Gibson A Moonbat?!?
Apocalypto is a new a film by star and director Mel Gibson that hits theaters later this year.
It dramatizes the decline of the Maya kingdom and the slaughter of thousands in human sacrifices in the hopes of saving the nation from collapse.
Gibson says that he was inspired by present day American politics, claiming that the Bush Administration maintains power by playing on the nation's insecurities.
As he says in the British film magazine Hotdog: "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys."
So we have a half-dozen military generals attacking the administration (i.e. the Secretery of Defense), primarily because they wanted a larger, stomping footprint in Iraq.
We have the Right still angry about a whole bunch of stuff like Bush's failure to save Terry Schiavo, his bizzare insouciance about Mexican multitudes pouring into the American Southwest unencumbered by trivialities of passports and security checks, and his and poppy's chumminess with the Clinton's (and with Bill and Poppy's tsunami and Katrina lovefest, Dubya's flippant and grinning acquiescence about "Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton" regarding Hillary's presidential prospects, and Hillary's recent flatteries for the president all coinciding with the precipitous drop in Bush's approvals due to the splintering of the conservative base, it appears the Clinton Curse is alive and well-- and allow Republicus to resurrect the charge that Bush is a moron).
And now we have Mel Gibson spouting Daily Kos stuff (which is a bad sign).
The question Republicus has is: Since Bush is so nice to Clinton, and since he angered a few retired military-establishment generals who wanted more tanks and boots (and collateral damage) in Iraq, and also angered conservative, "Christo-fascist" anti-euthanasianists, and also angered conservative, "xenophobic anti-immigrant racists," and angered the despised conservative-Catholic Mel Gibson to boot, why do Leftist Bush-haters still hate Bush?
posted by John | 3:32 PM
42 Comments:
What I don't get is how you just don't get it yet John. Not trying to pile on here, but"gawd", seriously. Couldn't it be because they really are just that bad John, I mean honestly, doesn't that enter into your thought process at all? I have said since the beginning of this debacle, "piece by piece" it will all fall apart, and it has, and it's only beginning. By the way, word has it, unconfirmed but pretty reliable, that Rove was indicted yesterday. Piece by piece has now turned into "CHUNK BY CHUNK" .
WHAT?!!? Mr. Passion of the Christ is bashing bush?!? BZT... ZAP... Does not compute. Cue tape of smoke pouring out of my liberal ears. Strange Bedfellows indeed.
You're like a vulture, Jeff. You lurk and then swoop in when you smell blood in the polls and crow like a rooster because you think you see the sun rising but it's actually the moon and you're really a bat.
You're so unhinghed by your obsession that you miss the irony of the last paragraph, and I'm not going to waste my time drawing you a picture.
Let me spell it out: Bush is suffering in the polls not because erstwhile but now peeved segments of his base are anywhere near sympathizing with your deranged malice nor anywhere close to subscribing to your far left-fringe socialist world view (which would easily repulse a good 75-80% of the entire population, hence your--and your party's-- cowardly refusal to tell everyone what you *really* have in mind), but because he's not being conservative ENOUGH.
Only a petty, unprincipled and knuckleheaded scoundrel like you would fail to realize that.
And what do you have to say about the approval ratings of the Democratic leaders?
They're lower than Bush's.
Oh, "Couldn't it be becuth they really are jutht that bad," Jeffy, "I mean honethtly, doethn't that enter into your thought protheth at all?"
You're dismissed.
Sanjay said:
"WHAT?!!? Mr. Passion of the Christ is bashing bush?!? BZT... ZAP... Does not compute. Cue tape of smoke pouring out of my liberal ears. Strange Bedfellows indeed."
lol Exactly, Sanjay, you got it. I was quite surprised.
*The Passion* injected the latest Christian Revival with steroids and empowered the Christian conservatives in the Spring of 2004.
Mobilized, they helped make the November election the largest turnout of free voters in the history of democracy in a groundswell that was an energized, reactionary movement to the Left's anti-Christian harangues against the movie linked with what they correctly discerned to be persecution of Bush's Evangelical Faith.
There was a nexus between the two that we're not cooperative but certainly operated in a tag-team sort of way.
I was expecting to see Gibson at White House galas--but never did.
Maybe he's a loyal Democrat...but I think Gibson's surprising antagonism towards Bush has more to do with deep-rooted differences betwen the two faiths--i.e. one's a "Papist" the other a "Proddy-dog," and there was a time in history when the two fought like Shia and Sunni.
