S
Sirach14
Guest
Find out what makes our President tick.
rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091605/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html
rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091605/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html
- Status
F
Fitz
Guest
I like the last sentence in the article and it is so very true. We need to pray for our leaders. Thanks for the link.
B
BLB_Oregon
Guest
Bad publicity or bad mistakes cannot be overlooked because the President has a hard job. He knew it was hard when he took it. (Although it is like parenthood in the fact that he could not possibly known how hard it would be, even after serving a term.)
We have a duty to keep participating in the political process after a President takes office. Duty does not allow us to throw up our hands and put our fate in whomever God chooses to occupy the Oval Office. That is not the kind of political system God gave us here. We have a responsibility to be prophets to our political leaders, to point them towards their moral duty and, when necessary, to ask that someone more fitting take the offices of those who have proven themselves unwilling or unable to bear their burdens as God intends.
Bill Clinton and George Bush and every president before them got criticism. With God’s help to guide them, a bit of listening to honest criticism makes them better presidents, even when the criticism is not wholly fair. All in power are Davids in need of a Nathan.
But bad publicity or even bad mistakes would not give the President the excuse to give up. Very true. As long as he holds the Office of President of the United States, he has to keep trying to do his best in that office… whether or not he thinks “historians” or other pundits will judge him favorably for doing so.
Bad publicity or even bad mistakes would not give us the excuse to give up praying for him, either. We have a duty to pray for our leaders and hope and even to act so that God will be able to use them successfully to do the greatest good, even if we fear that their success might hurt our own political hopes. Very true. We serve God, not man. Hard sometimes, but true.
We have a duty to keep participating in the political process after a President takes office. Duty does not allow us to throw up our hands and put our fate in whomever God chooses to occupy the Oval Office. That is not the kind of political system God gave us here. We have a responsibility to be prophets to our political leaders, to point them towards their moral duty and, when necessary, to ask that someone more fitting take the offices of those who have proven themselves unwilling or unable to bear their burdens as God intends.
Bill Clinton and George Bush and every president before them got criticism. With God’s help to guide them, a bit of listening to honest criticism makes them better presidents, even when the criticism is not wholly fair. All in power are Davids in need of a Nathan.
But bad publicity or even bad mistakes would not give the President the excuse to give up. Very true. As long as he holds the Office of President of the United States, he has to keep trying to do his best in that office… whether or not he thinks “historians” or other pundits will judge him favorably for doing so.
Bad publicity or even bad mistakes would not give us the excuse to give up praying for him, either. We have a duty to pray for our leaders and hope and even to act so that God will be able to use them successfully to do the greatest good, even if we fear that their success might hurt our own political hopes. Very true. We serve God, not man. Hard sometimes, but true.
B
bapcathluth
Guest
Very well-said, BLB. Thank goodness we live in a Democracy where the press and the electorate are allowed to critique a president’s performance. These discussions are part of what determines both parties planks in their platforms for upcoming elections.
T
Thekla
Guest
My favorite story about him is the one in Vanity Fair related to tennis.
F
Fitz
Guest
Discussion is great. Investigation is even good, when done honestly. Think about the 9-11 commission and all the lying and witholding just to make a president look bad. Go figure.
We are in a Democracy and we are required to be honest in our dealings. We are also required to honestly look at at the truth. The Democrats are having a hard time in my opionion because they are choosing death, dishonesty, and they would destroy our country with backing the ACLU. I was a Democrat for most of my voting life, until Clinton’s second term. We always have to be ready to open our eyes too.
S
Sirach14
Guest
Great answer.
S
sirduckjr
Guest
Mr. Fitz:
Your comments cut both ways. We are required also to speak up when our leaders, especially those that we voted for, make poor choices. And god forbid, maybe even criticize them and then hold them accountable for their decisions. When we fail to speak up, we then have no one else to blame for our blind loyality except ourselves. I believe this is called INTEGRITY. Do you have your eyes open to the actions of President Bush?
Could you please explain how the 9-11 commision has somehow singled President Bush out? Are you saying he was somehow unfairly criticized? What was the criticism? Funny, I dont remember the talking heads on Fox such as Hannity or O’Rielly saying the commision implied or tried to make Bush look bad. All I can remember is both of them blamed the former president. Was it okay to make President Clinton look bad but not President Bush? I look forward to your answer as to how President Bush was singled out and treated unfairly by the 9-11 commision.
A
aimee
Guest
Who has blind loyalty(?) President Bush was unfairly criticised…Former President Clinton’s administation wasn’t critised enough considering Mr Bergers stealing documents so the 911 commision wasn’t totally informed…What does Fox tv have to do with it…?
S
sirduckjr
Guest
1.Those of US, who voted for the man based mainly on his strong prolife position.
