Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

I find it interesting that so many Republicans are in a uproar over the Vote for Change Tour especially in regards to Marilyn O'Grady and her stance against Bruce Springsteen. The backlash against Bruce is quite facinating especially considering that the people that now believe Bruce's music should be boycotted are the same people that during the Reagan era referred to Bruce as an "unabashed patriot". Even Reagan's canpaign crew tried to get the Boss to accompany him on his campaign trail and Reagan himself said"America's future rest in a thousand dreams inside our hearts. It rests in the message of hope so many young people admire: Bruce Springsteen" (The Good Conservative Sep.18,1984). Reagan also wanted to use "Born in the U.S.A." as his campaign song (well that is until someone showed him the lyrics). I agree that we should not use musicians as sources of news, but I think we should be less concerned if Dave Matthews is "misleading" us and more concerned that the President has mislead us into war where thousands of people are dying. Which brings me to another point. I am confused by the fact you are a devout Christian, a man of Jesus Christ, yet you support a man like George W. Bush. I believe Jesus was the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of War. George W. Bush has self-proclaimed himself as the "War President". The 10 Commandments says "Thou shall not kill". Perhaps I missed the passage that said "Thou shall not kill.....well unless they threaten to kill your Dad or they have oil..." I'm confused on these contradictions that you have presented. I would greatly appreciate it if you could clear up these matters. Thanks.

Ashlee, first let me thank you for your insightful comments and for sharing a desire to seek understanding of my point of view. Let me say that I while I recognize Bruce Springsteen as a great musician and probably enjoy some of his music without realizing it is him who is singing it, I don’t own any of his albums and do not plan to purchase any. I only say that because I’m not advocating the boycott of his music, but in its proper context I never supported it either. He certainly has the right to stand up and say whatever he pleases, but if what he says makes people not want to support him then he needs to deal with the consequences of that.

Entertainers have a unique stage and position in our society and I think they are taken a little too seriously by the uneducated. They are not particularly schooled or learned in these socio-political issues to truly speak wisdom from a place of experience into the dialog. However, they are US citizens and should be afforded the opportunities of free speech like anyone else. The crux of the matter is the bully pulpit from which they stand to offer these opinions where their statements are not challenged. They typically refuse to enter into the arenas to dialog about their positions where they may be challenged or prove to be uneducated on the heart of the issues while they offered up their “feelings” on the matter. I believe this boycott and others that choose not to support these entertainers is a way of taking that bully pulpit away and forcing a real dialog to occur about the issues. If these entertainers can support their opinions and feelings with real facts and more then just one-liners that get applause, then maybe they will be taken more seriously by the educated.

Patriot or not, Springsteen is still entitled his opinions. George Will said "I have not got a clue about Springsteen's politics, if any …but flags get waved at his concerts while he sings songs about hard times. He is no whiner, and the recitation of closed factories and other problems always seems punctuated by a grand, cheerful, affirmation: 'Born in the U.S.A.!'" (The Good Conservative) I think we see here an admittance that even if you do not agree with his politics, some good can come from music that elicits patriotic feelings. The question here is, will this tour use unity or division to achieve this goal? It would appear they wish to use division, which the 2000 election brought into clear focus that our country has enough of that already. If they truly wanted to change the tone with their tour, they would be using unity instead.

Reagan’s full quote from that speech is, “America's future rests in a thousand dreams inside your hearts. It rests in the message of hope in songs of a man so many young Americans admire -- New Jersey's own, Bruce Springsteen. And helping you make those dreams come true is what this job of mine is all about.” He wasn’t saying that America’s message of hope relied upon Bruce Springsteen, but that his songs embodied that hope. The real message of hope was in the dreams of the American people and they gave those dreams and entrusted them to Ronald Reagan to bring to life. Just as we do now, with a dream of peace for the future that is entrusted to George W. Bush and I pray that dream will be realized in his second term.

“Perhaps I missed the passage that said "Thou shall not kill.....well unless…” It’s not really worth going into disingenuous end to your sentence, so I would like to focus on your understanding of that text. This is a common misunderstanding of the sixth commandment. “The sixth commandment concerns our own and our neighbour’s life (v. 13): "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not do any thing hurtful or injurious to the health, ease, and life, of thy own body, or any other person’s unjustly.’’ This is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts given to Noah and his sons, Gen. 9:5, 6. It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defence, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life; but it forbids all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer ), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion: of this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Mt. 5:22. And, as that which is worst of all, it forbids persecution, laying wait for the blood of the innocent and excellent ones of the earth.” (Matthew Henry Complete Commentary)

Simply put, the sixth commandment is not forbidding the justified taking of life from another person, but the murderous act of anger and hatred against them. It is also an affirmative commandment to love and preserve life, which godly wars bring about. Just as you have been misled in your understanding of this commandment you have also been misled in your understanding of George W. Bush.