I'm thinking about the battles around the 16th Century's Protestant Reformation (which gave us stuff like the Lutheran Church and the Thanksgiving Pilgrims) and the Catholic Church's Counter-Reformation (which gave us stuff like Loyola University), but the head-butting continued well into the 1990's in Ireland.
Furthermore, Gibson--I would bet--is probably well-aware of the Roman Catholic Church's reputation in some Protestant enclaves (none too flattering--Protestants don't like that statue and saints stuff, and there are even some Dispensationalists who think the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon from Revelations), so he not only wouldn't necessarily feel obliged to back one up, but feel provoked enough to attack them.
Think about it, Sanjay: Gibson says he got "inspired" by Bush's "fear-mongering" when making a movie about the Mayan cult and their bribing of their gods to avoid societal collapse by feeding them human sacrifices.
The analogy indicates what Gibson thinks of Bush's religion.
...or maybe Mel's just pissed because he was never invited to White House galas.
John Says:
Let me spell it out: Bush is suffering in the polls not because erstwhile but now peeved segments of his base are anywhere near sympathizing with your deranged malice nor anywhere close to subscribing to your far left-fringe socialist world view (which would easily repulse a good 75-80% of the entire population, hence your--and your party's-- cowardly refusal to tell everyone what you *really* have in mind), but because he's not being conservative ENOUGH.
WRONG Capitalized WRONG: Let me spell it out for you moron- Bush is suffering not just in the polls- he is suffering period. His Presidency is a failure, not because he isn't conservative enough(nice try at the conservative walkback though), but because his policies are a failure, his values are unamerican, and yes, it has all started to come out enough into the open for even the most obtuse minded of your ilk to see them for what they are.
As far as the Democratic leadership flagging in the polls- so what- the Republicans are worse in the polls, but more so it points to a very big problem in the credibility of our two party system to be anything resembling an effective representative governing body. The only one howling here is you John, and please, please, the whole Moonbat thing is so Michelle Malkin, just leave that one for the nutjob herself to overuse into obscurity. It just sounds idiotic coming from you.
I never mentioned once Bush's poll numbers, wasn't swooping, just responding. And the irony of your last statement, wasn't that ironic really, just rehashed petty excuses you and your kind like to try and use to ease your dense minds into somehow comprehending that your leader is,well, not a good one, at all.
Chunk by Chunk
So Mel does a movie about Christ,so that of course means he must worship Bush.OK. He was not even close to being responsible for the voter turnout, 16 State ballot initiatives on constitutionally banning gay marriage was, and thats the only reason he was elected,Period.
You know, Jeff, you are so obsessed with your hatred of Bush that you can't see the little nuances of the topic of conversation. Of course that is what John just said, isn't it?
It all doesn't even matter to you. You have a one-track mind. On the other tracks you could be using are the ability to digest what someone else is saying.
Even though I don't usually agree with our Liberal Samurai, he is good for the discussion. He keeps us on our toes. All you do is set fire to the discussion.
Anyway, where was I...oh ya...
Mel Gibson...
John has a point in that it is because of religious differences that Gibson said what he did about Bush. I personally, don't see eye to eye with either one of them. We all know that religious differences are no small matter.
They are the reason why so many people left their homes to come to America...as John pointed out. They are the reason Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland.
Just ask Jerry Fallwell how he feels about those "devil worshippers" in Utah.
That reminds me of a joke Fallwell once told...The Catholics have Notre Dame. The Mormons have BYU and the Christians have Liberty University.
Ya, I don't care for Mr. Fallwell myself.
And yet, we are both conservatives or better yet, part of the "moral Majority".
Yes Kelly that is what John said, and as usual, he is wrong(lying), as are you. Let's not pretend what this post is actually about shall we, as John states it very clearly.
"So we have a half-dozen military generals attacking the administration (i.e. the Secretery of Defense), primarily because they wanted a larger, stomping footprint in Iraq.
We have the Right still angry about a whole bunch of stuff like Bush's failure to save Terry Schiavo, his bizzare insouciance about Mexican multitudes pouring into the American Southwest unencumbered by trivialities of passports and security checks, and his and poppy's chumminess with the Clinton's (and with Bill and Poppy's tsunami and Katrina lovefest, Dubya's flippant and grinning acquiescence about "Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton" regarding Hillary's presidential prospects, and Hillary's recent flatteries for the president all coinciding with the precipitous drop in Bush's approvals due to the splintering of the conservative base, it appears the Clinton Curse is alive and well-- and allow Republicus to resurrect the charge that Bush is a moron).And now we have Mel Gibson spouting Daily Kos stuff (which is a bad sign)."
