For God's sake, vote him out

[Maeve_Mari]

The Chicago Sun Times

For God's sake, vote him out
by Father Andrew Greeley
October 29, 2004

There are two proportionate reasons for rejecting President Bush's bid for re-election. Both the United States and the world are a mess. Mr. Bush is responsible for both messes. The first president ever to claim de facto infallibility, Mr. Bush tells us that he follows his instincts in decision-making after praying over the decision and talking to God. He admits no mistakes -- how could anyone who has a direct link to God make a mistake! In his next administration he will receive more divine inspirations which will make both the country and the world even more messy.

Consider the American economy. He has turned the biggest budget surplus in history into the biggest deficit because he wanted to give more money to the "haves and have mores" as he called them. He has presided over the largest job losses since the Great Depression. He has stood idly by while hundreds of thousands of American jobs have been flown overseas. His reform of health care has made it more expensive and more difficult for the elderly. He declines to rein in the greed of the drug companies and thus drives many Americans to Canada -- of all places -- to buy the medicines needed to stay alive. He has cast doubt on the future of Social Security. He has been on the bridge during the current absurd panic over flu vaccine; the deaths of those elderly and children who are not able to obtain flu shots are on his hands. What if one of those who die is your parent or spouse or child? He has not lifted a finger to help the many Americans whose pensions are being eaten up by greedy employers. Oil prices are climbing rapidly and the stock market is tanking.

We want four more years of this stuff?

Fecklessly he started the ill-advised and ill-prepared war in Iraq in which some Americans have to come close to mutiny to protect them from orders to bring contaminated fuel in badly equipped trucks to units that won't accept it. He misled the American people about the weapons in Iraq and the involvement of Iraq in the World Trade Center attack. He is disgusted, he tells us, by the kidnappings and the beheadings, the car bombs and roadside bombs, the ambushes and murder of civilians, but the bad decisions he and his cabinet made were mandated by God and could not have been mistakes. Pat Robertson tells us, however, that Mr. Bush told him that God had disclosed that the casualties in Iraq would be light. Maybe that was God's mistake!

Do we want him to continue with these god-driven policies for four more years? Eleven hundred dead Americans already. How many more thousands will have to die before God will tell Mr. Bush to get out of Iraq? How many tens of thousands more Iraqis will have to die?

The world is a mess because the United States is the natural leader of the free world and the American president the natural president of the free world. He blew the capital of support and sympathy that flowed to the United States after the World Trade Center attack by his "Bush Doctrine" that turned him into the bully of the free world. Next year the Poles will leave Iraq because the Polish people don't like the war. The Poles -- our strongest allies in Mr. Rumsfeld's "New Europe" -- are fed up with us! Four more years of divine inspiration and what will be left of America's power and prestige? We will still be a giant but like Gulliver a tattered giant chained to the ground by our president's madcap inspirations.

The pope is infallible only in certain limited circumstances and on specific matters. Unlike the pope, Mr. Bush apparently sets no limits on the policy decisions that will be made by conversations with God. We want four more years of those decisions?

The president, like every human, is entitled to his own relationship with God. He is entitled to use that relationship to make decisions, to justify them later, and to stick to them no matter what happens. Many Americans will accept such decisions because they believe he is a "godly" man. Not everyone else has to tolerate four more years of his divine right to govern.


Even if the election is close, Mr. Bush will win it. His lawyers are ready to go back into court and the supine Supreme Court will give the country four more years of divine right rule.

Do we really want that?

[Epee_Pox]

Oh please. Is anyone else tired of the hyperbole yet? Bush is no genius, but he's not a bad man.

He didn't make the economy go south, the feckless investing of the 90s caused that. I'd be amazed if any president could make the economy do much of anything, really.

Tax cuts across the board -- regardless of their effect, if any, on the economy -- are not "tax cuts for the rich." I wish people would stop saying they are.

The Bush doctrine isn't bullying, it's just firm. Nobody is forced to do anything unless they're helping terrorists who aim to hurt the US. The US hasn't threatened, coerced or otherwise caused any other country to join its actions against their will. You can disagree with the focus of the war on terrorism or the way it is handles, but it is foolish to call this bullying.

