Welcome to the inaugural edition of HOT TOPIC TUESDAY, a place where I offend most of my readers and you love me in spite of it all.
Also, it’s a place to air some of our more passionate views on hot topics like politics, morality and fashion.
It is not a place, however, to demean each other. We’re talking about topics not individuals, so don’t go off on me or someone else. Let your opinion speak for itself. Also, it’s not a place to wax on and on about your point of view. No one wants to read a comment longer than the post itself. Be concise or link to your own blog, where we’ll happily bring along the debate. (And maybe a light snack.)
Now, onto today’s topic: Why I don't like our president and think that's OK
Some of you are laughing right now. “This is our hot topic?” Clearly, you haven’t been to Utah Valley, where I don’t currently reside but have residen. (Also, I’m allowed to make up words. You, however, can not.)
When I lived in Utah, I covered the scandal du jour, which was Michael Moore’s visit to a local college in advance of the 2004 presidential elections. (FYE: Michael Moore doesn’t think much of The President either.) People were up in arms for several reasons, some very legitimate, like the improper method of allocating funds to pay for Moore’s visit. Also because most people in Utah love George W*. Like, they looooove him, even though some of them couldn’t tell you a darn about the guy, his policies or his background. But they hear he’s a Republican, which is good news in that red state. And they hear he’s president, which means undying support no matter what you do, unless you’re a Democrat.
(They’ll argue that at least George is doing a better job than Bill, which isn't necessarily true. George’s personal morality may be a few notches higher, but Bill’s political track record looks better to me.)
I’ll spare you the details of the 40+ stories I wrote, but people were mad, Sean Hannity was calling me on my cell, and it all turned out just fine. Aside from the 1,000 emails (mostly from Mormons sadly) sent to me and the college’s president threatening all sorts of un-Christian-like behavior, everyone remained civilized. People listened to Hannity. People listened to Moore. And George W. got reelected, thanks in part to his loving constituents in Utah Valley.
Though I wasn’t too keen on his opponent, either, I think that was a mistake. And I honestly think George W. would have been relieved to have been relieved of his duties … because I think deep down he knows he’s not doing a good job, but his cronies won’t let him concede that fact.
Now, if I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: I don’t think George W. is a bad person. (Cheney, however, may be the devil.)
I think George W. would be a fabulous restaurateur, especially if it was a rib joint. I also think he would throw a killer chili cook-off. Clearly, something about him says, “sweet and spicy food” to me. I think he’s a decently intelligent, somewhat upstanding, loving man. I think his wife is hilarious, and I think his daughters have worn some killer outfits.
But I think he’s a bad president, a terrible public speaker and a poor choice to head our nation. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with saying that. As Mormons, we believe in being subject to political leaders and “obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.” But we don’t believe that you have to like or agree with your political leaders. And we don’t believe that you have to stay quiet when you disagree with them. (I certainly heard a lot of conservatives getting loud when Clinton did “it.”)
I believe that, like all things in life, we are free to choose.
And I choose to say that George W. is one of the worst presidents in the history of our nation. (Behind W. Harding, A. Johnson, F. Pierce and J. Buchanan, of course.)
I will admit that I’m a little baffled when I hear people say they think he’s doing a great job. I mean, seriously? Did you get invited over for ribs and are referencing his barbecue sauce rather than his war-time strategy?
From what I hear, read and see it seems like no one likes the dude much these days. We’re all eager to get someone new in office … whoever that may be. (I’m still totally unsure, FYE.)
What do you think?
Do you think “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” extends to public figures?
Or do you love him so much that you can’t fathom saying anything negative?
Or do you think the guy is a fool?
Discuss.
(Like, now. Or I’ll sic Michael Moore on you.)
*I do believe in respecting the President so my use of his first name and initial isn’t meant to be degrading. It’s just that I still think of his father when I say President Bush. And that conjures up memories from fourth grade social studies so it’s best we stick with George W.
3.20.2007
George's Rib Shack
Posted by Mrs. Dub at 7:11 AM
29 comments Leave a witty comment hereLabels: George W., Hot Topic Tuesday, politics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





- acte gratuit
- barefoot in the kitchen
- brooke a la mode
- coast 2 coast
- collecting crust
- flowerchain
- glamma fabulous
- good sons
- la dolce vespa
- la vida steffa
- livin' in the 'copa
- living with the lens cap on
- mrs. dub reviews
- simplehappy home
- jackson 5.0
- the devz
- the r house
- this girl's life
- welcome to haggartown

- a room somewhere
- a unique snowflake
- brookie b.