What does all this mean, what could John possibly be saying here? Well obviously
"Bush is suffering in the polls because he's not being conservative ENOUGH."
LOL as he states in his response to my simple question put to him.
Yeah, subtle reference to the not so subtle contextual musings of a moviestar and why he is making another movie, YEAH,WHATEVER
As stated in much clearer prose than I could claim to posess in my oh so blinded by Bush rage infested liberal mind-we bring you John, a living breathing hypocitical example of the great conservative walk back:
The Great Conservative Walkback
by Hunter
Fri Mar 10, 2006 at 06:07:39 PM PDT
The best way to convince a fool that he is wrong is to let him have his own way.
-- Josh Billings
You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
-- George W. Bush, 2001
Paul Krugman (subscription only) and a whole lot of others have noted the spectacular idiocy of the new wave of conservative critics coming, quiveringly, out of the woodwork to say that, well, regardless of the actual realities of planet earth, they are still as preeningly brilliant as they said they were, those years before any of this ever happened. And if the rest of us would kindly shut up, they'd like to get back to advocating the exact same "studies" and "strategies" and "policies" again, thank you very much, and just you wait and see -- they've still got it.
Yeah. I don't see any particular reason we should have to listen to such drivel.
Let's be clear on a few things, whether we're talking about economics, foreign policy, or basic governance. Any of the things which, looking back now, conservatives are declaring were nothing more than Bart Simpson moments in an otherwise impeccable philosophy.
If George W. Bush is an idiot now, then he was an idiot then, too. He didn't change, and neither did his stream of uber-conservative advisors, and neither did any of his conscience-scratching new critics. To only see it now doesn't restore their lost credibility. It only shows how thorougly in the tank they were, and how eager they are to extricate themselves now. It shows that the so-called tenets of conservatism are, in truth, a mere millimeter deep. Or maybe it just shows that incompetence and conservatism go so hand-in-hand as to be indistinguishable from each other.
For every saddened, blustering new critic of utterly failed conservative policies -- and make no mistake, these have been conservative policies all along, to their very core -- there has been a critic who was right in the first place.
And that is an essential point, in this upcoming mudfight that comes with the realization of just how remarkable the failures have been, the corruption has been, and the incompetence has been. The critics of those failures, those corruptions, and that incompetence were right.
They were right. The liberal critics of the Iraq War? Right. The media figures who challenged conservative-spun "facts", and were roundly punished? Right. The deficit hawks? Right. And they were right from the start -- they didn't need years of resultant unending bungled mess to drill it into their skulls.
And so, the conservative walkback begins anew. Again. And we're seeing it take the usual forms. Denying the "conservative" label to all the conservative ideas that, once tried, failed, and attacking their critics as being the mean, cruel, partisan ones. Especially ironic, given the blistering attacks these jackasses have given any critic of administration policies, no matter how patently obvious the failures were. Criticism was treason, we were told. Absolute, America-hating, Constitution-punching treason. What unbelievable hacks. What sorry, simpering little fucks.
Being right was partisan griping -- but being universally, spectacularly and muleheadedly wrong, we're expected to believe, was the more noble and clever path? What utter pomposity. These blowhards should be tarred and feathered, not redeemed yet again for another science-bashing, expert-bashing, reality-bashing clusterfuck of so-called "conservative" strategery.
But conservatives live in a world -- in their business lives, in their academic lives, and apparently in their personal lives -- where even the most abysmal of failures are simply ignorable. You can run a company into the ground, and still get your bonus. You can flatly make up statistics -- even make up a fake admirer -- and keep your "think tank" job. You can sexually harass coworkers, pop pills, blow a wad in Vegas, or get caught with your hand in an indicted crook's pocket, and it won't affect your career opportunities in the slightest. Morality is for chumps, and consequences are for the little people.
And that's especially true of pundits. Lord, how it is true, for pundits. Fox News alone has become a towering monument to failure. Its archival shows represent every stage of attack, delusion, bitterness and self-consolation. What a sorry, sloppy mess this will be, in the coming year.
The thing of it is, we saw this after Reagan, too, and after HW Bush. The economic blunders on their watch were a result of them being "not conservative enough." If they had lowered taxes more, the economic listlessness, wealthy re-entrenchment, and budget-busting deficits under their administrations wouldn't have been so dismal. To reuse Trent Lott's memorable phrasing; if they had only been truer to conservatism, maybe we wouldn't have had all these problems.
