Just a Thought

With all the talk about the purported influence of the religious right in last week’s election, I have a question: given that both sides of the political spectrum have their extremists — their true believers — isn’t it better to be allied with the followers of Jesus rather than those who worship and follow the teachings of Michael Moore?

Just a thought …

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2004, US Politics,
Leopold Stotch
About Leopold Stotch
“Dr. Leopold Stotch” was the pseudonym of political science professor then at a major research university inside the beltway. He has a PhD in International Relations. He contributed 165 pieces to OTB between November 2004 and February 2006.


  1. Anjin-San says:

    Kind of a lame topic. Nobody on the left “worships” Micheal Moore. He is a talented filmaker who is a bit full of himself. He has Bush’s number. Thats about it.

    Maybe the reason Bushites froth at the mouth at the mention of his name is they really know he does have Bush pegged…

  2. Chad Evans says:

    Pegged as what? I think we “froth at the mouth” because he’s eating all of our jelly donuts.

  3. Anjin-San says:

    Maybe he has the president pegged as a commander-in-chief who sat in front of a bunch of children looking confused for almost 10 minutes when he was told America was under attack…

    Minutes in which he took no steps to defend our country.

    and yes, Moore is something of a slob… but a clever one.

  4. Rodney Dill says:

    It’s over Anjin-San. No one likes a bad loser.
    The Score is
    Bush: 2
    Kerry: 0

  5. LJD says:


    I was sort of hoping you would go away after your boy lost the election so decisively. Oh well, the pointless ramblings continue…

    Try watching the video FahrenHYPE-911. It explains why the President sat, among other things. Rather than exploit the people in his movie, as Michael Moore did, it allows them to express their opinion in simple language (for you to understand).

    Michael Moore is a stupid, fat white man. His only motivation is making money. Unfortunately, dumb liberals are all too willing to give it to him.

    Take the blinders off. Maybe you’ll see some of reality….

  6. denise says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with a President taking a few minutes to absorb such important news. (That I disagree with you, Moore and Bin Laden on this point doesn’t cause me much self-doubt.)

    If Bush had jumped up in 2 seconds and started ordering civilian airliners shot down, I don’t think you would be happy about that (and neither would I). No one’s ever said what was supposed to have been done in those minutes (I thought it was 7, not 10, but whatever) that wasn’t being done by the appropriate authorities.

  7. Lee says:

    Why single out Christians as the group that made the difference? Subtract any Bush support group, not just the Christians, and the election could have gone to Kerry.

    I guess using the Jews again would have been too obvious.

  8. RSO says:

    So the choices are either worship Jesus or worship Michael Moore? I think not. Some people would like to see the world in this overly simplistic way but I don’t buy it. My politics is a personal choice and my faith is a personal choice. What about the fact that Jimmy Carter is a Democrat AND a born-again Christian? Would you dismiss his faith because of his political preference? I know plenty of Republicans who are fiscal conservatives but don’t agree with the Bush administration’s faith-based initiatives. Is someone not a Republican if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior?

  9. Anjin-San says:

    Bush could have calmly excused himself, told Mr. Card to get his national security adviser and the joint chiefs on the phone and ready to brief him, and perhaps raise the security level a notch or two. Since there was no one there prompt him, he sat.

    The story about him wanting to “project calm” is a joke. You can project calm and take action. Bush was unable to do this.

    Of course now that the president has won re-electon, the right seems to feel we cannot question his job performance or his policies. I thought asking such questions was an important part of particapatory democracy, but Denise calls it “agreeing with Bin Laden”

    BTW Denise, the president is the commander-in-chief. When it comes to defending our country HE is the “approiate authority”. It is clear from the report of the 9-11 comission that the response of our govt. to the attacks on that day was basicially a mass of confustion, inaction, and action taken too late.

    The president had a real chance to lead, and he did not get the job done.

