While I'm personally not a big fan of either primary candidate in the election, I don't believe that Jesus can be used as an example of a Liberal in the likeness of today's Democrats. (In response to the statement that Jesus was the first Liberal)
He was nothing like either party as it stands today. He was more libertarian than modern Liberal. The difference is something that seems to be lost on this generation.
Spongemom wrote:
I am not going to get into my personal opinion of George Bush. That would take far too long. I will, however, say that for those who do believe in a God, following Bush at the same time is hypocritical. He is a religious fanatic almost to the point of insanity. Claiming Jesus as his "favorite philosopher", and then condemning liberals as being "unpatriotic" when Jesus himself was a liberal. Amazing how that works, ain't it? 
Arguing that a claim to be a follower of Jesus while he (Bush) calls some from the other party, "unpatriotic", is hardly a paradox beyond the pale of everyday politics, and unfortunately, especially in the 21st century. I am personally made uneasy by the vitriolic nature of both party's campaigns against each other. As I say though, Jesus was not like the modern Liberal, and perhaps to be more clear, was certainly not a Democrat (or Republican).
There is a rise in attempts to show Christians in America that their current president is not Christ-like and that therefore he should not be voted for. But there is no Christ-like replacement. So it is a zero sum point.
I don't believe He would be proud of the Republicans today either.
That we need a psychiatrist to tell us that a politician is "a case study in contradiction" is truly funny, especially coming from a partisan doc. I think that any politician that rises to the level of the presidency will be presented this way by his opponents, whether they are professionally able to make that decision or not.
I'm less concerned with whether “George wanted to please his father but never felt he measured up, especially when compared to Jeb,” than I am with what each political leader does in his/her country and the world. Presidents are acquainted with daily problems that many "healthy" people would simply not be able to deal with at all. There is a known toll of public office, the higher up the ladder one climbs. People often quip that they would never want the president's job, citing the continuous flow of events that age one so quickly. Being the CEO of a company is known to be highly stressful at times (heart attacks abound), so we can logically deduce that the CEO of a country will have proportionately increased liabilities. With this increase, though I am no expert, I imagine it is reasonable to assume, that smaller neuroses may become more visible.
I simply wouldn't bank on "experts" to tell us the value or lack thereof present in a presidential candidate. We are all smart enough to do our homework, no? Perhaps I'm being too simplistic since I don't live in the US and am merely an observer. Today, perhaps as much as ever, propaganda on every side of a debate abounds. Everyone must know where they stand and measure their candidates against that, not the other way around.
Democrats today are nothing like what they once were, and the Republicans don't fit their own originality either. I don't envy the voters, though I hope you all will make your decisions based on reason and sound judgment rather than emotion or frustration. That isn't to say your votes would be different, but simply that you can have confirmation you are making the vote in line with your values.
