of Central Park, not the cheap rooms looking out on 58th -- and live off the 30-dollar Snickers from the mini-bar. Oh, sure, some might blow the $400,000 on beer and strippers, as several hurricane "victims" have already done with their complimentary Fedit-credit cards at the Baby Dolls Club in Houston. "You lost your whole house," said Abby, one of the eponymous dolls, "you might want some beer in a strip club."

But even Abby, skilled as she no doubt is, would have a hard job taking as much off as the "public servants" of Louisiana will once that $200 billion starts sluicing through the sewers of its kleptocrat bureaucracy. Even taking the gloomiest view of human nature's partiality to beer in a strip club, giving every displaced Gulf Coast family an instant 401(k) with an instant 400k would be unlikely to be as economically wasteful as a 200 bil government program -- unless, that is, it's going straight to the Army Corps of Engineers to build the world's highest seawall out of unused Sacagawea dollar coins.

Big-time Republicans tell me Bush's profligacy is doing a great job of neutralizing the Dem advantage in the spending-is-caring stakes. This may have been true initially -- in the same sense as undercover cops neutralize a massive heroin-smuggling operation by infiltrating it. But, if they're still running the heroin operation five years later, it looks less like neutralization and more like a change of management.

Savvier GOP types say, ah, well, Bush is the war president, his priority's the war, and he doesn't want a lot of domestic nickel-and-diming to distract from his prosecution of it. I like that argument even less. One lesson of Sept. 11 is that a government that tries to do everything is likely to do most of it badly. You could make the case that the government simply doesn't have the resources even to read the immigration applications of young single men from hotbeds of terrorism -- but not if that same government apparently has no problem finding the resources to fund Congressman Young's now famous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. If a thousandth of the care lavished on the Don Young Bridge had been lavished by U.S. Immigration on the 9/11 killers' visa paperwork, things might have gone very differently.

More to the point, domestic policy isn't a distraction from the war, it's a key front in it. Alaskan oil is part of the war on terror, so is increased refinery capacity. One reason why half the country's tuned out Iraq, Afghanistan and all the rest is because they can't see any connection between Bush foreign policy and their own lives. Way back in the summer of 2002, I wrote, "Sept. 11 is not just an event, hermetically sealed from everything before and after, but a context. Everything that's wrong with the environmental movement, with the teachers' unions, with the big-government bureaucracies can be seen through the prism of their responses to that day."

Ambitious presidents seize on extreme events to change the culture, as FDR did, using the Depression to transform the nature of the federal government. In allowing the eco-crazies to get away with prioritizing the world's biggest mosquito herd over Alaskan oil, and the teaching establishment with insisting that there's nothing wrong with the most overfunded public education system in the world that can't be fixed with even more wasted dollars, and the bureaucracy with creating an instantly sclerotic jobs-for-life federalized airport security (that just walked off the job in Houston), the Republicans missed their post-9/11 opportunity.

Instead of changing the nature of the federal government, the Republican majority in Washington seems to be changing the nature of the Republican Party. The Democrats' approach to government has been Sorosized, the GOP's has been supersized. Some choice.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Hey, if you guys are so outraged that that lowlife Bush would associate himself with Jesus, then take it up with him! I think this picture clearly illustrates Bush's conservatism. Afterall, the thread is called "Is Bush really a conservative" isn't it? This image was designed to send a message: that Bush holds traditional Christian conservative ideals!

I think the only right thing to do is repair the unwarranted attack on my reputation. :halo:

Interesting that you equate Christianity with Conservatism. When we make connections between the Republicans and Christianity, you all scream like stuck pigs that Dems are just as religious as Pubs. Maybe more! You all really went bonkers when exit polls last November showed that a majority of people voted for Bush because of moral issues. So which is it? Is Jesus conservative or liberal? Republican or Democrat? You can't have it both ways and make political points.

And don't even try to tell us that a picture of Jesus is somehow inherently "conservative". It is a representation of the person/God that all Christians worship. Period. There really isn't anything libs won't do to try to attempt denigrate our President. And that's all it is- an attempt- that almost always falls flat.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

QUOTE]

Wow. This picure is great. It must scare the pants off the communists, the troublesome atheists, the socialized secularists, and the liberal degenerates in this country.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Obviously, Jesus isn't Republican or Democrat. But we all know that the Republican party has allied itself with the Christian right for decades.

I equate Christian extremism with the Republican party. Obviously both parties cater to extreme fringe groups and it's just a fact that Republicans cater to the Christian extremists...i.e. people who think abortionists should be put to death (regardless of how unchristian a concept that is) and that anyone who doesn't agree with them will burn in hell.

Democrats generally cater to homos and other minorities. Bottom line.

Many Dems are just as or more religious than Republicans. Maybe instead of hating homos because of what it says in the old testament, we embrace Jesus' Golden rule: Love your neighbor and do unto him/her as you would have done unto you. Instead of "fire and brimstone and the wrath of an angry god."

