The essence of compromise boils down to five words: “What’s in it for me?”
So with Bush facing a congressional war-funding bill with deadlines attached–benchmarks that he himself mentioned earlier this year, and is now being asked to hew to–congress is hoping that he will compromise on withdrawal dates rather than veto the entire bill.
What’s in it for him to do so?
Nothing.
I mean, yeah, sure, there’s the concept of honoring his own promises. Don’t make me laugh: It’s too early in the morning.
There’s the concept of attending to the clear mandate of the people. See the non-laughing request above.
Naturally some will look to Bush’s well-known intransigence, his inflexibility, his disregard for human lives (unless they’re not yet born: Then they’re sacred). In short, it’s easy to blame his various tragic personal shortcomings that have contributed to the morass that is the Iraq war.
But consider: On a political basis, which is all that matters to a politician, what happens if he does what the Democrats want?
Well, basically, presuming that the Democrats can avoid tripping over their own pants cuffs–never a sure thing, granted–he’ll be not only cementing their triumph of 2006, but handing them the White House in 2008.
Consider the bragging rights he’d be giving the Dem candidates: You put us in power in 2006 and we, the party of the people, managed to face down a stubborn, dictatorial President and got our boys home. A compromise hands the opposing party a WMD–a Weapon of Made Democrats. They will have it made in 2008, promising a return to peace and prosperity of the Clinton years.
Bush gains nothing from it. He believes he’ll appear weak. He will have embroiled us in this war and needed the Democrats to bìŧçh-šláp him into cooperation, causing him to wind up looking like a recalcitrant child who just got his party privileges revoked. And worst of all, he will have removed from GOP hands the only weapon they’ve got for 2008. Believe it or not, remarkably, a considerable portion of the voting public STILL believes that the GOP is better for America in matters of national security. If there’s no war to stoke, then the GOP has nothing–NOTHING–to run on for 2008. The GOP needs to be able to say, “We have kept this country safe, and although you may not like the war, well, we won’t like it either, but it’s a necessary evil in the war against terror.”
The GOP strategy has to be painting the Dems as being soft on terror (an upgrade from the classic “soft on crime” gambit that has worked for so long.) If Bush caves on the deadlines, then he removes that tool from the GOP tool box, because then he (and by extension the GOP) becomes soft on terror as well. The Dems will be able to say, “See? Even the President acknowledges that we were right,” and the Dems can’t be right, because if they become right, then they become President.
People think that Bush is concerned about his place in history, but I think of more immediate worry to him is the GOP place in the White House, the only branch that they still control. Despite the fact that we’re embroiled in a civil war, despite the fact that occupations do not, historically, tend to work, despite the fact that our soldiers are dying and dying and dying to no point or purpose, GOP political fortunes trump all other considerations. Bush cannot compromise, dare not compromise, because the GOP strategy is to paint Dems as weak. If he compromises, they become strong. Therefore, he cannot, because if he does, then the GOP chances are reduced to one desperate hope: That sometime in the next two years, there is another major terrorist strike on the US. The Empire State building is blown up, the Golden Gate bridge is annihilated. Something. Because should such a horrifying calamity occur, the GOP strategy is clear: “See? While we were in charge of Congress, everything was fine. Put the Democrats in charge, the terrorists become emboldened, and we’re attacked. Just imagine how much worse it will be if you put them in the White House.” Understand, I’m not saying the GOP would WANT us to be attacked. Even I don’t think they’re THAT barbaric. But it’s the only counter they’d then have to Democrat strength.
So what it comes down to is this: Bush won’t compromise, and I doubt the Democrats will be able to muster the votes to override a veto. Which means that the Pentagon will have to fight the war as best they can. There is a GOP upside, though: Every casualty that occurs from that point on will be painted as being the Dem’s fault–avoidable if only the Democrats had been willing to let Bush fight his war as he sees fit rather than undercutting and refusing to support our troops. If the GOP can spin it right–and I believe they can–then by 2008 they’ll have convinced the majority of the public that the Iraq war is the fault of the Democrats and thus retain the White House, maybe even win back the legislative branch. Seem unlikely? They managed to convince the majority of the public that Saddam was behind 9/11, didn’t they?
PAD
• 
Bush switched from Episcopal to Methodist, following his wife’s lead into a bigger tent. That doesn’t sound unbending, unyielding, and uncompromising to me. His religion is as much of a pose as anything else by him.