If you believe that he misled us into war, which is another way of stating he is a liar, where is the proof of this? The harsh divisions that exist today between the two political parties would have me thinking he would have been impeached faster than Clinton was, if these charges actually stood up, which they obviously don’t.

The answer to your question of how can President Bush and myself be devout Christians, and believe in the war that we are fighting against terrorism can be summed up in two quotes. First Hugh Hewitt from “In, But Not Of”, “…there is a personal gospel and a collective gospel; a gospel of how we are to bear injuries to ourselves and one how we are to react to injustice done to others. The cheek must be turned when injuries are done solely to you. But conflict has to follow whenever evil is done to the innocent.” And Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34-39), “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword…anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

The greater War on Terror, to which the War in Iraq is a part of, is mankind striking back at the collective injustice that is being done to the world. More specifically, this collective injustice was brought into very clear focus on September 11th 2001 and the United States of America with the leading of President Bush, is working to ensure that does not happen again. He is working to preserve the dream of hope, the dream of peace and the city set upon the hill bearing light into the world.

I hope you are able to see there is no contradiction there and that I was able to clear up those matters of fact for you.

Thank you for your comments. Let me say first and foremost that I have a strong feeling that we will have to agree to disagree on many issues. And I believe that is what makes human beings great creatures - diversity. However, I would like to respond to your post. George Will shows his ignorance in his quote and I guess he was at the concert but not listening to any of the words. He claims that "...seems punctuated by a grand,cheerful,affirmation:"Born in the U.S.A.!" I'm not sure if you or George Will have read the lyrics to Born in the U.S.A. or if you understand the sarcasm Bruce is conveying in the song.It is a song about how young men were drafted into the Vietnam War and how unnecessary lives were sacrificed. Here is just one verse of the song (but the generally tone is carried out through all verses):
"Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man"

Thank you for explaining the full content of the 6th commandment to me, however, this further upholds my argument against GWB. He did invade Iraq UNJUSTLY and WITH ANGER. George himself said "This is a guy (Saddam)who tried to kill my Dad." (2002 Republican fundraising event in Houston,Texas)That implies to me that he had HATRED and ANGER towards Saddam. Earlier in 2001 GWB along with Condelezza Rice,Colin Powell, and others all stated that Hussein posed no threat to the U.S. Then, after 9/11 when there was an opening to be able to invade Iraq under false pretenses he took it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That was Afghanistan, a country in which President Bush waited to invade several weeks after 9/11. He then sent only 11,000 troops there (Manhatten has more cops than that)and "left" (I realize some troops are still there)before capturing Osama Bin Laden.Do not get me wrong, I believe that Saddam Hussein was/is an evil man who treated his people horribly, however this is not the reason GWB used to invade Iraq. And if this is the argument that others would like to use for starting a war then the U.S. should invade Sudan and India ,not to mention other countries where injustices are happening everyday. I definitely have not been misled in my understanding of George W. Bush. My opinion of him is based mostly on listening to his speeches, observing his behavior and reactions under a variety of circumstances, and researching his record when it comes to issues like the environment. (Let me add that when I research such issues I try to find several sources that concur with each other...not FOX news...not necessarily Michael Moore). I want a leader that not only I can respect, but that the world respects. I want a leader that can convey his thoughts in grammatically correct sentences containing meaningful,logical, and rational ideas. I want a leader that uses war as a last resort after all other alternatives are exhausted. And if we have to invade a country, then to invade the one that actually attacked us. I want a leader who is not prejudiced against people of other races and sexual orientation. I want a leader who cares for this beautiful earth we live on and does not tear down laws that have been previously constructed to help our environment and preserve our wildlife. These are only a few attributes that I demand in my leader. Perhaps you feel different attributes are more important to you. That's the exact reason we have an election to decide all of this. To decide who Americans feel better represent them. I guess in November we will both find out the answer to this. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my previous post. I always enjoy hearing different interpretations and viewpoints on world issues.