The picture of Bush with Jesus behind him was NOT accidental. The president has a tv crew that follows him around. They dot every "i" and cross every "t" believe me. It was no accident that Bush was positioned right in front of a picture of Jesus. This kind of imagery is meant to appeal to the religious right...to tell religious people, though not directly, that this guy [Bush] has the same values you do. He's your leader. He's one of you. It's simple public relations strategy.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I equate Christian extremism with the Republican party. Obviously both parties cater to extreme fringe groups and it's just a fact that Republicans cater to the Christian extremists...i.e. people who think abortionists should be put to death (regardless of how unchristian a concept that is) and that anyone who doesn't agree with them will burn in hell...

The bolded line is lib propoganda. But typical of how libs work. Take the most extreme example of the extreme right of the party, and hope the mud splashes up on the President. Do you really think that is going to work with us, or anyone, for that matter?

Sitting in front of the picture could be intentional. I don't know. Where was it taken, and where else could he have sat with good lighting? Did his hosts ask him to sit there? Either way, I don't think it amounts to a hill of beans what is in the backgorund. But the fact remains that your reply still doesn't explain how a picture of Jesus "clearly illustrates Bush's conservatism". That is what is in your mind, not everyone else's. I would think that the millions of Christians in black Baptist and Methodist churches would beg to differ with your knee-jerk connection between Jesus and conservatism.

I guess I should be happy; at least you aren't complaining that the picture doesn't violate the doctrine of separation of church and state. :halo:

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The bolded line is lib propoganda. But typical of how libs work. Take the most extreme example of the extreme right of the party, and hope the mud splashes up on the President. Do you really think that is going to work with us, or anyone, for that matter?

You big dummy, I didn't say anything about the president. Both parties court fringe groups for votes. It's a fact Jack!

 

[William Joyce]

Bush's spending is an obvious and easily quantifiable example of his utter disregard for conservative principles --- one even "loyal" Republicans like Noonan and neocons like Steyn are constrained to point out.

But there are far worse transgressions. Contrary to those who credit him for "national defense," Bush's clear biggest blunder since taking office has been on immigration. He hasn't defended the nation in the slightest against illegal invasion, which is estimated at thousands per day. Not only has he failed to protect our border, he's actively proposed AMNESTY for the illegals here, thus sabotaging border patrol efforts and Congress' laws. He has done so with complete disregard for the American people, and full regard for Mexico, the New York Times and Political Correctness.

So that's the worst of it. They say Bush is "conservative" because he's against gay marriage. Wow. Be still my beating heart. BILL FLIPPING CLINTON is and was against gay marriage, people. If this is all it takes to count as "conservative" in America, I think maybe real conservatives need to be a little bit more careful about who they give their blessing to.

Remember when we had a Republican president?

 

[Gunny]

Bush's spending is an obvious and easily quantifiable example of his utter disregard for conservative principles --- one even "loyal" Republicans like Noonan and neocons like Steyn are constrained to point out.

But there are far worse transgressions. Contrary to those who credit him for "national defense," Bush's clear biggest blunder since taking office has been on immigration. He hasn't defended the nation in the slightest against illegal invasion, which is estimated at thousands per day. Not only has he failed to protect our border, he's actively proposed AMNESTY for the illegals here, thus sabotaging border patrol efforts and Congress' laws. He has done so with complete disregard for the American people, and full regard for Mexico, the New York Times and Political Correctness.

So that's the worst of it. They say Bush is "conservative" because he's against gay marriage. Wow. Be still my beating heart. BILL FLIPPING CLINTON is and was against gay marriage, people. If this is all it takes to count as "conservative" in America, I think maybe real conservatives need to be a little bit more careful about who they give their blessing to.

Remember when we had a Republican president?

William has a moment of clarity.

 

[Abbey Normal]

You big dummy, I didn't say anything about the president. Both parties court fringe groups for votes. It's a fact Jack!

Ah, and the Lib name calling begins. As everyone can see, your above quote is where it started in this exchange. I'm curious- is there a SINGLE Lib out there who has the maturity and self-control to debate without name-calling? I have yet to see one.

On to the subject at hand.
You didn't say anything about the President? Really? You need to re-read your own posts, bub. Here is just one recent quote from you which is right on the money:

"This kind of imagery is meant to appeal to the religious right...to tell religious people, though not directly, that this guy [Bush] has the same values you do. He's your leader. He's one of you."

 

[Gunny]

Hey, if you guys are so outraged that that lowlife Bush would associate himself with Jesus, then take it up with him! I think this picture clearly illustrates Bush's conservatism. Afterall, the thread is called "Is Bush really a conservative" isn't it? This image was designed to send a message: that Bush holds traditional Christian conservative ideals!

I think the only right thing to do is repair the unwarranted attack on my reputation. :halo:

So? When exactly was it that the President was stripped of his Consitutional right to freedom of religious expression? I must've missed that amendment .....

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Look, if you don't want to be called "dummy" then PLEASE stop misrepresenting what I say!

So? When exactly was it that the President was stripped of his Consitutional right to freedom of religious expression? I must've missed that amendment .....

I never said he was stripped of his right to religious expression. I said the imagery set up by his public relations people was supposed to be symbolic of his conservative values.