Fifty years from now the sons and daughters of the maimed and killed of this failed war will remember the man that forever changed the life of their mom and dad.
This explains why so many people hate John F. Kennedy today. (They do, don’t they?)
“This explains why so many people hate John F. Kennedy today. (They do, don’t they?)”
If he hadn’t been assassinated, they just might have. But he was, so they don’t.
I’m serious. Once, just out of curiosity, I dug up some newspaper editorials that ran the day before, and the day after, JFK’s death. The ones before were scathing of the man, criticial of his opinions, of his foreign policy, of his actions. As soon as he died, the same newspapers did a 180, extolled his virtues, and cried of how America had been robbed of a great man with limitless potential for good.
No, I’m not saying that Bush should keep his fingers crossed that someone shoots him. I’m saying that being seen as a martyr cleans a lot of slates.
PAD
It’s also a big reason why Johnson isn’t well-regarded either.
Manny: I think this may stem from his faith. (Please hear me out). Bush has the faith of the converted, specifically those converted by circumstance. He believes his acceptance of Jesus as his saviour saved his life. He must bring others into the fold.
Converted? Perverted is probably closer to the mark. I have yet to see a single action out of Bush that actually comes close to a true Christian ideal, or doesn’t at least break a commandment. Religious zeal is a great smokescreen for more devious behavior – e.g. Jim Jones, Jim Baker, and the various parade of upstanding omnidenominational religious “leaders” that cross the headlines at least monthly. It’s not fair to put 100% of the blame on Bush (ugh! Did I say that?) but 51% of the blame lies fully with the spineless slugs in Congress who do not have the ***ls to stand up and support the constitution as it (was) written, and tell Bush exactly where he belongs.
Alan Coil: “Either way, he is the worst president ever.”
It’s nice that you are so optimistic, but I think what you meant was more along the lines of “The worst president SO FAR.”
I dunno. One of the few useful things Bush has done is provide a Platonic ideal example of who you do not want as President. I suspect it will be a minimum of two generations before people start forgetting that object lesson.
Posted by Mike at April 5, 2007 02:23 PM
.
“Bush switched from Episcopal to Methodist, following his wife’s lead into a bigger tent. That doesn’t sound unbending, unyielding, and uncompromising to me. His religion is as much of a pose as anything else by him.”
The difference is he took the switch seriously. What kind of an Episcopalian he was, I dunno. As a Methodist, I stand by my statement. He credits Jesus for everything good in his life.
My experience is that most born again Christians, or for that matter new converts to any spiritual path, tend to be uncompromising in their belief that they are right, everyone else is wrong, misguided and/or a servant of evil. Bush has merely managed to turn this into a part of national policy.
Bush I was a man of faith. He was also willing to compromise, aswell as being a president who built alliances based on mutual goals and interests. Junior builds alliances based on absolutes of black and white, “you’re either with us or against us” ultimatums.
Most religions make very little room for complex issues. Everything pretty much boils down to good/evil, us/them, God/Satan dichotomies. George’s absolute acceptance of conservative christian ideals spills into acceptance of those dichotomies when dealing with issues to complex for them.
Bush won’t compromise because, as I syted previously, he has said that he believes God put him in the Oval Office at this point in time for a reason. That reason is the war on terror. To compromise at all on the war on terror is to fail to do God’s will.
His zealotry merely amplifies his rich frat boy belief that he should never pay. Now God gives him permission to never pay. Because God apparently is a registered voter in Florida.
Am I the only one who finds a pro-life pro death penalty president makes my eyes spin?
Am I the only one who finds a pro-life pro death penalty president makes my eyes spin?
I don’t know, but when have we had a President who was not pro-death penalty? I personally can’t remember a single president in my lifetime who spoke out against the death penalty. I have my doubts that any (wo)man could be elected today if (s)he did speak out against it.
Posted by R.J. Carter
This explains why so many people hate John F. Kennedy today. (They do, don’t they?)
No, it partly explains why so many people tink ill of LBJ, RMN and Kissinger.
While I see Bush’s policies as consistant with the principle of expanding the domination of the privileged, I fail to see how his policy to bankrupt medicare, harvest middle-class savings, and place the burden of the Iraq occupation on 150,000 US households can be framed as particularly Christian or religious.