The long-term goal of the "war on terror" is to cause real systemic change in the middle east, establish democracy, basic rights, and free markets so as to remove the root causes of terrorism. Most people who've studied the problem agree that's what has to happen, but nobody else seems to want to make it happen. The decision was made that the US and any allies who joined them would have to start the process. This is much of the justification for Iraq, not just the threat of weapons. But again, everyone including the present opponents of the Iraq war believed the weapons threat was real and that force was necessary. And it is clear to all who have read the reports that continued sanctions and diplomacy would have been purely counterproductive. You can disagree on whether or how the war should have been fought, but disregarding basic stuff like this that anyone who reads the papers should know, is just silly.

Do I think Bush is the best man for the job? Certainly not. Do I think he's the sum of all evil and should be replaced by anyone but him? Certainly not.

Parenthetically: I voted against him the first time. Couldn't stand him. He's grown on me a little since then. But would I have voted for him this time if someone of, say Lieberman's character had run? No way. But Kerry? Come on.

[telkanuru]

Ok, I really am not commenting on anything subtantive in that post, because it will only result in the typical back and forth. HOWEVER

"Someone of Lieberman's Character"

I do not like Lieberman. I was not very happy with his being a VP candidate. He is firstly more right-wing than many Republicans, but my main hatred of the man stems from his reaction to the Columbine shootings. I know America has a very poor cultural memory, but somone must remember him screaming for nothing short of the complete banning of all vidiogames with the least bit of violence and Marlen (sp?) Manson's music, and.... Well, as Moore said, by his logic, we should also ban bowling.

Also, if Kerry is wooden and unresponsive, what is Lieberman? You know gore chose him as a running mate because when Gore stood next to Lieberman, Gore actually looked alive!

[Westley]

[quote=Epee_Pox]
Tax cuts across the board -- regardless of their effect, if any, on the economy -- are not "tax cuts for the rich." I wish people would stop saying they are.

The Bush doctrine isn't bullying, it's just firm. Nobody is forced to do anything unless they're helping terrorists who aim to hurt the US. The US hasn't threatened, coerced or otherwise caused any other country to join its actions against their will. You can disagree with the focus of the war on terrorism or the way it is handles, but it is foolish to call this bullying.
QUOTE]
First of all, this whole post was freaking perfect but it get deleted, so now I have to do this whole freaking thing over again, in a bad mood and trying to vaguely remember what I wrote. Tax cuts are always bad in wartime. Just like you don't want a president who has taken more vacations than any other prez in history to be your prez in wartime. This son of a ***** would never be elected in the first place if it wasn't for his father. The Tax brackets for the rich give a higher percentage than those of the poor. Especially if it's closer to the bottom of the bracket. and the middle bracket is taxed more than the poor. Why? Because that's the bridge to the money. And they want to break the bridge. You can't be rich if someone else isn't poor.

Second of all, George Bush is bullying because he went to war against the U.N's unanimous consent. Before the Weapons inspectors had returned ANY reports of weapons. If the CIA HAD found reports of WMD, then the UN inspectors should have fallen up on it, instead Mr. Cowboy here blowing up half of Iraq. And why the hell were we in Iraq when we should have benn hunting Bin Laden. If Saddam was a threat, he was no more so than before the war, even back when Clinton threw a few peacekeeper's his way. What we wanted was Bin Laden, and if you're going to bring in thousands of soldiers send them after him. Block the roads, comb the hills. But he knew he couldn't deliver Big 'ol Bin. However, Saddam was a sitting ****ing duck. And he barely delivered that package. But he played Wag the Dog, and way worse than the way clinton did. He didn't do it over a girl. He did it over a deadly man who killed thousands of people. Saddam was nothing compared to others. We already wanted wanted to take over that country anyway because of the oil and the Heroine. With Clinton, ppl had better ideas of us in foreign countries, but have you been to London or Paris lately? Or anywhere, for that matter. People do not like us. Because we didn' listen to them. There was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that it had to be the US against terrorism. It should have been, It HAD to be, the UN, the world, against Terrorism. But we didn't wait for the inspectors that shouldn't have been there anyway. We didn't go after who we should have. And That's why that sonofa***** should be booted out.