We're getting it again with the current corruption scandals snaking their way through the Republican halls of power. Abramoff? Not associated with conservativism, oh no, not really. Ralph Reed? Don't be silly. Grover Norquist? Nonsense. Tom DeLay? Hush!
These people may be the money, the power, and the ideas of the conservative movement, but they're not actually conservative, not if they actually get caught. Because true conservatism is ephemeral, like "trickle-down economics" -- or a unicorn's fart. Every time conservatism is tried, it fails, and every time it fails, it is because it has been let down by simple mortal error. There has yet to be, we are expected to believe, any modern conservative leader capable of actually implementing conservatism in a way as to make it work -- but don't worry, they'll get it right next time.
Because, like robed and scruffy cult leaders swearing up and down that the apocalypse they predicted last year will, after further review, most certainly happen next year, if their followers only keep giving them cash, the only way conservatives can actually believe in their own movement is if they flatly deny the obvious effects of their philosophies as implemented.
We could choose to believe that they've just been terribly unlucky in electing leaders too dimwitted or corrupt to really implement conservatism, of course. We could choose to keep believing in the power of unimpeded unicorn farts. Or we could judge conservatism, quite reasonably, on the actions of those that say they are conservatives, and hold them to be the true conservative intent:
* Tax cuts for the rich, and an increased tax burden on the poor and middle class.
* Cash giveaways of historic proportions to selected industries.
* A stifling and public condemnation of science.
* Record deficits.
* Rampant nepotism and cronyism.
* Decreased civil liberties.
* Pork by the barrelful.
What's conservatism? That is. There's no question about it, and hand-waving speeches don't enter into it. Conservatives have the entirety of legislative and executive power, in the Presidency, in the Senate, and in the House. They could choose to implement whatever they want. They have chosen to implement precisely what they want. We're living it.
What's fascinating about conservatism is that it really is, at this point, more corporatist and faux-socialist religion than political movement. The same limousine-hopping cult leaders keep singing the same songs, and if you believe enough, and for the love of God keep sending in those checks, then by golly maybe it'll work this time. Maybe the manufacturing jobs America has lost will magically reappear. Maybe ignoring the economic and scientific experts will work the next time, though it hasn't worked any of the other times. Maybe cutting taxes, which has predictably reduced revenue every time it has been done, will suddenly make the deficit disappear. It's illogical, it's contrary to experience, it's contrary to the laws of mathematics, economics, sociology and simple reality -- but what the hell. The heads of Enron and ExxonMobil say it might just work next time. And if it doesn't, then look out for the homosexuals in those other states over there, or the immigrants, or the uppity blacks, or the uppity women.
So what are we to make of the Scarboroughs, the Bartletts, the Kristols, even the Fukuyamas, who now have grave reservations about the fruits of conservatism?
Simple. They've been proven to be frauds, yet again. Intellectual charlatans. Or, if you want to be very, very polite about it, you can simply say that they based a whole lot of rhetoric, a whole lot of attacks, and a whole lot of personal credibility on notions that have been, through actual implementation, utterly discredited.
They're terribly eager to let us know their very important ideas, but when it comes to actual expertise, they're proven fakes. And, like any good fake, they're trying now to do the walkback, to tell us what they really meant, to tell us why they really were clever, to tell us why their preachings were solid, if only everyone around them hadn't been incompetent buffoons in the actual implementation of their genius.
Everybody in the entire conservative movement is pulling their own special Michael Brown move. It wasn't us that fell down on the job, it was everyone else. It wasn't our department that failed, it was those other bozos.
Yeah. Unfortunately for them, we've watched them getting measured for the suits and going to the dinners while things were roundly and very predictably going to hell. No dice. But nice suits, fellas.
So what of the people who weren't wrong, in predicting the outcomes? What of the people who predicted the economic consequences of Bush fiscal policies? What of the people who not only challenged the clearly ridiculous assertions of the administration in the run-up to the Iraq War, but predicted precisely what would happen next?
They were right. And no amount of petulant bitching is going to change that, but you can damn well believe the conservative snake-oil salesmen who preached for these fiascos and demonized those that opposed them are going to do their best to restore their own tattered self-declared brilliance -- all actual real-world evidence notwithstanding.
No. Conservatism is entirely described by the actions of the men who preach it. There is no such thing as a trickle-down unicorn. There is no such thing as an honorable war fraudulently started. There is no magical conservative City on the Hill.
There never has been.
Yes I cross posted this here once before, but in light of the BS spewing out of here again, felt it was particularly relevant again.