  10. Anjin-San says:


    Bush ran against Kerry once. The score is

    Bush 1
    Kerry 0

    You can use your fingers to help you count if necessary 🙂

  11. LJD says:

    O.K. Apparently A-S is some sort of political mastermind…
    Bush could have… just about anything you set your mind to. You open a pandora’s box for any politician to be criticised after the fact. There is no limit to the arguments that can be crafted in hypotheticals…

    The truth is, having never been in that position, no one can truly say what they would do. It is clear that the President was confident his administration was already acting, and that an action plan was already in place.

    I would not call this retarded Michael Mooresque argument a criticism of policy or performance. It is a lame, cheap shot, that’s it. If you want to critique policy, do it constructively. However, I have not seen anything but inflammatory criticisms and generalizations in your posts. You are a truly well indoctrinated mouthpiece for the left.

    Contrary to what you may believe, I do not blindly believe in all of the President’s policies. In fact, I am entirely open to the general public offering solutions for the President to consider. More typically we see hysterical whining from the left. Slamming his performance with name calling helps no one. The way it is often exhibited is damn close to treason in a time of war.

    Participatory Democracy? How does sharing the philosophy of the terrorists represent anything but sympathy for, and support of the same? The limit of participation is where you no loner are wearing the same team jersey. In case you’re confused, it’s red, white, and blue.

    And to check your math….
    Bush has legitimately WON TWO elections.
    Kerry has not won any. So I would agree it’s Bush 2, Kerry 0. (Not to mention that Kerry is a total ZERO, why the country could not support his presidency).

  12. Rodney Dill says:


    I believe it was obvious to the astute readers of OTB that Bush had won the presidency twice. It would have been incorrect to show Bush as only scoring once against the maniacal liberal team.


  13. Anjin-San says:

    Sorry LJD, but in a crisis a leader is supposed to lead. A commander-in-chief is supposed to take command. Confident that an action plan was allready in place?

    According to the President’s own national security adivser, a 9-11 type attack was an inconciveable event no one could have forseen. So how exactly could “an action plan” be in place? Is this the type of dispassionate critical thinking you are urging me to engage in?

    How exactly do I “share the philosphy of terrorists”? If you wish to make chickenshit remarks like that, you should try doing it to peoples faces, not while hiding behind your computer.

    What name-calling have I directed at the President? Generally I refer to him as President, Mr. Bush, President Bush, GW, and sometimes plain old Bush.

    If you wish to paint people who disagree with you as somehow supporting terrorists, I suppose that is your right. It is also a sad commentary on life in Mr. Bush’s America.

    BTW, I voted for Bush in 2000, his father in ’88 & Reagan, twice. Pehraps painting the world strictly in black and white and calling those who disagree with you “well-indoctrinated” helps to take your mind off the many faiures of the President’s policies.

  14. Anjin-San says:

    The more I think about the comments of Denise & LJB, the more amazed I am.

    I am unhappy that the President did not act more swiftly & decisivly to defend America when he was told we were under attack.

    This means I “have sympathy for & support terrorists” and I “agree with Bin Laden”

    George Orwell saw all this coming many years ago. So did Ayn Rand.

  15. LJD says:

    Dude- what can I say… you’re all F’ed up. I never said any of those things. Lower your blood pressure long enough to read what I wrote.

    First of all, yes, every president, has a plan in place for the event that the country is attacked. Maybe you would sleep better knowing that thousands of police and security officials work 24/7 to keep us safe. We did not forsee 9/11, but I am confident those “in-the-know”, behind the scenes, were collecting all of the available information for the President to make a calculated response. The liberals love to throw mud in their faces though…

    Next, I said Michael Moore shares the philosophy of terrorists. If you agree, then you do also, but by YOUR OWN association. I never said disagreeing with me is supportive of the terrorists.

    I also said that name-calling was typical of the left. Plain to see with a review of recent pre-election ugliness.

    Lastly, I don’t give a damn who you voted for in the past. Your statements clearly define who you are now. It’s not that you disagree with me, rather your constant mimicking of the leftward nonsense. Perhaps you should review your posts.

    You are a master of twisting reality, twisting people’s words, making circular arguments without solid evidence, drawing conclusions that lead nowhere.