Yeah, GHWB is more moderate, more smarter, and more forward-looking than his son. Maybe even better on the economy, too (snerk).

His son is a dry alcoholic, born-again, short-sighted idiot who's only really interested in showing up daddy and having a great legacy. Current plans probably have been cut down to "have a better legacy than daddy". Poor kid's never gonna get daddy's approval at this rate.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

HW Bush was an internationalist in the mold of Clinton. He pushed through one of the most trail blazingly liberal policies since the end of the civil rights movement in the American With Disabilities Act. While not a staunch Clintonian supply sider, he was the one who called Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics" during the 1980 campaign and he turned the country back to those beliefs when he became President in 88. His failure was distinctly his ivory towerism. As a throwback to his CIA days, he ran a partitioned administration that didn't communicate with itself and he was far too enamored of the big picture and the theory of things to get stuff done, a problem when you're actually departing from the policies of your predecessor who you are associated with. He get the big stuff right--like stopping at Iraq's border, the ADA but crapped out on the small stuff, like the economy stupid. For that reason, I'd clump Nixon, Clinton and Bush I together politically with Reagan and Bush II further right.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The deification of Reagan by Republicans seems to be the result of a historical accident, which was that the Cold War fortuitously ended during the Reagan administration, for reasons having little or nothing to do with the policies or rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.  Since Republicans and conservatives in general had been utterly obsessed with the communist menace ever since the end of WW II, they could not resist taking credit for the downfall of the Soviet empire, even though the Soviet Union effectively defeated itself, by its own incompetence and corruption, rather than having been actually defeated by the American anti-communist coalition.

I think Bushdaddy is a transitional form.  He had the Reaganite self-dealing moderated by an understanding of the workings of government.

I thought you were poor and white, Lou.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

Fortunately my enlightened liberal brothers got to me before the Catholic Church...or a priest for that matter.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I'm dying for some Republicans to show me some proof of the wide leftist conspiracy to convert white women to Islam at the point of a Gay Terrorist Black Cock.

...

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

You can hunt down the videos of Rev. Wright spewing his racist anti-American bile.  It's not such a leap to assume that many in his congregation harbor the same, if not more extreme beliefs.  You can also Google African American conspiracy theories and have a good laugh.

BTW, where were the Republican whack-jobs shouting down Obama at his acceptance speech?  Where were the violent Republican protesters outside the Democratic national convention?

BTW, where were the Republican whack-jobs shouting down Obama at his acceptance speech?

They couldn't make it...assassination attempts just don't plan themselves, you know.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

It's not such a leap to assume that many in his congregation harbor the same, if not more extreme beliefs.

Well, yes it is, josh. My wife tried to explain to friend ours the other week about the difference between going to church because you enjoy the spiritual experience of being there despite the presence of a pastor you may disagree vehemently with. And she was explaining this because he brought up the Rev. Wright and couldn't see how people could continue to go to a church where the pastor is unhinged.
My wife's pastor is misogynistic (the wife's place is in the home and all that) and something of a racist to boot (a "soft racism of low expectations" kind of guy). I rarely attend, mostly 'cuz I'm an atheist, but my wife and kids go every other weekend, at least. The pastor clearly makes a lot of members uncomfortable with some of the things he says, yet they all still attend services regularly - and yes, there are some members who do agree wholeheartedly with the pastor's beliefs; such is the nature of the beast. So why do many continue to attend? Because the sum of their experience at church is not wholly determined by the pastor's sermons or attitudes. They have a soup kitchen, a daycare center, and a whole host of community oriented, volunteer services that help needy people in the area. A large number of people express their faith through these methods instead of blindly parroting the pastor's words. Maybe it sounds strange to say that the pastor is a small part of churchgoing, but it clearly can be, depending upon circumstances. My wife attends services, holds her nose during the sermon, and goes about her spiritual enrichment regardless of what is sometimes said, because she's been a member there since she was a child. And while the pastor may be a jerk, he won't be there in a couple of years, but she likely will. In other words, her faith goes to a higher and longer-lasting power than her pastor.
So, in my belabored way of trying to counter your assumption, I guess what I'm saying is that whole congregations are not necessarily part and parcel with their pastor's beliefs just because he/she may be the focal point of the church, and that people of faith can certainly rise above the level of douchebaggery professed at the altar by some who should certainly be setting better examples...

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

"The pastor clearly makes a lot of members uncomfortable with some of the things he says, yet they all still attend services regularly - and yes, there are some members who do agree wholeheartedly with the pastor's beliefs; such is the nature of the beast."

I am not claiming that Rev. Wright's entire church is a den of racism,  but that if the pastor is any indication, there are most likely folks in the church who either strongly agree with him, or have even more extreme viewpoints - viewpoints that would look just as ignorant and racist were you to put them on YouTube.

Now I am sure there are folks who are very uncomfortable with the Rev. Wright's more extreme positions, but stay on because of the political advantage, er I mean, spiritual experience, attendance affords.

It's true, a church has a certain meaning as an organization that goes beyond the personality of the specific clergyman  in charge of it at any given time, just as the United States is greater than whomever may be President at any given time.  It is possible to disapprove of George W. Bush while still respecting (or even loving) America.

It is also true that even for an atheist such as yourself, it is possible to find church-sponsored philanthropy, such as the soup kitchen and daycare center etc., which have value whether you believe in the religion or not.  Still, religion is (one might say) very much a mixed blessing.  Ideally, it should be possible to do good works in the community, have daycare centers and so forth, without all the religious baggage.  Some day we must move beyond religion.

where were the Republican whack-jobs shouting down Obama at his acceptance speech?