[Epee_Pox]

Such anger! I think that's probably what makes the Bush-haters so strangely myopic.

And notice that such folks tend to be clearly anti-Bush, and not pro-Kerry.

Makes me wonder where all this anger comes from.

It can't come from pissing off the French, because administrations of both parties do that all the time. Nor can it come from acting when the UN refuses to (whether for crooked or benign reasons), because again that's something the US always does. And it doesn't come from a perceived unpopularity abroad, because yet again the people who don't like us didn't like us before this president, and they tend to seize on the boldest actions of whoever is in charge as their rallying point (under Clinton, it was free trade, of all things).

No, I think all this anger stems directly from the 2000 election. People to this day think he stole the election (when every recount, even the ones done by the anti-Bush newspapers, showed that he really did eke out a win in Florida). So some people feel they wuz robbed.

Well, few things will make you more angry than believing you're the victim of a fraud. Gore and the DNC fueled this anger with their own. But things didn't get out of hand for the first several months, because Bush didn't really do anything.

But once he started taking actions, it didn't matter what he did, the Angry Left was going to be angry about it. Actually implementing the Left's beloved (and foolish) steel tariffs? Nope, still angry. Implementing the largest entitlement increase in recent memory, a la FDR? Nope, not big enough, still angry. Not vetoing a single big-government bill, outdoing even Clinton? Nope, now the Left is suddenly full of fiscal conservatives.

The way I see it, too many people are blinded by anger and unable to judge rationally what is going on here. Again, the man ain't the best. By holy cow, he's not as bad as these angry people keep saying.

You know why I'm gonna vote for him? He has principles, and he acts on them. I happen to disagree with some of those principles, and the way he acts on them. But I want someone who actually has principles, and who will take action based on what he believes, rather than what he thinks the polls will support.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

But once he started taking actions, it didn't matter what he did, the Angry Left was going to be angry about it. Actually implementing the Left's beloved (and foolish) steel tariffs? Nope, still angry. Implementing the largest entitlement increase in recent memory, a la FDR? Nope, not big enough, still angry. Not vetoing a single big-government bill, outdoing even Clinton? Nope, now the Left is suddenly full of fiscal conservatives.

Too many silly remarks to address, but I'll pick on the above juicy ones: You think the steel tariff's were the Left's idea (as if there really was a Left in the USA) and George was working at their behest? That's ridiculous: it was lobbyist influence and vote buying, not leftism. The prescription medicine entitlement? It's certainly not conservative economics, but it sure isn't leftist either: it's a windfall for the pharmaceutical companies. No bargaining with them, no reimporting their drugs, etc. GWB not vetoing any spending bills is somehow the opposition's fault? That's just bizarre nonsense. Now the Left - if by that you mean Democrats - is the party of fiscal conservative. Funny old world, isn't it

[HilandDoug]

The economy? Boy, that 3.7% growth last quarter really sucked, eh?

[jeff]

Oooh, if Inq was posting here he'd say that Presidents don't effect the economy.

Answer is called "regression to the mean".

[FoilyGeezer]

I'm not sure, and really actually don't care much. I do know this. Over the last three years, the joint income of our household has remained fairly constant. Both my wife and I are self employed and run separate small businesses. The "Tax Cut" we got was far outweighed by the end of programs which partially subsidized our businesses, was further outweighed by the elimination of some of the deductions available to us and the removal of some of our business expenses as deductible. Bottom line for us is that since we've had our taxes reduced the amount we actually pay in has increased.

I don't know specifically, but I think you'd find the same is true for a lot of middle class self-emloyed. There was no tax cut, just empty rhetoric, telling us what we wanted to hear, while reaching a bit deeper into our pockets.

I'm voting for Kerry...because I know which shell the pea is under.
I'm voting for Kerry...because a vote for Bush is a no-brainer.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Such anger! I think that's probably what makes the Bush-haters so strangely myopic.