- elephant droppings
- eli love
- eriksens
- garner family
- happy life
- here kitschy kitschy
- horstmann happenings
- janni, marvin & luke
- life through our eyes
- little bit of gracie lue
- little miss sassy pants
- loco lunds
- michigan bliss
- pictures of me
- ramblings
- the devlins
- the harkers
- the kamae ohana
- the new news
- the parmas
- the real rachel ray
- the rogers
- young family

- 2 boys & a mommy
- a little sussy
- a moment in time
- a of all
- a perfect 10
- according to alice
- according to kelly
- alice's adventures
- alifinale
- best of the bunch
- blog con queso
- bougainvillea
- cjane enjoy it
- cole fam
- confessions of a rookie
- cool mom picks
- design mom
- emily anne
- funny madre
- green bean ruminations
- grow old with you
- heather bailey
- hilary's happiness
- holly rambling
- idaho laytons
- it's a wonderful life
- jack attack
- la vie est belle
- layton life
- live, love, laugh
- liz
- loudaisy
- mamablogues
- mrs. bennett
- my happy little life
- my kid rocks!
- oh happy day
- olson fam
- our family garden
- pioneer woman
- rowena's rantings
- sibling revelry
- simmons fam
- snakes, snails and tails
- the jet set
- the meegans
- the typical family
- the warehouse
- wonderland girl

29 comments:
i think george w is probably a nice guy. he loves his wife, he loves his daughters, and i am pretty sure that he really loves this country. i think he is doing his best. unfortunately i don't think his best is quite good enough.
here's to MITT in '08!
Aside from the war, etc., you have to remember that he put TWO justices into the Supreme Court this term, which will have super-long-term effects, way past his term in office.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with elected officials, as long as you bothered to vote, but I disagree with you on this one. My opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I’m LDS, or from a reddish-purple state. Ineptitude at public speaking does not equal stupidity, foolishness, or inability to effectively serve as president. He was right about going to war, right on several other things, and wrong on a few. Our country has been spared attack since 9/11 thanks to this administration. No president, or person for that matter, is perfect or right on everything all the time, and I don’t deny that there are things George W could have done differently and better. If incumbents didn’t automatically get the party nomination, it’s possible that there could have been a better choice in 2004, but it certainly wasn’t Kerry. I believe that moral conviction and integrity count for a lot, and our President has those things. By that standard there’s no question that “Bush 43” is better than Clinton, and I believe that in foreign policy matters and taxes, among other things, Bush is better as well. I could expound but want to keep this brief. As for our next president, I’m all for Romney, and not because he’s LDS but because I’ve studied the candidates’ positions and believe that he’s the closest to what I want in a US President.
Sorry -- that was longer than I intended... just also wanted to mention this website http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org for anyone who wants to read more about Mitt Romney & why he should be president.
i do like ribs but i am sure that my dad could out smoke the best of racks. and like my dad said during the last election, "there are probably 10 men in palo verde ward that could debate better than the two of these fools." it is true. i wasn't a clinton fan although mtv tried to get us hooked on his musical skills. i am not a bush fan although it is also true that most mormons are shocked by that fact. i'm still thinking oprah should change her mind and run.
I don't have a lot to say about your reasons for not liking President Bush, but I do have issue with the way you portrayed the general LDS population. We are not mindless followers. Please recant. (Or maybe that's a topic for next Tuesday). :)
I agree that there should be a debate about whether a president is doing a good job. I believe the problem with Mr. Bush is that he doesn't like debate. That has led to all sorts of policy mishaps, as he has summarily dismissed all opposing viewpoints.
OK -- i was going to wait until later to address all these fabulous points, but jessi made it a little more urgent.
FYE: I DON'T HATE MORMONS. mormons are some of my favorite people. and i truly believe that the majority of the LDS population is composed of well-balanced, informed, happy, kind, loving individuals who are free-thinkers and voters.
i do think that there are some well-intentioned members of our church (like any other) who sometimes follow the crowd assuming that's the faithful thing to do. in this case, standing up for George W. no matter what he does.
more than 1/3 of utah voters do straight-ticket voting. these are probably the people i'm referring to. (and they may or may not all be living in santaquin, utah.)
p.s. great points everyone! such a lively, insightful debate we're having. i might even soften up on the big guy. just a little.
