(Obama Gets) Bush-Whacked

IBD Editorials ^ | June 19, 2009 | Investor's Business Daily

[samtheman]

You're correct on the way Palin was handled. She should have been on Limbaugh and Hannity every week.

You're damn right. He choose Palin to appease us and then did everything in his squeaky smarmy power to muzzle her, which is in character with his "campaign reform" goals over the years: motivated to muzzle conservatives.

It's just another, and perhaps greatest, instance of McCain's lifelong proclivity for stabbing conservatives in the back.

He stabbed Palin and he stabbed her hard.

[samtheman]

I read several times that when McCain cancelled the debate to go to Washington, then stayed there an afternoon, then put the debate back on, that it made him look incompetent. McCain WAS incompetent. All that did was reveal his character.

It was worse than that. Of course "suspending his campaign" was abysmally stupid but going to Washington could have worked out for him if he'd gone there and OPPOSED the bailouts. Instead, what did he do?

He made a big show of going to Washington and then meekly signed on to W's Stupid Bailout Plan.

And the whole world was watching. And they saw a Putz In Action.

[Liberty Valance]

Amazing analysis. Thanks for posting.

[TADSLOS]

George Bush will be known as the last president to remain faithful to the Old Constitution.

Not in my eyes he won't. Otherwise, eloquently stated as usual, Nathan.

[nathanbedford]

Gentleman, I thank you for the kind remarks but I am curious, what brings you so late to the party on this thread?

[Liberty Valance]

"... what brings you so late to the party on this thread?"

It takes time to sift thru tons of opinion on FR. Sometimes it's worth it ... ;o)

[TADSLOS]

So many threads, so little time... ;~)

[McGavin999]

You have a real reading comprehension problem, as well as a way of wiggling out of what you said that started this whole thing. Go back and read what you said, it was a generalized republcan smash. THAT is what I object to, you want these guys to get out in front of people and stand up for what they believe in, and I said they won't do that because nobody stands behind them. Oh yeah, once in awhile the republican base will give some mild applause, but the minute these guys say something that is not in line with every single thing that is wanted it's all out ATTACK, including the liberal use of the word RINO.

McCain IS a RINO, as is Arlen Spector, Collins and Snow, but lately, if you bothered to read these pages, you will see that EVERYONE is a RINO. Kyl is a RINO, and so is Cornyn, and just about every republican you can name.

If we want people to stand up, then we have to stand behind them and if we don't like what they say, then tell them in private to either straighten up or the money and votes stop, but this constant bashing will only result in people not bothering to run because the base is untrustworthy.

[samtheman]

You're the one with the reading comprehension problem, not me.

You keep arguing against someone who attacked Kyl and Cornyn. I never said a word about Kyl or Cornyn (though I could, but I didn't).

It's the classic internet mistake of arguing with someone you remember from before, rather than the person you're addressing right now. I'm not that evil person in your imagination. I'm someone else entirely.

I suggest you read post #17 in this thread. And when you do, read what the author is writing, and forget about what some other guy wrote about Kyl or Cornyn back that day that got you so angry. Try to focus more on the present. It's better for the rest of us.

[samtheman]

Nathan,

I just read your post #17 in this thread and I find it very insightful, as well as disturbing, and I want to ask you some questions about it.

Starting with this:

If he panders to Teddy Kennedy in the White House, he sees himself not as sleeping with the enemy but as turning the other cheek.

What's your opinion of "turning the other cheek" when you yourself are not the principle victim of the original slap?

Ted Kennedy may have insulted George Bush personally -- everyone else on the left did so the swimmer must have done so also -- but what he mainly did (besides murder an innocent young woman) was set policies in place in this nation that are clearly leading to the destruction of this nation. And they were clearly leading to the destruction of this nation back when W was president.

Anyone with an ounce of conservative common sense could see that the swimmer was out to destroy America.

So it wasn't that Teddy-boy slapped W and then W turned the other cheek, it was that Teddy-boy sabotaged America, and all the people living in America. How could W "turn the other cheek" to that? Does the concept even apply?

Is it turning the other cheek for a prosecutor to drop the charges against a rapist-murderer because he (the prosecutor) is overcome with Christian forgiveness?

Can a good Christian forgive the crimes of the criminal -- crimes that were committed against someone else -- and claim that he is "turning the other cheek"?