Thank you for sharing your point of view. I don’t think that either George Will or I misunderstand the lyrics. Honestly, until your comments surfaced on my blog I had never really paid much attention to those lyrics. Now I grew up in the 80’s and remember the song coming out and here we are 20 years later and all I really remember about the song is the line, “Born in the USA!” I could be wrong, but my feeling is that by in large that is all, most people remember about the song. But you do bring up a good point here and it is exactly what George Will was touching on then. Despite Springsteen’s politics being misguided then and obviously now, he still was able to invoke a feeling of patriotism and nationalism for this beautiful country that we live in.

Your obvious disdain for Fox News and your very soft rebuke of Michael Moore is enough to explain your view, your take on your continued misunderstanding of the sixth commandment and its application here. I’m not sure what news sources you do use, other than to say, not necessarily Moore (who is a propagandist and does not make documentaries), but you do discard the one news source where you are guaranteed to hear both points of view. I think the fundamental problem with accusations of partisanship from Fox News, is that no other news network gives the conservative perspective any chance at all. So of course if the other networks have a 95/5 split on liberal/conservative reporting of news and Fox has a 45/55 split on liberal/conservative reporting it seems like a huge difference. It is huge and it is not necessarily fair that they would tilt to one side or the other, but at least they give the conservative voice a chance to be heard. Which incidentally, they are killing every other news sources in the ratings, so I believe there is a huge market and huge need to have a more “fair and balanced” view of the news. This is not something you will get on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc.

That being said, I can fully appreciate why you would view President Bush in the light in which you do. The lens you are using to view him through is tainted and smudged though and does not give a clear picture of who he is and how he leads. I think the most telling aspect of this tainted point of view, is the prideful notion that a news network, or a propagandist like Moore will have more information about our national security then the President and his advisors. Perhaps it’s not the view they have more information, but they do think they have ALL the information in which to base their criticisms. This is a ridiculous notion and is very dangerous in how it causes people like you to follow suit.

Your description of a leader is a fair one, but rather than looking at facts on which to base that on, you looked at what you view President Bush is not. Unfortunately, as I explained above, your view of him is tainted, you have been misled. No one is perfect and he is no exception to that rule, but you cannot simultaneously believe that President Bush is both an idiot and a diabolical mastermind. Until you get that straightened out, there is no point in going issue for issue. Bottom line, I want a President who will protect this nation, its people, its values and most importantly believes and follows Jesus Christ.

We are fortunate enough to live in country to be free to express our points of view and our dissent against the powers that be. But we do have a responsibility to make informed and thoughtful decisions, and in November I hope that is what the good people of this country will do.

Thank you your response. I think for you to use the word "disdain" in regards to my feelings on FOX News is a little harsh. Quite frankly, there are few things that I have disdain for and FOX News just doesn't rank up there on the list. I usually only hold those kind of feelings for heavier issues such as murder and rape. Actually, I think FOX News is quite entertaining. It is obvious that just the mere suggestion that FOX News might be biased has caused you to become very defensive. Most of the news sources I use are newspapers and journals from all over the country and occasionally from other countries as well. We are lucky enough to live in a time of the internet where it makes it very easy to research any topic thoroughly. Michael Moore has openly admitted his feelings toward the Bush Administration are biased, however he has been able to back up the facts that he has presented through documentation. Not too mention that if everything in his movies was lies than I'm sure he would have a few lawsuits on his hands. I do actually watch FOX News occasionally, not as a source for news, but to see for myself whether they are biased. I don't believe you can HONESTLY say that the journalists and reporters on FOX News don't lean heavlily to the right. Often the news reporters make pro-Bush /anti-Kerry side comments. If Fox News is so "fair and balanced" as their motto claims then why does John Moody (Sr. Vice President, News Editorial for Fox News) find it necessary to send a daily memo to Fox employees letting them know what they should and should not talk about in regards to Bush and Kerry? (This is a practice unheard of at other news stations) Why would Rupert Murdoch hire Roger Ailes (FoxNews CEO and Chairman)a man who was a former media strategist for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. for their presidential campaign? Why would they appoint Carl Cameron as the lead Fox political correspondent during the 2000 election when he had a strong affiliation to GWB (Cameron's wife was actually heavily involved in Bush's campaign and even "hung out" with Bush's sister) (This info. is from an actual interview I saw between Bush and Cameron). When other situations like this arose at other news stations the reporter(s) was reassigned. If you have decided to use Fox News as your source for news, I can only hope that you don't take Bill O'Reilly seriously. I will point out now that I don't have disdain for Bill either, although I do believe he needs some serious help. I think it is an embarassment to Fox that O'Reilly is supposed to be well-versed in politics, yet as soon as someone with an opposing view responds with a valid argument Bill does at least one of three things: 1) Talks/yells over them so they can't complete their sentence 2)Tells them to "shut up" and/or 3)tells his crew to "cut their mic". I have watched several Bill O'Reilly interviews and almost all of them end the same way. One of the most disturbing O'Reilly interviews I have witnessed was with Jeremy Glick in which Bill beats down a young man who lost his father on 9/11. The transcript is available on several websites.( Here's the first one that came up during my search-http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm) Of course you can't get the true feel of the interview from the transcript alone. O'Reilly actually ends up yelling at Glick. No matter whether you agree with what Jeremy says or not Bill had no right to treat someone like that. I don't despise Fox News; my concern is that people use Fox News as their sole source for news and this will leave them misguided. The fact that Fox News is so popular does not necessarily indicate that what they are presenting is not biased. These two issues are not one in the same. Farenheit 911 was widely popular (among Democrats and Republicans), yet I'm sure you'd be the first to argue that the movie was biased.
It is obvious that this is an unending disagreement. It is evident that no matter what I say you will believe that I am misled in my understanding of the President and I have no problem with that because I know in my heart and my mind that my understanding is veracious.

