Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: Bush Enlists Religious Leaders to Pump-Up Iraq War

  1. #1

    Default Bush Enlists Religious Leaders to Pump-Up Iraq War

    No, but does anyone remember how angry the media got at George Bush's "faith-based outreach"? Even though he didn't really use it for political ends?

    It sure bothered me at the time, and it bothered a lot of us. But now when Obama is using the still-alive "White House Office of Faith-based and Community Partnerships" (which Bush created) for blatantly political ends, not a peep from the media.

    I find these full-circles really weird. And sorta sad.

    Obama seeks divine intervention on health care
    By: Sarah Kliff
    September 22, 2010 10:33 AM EDT

    With nothing else working, President Barack Obama is asking religious leaders to help him sell the public on health care reform.

    POLITICO listened in to an Oval Office conference call Tuesday, where Obama and top administration officials, beseeched thousands of faith-based and community organizations to preach the gospel on new insurance reforms, chiefly the Patients’ Bill of Rights.

    “Get out there and spread the word,” Obama told leaders from across the religious spectrum on the conference call, organized by the Health and Human Services Center for Faith-Based and Community Partnerships.

    “This is something that we’ll be able to look back on, just like we do on Medicare and Social Security, as a cornerstone that improves the security of millions of Americans, at the same time lowers costs and gets control of costs, both at the government level, but also for families and businesses," he added.

    Obama instructed faith leaders to treat the new law as settled fact and use their perches of power to convey that message to congregants and friends.

    “The debate in Washington is over, the Affordable Care Act is now law ... I think all of you can be really important validators and trusted resources for friends and neighbors, to help explain what’s now available to them,” he said.

    The call included the administration’s highest-ranking health reform officials: Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, White House Office of Health Reform director Nancy Ann-DeParle, and Assistant to the President for Special Products Stephanie Cutter.

    Joshua DuBois, director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Partnerships, gave activists a rallying cry: “Get the word out there, get information out there. Make use of the resources we’ve described on this call: the website, door hangers, one pagers and so forth. We’ve got work to do.”

    DuBois ended the call by giving leaders a point-by-point rundown of the new Patients’ Bill of Rights that rolls out Thursday. “These protections, our families need to know these things,” he said.

    Faith groups briefed the administration on plans under way to educate the public and organize this weekend.

    “We’re rolling up our sleeves to get our communities ready for reform,” said Gloria Cooper, a volunteer with People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO), who cited the Bring Health Reform Campaign, designed to both educate the public on the new law and push for a stronger provider network.

    PICO plans to distribute 50,000 door hangers in lower-income communities within the next two weeks, the group’s spokesperson, Gordon Whitman, told POLITICO. PICO meets with the administration regularly and participated in an HHS-run call for faith groups just last week.

    Peg Chemberlin, president of the National Council of Churches, who also participated in the call, has also seen regularly outreach from the White House on reform issues.

    "Since the law passed, there's been some discussion about what the best way to get information out on this law," she said. "There are a lot of conversations about what to do on health care, how we can be a good partner."

    The White House sees the faith-based community as a key partner in spreading information on health reform issues.

    "We believe community-based and faith-based can spread the word," an administration official told POLITICO. "They are reaching people every day in churches, synagogues, mosques and secular organizations. They can spread the word about these things."

    On the call, DeParle said the administration has noticed the faith-based efforts. She noted that a fellow congregant thanked her last Sunday for the provision that allows dependents to be covered up to age 26.

    “I know some of you have done some work to educate,” DeParle said.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42540.html

  2. #2
    Well, we know you're a bona fide Republican now. Been attacking Obama nonstop for over two and a half years now. Might as well be Glenn Beck. I do wonder what happened to you in college.

  3. #3
    Yeah, how dare he cite Politico, that bastion of right-wing thought.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Well, we know you're a bona fide Republican now. Been attacking Obama nonstop for over two and a half years now. Might as well be Glenn Beck. I do wonder what happened to you in college.
    I am a registered Democrat. Please see above partisan squabble here.

    Nine years ago there was an argumentative shitstorm across the country over this office. It was representative of what many (including me) didn't like about how George Bush governed. Almost a decade later, Obama has not only kept this office open but is using it for political advocacy.

    My commentary isn't about Obama as much as how the media holds people "accountable". If a Bush faith-based initiative offends the sensibilities of the media, why does Obama's faith-based politicking not cause the same reaction?