Does a good Christian have the right to force me to turn my other cheek when I am slapped?

That doesn't sound like Christianity to me. That sounds like... well... socialism.

And I guess that's the second part of my first question to you:

Does Christianity -- and the urge to be a "good Christian" -- sometimes (or often) lead to socialism?

[nathanbedford]

I think the answers to your questions and are self evident and I completely agree with you about those evident answers.

Christians are often mischaracterized, sometimes deliberately so, on these issues that have to do with humility. The best definition I ever heard of humility is, "knowing your place in line and taking it." I like this definition because it expresses an affirmative duty as well as a negative passivity. It is in the latter expression of humility that Christians are often tangled up by their critics. Sniveling handwringing is not humility. If one has an acquaintanceship with the whole of the Sermon on the Mount one sees A Christ who is manly and virile in defense of his father's righteousness.

The Father-son relationship suggests a vertical component. I find it useful to think of these things along a vertical and horizontal axis. If I lay your questions on this axis with the putative answers which are self evident it is apparent that you have the matter of humility right side up. True humility comes from surrender to a higher vertical power which, contrary to the false notions of atheists (read leftists), does not enfeeble the humble man but frees him, enriches him, and wonderfully empowers him.

A humble man who is surrendered vertically has a polar star with which to find his way. It then becomes possible for him to place others in their proper position in the world around him. He knows where his place in line is. George Bush, for example, knew his place when it came to restoring the dignity and honor of the office of the President of the United States.

But if our subject has no vertical component, he must key off his fellow man to establish his place and find his way. In this circumstance the temptation to manipulate your fellow man to enhance your own position becomes nearly irresistible. If you are a narcissist, as many believe Barak Obama is, your horizontal world becomes a happy hunting ground for manipulation. He becomes so good at it that he put out all the signals which so deceived those who believe that humility is a matter of horizontal adjustment.

So to put the Teddy Kennedy example on the graph, you are quite correct, George Bush even as President, and certainly as titular head of the Republican Party, had no warrant to forgive Teddy Kennedy's bitch slaps against Republican cheeks. George Bush's proper role was to defend his father's righteousness, that is, to defend the principles of the party and the country which he undertook to defend and protect. Even the slurs against himself might arguably be the kind that he must react against because in that case he must take his place in line protect the office of president of the United States of America.

So the corollary to this answers your second question, we have no right to arbitrate another man's vertical alignment. We cannot insist that someone else turn his cheek. You are right, that is socialism because it is at the very root of the socialist mentality: they would be God.

The socialist operates purely on a horizontal plane except when he is trying to impose his will on others in which case he usurps the ultimate vertical position. He is a stranger to the first and second commandments. In fact that is why he is an atheist, so that he can play God. That why he viscerally hates Sarah Palin-because she has got herself so manifestly aligned properly on a vertical- horizontal axis. She is a walking reproach to his grotesquely miss-positioned self. It is noteworthy that leftists had the same reaction to George Bush.

The Christian call to humility is a vertical adventure between God and man and it is an individual activity-not a group effort. There is no wholesale salvation in my Christian dogma, each man must come to it on his own. Socialism is essentially a group activity in which ultimately the individual disappears into the mass. I do not think Christianity offers the slightest hope to socialism. But it is interesting to know that the Great Revival of the 1740s created a climate of individual freedom in colonial America which led directly to the Declaration of Independence.

[Senator_Blutarski]

True humility comes from surrender to a higher vertical power which, contrary to the false notions of atheists (read leftists), does not enfeeble the humble man but frees him, enriches him, and wonderfully empowers him.

Well said.

Another corollary is that without recognition of a higher power morality and truth become subjective. One of the most damaging consequences of America's growing secularism is that morality and truth are no longer absolutes.

We no longer seek truth, but instead seek advantage. Words no longer have real meaning, so "spinning the truth" is the norm. Barbaric acts are viewed as acceptable.

[samtheman]

Excellent response. You are an excellent writer and I agree with much of what you right, but not all.

I would like to take up a couple of issues with you but I’ll have to do it a little later as I really want to take some time to think about what you wrote.

I will say now, though, that I think you may have missed what I was driving at at the very end of my post; and that is the source of our potential disagreement on some issues.

I hope you don’t mind continuing this discussion.

[nathanbedford]

Not at all, I would like to have another bite at the Apple on this one.