My personal opinion John and Kelly:
Bush is down in the polls because he supports:
The melding of Church and State
Lying to congress and the American People
Pre-Emptive factless based war
Labeling Americans who question him traitors
Unequal branches of Government
Unfetterd Presidential Authority
Signing statements(750) saying he is above the law
Discrimination of fellow human beings(Gays)
Spying on Americans
Outing covert CIA agents for political reasons
The politization of intelligence
And the sheer lack of his own, just to name a few(really, just a few).
So you can go ahead and skip to the last paragraph of his musings on Mel, I'll stick to entirety of the body of his essay (apology) for Bush just not being conservative enough.
Well done Jeff. You seem to have left John and Kelly on their heels again. Imaging the polls being low because of poor performance and a failed ideology would never enter their minds (especially any guy who calls himself Republicus). I guess growing the government bigger and faster than any President since LBJ, continually running up a deficit, getting rid of "spend as you go", passing the largest social giveaway since Social Security, entering into a 4 year old war that is doing nothing more than getting our boys killed, and infringing on civil liberties could not possibly be the reason. It has to be the Clintons.
LOL and Jeff, the idea that John went on a "Clinton hating" diatribe yet again, but has the ironic self righteousness to harangue you for being a "Bush Hater" should tell you all you need to know. Common sense and a rational approach are not welcome here.
While I too rejoice in Bush's low poll number we need to put them in perspective. According to the Polls Bush has a 29% approval rating. Yes I think we can all agree those are BAD. But the poll is of ~1000 people; out of a nation of 275 MILLION.
Jeff and my lefty brethren, yeah I think it indicates the country is trending our way; my problem is that even if that is the case, there isn't a whole lot we can do with it. We can rant and rave about how we're ahead in the 3rd quarter, but somehow we haven't comeout on top at the end of the game.
What concerns me about the polls is that they basically say that if you walk up to 10 random people 3 will say they disapprove of Bush (indicating a significant shift in the last 12 months). Problem is that folks like John, Kelly and my some righty co-workers are still gung ho about Bush. I can't find many people who have flipped.
My explanation of the polls (since everyone asked). Assume the country is split 60/40 Repub/Dem. If approval breaks down strictly along party line Bush's best is gonna be 60% (Barring things like 9/11). I have to agree with John on the Bush not being COnervative enough front. Conservatives are probably pissed that W hasn't delivered on:
Gay Marriage
He nominated Harriet Myers (A moderate)
He's a tax & spend repub?!!?
Iraq isn't the nice little victory they wnated
The medicare reform wasn't conservative enough
The oilmen are pissed at his new "we're addicted to oil" stance
He may advocate illegal immigrant amnesty
Bottom line, even if Bush came out today and said "Guess what, I'm really a liberal" guys like me and Jeff wouldn't approve of him as we don't trust him. We're already in the don't approve category; now he's just eroding his base. Which is fine by me, but if dems don't do anything to catch that base what good are low poll numbers?
And Lethal Weapon rocks. (I just feel so dirty if I leave out the actual topic of the post).
OK Sanjay, I'll give you one point- Lethal weapon does rock....
Seriously, polls be damned, snapshot in time and skewed questions on all sides, so what. I not once brought up his poll numbers in response to the thread. This administration is falling apart and polls aren't needed to see that. The point is an was, he lived by the conservative ideology and he's dying by it.
I disagree with the not conservative enough stance though, hogwash. These people have been in control totally for 5 years now, 12 for the house and could pass any law they wanted to without any interferrence at all. They have chosen to do what they have or have not done.
Not passing Gay Marriage amendment(discrimination) does not prove to me that he isn't "conservative" enough, it says to me that you've/we've/they've bought into the ideology that the radical far right evangelical christian fundamentalists pushing for it are the mainstream conservative republican. Bull, I don't accept that.
Harriet Myers, good lord, was just stupid, on all fronts. Showing more that his judgement is incredibly poor rather than selling out his conservative base, again the radical right who actually believe Judges are to be threatened and bullied into "seeing things their way" or else. Again total crap.
Iraq, well, anyone with half a brain could see how that was gonna turnout ahaed of time, no need for facts or truth, just ideology. I find it hard to accept that preemptive war would be embraced by anyone other than the hardcore conservative mind. The fact it is a total clusterfuck now is not proof of his moderate credentials, but of his incompetence.
Don't know enough about the medicare part D plan reforms yet to comment on that one. Have to look at the issues on that another time.