  5. #5
    The simple answer is that it goes against the storyline the media created for Obama. It will report accusations of Obama being a socialist, but it won't focus on accusations of him using religion or not being transparent.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #6
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I am a registered Democrat. Please see above partisan squabble here.
    Hate to point it out, but: Lewk calls himself a Christian.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #7
    I don't deny that I don't share many values of the Democratic party. Except that Tear said I was literally a Republican. And I'm not. I'm literally a Democrat; it's something you can actually sign up for because it's an actual group.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Well, we know you're a bona fide Republican now. Been attacking Obama nonstop for over two and a half years now. Might as well be Glenn Beck. I do wonder what happened to you in college.
    Exactly. Opposing half the stuff Bush did was fine, because it was Bush and he was a Republican. It doesn't matter what Obama does, though, because only Republicans would care to discuss that, and it's insanity to risk that label.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  9. #9
    And Dread hasn't marched in lockstep with Loki, attacking almost every single thing that Obama has done? I find it very difficult to believe that Dread is a Democrat. Dread is well to the right of me, a moderate, and agrees with virtually no Democratic economic policies. Granted, he is socially liberal (though not vociferously, I note), but he is a foreign policy hawk, and is 100% pro business. He has also made it perfectly clear that his fiscal conservatism, which is full-blown conservatism, not the "slightly right of center" that I espouse, trumps his social policies. By his own professed beliefs, there's no way in hell he could be a registered Dem. Especially not in a liberal state like NY, where the party is closely allied with unions, specifically the unions he is incessantly crusading against.

    Edit: I'm plenty critical of Obama. And plenty of Dems are. In fact, I've been reading nothing but ed and op-ed criticism of Obama for the last 5 months in the NYTimes, mostly from Dems.

  10. #10
    Loki is still a registered Democrat.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    Insert my Dread comments here, but more of it. Maybe you'll sound Dem again when the black president is out of office?

  12. #12
    Aw, haven't filled your dose of race-baiting for this week yet?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #13
    I'm just making observations. Not my problem if the pattern is disturbing.

  14. #14
    Yes, Dread hates Obama because Obama doesn't like Israel, and I hate Obama because he's black. We have no actual policy disagreements with Obama, and do not hold any beliefs that are opposite to Obama's words and actions. It's all about us being Jews and hating blacks. Thank you.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    And Dread hasn't marched in lockstep with Loki, attacking almost every single thing that Obama has done? I find it very difficult to believe that Dread is a Democrat. Dread is well to the right of me, a moderate, and agrees with virtually no Democratic economic policies. Granted, he is socially liberal (though not vociferously, I note), but he is a foreign policy hawk, and is 100% pro business. He has also made it perfectly clear that his fiscal conservatism, which is full-blown conservatism, not the "slightly right of center" that I espouse, trumps his social policies. By his own professed beliefs, there's no way in hell he could be a registered Dem. Especially not in a liberal state like NY, where the party is closely allied with unions, specifically the unions he is incessantly crusading against.

    Edit: I'm plenty critical of Obama. And plenty of Dems are. In fact, I've been reading nothing but ed and op-ed criticism of Obama for the last 5 months in the NYTimes, mostly from Dems.
    I'm a Democrat. I've always been pretty clear about exactly why I'm a Democrat, despite areas where I disagree with standard Dem policy and planks. I'm socially liberal. I'm a foreign-policy hawk. And I'm pro-business *admittedly, not all that strongly. It's just not a field of public policy that I particularly about, or am sufficiently educated about*

    And AFAIK, you're still claiming that you're conservative, despite monumental evidence to the contrary. Tear, you are the last person on this forum who should be making any sort of claim about another poster's personal political labels.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Yes, Dread hates Obama because Obama doesn't like Israel, and I hate Obama because he's black. We have no actual policy disagreements with Obama, and do not hold any beliefs that are opposite to Obama's words and actions. It's all about us being Jews and hating blacks. Thank you.
    I didn't say you hated blacks. Straw man. As far as I can tell, you dislike Obama for the same reason as Dread. Policy-wise, he wasn't, and isn't, that different than Hillary.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I'm a Democrat. I've always been pretty clear about exactly why I'm a Democrat, despite areas where I disagree with standard Dem policy and planks. I'm socially liberal. I'm a foreign-policy hawk. And I'm pro-business *admittedly, not all that strongly. It's just not a field of public policy that I particularly about, or am sufficiently educated about*

    And AFAIK, you're still claiming that you're conservative, despite monumental evidence to the contrary. Tear, you are the last person on this forum who should be making any sort of claim about another poster's personal political labels.
    I just said I was moderate. In fact, your description of yourself matches me pretty closely. Don't play freaky time-warp games, Fuzz.

  17. #17
    Actually, he was quite different to Clinton. Clinton was viewed as being more of a pragmatist, more moderate, and more experienced. She also wasn't all talk. She was also representing New York in the Senate, which got her quite a bit of support in New York (most of the committed leftists I knew in NYC supported Hillary to the end).
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    I just said I was moderate. In fact, your description of yourself matches me pretty closely. Don't play freaky time-warp games, Fuzz.
    No, you said you were on the conservative side of the center, and have always portrayed yourself as a strong fiscal conservative who only got driven from the GOP by their failure to be fiscally responsible. When in your actual behavior demonstrated through posting *which is the basis you're using for lashing out at Dread* you're only slightly more conservative than Chaloobi or Lolli, stalwart forum Lefties that they are. Your claim that my description of myself *which includes "foreign-policy hawk"* matches you pretty closely is out and out ludicrous. Your self-image *assuming that's what it is and not you simply lying again* is wildly at variance with the positions you take here. Not that this is anything new for you. Just look at how you always insist you're honest, or mild-mannered. Or in the least bit civil.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  19. #19
    That post is a pile of horse shit, Fuzz. Let's take, for one example, foreign policy. I was STRONGLY pro-Afghanistan war. My main criticism was that we went in like a pack of girl scouts (my words, look it up.) I supported Bush 41 100% in his pursuit of the Gulf War, before and after. I supported Clinton's military actions. I opposed Iraq because it was fucking stupid, not because I generally oppose war as a tool.