I think Bush just figured it was a no-brainer to make himself a hero by giving the Iraqi’s democracy, like restoring vision to a nation of blind-people — not figuring the Iraqis would find the change in their identities oppressive and reject his gift, and the invasion killing hundreds of thousands of people for nothing.
Bush, like many political leaders who are also religious zealots, can convince himself that anything he does is part of God’s plan. Tax cuts are just sops to keep him in power so he can keep doing God’s work.
Hitler took a special presentation of the Passion Play as proof of the legitimacy of his ideals. The Taliban used their interpretation of the Quran to justify some of the most oppresive and ridiculous laws and policies passed in … who knows how long.
This ability for delusion is not limited to religiously inclined leaders. It’s just that they claim infallible guidance for their policies.
You haven’t cited anything in Bush’s behavior that couldn’t be attributed to secular motives.
Howsabout he has been quoted as saying that God wanted him to be in the White House at this point in history? His belief that he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw into his soul? The establisment of a federal agency for “faith based initiatives”? His defense of intelligent design? His statement that evolution has not been proven? His most socially conservative policies being couched in biblical terms?
Did I miss anything?
Taking him at his word, we must be doing spectacularly in Iraq and history will celebrate him as the best president ever.
Me, I see George’s policies as consistant with the principle of expanding the domination of the privileged. You haven’t cited anything in Bush’s behavior that couldn’t be attributed to that secular motive.
“Posted by Mike at April 5, 2007 07:15 PM”
“Taking him at his word, we must be doing spectacularly in Iraq and history will celebrate him as the best president ever.”
Maybe he’s just delusional enough to believe that everything is just hunky-dory. Maybe he believes history will vindicate his actions.
Doesn’y mean I agree with his delusions.
Please explain the tie of George’s biggest expenditure — coercing the white house accountants to lie about the $600B new medicare entitlement as only costing $400B (and actually costing $1.2T) — to his Christian faith.
Please explain the tie of George’s biggest expenditure — coercing the white house accountants to lie about the $600B new medicare entitlement as only costing $400B (and actually costing $1.2T) — to his Christian faith.
Render unto Pfizer what is Pfizers?
Howsabout he has been quoted as saying that God wanted him to be in the White House at this point in history? His belief that he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw into his soul? The establisment of a federal agency for “faith based initiatives”? His defense of intelligent design? His statement that evolution has not been proven? His most socially conservative policies being couched in biblical terms?
All of which can be explained as pandering to the social conservatives that put him in office.
Me, I agree that his primary religion is actually the religion of money. Render unto Caesar because the rich deserve special favors.
“Me, I agree that his primary religion is actually the religion of money. Render unto Caesar because the rich deserve special favors.”
There’s a long relationship between money and religion. Religion has been used to justify the social order, usually capitalistic, quite often. There’s also a famous book by the 19th century German sociologist (which I’ve not read) that suggests a tie between certain protestant ideals(maybe calvinistic, I don’t remeber) and capitalism.
It’s not a coincidence that the Protestant Reformation coincided with the rise of the merchant class in Europe. Both were challenges to the established Medieval order. Religion hasn’t been used to justify only capitalistic societies. The Medieval Christian Church strongly justified the feudal states as the divinely ordered society.
Even in states that are officially atheistic use quasi-religious imagery to maintain the status quo. It’s not a coincidence that virtually every communist and totalitarian state features gigantic portraits and statues of their “dead leader”. During the Soviet Era, weddings were often held at monuments to the state or leaders like Lenin’s tomb instead of in Churches.
I wouldn’t phrase it that way — because he never learned to make money.
When the Saudi’s invested in him 20 years ago, they weren’t investing in him for a return on their money, they invested in him for his family networks.
I suppose the lesson from this we’ll inevitably forget is to dismiss networking when presented as a qualification for president of the United States. The president will have access to the necessary networks to do his job — as demonstrated by all the advice Bush has rejected over the last 6 years. Please, no more “bring your own networks” candidates.
posted by Mike Weber
Isn’t RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war? (Not that there aren’t other reasons to revile Nixon — but Vietnam being one of them?)
I wouldn’t phrase it that way — because he never learned to make money.
One doesn’t need to know how to make money in order to worship it.
Isn’t RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war?
Yeah, after he had expanded it into Laos and Cambodia first, though.
“Isn’t RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war? (Not that there aren’t other reasons to revile Nixon — but Vietnam being one of them?)”
No that was Gerald Ford. Nixon kept the war going for 6 years after he was elected in 1968, partially because he said he had a “secret plan” to end the war.