As I mentioned before, the bulk of my opinion of GWB is based solely on words uttered from his own lips and his record during his time as Gov. of Texas and his years as President. I watched him in the debates in 2000 and I make an effort to watch every national speech he gives ( I even download the transcript if I miss the speech on TV). I don't understand how my view of him can be so skewed when my view of him is coming directly from his own actions and words.

I took a few days to think about what you wrote and wanted to before I responded. Without getting into the semantics of your disdain or lack thereof for Fox News, it is an amazing time we live in indeed to be able to access so many news sources at our fingertips. This isn’t without its problems though. With so many news sources popping up, mostly all have an agenda of some sort and truth can tend to get blurred in there. There is a trend towards the idea that truth is in the eye of the beholder and this is extremely dangerous and makes objective news extinct, assuming it existed in the first place.

I think your criticisms of Fox News and their conservative roots drips with hypocrisy. That is especially clear if you believe the rhetoric that comes from the other major networks, most newspapers in this country and just about all outside of the US. You can’t honestly be critical of conservative values being rooted in Fox News and ignore the liberal progressive “values” that are the foundations of these other news sources. On top of which, the site you linked in your comment is far from sincere with the way it presents itself. The fact that Fox is so popular is not a direct indicator of being unbiased, but it is an indicator that the worldview it gives represents a greater portion of the population, you obviously aside.

To believe that your view of President Bush is solely based on his own words, I’m afraid, is unfoundedly impossible. By your own admission you look to news sources around the world and in this country, so whether you realize it or not they will shape your view of the world. If you read nothing but his speeches and lived in a vacuous box, you may have some footing there to stand. As you said though, this is an unending argument. My only hope is that you will not have any misguided notions that your worldview is not affected by what you read. Furthermore, I’m afraid if you buy into the Michael Moore worldview, you don’t have a very biblical outlook on life which is what I believe the clear difference is between us.

I find it astonishing that you took a few days to respond to my post yet you have not responded with valid and relevant arguments. I raised several specific questions in regards to the staff a Fox News, yet you failed to answer these inquiries. I think you have very naive and judgmental views of people that you consider liberal. You have implied that if someone is a democrat or a liberal, they can not have values (or "values" as you have decided to phrase it). You have also suggested that I, along with other liberals can not have a "biblical outlook on life". You have no idea, what I believe in in regards to religon, yet you have assumed quite a lot from only a few posts. I have decided that this will be my last post due to the negative vibes that have emitted from your responses. I was under the assumption that I could have a debate with you about politics without having my values or faith questioned and attacked. I wish you the best of luck with everything. I hope you will eventually come to the realization that being a liberal,being a democrat, watching a Michael Moore movie, questioning the actions of our President and his administration, are not synonymous with lacking strong moral values and a belief in God.

Just to be clear, whether Ashlee responds again or not, I was not saying that being liberal or being a democrat meant a person does not have a biblical worldview. Although I would certainly question that with the direction the mainstream left has taken the party and abandoned those moral values to take the progressive stance they have on many issues. That being said, and not being able to proclaim a person a Christian or not, I would think it highly unlikely for someone that lived a life in pursuit of Jesus Christ would agree with the worldview stance that Michael Moore takes. I’m sorry if that offended her and I by no means think I am a definitive authority on this issue. She wanted a debate, but wanted to argue from a hypocritical baseless stance. I’m afraid those two ideas don’t go together so well. But I do thank her for the discourse.