    Or economy: I am staunchly pro-free market. Always have been, always will be. I only think that any logical assessment of human nature argues that there need to be strong regulations of it, because otherwise it is a dragon that will eat people alive, and that it will always tend to corruption to maximize profits. This is pragmatism, not opposition.

    And how many times have I lauded Bush I as the best modern American president? Probably 20 or 30 times. Maybe more.

    So are you done lying yet?

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    And how many times have I lauded Bush I as the best modern American president? Probably 20 or 30 times. Maybe more.
    You mean the least Republican president the party has fielded since it accidentally let Teddy into the Oval Office in its attempt to get him out of New York?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #21
    Yeah. You know, the moderate one.

  22. #22
    Well, this is a thread
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  23. #23
    Well, I'm just enjoying watching the spin-meisters work.

  24. #24
    Fuzzy's posts are very much on point, Tear. You can get a fork stuck in the intellectual dishonesty you're serving.

    Why is it important to highlight that I'm not enough of a vocal social conservative for you? How do my views on business trump my social values? Have you ever considered that I think economic growth is the key to social liberalism?

    Economic dynamism and progression is what encourages people to try new things, adapt to new trends and value what they have in common (commerce and a set of shared interests) instead of rejecting each other for stupid reasons and narrow socio-economic factionalism.

    You act like my nightmare is a so-called "progressive" future. My actual nightmare is that the West turns into an economic backwater, rife with statist conformity and sluggishness. My nightmare is the dominance of sclerotic institutions so vested in the status quo that they turn on anything that's "different". What you label as "conservatism" is an ideology is also about letting the reigns go and accepting change. It's the mature, non-reactive course to plot through the modern age.

    My views about government also aren't merely an abstraction. I don't think you realize how much time I spend with government and how maddeningly resistant it can be to change.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Fuzzy's posts are very much on point, Tear. You can get a fork stuck in the intellectual dishonesty you're serving.
    Really? Feel free to be specific. Fuzzy pulling his omniscient "I recall everything on the forums and you are wrong" crap doesn't help much when he's dead wrong. He just brilliantly pointed out that I, who claim to be moderate, was crazy for liking best the most moderate Rep since Teddy Roosevelt, another moderate. Damn, that's brilliant! Looks like I'm moderate! Thanks for clearing that up, Fuzz.

    Why is it important to highlight that I'm not enough of a vocal social conservative for you? How do my views on business trump my social values? Have you ever considered that I think economic growth is the key to social liberalism?
    Really? You're going to pull trickle down on us?

    Economic dynamism and progression is what encourages people to try new things, adapt to new trends and value what they have in common (commerce and a set of shared interests) instead of rejecting each other for stupid reasons and narrow socio-economic factionalism.
    I keep trying to see what you're getting at, but it's buried in doublespeak.
    You act like my nightmare is a so-called "progressive" future. My actual nightmare is that the West turns into an economic backwater, rife with statist conformity and sluggishness. My nightmare is the dominance of sclerotic institutions so vested in the status quo that they turn on anything that's "different". What you label as "conservatism" is an ideology is also about letting the reigns go and accepting change. It's the mature, non-reactive course to plot through the modern age.
    That's vague gobbledygook rationalizing yet another visit to laissez faire government.

    My views about government also aren't merely an abstraction. I don't think you realize how much time I spend with government and how maddeningly resistant it can be to change.
    Ah, assuming the wise uncle role? I know what I'm talking about, son. You see, I interact with government all the time! Why, I had this envelope from the IRS last week.... Or was that the week before? No, the week before was my leftist friend ranting on Facebook....

  26. #26
    Yeah, I'm not discussing my job with you. You've really become unhinged lately.

  27. #27
    An excuse for not backing up a preposterous assertion. You tried the appeal to authority fallacy and it backfired.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    An excuse for not backing up a preposterous assertion. You tried the appeal to authority fallacy and it backfired.
    How many people here are actually willing to publicly name their employer? Would you?

    If explaining what he meant would give it away, that seems completely inappropriate - not to mention potentially dangerous if his employer came across it and decided that they disliked the things he posts here.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by littlelolligagged View Post
    How many people here are actually willing to publicly name their employer? Would you?
    He has actually, I think. Or maybe the specific employer was just part of that old falsified creation, I don't remember anymore. And Dread has always seemed unusually reticent about his job, he won't even say what area of the economy he's involved in.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    He has actually, I think. Or maybe the specific employer was just part of that old falsified creation, I don't remember anymore. And Dread has always seemed unusually reticent about his job, he won't even say what area of the economy he's involved in.
    I really don't see a problem with Dread wanting to keep it private (or anyone else, for that matter).
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •