Maybe Poppy truly was a principled Rockefeller Republican

[urbanguerrilla]

or he could of been to dumb or bad of an actor to play along with the Dubya, Reagan cowboy ranch shtick.

I mean, he sure as hell didn't gain anything out of being a "liberal" republican, but I at least have a small kernel of respect for not hiding his propensity for the New World Order, unlike his son. You knew he was an imperialist stooge, but at least he kept his paws out of other people's bedrooms.

[Winamericaback]

1. Well I don't think bashing gays was Vogue then..

These issues weren't popular, the neocons didn't have that much control yet so why piss off possible voters?

NOW ole bushy boy needs those voters. SO he has to do something to get their vote, and that means telling them they that he is their god and that he will further there cause.

[NYC]

2. He said atheists were not citizens.

Maybe he didn't intrude into people's bedrooms, but he certainly expressed his opinions about people's religions.

It is on film. Bush, Sr. said atheists are not really citizens (of the United States).

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

3. Yeah, right...

... Poppy held hearings as a congressman in the late 1960's on the threat from "black babies" and begged for sterilization of minorities. The list goes on...

[0rganism]

4. I disagree. W is honest compared to Poppy

Not in his speech, of course, but rather in his person and policies. Poppy would say he was bringing about a New World Order, and we could spend years trying to figure out exactly what he meant and what he did to implement it, when it was all misdirection anyway. But where Poppy was inclined to mask his intentions and instinctively played his cards close to his shirt, W can't hide jack shit. Everything you need to know about W is written plain as day in his demeanor: his contemptuous smirks, his neo-aristocratic condescension, his idiotic babbling, his unmitigated avarice, his thinly-masked paeons to the fundamentalists, his undisguised love of bullying. It's all so clearcut with W.

I think we could get bipartisan consensus with the freeps on this much: you may not like his agenda, but you can be pretty damn sure what it is.

I never had that kind of confidence with Poppy. Poppy was a CIA man, a spook, a black box with trick sides and hidden compartments, a slimey double-dealer, a dirty player. He'd let you think he's a wimp while he picked your pockets clean.

W is not a player like his dad. He wouldn't be capable of cheating at cards and he'd probably consider it a waste of time anyway. Instead, he'd let you win and hire a gunman to mug you after the game, and he'd be dropping blatant hints the whole time. "Golly gee, yeh sure ere winning a lot of money off meh, think ye'll be able to keep it? Yeh could use that cash to hire a bodyguard, yeh know. Hehe. *snort*"

Poppy is a very dull movie which you might keep watching in case there's a surprise ending. W is a poorly-acted action movie with waaaay too much foreshadowing, where you're able to guess the plot turns 10 minutes in advance.

Unfortunately, certain poorly-acted action movies have done extremely well at the box office...

[Forkboy]

5. And then again....maybe not

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Then why was Poppy, while in the CIA, was in the middle of operations

like being in Dallas when JFK was assasinated or trying to get the U.S. to attack Cuba to get Castro out of the picture? That doesn't sound too liberal or progressive to me.