My point is Bush has done this to himself, he can lay blame nowhere but at his own feet. He has no opposition party to contend with, he had no ill press to contend with. He had an opportunity to be the greatest President in this nations history after the events of 9-11. What did he do with it. Nothing, nothing, nothing. We were for the 1st time in my political junkie lifetime united as a nation, wholly and nearly completely, put all ideology, religious, race, color etc issues aside and stood with this admin, whether we voted for them or not. He blew it, not because he wasn't conservative enough, but because thats all he was, too conservative, and only conservative. They put up every wet dream hardcore conservative agenda they could get away with, and it proved to be a failure, a failure of leadership ability by him and conservative principles and ideology as a whole.
Now look what you've gone and done John. You've got two Moonbats going at it :)
Jeff, I agree this is a great chance to see the failures of conservative ideology. The problem is, you'll never get guy like John to see that. The point is the reason the polls are so low is cuz Bush's core supporters are jumping ship. Those supporters don't see it as failures of their ideology (as you and I do) they see it as not being conservative enough.
You and I are on the same page; problem is even with thepolls were they are now, how does it benefit us? It doesn't seem to effect John/Kelly and that is what worries me.
Braveheart was cool too.
Braveheart was "Aiight" :)
I agree, the core 29% of his base still left is going to be hard pressed to switch over to the Dem(dark) side, and I don't expect them to. This tidal wave of Dems taking the house and senate this year as "pundified" to death, also I don't buy. As I debated with Kelly in an earlier blog, that would require the actual center of the country to vote, which they don't anymore. Bush will never win me or you over, and we will never win John or Kelly over(unless Bush gets a BJ and lies under oath about it). The only tide turning here is if the people being polled now are the "missing centrists" of american politics for the last 20 years and they actually decide to vote this time.
Of course all this is predicated on the center leaning more left than right, which of course I presuppose :)
Now "Conspiracy Theory" was a good Mel Gibson movie...... Right up my alley :)
Hey John- Throw aside everything here for a second OK. Plug into pisces. Do you got a wierd feeling somethings not right? I do.
Hey Jeff, We agree on something!!!!
"...and we will never win John or Kelly over(unless Bush gets a BJ and lies under oath about it)."
LOL- see there is common ground.. Who da thunk it?
bush will lose in the next election and there's nothing we can do about it. i voted for him, but will not be doing so again. laaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
no, really - because the people who voted for him do not necessarily walk lock step with him doesn't mean we've abandoned him - for crying out loud - if you had EVERYTHING in common with your spouse, how boring would that be?
i part ways with him on a number of issues. one: he needs to call islam just what it is - a terrorist organization that wants u.s. dead. two: he is a united methodist and they lean toward the replacement theology theory - he's probably never read his bible like multitudes of other christians. three: he still hasn't learned how to pronounce "nuclear".
i have yet to find one single person i agree with on all the issues, but i'm glad we didn't have to look at al gore all these years. you know, the famous inventor of the internet? primer reader on sesame street fame? yeah, that al gore.
have a day, everybody.
Sanjay said:
"Jeff, I agree this is a great chance to see the failures of conservative ideology. The problem is, you'll never get guy like John to see that."
What do you mean?
"The point is the reason the polls are so low is cuz Bush's core supporters are jumping ship. Those supporters don't see it as failures of their ideology (as you and I do) they see it as not being conservative enough."
But that's all I've been saying, that's precisely what I "see."
Thank you.
Now let's here from one of those actual conservatives who are MIA on the approvals--hi Nanc :)--
"i part ways with him on a number of issues. one: he needs to call islam just what it is - a terrorist organization that wants u.s. dead. two: he is a united methodist and they lean toward the replacement theology theory - he's probably never read his bible like multitudes of other christians. three: he still hasn't learned how to pronounce "nuclear".
Thank you.
I rest my case.
P.S. Sanjay, I think the split is--roughly--40-40 with 20 up for grabs.
2004 was 40 for Bush, 40 for Kerry, and then ten each from the 20 % swingers.
40% approval was the magic number to watch, a dipping below that indicating a disgruntlement within the base.
However, the largest turnout of free voters in the history of Democracy in 2004 (which is very healthy for the system) was certainly not 100% of eligible voters (I think it may have been around 1/3-1/2, but not certain), and I don't think the polled questions--unless specifically asked--are restricted to definite voters or "likely to vote" types.
There's a whole bunch of other things to consider when interpreting the results.
One thing's for sure: The polls indicated a "dead-heat" in 2000 weeks before Election Day, and they were right.
Jeff said: "Hey John- Throw aside everything here for a second OK. Plug into pisces. Do you got a wierd feeling somethings not right? I do."
What do you mean?
Kelly: But only if he lies under oath about it!