Since 1960, only Kennedy & Reagan left office with popularity intact - Kennedy might not have had he lived. Johnson, Nixon, & GWBush were widely hated. Carter, Bush Sr., & Clinton were likeable but undistinguished presidents. With negativism of media & popular culture, there may never be another popular president. Mindless following, NRA, and rightwing politics aren't articles of faith but typify most Mormons - see UT & AZ legislatures. Gladly, this seems less true of the rising generations. Bush: decent person, great wife, lousy President, terrible speaker, unfortunate facial expressions. Listened to wrong advisers too stubbornly & too long. Iraq hasn't reduced terrorism - it's a testing & training ground for terrorist tactics. Afganistan, yes - Guantanamo, maybe. But I would rather face more terrorism than see civil liberties and human decency discarded.
Wow. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Seriously, P Daddy? You would rather risk thousands of innocent people getting blown up by terrorists than permit necessary interrogation of a very small number of proven bad-guys whose information can prevent such attacks from occurring? I'm flabbergasted.
I'm going to stop and stand up for P Daddy, who I know is not encouraging, supporting or hoping for more terrorism. However, he (like myself) is disturbed by the fact that there are people being held without charges or trial (for years!) and an increasing lack of privacy. Other countries have thwarted terrorist plots without a Patriot Act. And keep in mind that the odds of suffering a terrorist attack on U.S. soil are infinitely less than being struck by lightning. But are we going to pass bills banning all mountain peaks and trees?
Preventing terrorism is one thing. Ignoring human rights to do it is another.
Well said, P Daddy!
p.s. How do you know they are proven bad guys if we never see the evidence against them?
From 1 Nephi Ch. 4:
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
Couldn't this principle apply to the boys at Gitmo, et al? May not be an entirely applicable parallel but worth a second thought, if you substitute the word "slay" for "interrogate" and "dwindle & perish in unbelief" for "fall prey to terrorists."
Good point, Victoria! But what if some of those people are innocent? Something else to consider. Especially since it may be years before some of them get a chance to tell their side of the story.
I guess that's a risk I'm willing to take, and also I think it's okay to have a little trust in our government.
OK, after much prodding from my wife I'll add my point of view. First, I agree whole heartedly with what has been said about how among many mormons, anything negative said about W or the Grand Ol' Party is heresy. Leslie and I have this conversation all of the time. I was a supporter in '00, I thought he was better than the alternative in '04 but my support has gone downhill from there. As far as the Iraq War is concerned, that's not my big beef with him, as I think it is an unwinnable situation for reasons unassociated with the president. My main problem is that it seems that this administration governs with such an arrogance and self interest versus prior administrations. The Bush administration seems to feel that whatever they want to do is okay and if you disagree, you're un-American or pro-terrorism. It also seems that everything they do has an ulterior motive attached that usually involves some business or crony that will benefit financially. Also, a quick word on morality. I'm not saying he is or isn't a man of integrity or morality, but simply being faithful to your wife and pandering to the religious right doesn't automatically make you a person of integrity with moral conviction. But I wonder how anyone would be able to maintain their ethics and morality and deal with the types of situations that must be dealt with by the president. I personally have a suspicion that the upper eschelons of politics and morality/integrity are mutually exclusive. As for torture, I'd be all for it if it was actually effective. Coerced information is rarely credible. Say it with me--I-N-Q-U-I-S-I-T-I-O-N. But isn't war pretty much all about discarding civil liberties and human decency?
Yes, I'd let 10 or 100 guity men go free rather than jail or execute one innocent man and risk 1000's of deaths rather than deprive even an evil man basic human rights. As soon as we are willing to cede liberty for security or morality for expediency, we've lost whatever war we're fighting. I'm fine with Nephi & Laban - note he did not torture Zoram - and Captain Moroni and marshal law. Within limits, I'm okay with enemy combatant status for terrorists. But, I don't think torture is ever appropriate or effective, don't agree with the Patriot Act, & don't think Bush or Rowe or Rumsfeld or Gonzales or Cheney or CIA special ops got angelic instruction on kidnapping, secret prisons, torture, or Gitmo. Not so long ago it was Mormons, not Moslems, in jail indefinitely on trumped up charges, viewed as traitors, murderers, and heretics. I don't equate the Bush Administration with Gov. Boggs, but I do with Gov. Ford.