He expanded the war into Cambodia, which lead to Pol Pot and the Killing Fields. Under him the US causualties from Vietnam doubled!
Plenty of reason to dislike Nixon over Vietnam.
I think J. Alexander is very close to being correct about GWB. I would just add another factor. The man truly seems to believe that when someone (well, him, at least) is elected President he becomes the Emperor of a single party/single branch monolithic dictatorship. The Legislative Branch’s assertion of its constitutionally guaranteed role in government is seen as treasonous, and the Judicial Branch had better keep its opinions to itself, should they disagree with little George. I really doubt the legitimacy of Executive fiat determining that the status and rights of detainees are none of the courts’ business, and that national security/exigent circumstances must trump the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Whatever the source of his beliefs, GWB’s central tenet is that the Constitution is irrelevant and the separation of powers is a foolish myth. I have to wonder whether he has considered that under his policies his successors would be free to declare him an enemy combatant, should they choose, and imprison/torture/rend him in whatever manner the new Augustus should prefer – without any access to appeal or oversight. It seems unlikely he would really like that, but how in the world could he challenge it?
If [JFK] hadn’t been assassinated, they just might have. But he was, so they don’t.
Harry Turtledove is working on an alternate history about a world in which Kennedy survived the assassination attempt in Dallas. The premise of the book? That the investigation into why someone wanted to assassinate the President opened all sorts of doors that Kennedy would not have wanted opened, and all the things that Kennedy had kept locked away came out–from his philandering to his connections to the Mafia and so on. So all the things we know about Kennedy now would have come out during Kennedy’s second term, leading to his eventual impeachment.
We have a positive view of Kennedy because of the mythology built around his martyrdom. The reality is, he wasn’t as great as we’re taught or as we remember him being.
And, wouldn’t you know it, Ðìçk is playing up the Al Qaeda / Saddam Hussein link again today on Limbaugh’s radio show.
At the same time, the Pentagon has released another report saying that such connections did not exist.
And more “dittoheads” will listen to Flush Dimbulb’s show and nod in agreement than will see the Pentagon report.
On a sad note, a brutal review for Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman on Comic Book Resources Buy Pile. ***ouch***
http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=22
Joe V.
Posted by: Joe V. at April 6, 2007 12:40 PM
On a sad note, a brutal review for Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman on Comic Book Resources Buy Pile. ***ouch***
Joe V., I fail to understand how that merits posting in a thread about politics. In fact, I think it’s kind of rude, if you don’t mind my saying so or even if you do.
C’mon, Bill, posting asides about PAD’s titles have been accepted non sequiturs in this blog for quite a while now. Or is it only the praising review links that are acceptable? PAD’s a pro who’s earned his thick skin — I’m sure he doesn’t sweat a bad review here and there.
Here’s a fox news clip reporting the “most foolish American poll”: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/04/fox-news-they-distort-their-own-april-fools-poll
They announced Britney Spears the winner — even though George Bush’s 40% beats her 33%. Un-f*cking-believable.
Here’s a fox news clip reporting the “most foolish American poll”: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/04/fox-news-they-distort-their-own-april-fools-poll
They announced Britney Spears the winner — even though George Bush’s 40% beats her 33%.
There’s a long relationship between money and religion. Religion has been used to justify the social order, usually capitalistic, quite often. There’s also a famous book by the 19th century German sociologist (which I’ve not read) that suggests a tie between certain protestant ideals(maybe calvinistic, I don’t remeber) and capitalism.
You’re thinking of Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which spawned the (slightly inaccurate) phrase “the Protestant work ethic.” Weber’s own take on things is a bit weirder, and amounts to the argument that a particular kind of irrational — here used as a technical term, not a pejorative — religious faith happened to produce a profoundly rational economic social order.
Basically, while none of the Calvinists whose economic productivity Weber valorizes are exactly capitalistic in motive, the society that they compose produces tremendous results as if they were indeed committed capitalists.
The book actually ends with Weber describing the already-evident shift from a religious humility and uncertainty of salvation to standard greed in Calvinist-dominated social subgroups as the shift from a powerful work ethis to a society where economically-oriented life and remaindered moralism will form “an iron cage.”
Like I said, it’s a mcuh weirder book than people who cite it realize, just as I’m endlessly surprised how few of the economists who valorioze Adam SMith have anything at all to say about Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, which Adam SMith himself regarded as a necessary supplement to The Wealth of Nations.