Myopic as in we can't see past the death and destruction, a breakdown in traditional Foreign relations, the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on a war that is becoming an increasing embarassment as well as a dead end in the war on terror. Perhaps it's the continual erosion of our personal freedoms, the muffling of the media, the constant scandals swept under the rug. How about a lackluster economy, a sky-rocketing deficit, eroding environmental protection, faith-based sex education, unfunded no child left behind, a level of governmental secrecy that would impress the Soviet Union, stifling technological progress because of beliefs? How about over 1,000 servicemen killed or 100,000 Iraqi civilians?

Your reason to vote for Bush (as stated below): He's got principles and will act on them. Who's myopic?

And it doesn't come from a perceived unpopularity abroad, because yet again the people who don't like us didn't like us before this president, and they tend to seize on the boldest actions of whoever is in charge as their rallying point (under Clinton, it was free trade, of all things).

You need to get out more. There has been a radical shift in perception of the U.S. while under Bush.

No, I think all this anger stems directly from the 2000 election. People to this day think he stole the election (when every recount, even the ones done by the anti-Bush newspapers, showed that he really did eke out a win in Florida). So some people feel they wuz robbed.

Yes, you're right. It's all about the 2000 election. Nothing else matters. I see that now. I was so blind!! I don't care about anything else. It was the 2000 election all along. I've wasted 4 years (well 2 1/2 before it became apparent that Bush couldn't run a cornerstore let alone a country) of my life!!

But once he started taking actions, it didn't matter what he did, the Angry Left was going to be angry about it. Actually implementing the Left's beloved (and foolish) steel tariffs? Nope, still angry. Implementing the largest entitlement increase in recent memory, a la FDR? Nope, not big enough, still angry. Not vetoing a single big-government bill, outdoing even Clinton? Nope, now the Left is suddenly full of fiscal conservatives.

The way I see it, too many people are blinded by anger and unable to judge rationally what is going on here. Again, the man ain't the best. By holy cow, he's not as bad as these angry people keep saying.

There are quite a few people blinded by ignorance as well. They feel that he is a man of principles and gawdangit he sticks by them!

You know why I'm gonna vote for him? He has principles, and he acts on them. I happen to disagree with some of those principles, and the way he acts on them.

So how many principles do you disagree with 3/4, 5/8, 9/10? Do you vote a straight repub ticket? It would make it easier than having to actual put thought into the person your voting for.

But I want someone who actually has principles, and who will take action based on what he believes, rather than what he thinks the polls will support.

Adolf Hitler had principles, he acted on them. Would you have voted for him?

[scarlet_woman156k]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Such anger! I think that's probably what makes the Bush-haters so strangely myopic.

And notice that such folks tend to be clearly anti-Bush, and not pro-Kerry.

Makes me wonder where all this anger comes from.

It can't come from pissing off the French, because administrations of both parties do that all the time. Nor can it come from acting when the UN refuses to (whether for crooked or benign reasons), because again that's something the US always does. And it doesn't come from a perceived unpopularity abroad, because yet again the people who don't like us didn't like us before this president, and they tend to seize on the boldest actions of whoever is in charge as their rallying point (under Clinton, it was free trade, of all things).

No, I think all this anger stems directly from the 2000 election. People to this day think he stole the election (when every recount, even the ones done by the anti-Bush newspapers, showed that he really did eke out a win in Florida). So some people feel they wuz robbed.

Well, few things will make you more angry than believing you're the victim of a fraud. Gore and the DNC fueled this anger with their own. But things didn't get out of hand for the first several months, because Bush didn't really do anything.

But once he started taking actions, it didn't matter what he did, the Angry Left was going to be angry about it. Actually implementing the Left's beloved (and foolish) steel tariffs? Nope, still angry. Implementing the largest entitlement increase in recent memory, a la FDR? Nope, not big enough, still angry. Not vetoing a single big-government bill, outdoing even Clinton? Nope, now the Left is suddenly full of fiscal conservatives.

The way I see it, too many people are blinded by anger and unable to judge rationally what is going on here. Again, the man ain't the best. By holy cow, he's not as bad as these angry people keep saying.

You know why I'm gonna vote for him? He has principles, and he acts on them. I happen to disagree with some of those principles, and the way he acts on them. But I want someone who actually has principles, and who will take action based on what he believes, rather than what he thinks the polls will support.