Okay okay, I recant my Laban comparison; I said it "may not be an entirely applicable parallel" anyway, and I've never usually been prone to quote scripture in everyday conversation. And, all of you anti-torture folks have obviously never watched "24" :)
I think there will be a new standard conversation in my house on Tuesday evenings:
Mr. D: "Why, Victoria dear, why on earth is the house a complete mess, the kids running around like maniacs, and no hot dinner on the table upon my arrival?"
Me: "Don't you know? It's Hot Topic Tuesday!"
I'm a little bit surprised Laman; for some reason I'd assumed you'd become more conservative over the years, and that the 8x10 glossy of William J. Clinton on your dormroom wall was just a phase! :)
Forget Mitt! I say Neal for president in 2008. And might I suggest Laman as his running mate?
And no worries, Neal, Victoria is the new Jack Bauer. So if you have to stoop to torture, she'll have the guy talking in no time. (Mostly because she's a woman and if we talk long enough anyone will come clean just so we'll stop!)
Here's to all you readers, your minds, your passion and your wit!
quote: . . . and risk 1000's of deaths rather than deprive even an evil man basic human rights.
Wow, P Daddy, do you really believe that? I find it next impossible to comprehend that in your heart of hearts you really feel that is a justifiable statement. Basically you are saying that an evil man's human rights are more valuable and take precedence over an innocent man's life? Fascinating.
Laman: "Turn the other cheek" is great counsel for individuals but not for countries. What would have happened if, after Pearl Harbor, we had said, "We forgive you Japan, and now we will turn the other cheek and invite you to attack Los Angeles." I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Hiroshima but clearly we had to do SOMETIHNG, not nothing.
Gee, Neal, and I was ready to vote for you, too. Obviously any statement in a vacuum, like our judging a president, has limits, because context is important. We don't know what he does or the CIA does. We do know that in a lot of cases they didn't know as much as they thought they did, or said they did, and much of what they thought they knew turned out to be wrong. I think the situations are relatively rare where one would be absolutely certain that thousands could be saved through the mistreatment of another. Those may be the Laban moments. But in other situations, I don't think possible preservation of life is the prime directive, I think doing what is right is. I'm not volunteering to be in that position, and obviously mine is not a popular position, so we're probably all safe. And I am talking torture, imprisonment, etc. In the Imam vs. US Airways case, for example, based on what I know, I side with the airline and the passengers. But not, if they had shot them in the leg.
Since everyone has already taken all the good stuff, I guess I don’t have a lot to say. But that’s what happens when you come late to dinner – so to speak.
There is one thing that I do feel that needs to be said. And that is that I really dig the picture. That hat is fantastic.
First let me just say that some of you may be getting a letter in the mail and FYI, the maximum donation amount has been raised to $2300.;) Second, I'll wrap up my comments for this edition of Hot Topic Tuesday by saying this: I agree that in everyday life the situations are rare when we know that the mistreatment of a few will save the lives of thousands. But I think that this is the precisely the platform that wars are waged upon--we know that some innocents will die or be harmed, but we still go to war for the greater good despite that knowledge. If it is appropriate to instantly kill 120,000 innocent people (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) in order to bring about the end of a terrible war, I think it may be appropriate to torture some Ron Jeremy look-alike, of whom it's pretty certain that he's done some heinous acts, in order to extract some useful information about the next al Qaida attack, or whatever. But again, I think torture is ineffective at producing credible information, and for that reason, inappropriate--not because there is a chance that an innocent person might be tortured.
OK, I realize that some of you may be wondering how I know who Ron Jeremy is which either means A) you know who he is too, or B) you just googled him and got a shock. DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT google Ron Jeremy. Just trust me, don’t do it. But if you do see a side-by-side of him and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the similarity is uncanny!
Wellll shucks...I was out of town and missed the inaugural edition of HOT TOPIC TUESDAY. I guess there is always next week. For the record my comments would have seconded the first comment (by stephanie)...except the MITT in '08...I haven't completely made up my mind just yet.
I'll have to read Rush's newsletter to know how I feel about this debate and which side I'm on.
No, seriously...
Signed,
A Flaming Conservative (moving from one blue state to the next...)
I will vote for David Palmer. He is my favorite candidate so far. Or maybe Jack Bauer, because dear old David was killed.
It is jsut me or does George W remind you of Michael Scott (The Office)...both goofy and poor managers.
Is it just me or do I watch too much TV?
Post a Comment