Otherwise, it's, you know, "just a blowjob." :)
(well, it's more than that, what with Laura and all and his pledge to "resore dignitry and honor" to the White House, but...)
he's still my president and i still love mel gibson. when disappointed in those we admire, we should not wash our hands of them.
Nanc: Me too (about both Bush and Gibson).
P.S. Sanjay:
I think the split is closer to 40-40, with 20% swinging both ways and/or up for grabs.
Consider:
During the Impeachment of Clinton--and even with the revelations of rape-- you had that Democratic 40% plus the 20% of the swing vote in his corner, with the 40% right unmoved in their disapproval.
Now you have that same Democratic 40% plus the %20 swingers expressing disapproval for Bush and then some past the 40% threshold of the Right-wing base and into the 30's to indicate the disgruntlement within that 40% base (comprised of pro-Westerners, Libertarians, fiscal conservative deficit hawks, paleocon isolationists, the Religious Right, etc.), most of which express disappointment with this or this or that issue that may be of little concern to the other sub-group.
However, most all share concern for illegal immigration, and if the new policy on illegal immigration (tonight at 8:00 PM)is sufficiently hard-line, I would expect a significant spike in the approvals.
However, the developing buzz is that he's going to apply an Ace bandage of sorts with a "temporary" deployment of the National Guard over the band-aids of the border police and Minutemen, which may not be enough to mend the openly sore disapprovals, but only cause little change (in either direction!).
But the polls are tricky.
Even though 2004 can boast of the largest turnout of free voters in the history of Democracy (100,000,000 plus), I believe that number is roughly a 1/3 (or 2/3? I really don't know) or so of eligible voters, so if the polls aren't restricted to "definite voters" or "likely voters," they can be irrelevant to elections.
Also, interpretation isn't cut and dry, either.
Plenty of those who "disapprove" then answer that they think Bush is "likable," so it's not the visceral, disapproving hate many Bush-haters cheer--and count on.
Sanjay, Jeff:
Yo, aren't you guys forgetting one?
MAD MAX!
John said, "Kelly: But only if he lies under oath about it!
Otherwise, it's, you know, "just a blowjob." :)"
Agreed!
and..
oh ya MAD MAX wooot!!
"bounty" and "hamlet"!
a word to jeff - if you're going to use words please do them justice.
polls do not matter at this point for bush as i pointed out his not being reelected is a non-issue. he will pull a rabbit out of his hat and soon. just a scenario - cheney retires early, condi becomes v.p. and from my standpoint, she may be elected. then we will AGAIN have the lesser of two evils in office.
the republican (libertarians also) voting base is NOT over night going to lose their heads and vote a dhimmicrat into office - nyet - non - no!
nanc said,
"a word to jeff - if you're going to use words please do them justice."
LOL
...anyway, nanc, as much as I tend to favor Bush, I really don't see what you see happening.
It doesn't help our cause against these liberal dreamers to have you trying to pull a rabit out of a hat. It just gives them fuel for their fire.
Kelly, when nanc said this:
"a word to jeff - if you're going to use words please do them justice..."
I swear, my first thought was ALSO...
LOL!
nanc didn't say that *she* would "pull a rabbit out of a hat," but that Bush would, and I know exactly what she means.
nanc said:
"the republican (libertarians also) voting base is NOT over night going to lose their heads and vote a dhimmicrat into office -nyet - non - no!"
lol Exactly--but their strategy consists of the hope of an anemic turnout from the Right and a fired up one from the Left.
John said,
"nanc didn't say that *she* would "pull a rabbit out of a hat," but that Bush would, and I know exactly what she means."
After I posted my comments I realized I had use "you" instead of "him"...but the gist of the comment was that it implied that it would take a magic act to pull this off.
Will someone from the Bush camp get elected next go around? I don't see any of them running, actually.
Nanc does have a point about the polls...it really doesn't matter.
and Nance, you nailed it with that retort about Jeff's use of words. I nearly fell off my chair. You said what we have been thinking.
then say it - otherwise he may never know. it is a nancism that all are free to use.
good morning everybody - i'm making my morning rounds.
Kelly said: "...but the gist of the comment was that it implied that it would take a magic act to pull this off."
Bush has demonstrated his own capacity as a "Comeback Kid" quite impressively.
e.g. He was dismissed as a "GUARANTEED one-termer."
"Will someone from the Bush camp get elected next go around? I don't see any of them running, actually."
That's not the relevabnt point at hand.
"Nanc does have a point about the polls...it really doesn't matter."
It matters for the mid-terms to some extent.