Why do you hate our troops?  Those people being drowned out by chants of "USA USA!" were veterans who wanted to let people know about his real record.  Ironic, isn't it?

Republican whackjobs just assault reporters.

Are you implying that a  middle-class black church in a nice neighborhood is full of ignorance and racism?  Awesome! Please refer me to some specific instances of violent black liberals showing a  2008 presence at political rallies, demanding violence against cracker republicans.

If the goal is to show racism at a church, why would you only accept evidence from a political rally?

I'm also confused by your insistence that violence be a part of the equation. Aren't there plenty of ways to show racist behavior which don't include violence? Not redlining, not selective job promotions, not poll tests?

It's not like blacks where legally required to use separate bathrooms, water fountains, public services, sections of the bus, prevented from marrying white people for a hundred years after Ol' Abe was good enough to no longer enslave them.

Ah, segregation. Another brilliant nation-changing policy enacted by a Democrat-majority Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson -- whose other great accomplishments include the failed League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed such brutal sanctions on post-WWI Germany that it directly contributed to the rise of the Nazis. And all to turn back the good work of Republican Abe Lincoln.

But hey, don't feel too bad about being ignorant of the history of race relations in the US; you've got plenty of company, apparently.

Woodrow Wilson was white, right?

which imposed such brutal sanctions on post-WWI Germany that it directly contributed to the rise of the Nazis

Apparently I am ignorant. What was it they did to contribute to race relations in America again?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

What was it they did to contribute to race relations in America again?

One would think they were a catalyzing force behind the Jewish vote, at least.

What was it [the Treaty of Versailles] did to contribute to race relations in America again?

It provided a convenient non sequitur.

Ah, segregation. Another brilliant nation-changing policy enacted by a Democrat-majority Congress and signed into law by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson

But hey, don't feel too bad about being ignorant of the history of race relations in the US; you've got plenty of company, apparently

Segregation was legally ended by Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson.  I wonder who controlled the Congress in the 1960s.     Do remind me which party came up with a "Southern strategy" in response to the outrage of blacks getting legal equality.  Also note that Democrat George Wallace was forced to run a third party campaign because mainstream the Democrats were moving away from racism.  Republicans, not so much.

Nice try, though.

Segregation was legally ended by Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson.  I wonder who controlled the Congress in the 1960s.

So, it only took 45 years officially (longer unofficially, of course) for Democrats to fix the mess they made. Beer and skittles all around. You figure that for about how long it'll take to undo whatever mess Obama unleashes on us?

Jeeze Gerry...what's it friggin' take?

Gerry:  No he didn't...no he didn't...no he didn't...no he didn't.

Anyone else: Yeah he did

Crickets

Gerry: Well, it took him long enough!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

So, it only took 45 years officially (longer unofficially, of course) for Democrats to fix the mess they made. Beer and skittles all around. You figure that for about how long it'll take to undo whatever mess Obama unleashes on us?

So, according to your math, it took 45 years for the Democrats to get their racial shit together.   43 years have passed since then.  What are the Republicans waiting for?

As far as the "mess" that you are terrified that Senator Obama will cause,  perhaps you should worry about undoing the mess that America is already in due to the current administration, before you start casting aspersions on other, non-existent messes.

I generally agree with people when they allege that Obama will be a craptastular president,  that's why I'm not voting for him.  However,  I do think that Obama will be a better president than George W. Bush.  I have no belief that Senator McCain will, and I haven't seen any conservatives argue that point.  Come to think of it, its been a long time since I've seen a republican vouch for McCain's capability.  

If a Phillies fan spent 10 minutes explaining to you how the Rays shouldn't win the World Series without once explaining what was good about the Phillies, would you think the Phillies were any good?  I certainly wouldn't think that the Philly fan believed in his team.  

What are the Republicans waiting for?

Waiting for? I'm sorry, did you forget that the one black Supreme Court justice and the current Secretary of State were championed by Republicans? 'Cause here's the thing: Republicans tend base acceptance of people on their ability and attitude, not their skin color. If we're waiting for anything, it's for blacks to realize that Democratic programs to provide handouts are nothing more than another collar around their necks.

As far as the "mess" that you are terrified that Senator Obama will cause,  perhaps you should worry about undoing the mess that America is already in due to the current administration, before you start casting aspersions on other, non-existent messes.

I'm doing both. I recognize that regardless of how one feels about the various ways the US racked up its current debt tally, that tally still exists and is becoming a serious problem. I further recognize that every one of Obama's domestic plans consists of massively expanding that debt (government health care, volunteer corps), and either ignoring the current problems (no increased oversight/breakup for Fannie/Freddie) or enacting useless solutions (at this point, no Iraq withdrawal plan will save the country big $). Furthermore, what little he wants to do to get some of that back in revenue will kill the economy, because he plans to substantially increase taxes on the kinds of people who the most freedom to change their financial arrangements.

What Obama proposes isn't undoing the current mess, but exacerbating it.

Republicans tend base acceptance of people on their ability and attitude, not their skin color.
Uh, right.
This current torrential downpour of cronyism is an aberration, huh?

Yeeaaahhh...

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

Being pals with a high-ranking government official is a very useful ability, and he is sure to take notice of your attitude toward his other pals.

You figure that for about how long it'll take to undo whatever mess Obama unleashes on us?

Thanks for the laugh!

Say, your cave isn't anywhere near bin Laden's, is it?