There’s a long relationship between money and religion. Religion has been used to justify the social order, usually capitalistic, quite often. There’s also a famous book by the 19th century German sociologist (which I’ve not read) that suggests a tie between certain protestant ideals(maybe calvinistic, I don’t remeber) and capitalism.
You’re thinking of Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which spawned the (slightly inaccurate) phrase “the Protestant work ethic.” Weber’s own take on things is a bit weirder, and amounts to the argument that a particular kind of irrational — here used as a technical term, not a pejorative — religious faith happened to produce a profoundly rational economic social order.
Basically, while none of the Calvinists whose economic productivity Weber valorizes are exactly capitalistic in motive, the society that they compose produces tremendous results as if they were indeed committed capitalists.
The book actually ends with Weber describing the already-evident shift from a religious humility and uncertainty of salvation to standard greed in Calvinist-dominated social subgroups as the shift from a powerful work ethis to a society where economically-oriented life and remaindered moralism will form “an iron cage.”
Like I said, it’s a mcuh weirder book than people who cite it realize, just as I’m endlessly surprised how few of the economists who valorioze Adam SMith have anything at all to say about Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, which Adam SMith himself regarded as a necessary supplement to The Wealth of Nations.
Posted by: R.J. Carter at April 6, 2007 02:00 PM
C’mon, Bill, posting asides about PAD’s titles have been accepted non sequiturs in this blog for quite a while now. Or is it only the praising review links that are acceptable?
I have no say over what is “acceptable” in this blog, and I never said otherwise. I merely expressed an opinion, and it’s one that I stand by.
This is the first time I’ve seen anyone post a link to a review of Peter’s work in a thread that is totally unrelated to said work, by the way.
Posted by: R.J. Carter at April 6, 2007 02:00 PM
PAD’s a pro who’s earned his thick skin — I’m sure he doesn’t sweat a bad review here and there.
I wasn’t speaking for Peter. I was speaking for myself.
Speaking of books about Kennedy surviving Dallas, I enjoyed one called Promises to Keep by George Bernau (1988). In it, president Jack Cassidy barely survives an assassination attempt in Dallas. As an FBI agent tries to uncover evidence that the assassination attempt was part of a conspiracy, Cassidy convalesces. Part of that involves not running for re-election in 1964. But four years later, things are a bit different. Cassidy is determined to become president again, but there are those who don’t want that to happen, including people at a certain hotel in Los Angeles.
Yes, some aspects of Jack Cassidy’s story arc dovetail with Bobby Kennedy’s life, though there is a Bobby counterpart in the novel.
As to Bush, just think, somewhere there’s an alternate universe that never had to endure his terms in the White House.
Lucky alternate universe people.
Jeffrey Frawley wrote, “Whatever the source of his beliefs, GWB’s central tenet is that the Constitution is irrelevant and the separation of powers is a foolish myth. I have to wonder whether he has considered that under his policies his successors would be free to declare him an enemy combatant, should they choose, and imprison/torture/rend him in whatever manner the new Augustus should prefer – without any access to appeal or oversight.”
No, I doubt George has considered that. I think those who claim special authority for themselves (or try to undercut the authority of a member of the opposition party) tend to live in the present and not realize that political situations can- and do- change.
Take for example a situation that happened in Michigan when Gov. Jennifer Granholm (a Democrat) was the state attorney general. The Republican-controlled legislature tried to greatly reduce the attorney general’s powers. She successfully fought back against that effort.
Today, the attorney general is a Republican who would have also been reduced to a paper tiger had his party succeeded in their efforts against Granholm. What? The Republicans never imagined they might one day lose the Governor’s office? Guess not.
Granted what almost happened in Michigan isn’t in the same league as Bush’s efforts to undermine the Constitution, but the fact remains that people (or political parties) in power tend only to think of their own short-term advantages. Right now this extreme short sightedness seems to afflict Republicans the most, but Democrats are not immune. Hope they realize that.
Rick
I said:
“Either way, he is the worst president ever.”
Bladestar said:
“It’s nice that you are so optimistic, but I think what you meant was more along the lines of “The worst president SO FAR.”
——–
I gotta give you that point, but it’s going to take a special type of head case to challenge him.
Who is the greater evil—George W. Bush or Laura Bush?
She knows the truth, yet does not speak up.