DAMN SKIPPY my friend, DAMN SKIPPY...every last word. Many people who want to vote for Kerry are anti-bush but not pro-kerry. Very weird. I could never vote for someone on that basis. It's like jumping in the other direction without really looking.

I don't think either candidate will be "death." People are making a bigger deal out of this than the reality of it. God help those soliders if Kerry is elected, though. You think Bush isn't supplying them properly...like Kerry would?

I think in the end, it will be really interesting to see what happens.

[Westley]

Originally Posted by scarlet_woman156k

I don't think either candidate will be "death." People are making a bigger deal out of this than the reality of it. God help those soliders if Kerry is elected, though. You think Bush isn't supplying them properly...like Kerry would?

I think in the end, it will be really interesting to see what happens.

With all the pork it's a wonder they can fund a night at Carl's Jr. with 5 billion dollars. But that's not really the Prez's fault.

[Westley]

Originally Posted by HilandDoug

The economy? Boy, that 3.7% growth last quarter really sucked, eh?

Can you say Election Year? After a steady drop, this only proves that he COULD have increased the economy all along, but it just had to be election year. If I'm getting an 32 in math, but that last month I was really plugging those A's, the Teacher is still gonna give me an F.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Too many silly remarks to address, but I'll pick on the above juicy ones:

Heh, turnabout is fair play, so...

a windfall for the pharmaceutical companies. No bargaining with them, no reimporting their drugs, etc.

Ah---so refusing to set up government as an 800-pound gorilla with overwhelming market power to force private enterprises to set prices below the market-clearing level is a "windfall", now?

Declining to rig the market so as to erode the private decision-making and price-setting processes of private businesses constitutes a "windfall"?

You know, back before the Clinton Administration and the Hillarycare fiasco there were in excess of 20 American companies manufacturing flu vaccines. Now there are none. Wonder why that is? Could it be because of just such "enlightened" ideas as those into which Bush declined to invite big government to implement? Might it be because the profit incentive was eliminated by public-sector interference with market forces?

Should we test the same sort of institutionalized extortion on other areas of the pharmaceutical industry, simply because the left has decided that the drug companies are wicked and need to be controlled? Really?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Oooh, if Inq was posting here he'd say that Presidents don't effect the economy.

Indeed I would. I will. I am.

An economy is a herd of wild elephants; a President is a single lion. The herd follows its own path, roaming now uphill, now down. The lion's roars may be sonorous and fierce, but the elephants do not regard them overmuch, other than to make them keep a wary eye on him as they wander...and if he gets too bold they will stomp him flat and then continue on their way as before.

None of which, I suspect, will prevent future references to the "Clinton boom" of the 1990's.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by FoilyGeezer

I'm voting for Kerry...because I know which shell the pea is under.

That's the gift of a con man: convincing you that you "know which shell the pea is under". You're just listening to a different con man now. And you will continue to be fleeced. How is it comforting that the robber will be of a different Party?

I'm voting for Kerry...because a vote for Bush is a no-brainer.

Ah! Ah! What use is logic, reason, argument, research, experience, economics or self-interest against a cleverly-worded bumper sticker?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on a war

$120 billion, not "hundreds". Have you caught Kerryitis or something?

From www.factcheck.org ( a site we could all benefit from perusing, were it not for the pain of cognitive dissonance ):

"Kerry's $200 Billion Exaggeration

Kerry continued to refer to "the cost" of the Iraq war as $200 billion, when it fact the cost to date is just over $120 billion, according to budget officials. Kerry is counting money that has been appropriated to be spent in the fiscal year that started Friday, Oct. 1. Much of the money Kerry counts has not even been requested formally by the Bush administration, and is only an estimate of what will be sought sometime in the coming year, to be spent later. We've pointed this out before in detail."

Perhaps it's the continual erosion of our personal freedoms,

Ah, "continual". I probably ought to to be slaving in a forced-labor camp by now, it's been so continual. Yet somehow I haven't noticed a single lost freedom. How odd...

the muffling of the media,

You mean, like Michael Moore and Dan Rather?