Join 3,563 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Thou shalt
May 4, 2004 7:59 AM   Subscribe

Bush pretended that he didn't even know us, like Peter denying Jesus. Roy Moore looks toward a Presidential candidacy.
posted by four panels (22 comments total)

 
That's some scary fundamentalists! Honest but scary.

I actually agreed with some of the statements though. Here they are:

# George W. Bush campaigned as a responsible fiscal conservative, but he has created the largest budget deficits in history. As Pastor William Baldwin points out, under Bush's leadership, the Republican Congress has outspent their Democratic predecessors. Bush's policies raise our local taxes, and George W. Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill.

# Under George W. Bush, the Republican Party has become the party of big government. The government has grown bigger and bigger, with more agencies and bureaucracies and enforcement programs.

# George W. Bush seems to have a problem being honest. Bush has been caught in many lies. He's lied about September 11. He's lied about Iraq. He's lied about his budget. The sad fact is that George W. Bush has lost all the moral authority that a President of the United States must have. Bush is a poor example for our children, who we try to teach to be honest.

# America is supposed to be the land of freedom, not the land of spies. Yet, George W. Bush has created new programs for the government to spy on ordinary, law-abiding Americans. Through the Patriot Act and Total Information Awareness, Bush has made America the land of Big Brother.

# We criticized Bill Clinton for having his donors sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House. Now George W. Bush is doing the same, arranging for his big fundraisers to sleep overnight in the White House. That's a shame.


Run, Forrest Moore, run!! I believe he could garner quite a few votes in certain areas of the country.
posted by nofundy at 8:24 AM on May 4, 2004


Perhaps he can be the Ralph Nader of the right!

One can only hope.
posted by clevershark at 8:33 AM on May 4, 2004


the Republican Party has become the party of big government.

Errr, has become? BOTH Democratic and Republican parties are 'big government' parties. Been that way for years. Otherwise, Moore's comments noted above are spot on.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:41 AM on May 4, 2004


George W. Bush campaigned as a responsible fiscal conservative

No, he didn't. During his campaign, he did not propose to cut a single federal program. In fact, the last time I heard any Republican candidate for a federal office espouse any sort of fiscal conservatism--with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul--was the 1994 election. I'm continually amazed at the number of Republican faithful who seem to believe that Republicans=fiscal conservatives, when Republicans gave up even the pretense of being fiscally conservative years ago.

Under George W. Bush, the Republican Party has become the party of big government.

W had nothing to do with it. As rough ashlar points out, both major parties have been "big government" for decades. The only difference is that the Republicans pretended to be "small government" more recently than the Democrats did, but they haven't even claimed to be that for nearly 10 years. Somehow, though, the Republicans still have many small government advocates believing that they're the small government party, even as their positions indicate just the opposite.

If Roy Moore and his supporters can open the eyes of some of these Republican sheep, more power to him.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:50 AM on May 4, 2004


I wish Moore would run for President. Not only to siphon off some votes from Bush (that is a welcome benefit however) but I am terrified that he will run for Governor of Alabama and win. I would like to see him waste any money that would go for a Governor campaign used up in a foolish grab at the Presidency.

Which is exactly why it won't happen.
posted by spartacusroosevelt at 8:59 AM on May 4, 2004


Please let him run. Please let him run. Please let him run.
posted by jpoulos at 9:05 AM on May 4, 2004


there's no way karl rove will let moore run. no way.

rove will use any and every combo of lies, threats and promises to make moore reconsider.

it strikes me that one of the primary ways rove markets bush is to convince everyone that george w. bush is an invincible winner, and you should support him because then you get to be a winner too. he can't come off as an invincible winner if there's a chance someone from his own party starts siphoning votes away and makes it appear that he's not universally loved by everyone who isn't a terrorist-appeasing, communistic, america-hating leftie.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:36 AM on May 4, 2004


If Roy Moore actually runs its great news. Now if someone can get Bill Clinton to endorse Bush we might get our country back.
posted by donfactor at 9:49 AM on May 4, 2004


So wait, because the Democrats advocate bigger government, its okay that Bush has done it? That's a little bit of circular logic.

The site was down when I tried to visit it but yeah, the right needs someone to make Bush address his shortcomings because he basically ignores any calls from the left to do so.

Get everyone you know to watch Bush Knew and more people's eyes will be open to the kind of "leader" this man really is.
posted by fenriq at 10:45 AM on May 4, 2004


Ray Moore is such a nightmare of a public figure that I'm not sure I'd want him to run even if he siphons votes off from W. The less power someone like him and his followers have, the better.

It would be nice for the evangelicals and the Republicans to go their separate ways, though. The Repubs would have less power and what power they had wouldn't be as evil, as far as I'm concerned.
posted by callmejay at 11:26 AM on May 4, 2004


"After graduating from West Point Justice Roy Moore courageously served God and the United States of America as a U.S. Army Company Commander in Vietnam."