You didn't say anything about the President? Really? You need to re-read your own posts, bub. Here is just one recent quote from you which is right on the money:

I DIDN'T say anything about the president in the particular post we were talking about at the time. At this point in the discourse, you quoted me saying: "it's just a fact that Republicans cater to the Christian extremists...i.e. people who think abortionists should be put to death" and then you said:

The bolded line is lib propoganda. But typical of how libs work. Take the most extreme example of the extreme right of the party, and hope the mud splashes up on the President.

But, in the line you quoted, I didn't say anything negative about the president. In fact, I didn't say anything negative at all in that post. I stated a fact about both parties courting extremists for votes. But of course you misinterpreted it just like you misinterpret every single thing I say and read into it things that weren't there. Stop misinterpreting what I say! Bad! No!

 

[Gunny]

I never said he was stripped of his right to religious expression. I said the imagery set up by his public relations people was supposed to be symbolic of his conservative values.

Looks to me like it was set up to be symbolic of his religious views; which, are not necessarily conservative.

There are jsut as many liberal Christians as conservative ones, IMO. It just isn't PC to associate onself with Christianity for most liberals, because most think as your statement indicates -- Christian = conservative.

Christian conservatives differ from liberal Christians only in that they do not see that the values change simply because the society becomes more accepting of unacceptable behavior.

President Bush was a moderate governor, and tried to be a moderate President. I suppose you don't recall his first few months in office where he tried to his damnedest to create bipartisanship. You complain that the liberal voice is squelched, but it is you liberals who have done it to yourselves.

As William pointed out, Bush has some aggravating as Hell policies that are anything but conservative. He spends like a democrat, he's increased the size of government, and he refuses to address the illegal immigration issue.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

As William pointed out, Bush has some aggravating as Hell policies that are anything but conservative. He spends like a democrat, he's increased the size of government, and he refuses to address the illegal immigration issue.

Excellent points all.

As far as the illegal immigration issue, I thought he did address it when he re-initiated his plan to legalize illegal aliens a few days after he was reelected:
Bush revives bid to legalize illegal aliens
I hate the idea of illegals being granted amnesty and the use of all our public works and schools, but if they are put on the path to citizenship so that they have to pay taxes, then I am for it.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Oh yeah, he's done a great job "defending" our country. Doesn't anyone remember the "Bin Laden determined to attack in the US" brief we learned about from the 9/11 commission? Instead of reading the brief, Bush was on vacation at his dude ranch. What a great defender! Not!

You need new ammunition......this stuff is stale and tedious.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Obviously, Jesus isn't Republican or Democrat. But we all know that the Republican party has allied itself with the Christian right for decades.

I equate Christian extremism with the Republican party. Obviously both parties cater to extreme fringe groups and it's just a fact that Republicans cater to the Christian extremists...i.e. people who think abortionists should be put to death (regardless of how unchristian a concept that is) and that anyone who doesn't agree with them will burn in hell.

Democrats generally cater to homos and other minorities. Bottom line.

Many Dems are just as or more religious than Republicans. Maybe instead of hating homos because of what it says in the old testament, we embrace Jesus' Golden rule: Love your neighbor and do unto him/her as you would have done unto you. Instead of "fire and brimstone and the wrath of an angry god."

The picture of Bush with Jesus behind him was NOT accidental. The president has a tv crew that follows him around. They dot every "i" and cross every "t" believe me. It was no accident that Bush was positioned right in front of a picture of Jesus. This kind of imagery is meant to appeal to the religious right...to tell religious people, though not directly, that this guy [Bush] has the same values you do. He's your leader. He's one of you. It's simple public relations strategy.

Just curious Hagbard.........I haven't seen this image anywhere but here. Where did you find it?

Another question: what type of public relations imagery would a democratic leader look like?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I think it's an AP photo. I have a copy of it from the Atlanta Journal Constitution with the caption, "President Bush, who has long made his religious convictions clear, received a lot of support from conservative Christians in winning re-election in November."

It is attributed to Brooks Kraft/Corbis.

There was a little bit of attention paid to it right after last year's election. If you google "Bush Jesus" in google images it will come up, but I can't find where it was originally published. This was a photo-op event, so just about every news organization has a variation of it.

As for dem public relations, look at Clinton's presidency. You'd want to be seen kissing babies and going to church barbecues. I don't think a dem would ever garner the support of the evangelical right, so I doubt you'd see an image like the one I posted of Bush.

 

[kurtsprincess]

I DIDN'T say anything about the president in the particular post we were talking about at the time. At this point in the discourse, you quoted me saying: "it's just a fact that Republicans cater to the Christian extremists...i.e. people who think abortionists should be put to death" and then you said:


But, in the line you quoted, I didn't say anything negative about the president. In fact, I didn't say anything negative at all in that post. I stated a fact about both parties courting extremists for votes. But of course you misinterpreted it just like you misinterpret every single thing I say and read into it things that weren't there. Stop misinterpreting what I say! Bad! No!

Some of us have pretty good memories and can actually remember what you said last week (or longer) with quite a bit of accuracy, and don't feel the need to requote all your previous posts in order to refer to what you've said. So your argument that you are being misquoted simply because that is not what you said in your last post is moot.

However, if it helps you to remember what you've said..............