- I guess you are referring to the 9-11 commision, but a listing of such statements by the commision versus your short statement would actually prove your point.
- Call me crazy, but I would be willing to bet that both administrations were somewhat criticized by the commision and maybe both deserved it. I would tend to agree with the likes of Bill O’Rielly (but please dont tell Bill this, because he already has an inflated opinion of himself ) who said the commision was more critical of the Clinton Administration.
- Sandy Berger’s act of stupidity and dishonesty was caught. The documents did not get out, therefore, the commision had all the documents.
- I was simply watching Fox News at the time. Nothing more complicated than that. Remember, fair and balanced!
F
Fitz
Guest
OK, so let’s clear something up. My husband is Mr. Fitz. For the purposes of the forums I am just fitz.
I made my comment to cut both ways. I would like an honest commission. The 9-11 came down hard on the Bush administation for not connecting the dots. Yet we are finding out now that the previous administation did know about Atta. Jamie Gorelich should not have been allowed to be on the commission since she was part of the problem that she screamed about. And Sandy Berger, who knows what documents he was hiding or stealing and whea he was trying to get rid of. The original commission did criticize the Bush administration or perhaps it was just the media coverage that did that. I don’t recall Fox’s reporting about it compared to other networks reporting. I do recall that the administration looked bad. I would have to go back to that time to find examples and I don’t have the time now. I am going on the impressions I have of the commission. I remember horrible treatment of Condaleza Rice for instance and I did watch her interrogation the day she testified.
I would like honest criticism based on facts. That is all. If Katrina is studied, they better do just as good of job investigating the Democratic Administartion in LA as well as the job the FEMA did in response.
I have never had blind loyalty to a party or a candidate. I do want honest criticism of this situation. I think the media has done a very poor job and I just hope that a commission would be fair and honest.
S
sirduckjr
Guest
Fitz:
Sorry about the mistake on the title. Sloppy on my part.
As far as the look into the Katrina disater, I am much more concerned with the dispursement of federal funds destined for the levy. Seems like congress appropriates funds, but I am sure locals have some say in ultimate destination of money and projects to be done. Dont know what the Democratic Party would have to do with it considering the previous governor was a Republican. And if the money is misused or disappeared, Hell have no fury on the perpetrator regardless of party affiliations.
Little bit off subject, but why we as a country conclude we must rebuild New Orleans and not discuss the total costs of updating the levy to handle say a 10,000 year flood similar to what they have built in Northern Europe for towns located beneath sea level versus what they currently have which is built to handle a 250 year flood?
Sorry about the mistake on the title. Sloppy on my part.
As far as the look into the Katrina disater, I am much more concerned with the dispursement of federal funds destined for the levy. Seems like congress appropriates funds, but I am sure locals have some say in ultimate destination of money and projects to be done. Dont know what the Democratic Party would have to do with it considering the previous governor was a Republican. And if the money is misused or disappeared, Hell have no fury on the perpetrator regardless of party affiliations.
Little bit off subject, but why we as a country conclude we must rebuild New Orleans and not discuss the total costs of updating the levy to handle say a 10,000 year flood similar to what they have built in Northern Europe for towns located beneath sea level versus what they currently have which is built to handle a 250 year flood?
F
Fitz
Guest
I am also concerned that the same Democrats that are under investigation in NO already for missuse of levy funds will be the ones spending the new money. It could be a very bad thing unless they have a good person to oversee it.
Why they don’t do the levy is probably because they are still deciding how to do it. These studies that they do seem to take years to act upon. I am not an engineer so I have no clue about it.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
sirduckjr said:
Re: item #4: If memory serves, Sandy Berger got out with lots of paper, stuffed in his pants. He brought them back, or so he claimed, but no one knows what he took, what he brought back.
Biggest question: why did he take them in the first place, and don’t tell me it was by mistake. Berger is a very savvy man
R
Ruthmary
Guest
mary bobo:
Good question. Unfortunately, we’ll probably never know. I’m just stunned at how the left gets away with such blatant crimes. If it had been a Republican who got caught stealing these papers, the press wouldn’t have let up on him. The story would have been all over the media. We would have been treated to stories of Berger’s past, present and possible future. There would have been polls and speculation. The trial would have been followed with tongues hanging out, and he would have been followed all the way to the prison door. As it is, after the initial reporting, the press all but ignored the story, and it’s hard to find out what happened to Mr. Berger. That’s the strategy of the left. To say nothing, and hope everyone forgets. Unfortunately, all too often it works.
R
Ruthmary
Guest
Thanks for this. I do wonder sometimes how the President deals with it. If it were me, I don’t know that I could handle all the lies and half-truths, but he never seems to feel the need to defend himself. I remember Jesus before Pilate. Mr. Bush will let the truth speak for itself.
- Status