As to Bush, just think, somewhere there’s an alternate universe that never had to endure his terms in the White House.
Lucky alternate universe people.
Indeed. Link to http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SNL-Al-Gore-5-14.mov for an idea of how lucky they are.
🙂
Unfortunately, the clip starts late. The bit that leads up to it goes like this:
Narrator: Scientists have long speculated that infinite parallel worlds exist on different planes of the world we know. In these earths, history has taken different paths.
On one, dinosaurs and man co-exist.
On another, the Russians were the first men to walk on the moon.
On another still, Clay Aiken defeated Ruben Studdard.
Now join us as we travel through the fabric of time and space to visit one of mysteries. One of these parallel earths!
Announcer: And now a message from the President of the United States of America.
As to Bush, just think, somewhere there’s an alternate universe that never had to endure his terms in the White House.
Lucky alternate universe people.
Indeed. Link to http://movies.crooksandliars.com/SNL-Al-Gore-5-14.mov for an idea of how lucky they are.
🙂
Unfortunately, the clip starts late. The bit that leads up to it goes like this:
Narrator: Scientists have long speculated that infinite parallel worlds exist on different planes of the world we know. In these earths, history has taken different paths.
On one, dinosaurs and man co-exist.
On another, the Russians were the first men to walk on the moon.
On another still, Clay Aiken defeated Ruben Studdard.
Now join us as we travel through the fabric of time and space to visit one of mysteries. One of these parallel earths!
Announcer: And now a message from the President of the United States of America.
Huh. Maybe this link http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/14/snl-if-al-gore-were-president/ will work better.
“On a sad note, a brutal review for Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman on Comic Book Resources Buy Pile. ***ouch***”
Review? What review? He stood in the store, read the intro page, trashed that, and didn’t read the book. How in the world does that constitute a review?
PAD
Well Alan, let’s hope we and our descenants never have to find out 🙂
Posted by R.J. Carter
Isn’t RMN the guy who brought the troops home from that boondoggle of a war? (Not that there aren’t other reasons to revile Nixon — but Vietnam being one of them?)
It was pretty widely seen as a political maneuver to distract people from Other Concerns.
Nixon was seen as a warmonger – there’s a reason 100,000-plus people (i was one of them) showed up to protest at his second Inaugural.
And, besides, in politics, it’s always (as Bill Cosby said in another context) the fault of the one who had it last.
Posted by edhopper
No that was Gerald Ford. Nixon kept the war going for 6 years after he was elected in 1968, partially because he said he had a “secret plan” to end the war.
Good trick if you can manage it. Nixon took office in Janusry 1969. the last US troops left Viet Nam on March 29, 1973.
Review? What review? He stood in the store, read the intro page, trashed that, and didn’t read the book. How in the world does that constitute a review?
Playing devil’s advocate, he never actually said he didn’t read the book, but rather that the recap page “practically deterred more reading…”
Me, I liked it. I mean, I haven’t been following the series from the get-go so I was confused by a few things that might’ve made sense to those who’ve read since issue #1, but I certainly didn’t consider it a bad story and a couple of the strategically placed Scooby lines had me laughing out loud.
“Posted by: Rob Brown at April 7, 2007 08:59 AM
Review? What review? He stood in the store, read the intro page, trashed that, and didn’t read the book. How in the world does that constitute a review?
Playing devil’s advocate, he never actually said he didn’t read the book, but rather that the recap page “practically deterred more reading…””
If he read it he didn’t review it. He only reviewed the intro page.
Posted by: Omar Karindu at April 6, 2007 02:58 PM
“You’re thinking of Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.”
Thanks. I only heard of it,not read it, so it’s good to hear from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.
I only mentioned it to strengthen’s Manny’s good point about Bush’s religious attitude, and point out that it does not contradict his capitalistic attitude. Which is not to say that being religious necessarily means being capitalistic. As Den pointed out a fervent religious attitude can be used in support of different economic point of views. But I think it strengthens Manny’s point: Bushis as religiously fervent about economics as he is about foreign policy.
“Thanks. I only heard of it,not read it, so it’s good to hear from someone who actually knows what he’s talking about.”
I hope it’s clear that the person who doesn’t know whay he’s talking about is me and not anybody else on this thread.
In other news, not only has O’Reilly completely lost his mind now, but here’s a declaration from Keith Olberman that had to have come out of a parallel universe.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/07/geraldo-rivera-todays-best-person-in-the-world/