From the darling Elayne.

But honestly.
Lots of people talking about Bush being the most important, powerful, best man on the planet solely on the grounds that he is the President of the US - but they’re mostly people who’d spit rather than to say Clinton’s name. So, which is it? Is it the office, or the man? Are they just spouting off nonsense because they like the way it sounds or do they really believe that the PotUS is the most important blah blah blah on earth - EVEN IF that means Clinton was, too?

A lovely little conundrum (not for me, but for some that I know — I’ll gleefully point out the flaws of every president who’s sat in the chair since I was born), but for gods’ sakes if you want to argue about it, do it here: Elayne’s having a rough week without the ~two (2) conservatives that comment to this blog* giving her a hard time. :)

Hmmm. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to comment or not, but ... (I'll comment this on both.)

I don't think the "Most Powerful Man on the Planet" riff is assigned exclusively, by conservatives or liberals, to just one Prez or the other. Conservatives used the MPMotP label as a further indictment of Clinton's sordid affairs (and/or his "out to pollute our precious bodily fluid" paranoia). Conversely, I've heard liberals refer to Bush as the MPNotP as the reason it's so dangerous that he's either a nitwit or a diabolically clever fiend.

*shrug* I find it mildly entertaining how folks on the far Left/Right pop a blood vessel whenever Bush/Clinton is mentioned.

As to whether the PotUS *is* the most powerful (if not most important) man on the planet ("best" doesn't come into it), I think you can make that argument. But, then, with great power comes great responsibility, which should sober up anyone in the job.

You can comment all you like, as can anyone else -- sorry about that last bit... just venting steam about unrelated things.

I think the PotUS is definitely the most powerful man. This is why it's so disgraceful to have a president that fails, wether we are talking morally (Clinton), or on economic issues (like I concede Bush is doing now).

I think the entire issue about who is the "best" man is a different matter entirely, and does depend on where your values lie politically speaking. Mine certainly lie on the Right, and therefore I like the current Pres much moreso than I did the first.

As far as popping blood vessels go when people bring up Clinton, I can only say this. In 1991, I enlisted in the US Army, fully intending to go to war and make my life as a career soldier. Fortunately for my naive self, the war ended before I could get there, and I spent my time in Germany instead of the sand. Clinton destroyed the Army, both in terms of manpower and material, and in terms of morale. He made us as soldiers feel like the scum of the earth. I will forever despise that man because of this reason. His horrible failings as a man with no personal morality or character came out after this, and are simply the means by which the public knows him as a failure.

So far, President Bush has not done anything in this same light. The man has a history of past failings, this is true. He's had issues with alcohol, and by some rumors, drugs. But he appears to be clean now. President Bush is a man of Faith. I can see where people on the left who despise a religious belief and don't believe absolute good or evil would not like this.

But in the end, a man of good moral character, with a resolute belief in God, is a much better representative of this country than any other.

Two points:

President Bush is a man of Faith. I can see where people on the left who despise a religious belief and don't believe absolute good or evil would not like this.

Liberals and agnostics are not synonyms -- it's not accurate to make that assumption, as the most morally level and devotedly devout person I know is (in my opinion) Liberal (and, it should be noted, pro-war) without being in any way a walking contradiction. I personally am not religious but I do believe in the idea absolute good and evil. (or at least absolutely good and evil Acts.)

But in the end, a man of good moral character, with a resolute belief in God, is a much better representative of this country than any other.

I don't find, personally, that it's any sort of comfort merely to hear that someone has a resolute belief in God -- Pat Robertson has such a resolute belief (or at least purports to) -- go outside the country and you'll find any number of people who have a resolute belief in God who are also pure rat-bastards (we're shooting at one right now).

GW's good moral character I can't confirm or deny, as I don't know him personally... I will certainly concede that he is predictable in his reactions to the world around him, which indicates some sort of internal compass which he seems to follow consistently -- if it's a moral compass, well, that's great. Certainly he doesn't prevaricate as much as Clinton... conversely, he tends to step on more toes -- 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

Lots of people believe in God and think that the U.S. is Evil... Lots of other people believe in God and think that I (as a roleplayer) am Evil. Does the belief make them morally able to make such decisions accurately?

On the other hand, it is hard to to argue with the statement "a man of good moral character with a resolute belief in God is a much better representative of this country than any other".

I don't know if, in it's entirety, that's a bad thing or a good thing, but I'm fairly certain that it's true.

Amen Brother on the above Doyce...

"On the other hand, it is hard to to argue with the statement "a man of good moral character with a resolute belief in God is a much better representative of this country than any other"."

I would say, as with all things, this atement would depend on who/what your gawd is, and your belief system.

I don't think that many Liberal Catholics or any Protestants would willingly allow themselves to be Governed from the Vatican City. Though many believe that the Pope is "a man of good moral character with a resolute belief in God is a much better representative of this country than any other".". Nor, do I think we as a people want to live through a religious war in this country trying to define the above Quoted statement. Anytime man decides to take it into his hands as to who are Believers/Unbelievers, or which person is following the "Rule" of Gawd correctly a lot of people end up in mass graves…