Don't underestimate the consequences of Democratic control of the Congress if the mid-terms go their way.
"and Nance, you nailed it with that retort about Jeff's use of words. I nearly fell off my chair. You said what we have been thinking."
Nanc replied:
"then say it - otherwise he may never know."
I've been saying it.
Good morning.
Nanc said, "then say it - otherwise he may never know. it is a nancism that all are free to use."
Well, actually, we have...just not in those exact words. It was your choice of words that made it funny.
[message about Jeff was deleted by poster] ;)
You know I've been trying to hold my tongue over here ever since Nancs first post in retort to our discussion, especially since John is so concerned about being nice to all the chicks in here, BUT, I have a bit of an issue here with her reason for departure or difference with BUsh.
Nanc says and John apparently agrees, maybe I'm wrong but we'll see:
"i part ways with him on a number of issues. one: he needs to call islam just what it is - a terrorist organization that wants u.s. dead. two: he is a united methodist and they lean toward the replacement theology theory - he's probably never read his bible like multitudes of other christians. three: he still hasn't learned how to pronounce "nuclear".
If I'm not mistaken you have a problem with our elected civil servant because he has not declared a holy war against the religion of Islam and he's not christian enough or the right "type" of Christian?
From my perspective that is both ignorant, scary, insane, and shows exactly why our founding fathers went out of their way to make sure there was seperation of Church and State in our government.
As far as I'm concerned you are exactly what is wrong with our nation right now, and again forgive me if I'm wrong, but, I think we have given way to much credibility to you freaking nut jobs who actually believe this load of shit. Your a scary bunch of freaks indeed. Thats a little Jeffism you can also feel free to use :)
Don't sound like much of a King's child to me. Maybe a crusading misguided one, but none that I want representing Christianity for me.
first of all, jeff - war should never be equated with anything holy. that is not my point. i disagree with united methodists for their replacement theology doctrine. what is between the individual and God is their business. i don't believe nor take much stock in RELIGION. it is manmade and meant to fail. faith, however, is another issue.
as a christian, we are called upon to free the oppressed - and the last time i checked, God wrote the blueprint for war - it is apparent throughout the bible.
i as a christian, have a litmus test for anybody i'd vote for - they MUST be pro life, for one. believe it or not - seeing in black and white is far clearer than the nebulous grey.
Ok cool, we have more in common than you think then, and Like I said, If I'm wrong, forgive me. And apparently I was. I too have a problem with the "organization" of religion, man is/was way too involved and that leaves way too little room for individual faith.
We do differ on litmus test for a persons faith to hold office though. I don't believe it is anyones business what a person believes about abortion, I don't believe we have a right to legislate someone elses beliefs about what they can or cannot do with their own body, whether you/I/they think it is right or wrong based upon your/our belief system. Either way, we are inserting our beliefs about our individual faith onto someone in order for them to be fit to uphold the laws of man.
How do you justify Bush supposedly being pro-life and starting a war on false pretenses with Iraq. We are/have destroyed thousands and thousands of lives there for one groups ideology?
"first of all, jeff - war should never be equated with anything holy."
I'm really relieved to hear that, because it seemed to me you want Bush to outlaw and declare a religion or some 400 million people a terrorist organization.That you know means we are then at war automatically with a religion then, you know the whole war on terror slogan and all. You confused me a little bit there.
I am going to agree with Jeff, to a degree.
It is NOT Islam that we are at war with. It is radical Muslims.
I have said this before...There are MANY good people of Islam.
Every religion on earth has their radical/fundamentalist part. Radical Christians scare me just as much as Radical Muslims.
Lets take David Koresh (of Waco Texas fame). I have a good friend who has close ties to many of the survivors of that...and he was a very scary man.
When people use "God" as their justification for war they undermine the whole credibility of those who are devote followers.
And I'm going to agree with you Kelly- Completely
:) :) :)
We better stop all this agreeing with each other, people are going to get the wrong idea..
:)
there is a degree of truth to that kelly, but like christians, if muslims do not read their manual neither can claim their faith - if christians were to follow the bible to a tee, how much better the world would be. conversely, if all muslims read their koran, there would be no christians. think about it.
...i was being multi-faceted - one having many sides...facetious...sarcastic...
Jess said:
"Umm, Bush can't be voted for again... He's reached his max stay in office. The only way a Bush will get in office now is if Jebbie runs. In which case, we all should just shoot ourselves now."
Why YOU...!!!
Mr. Bargholz:
I was being sarcastic.
(but I added the appropriate quotation marks, thank you)
Post a Comment
<< Home