Funny I thought his god tell him he cannot have 2 masters.

"If Roy Moore actually runs its great news. Now if someone can get Bill Clinton to endorse Bush we might get our country back."

don, From whom?
posted by MrLint at 11:48 AM on May 4, 2004


I hope he runs. And I hope he gets Rudy Ray Moore as his running-mate.
posted by adamrice at 12:04 PM on May 4, 2004


Oh please oh please oh please oh please.

I'm of two minds on Moore's comments. First, many of them are exactly what I've been saying for more than two years. I honestly, truly don't understand why conservatives see in Bush at all.

Second, is Moore equating himself with Jesus? Pathology, anyone?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 2:35 PM on May 4, 2004


George W. Bush has actually increased the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which funds blasphemy!

Someone is still miffed about "Piss Christ," eh?
posted by jennanemone at 5:32 PM on May 4, 2004


frankly, how many swing States are there where Moore could possibly make a dent into Bush's chances? maybe he'll do well in places like Mississippi and Alabama, but with all due respect for those beautiful States, they're not particularly up for grabs for Kerry, aren't they?
anybody has polling numbers for Moore's candidacy? I'd love to read them


Someone is still miffed about "Piss Christ," eh?

yeah, funny how giving a poor Christ a little urine bath (not pretty, I agree) turns you into a criminal forever and the NEA into Satan, but if you relentlessly flay, beat, knife, torture and generally kick the shit out of Christ with no apparent reason except sheer sadism, the fundys turn you into their hero. bah


posted by matteo at 5:43 PM on May 4, 2004



turn you into their hero

my bad

posted by matteo at 5:45 PM on May 4, 2004


frankly, how many swing States are there where Moore could possibly make a dent into Bush's chances? maybe he'll do well in places like Mississippi and Alabama, but with all due respect for those beautiful States, they're not particularly up for grabs for Kerry, aren't they?

Florida!!!! Razor-thin margin last election, plenty of ultra-right-wing evangelicals, and 27 (!!!) electoral votes.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:54 PM on May 4, 2004


Well, matteo, one of those is blasphemous and the other is, well, a central story of their entire freakin' religion. I don't understand what has you confused.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:24 PM on May 4, 2004


Actually, Bligh, there's another take:

and on the third day he rose into glory, which
is what we see here, the Piss Christ in glowing blood:
the whole irreducible point of the faith,
God thrown in human waste, submerged and shining.

posted by Vidiot at 11:34 PM on May 4, 2004


I'm not sure what your point is. I don't know what Serrano intended. What Hudgins saw is valid, aesthetically, and, perhaps, theologically. That doesn't change the fact that, whatever a non-believer might think of it, the sadomasochism on display in Passion is a literal depiction of what is described, in great detail, in the core texts of the core text of these believers' religion. On the other hand, urine doesn't enter into it. People are commonly disgusted by urine. Without a really, really convincing argument to think otherwise, it's not unreasonable for a Christian to think of their most cherished religious icon bathed in urine to be blasphemous. Matteo's comparison is specious. It offends me in some deep way perhaps because I'm an atheist—an atheist who lives in a world (mostly) and a country (almost completely) that refuses to even consider that I have different assumptions than (most) everyone else has; and that, because I do, the fact that I reach different conclusions than they doesn't mean that my reasoning is invalid. There is no effort to see my point of view. I'm just a nut. This is what matteo is doing to them. From their point of view, the distinction between Passion's sadomasochism and "Piss Christ" is so self-evident that it's probably hard for them to imagine that they would ever need to explain it to someone. Maybe they should explain it to matteo. But I just did, and I have a sneaking suspicion that he has been and will remain willfully blind to that distinction, which clearly exists from their perspective. You can't successfully make the implicit accusation of hypocrisy that matteo's making unless you prove that, to them, and not merely to matteo or anyone else, there is no distinction between the two.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:54 AM on May 5, 2004


From the folks who have been working their asses off, mrlint, at least since the days of Regan and who during the past three plus years have been wrapping it up so so tight that no one other than their tribe will be able to get it back again for a long, long time. And I would add, another four years of Bush ought to make that a certainty.
posted by donfactor at 11:01 AM on May 5, 2004


You don't want to encourage nutjobs like this. This is the man who was against rewriting Alabama's state constitution because he believes it (with its 607 amendments, no less) was ordained by God.

The whole saga of the 10 Commandments in the court room is just the tip of his iceberg.
posted by somethingotherthan at 8:39 PM on May 6, 2004


« Older The new deodands? You too can enjoy the spoils o...  |  Hunting the Stanford Universit... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments