During his visit to the Golden Lamb Inn in Lebanon, President Bush stops to hug Ashley Faulkner, who lost her mom in the Sept. 11 attacks. Photo by Lynn Faulkner
In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager's head close to his heart.
Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:
"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."
Bush stopped and turned back.
"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."
Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.
"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.' "
"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."
Special for Lynn Faulkner because the Golden Lamb was the place he and his wife, Wendy Faulkner, celebrated their anniversary every year until she died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, where she had traveled for business.
The day was also special for Ashley, a 15-year-old Mason High School student, because the visit was reminiscent of a trip she took four years ago with her mother and Prince. They spent all afternoon in the rain waiting to see Bush on the campaign trail. Ashley remembers holding her mother's hand, eating Triscuits she packed and bringing along a book in case she got bored.
But this time was different. She understood what the president was saying, and she got close enough to see him face to face.
"The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me," Ashley said. "I thought, 'Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I'm safe.' I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me."
The photo has been circulating across the country, Faulkner said. Relatives have passed it on to friends, bosses and acquaintances. As they tell the story, they also share in Wendy Faulkner's legacy, which her family continues through the Wendy Faulkner Memorial Children's Foundation.
"I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life," Faulkner said of the moment with the president. "But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart."
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OZZY JOINS BUSH BASH WITH HITLER MONTAGE Thu Jul 15 2004 11:38:38 ET
Rocker Ozzy Osbourne took Jones Beach, NY last night on what is quickly becoming a predictable Bush-bashing express.
Osbourne opened his concert with the song "War Pigs," featuring a video portrait comparing Bush to Adolph Hitler.
The video featured Bush and Hitler on the same screen, with the caption: "Same sh*t different a**hole," says a source. Footage of bombs dropping and Hitler marching flashed as Ozzy screamed and guitars screeched.
Ozzy also flashed a picture of Bush with a clown nose, caption: 'The White House Circus."
Other bands in the OZzzFest lineup, such as Black Label Society, expressed support of the war.
The lead singer told the crowd in a profanity laced tirade against the terrorist: "Those f**kers crashed the planes into the Towers."
The concert featured a few dedicated songs to the our men and women serving overseas.
posted
After books critical of President Bush, including Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies and Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, topped the best-seller lists this year, Bush joked to reporters: "It really gets me when the critics say I haven't done enough for the economy. Look what I've done for the book publishing industry."
Speaking of books not so critical of Bush, I have just started American Soldier by General Tommy Franks about the Afgan and Iraq war. Wow, great read! Highly recommend - even for you Joe . $15 at Sam's
The Commander in Chief of the United States Central Command from July 2000 through July 2003, General Tommy Franks made history by leading American and Coalition forces to victory in Afghanistan and Iraq — the decisive battles that launched the war on terrorism.
In this riveting memoir, General Franks retraces his journey from a small–town boyhood in Oklahoma and Midland, Texas, through a lifetime of military service — including his heroic tour as an Artillery officer in Vietnam, where he was wounded three times. A reform–minded Cold War commander and a shrewd tactician during Operation Desert Storm, Franks took command of CENTCOM at the dawn of what he calls a "crease in history" — becoming the senior American military officer in the most dangerous region on earth.
Now, drawing on his own recollections and military records declassified for this book, Franks offers the first true insider's account of the war on terrorism that has changed the world since September 11, 2001. He puts you in the Operations Center for the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom just weeks after 9/11, capturing its uncertain early days and the historic victory that followed. He traces his relationship with the demanding Donald Rumsfeld, as early tensions over the pace of the campaign gave way to a strong and friendly collaboration.
When President Bush focused world attention on the threat of Iraq, Franks seized the moment to implement a bold new vision of joint warfare in planning Operation Iraqi Freedom. Rejecting Desert Storm–style massive troop deployment in favor of flexibility and speed, Franks was questioned by the defense establishment — including Secretary of State Colin Powell. Yet his vision was proven on the ground: Within three weeks, Baghdad had fallen.
American Soldier is filled with revelation. Franks describes the covert diplomacy that helped him secure international cooperation for the war, and reveals the role of foreign leaders — and a critical double agent code–named "April Fool" — in the most successful military deception since D–Day in 1944. He speaks frankly of intelligence shortcomings that endangered our troops, and of the credible WMD threats — including eleventh–hour warnings from Arab leaders — that influenced every planning decision. He offers an unvarnished portrait of the "disruptive and divisive" Washington bureaucracy, and a candid assessment of the war's aftermath. Yet in the end, as American Soldier demonstrates, the battles in Afghanistan and Iraq remain heroic victories — wars of liberation won by troops whose valor was "unequalled," Franks writes, "by anything in the annals of war."
Few individuals have the chance to contribute so much of themselves to the American story as General Tommy Franks. In American Soldier, he captures it all.
I am reading some neo-conservative book at the moment, that is funny but not based entirely on reality. Guess who it's by?
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might borrow that from you. I want to listen to it before I read Dick Morris' new book "Because he Could" - which tells the real story. (Morris was Clintons advisor and friend for many many years)
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not familiar with this magazine.... whether its a mainstream Conservative zine or more on the fringe... but a interesting editorial nontheless...
There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.
But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.
It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.
Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.
These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.
I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?
The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.
But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.
If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.
George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.
posted
That's one of many editorials in the issue you site - some are for and some are against Bush. It's no surprise to me that the hard core conservatives are against Bush (he isn't really that far to the right on the issues the neo cons really stand for). This mag seems very anti war etc and I have never heard of it before.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Mark Stenglein: Differences clearly favor George Bush
October 29, 2004 As the only independent serving on the Hennepin County Board, I often find myself in the middle of contentious debates. And, as someone who has never caucused with either party, I view issues from a unique perspective.
It is from that unique perspective that I offer my reasons for supporting George W. Bush.
One, the war on terror is real. Crazed, militant terrorists want to attack and kill Americans. The attack on the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the devastating attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, are examples of their desire. President Bush understands this reality and knows the primary role of the federal government is to protect its citizens. He has pledged to fight the terrorists overseas, rather than fighting them here at home.
John Kerry claims that he will fight a more sensitive war on terror. Kerry hopes to enlist France and Germany as allies to help fight the war on terror. I appreciate his desire to build strong alliances, but I have news for John Kerry: The terrorists will not care whether the United States has 32 allies or 132. They will continue their attempts to terrorize and kill Americans. The United States must stand firm against this threat and not waver to the whims of Europe.
Two, actions speak louder than words. Nearly every pro-Kerry ad I see talks about Kerry's "plans" for America. So, I looked on his campaign Web site and, indeed, found more than 45 plans in 15 categories. I appreciate his hard work and enthusiasm in talking about the issues of the day. But I have a question for John Kerry -- what have you been doing for the last 20 years?
As a member of the U.S. Senate, Kerry has been a member of the most exclusive club in the world for 20 years and has no record of accomplishment. If Kerry really has a "plan" to improve health care, why didn't he offer it while in the Senate? If Kerry really has a "plan" to improve education in America's classrooms, why didn't he work to get legislation passed? If Kerry really has a "plan" to lower taxes for the middle class, why didn't he? What has John Kerry been doing in the U.S. Senate for the last 20 years?
Contrast Kerry's record against George W. Bush's.
Bush campaigned in 2000 on lowering taxes for working families. He brought forward an idea, worked with Democrats and Republicans, and increased the per child tax credit to $1,000.
Bush campaigned in 2000 on reforming education in America. He brought forward an idea, worked with Democrats and Republicans and signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act.
Bush campaigned in 2000 on providing a prescription drug benefit plan for America's seniors. He brought forward an idea, worked with Democrats and Republicans, and signed the Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act.
While Kerry plans, Bush delivers.
Three, St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly was onto something when he endorsed Bush earlier this year. Mayor Kelly rightly noted the extreme political hatred in opposition to George W. Bush.
Of those people who say they're supporting Kerry, more seem to be voting against Bush than for Kerry. That's too bad, but it says quite a bit about John Kerry.
Author Tom Junod captures this sentiment in an Esquire magazine article from August of this year.
Junod writes, "the reason Bush will be difficult to unseat in November is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while Bush operates out of the moral certainty that the terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated."
There are clear differences in this election. These differences clearly favor George W. Bush.
Mark Stenglein, Minneapolis, is a member of the Hennepin County Board.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry's Afghan Amnesia By Charles Krauthammer Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A23 In the 1990s, Afghanistan was allowed to fall to the Taliban and become the global center for the training, indoctrination and seeding of jihadists around the world -- including the mass murderers of Sept. 11, 2001. This week, just three years after a two-month war that destroyed the Taliban, Afghanistan completed its first free election, choosing as president a pro-American democrat enjoying legitimacy and wide popular support. This represents the single most astonishing geopolitical transformation of the past four years. (Deposing Saddam Hussein ranks second. The global jihad against America was no transformation at all: It existed long before the Bush administration. We'd simply ignored al Qaeda's declaration of war.) But perhaps even more astonishing is how this singular American victory has disappeared from public consciousness. Americans have a deserved reputation for historical amnesia. Three years -- an eon -- have made us imagine that the Afghan war was easy and foreordained. Easy? In 2001, we had nothing there. What had the Clinton administration left in place? No plausible military plan. Virtually no intelligence. No local infrastructure. No neighboring bases. The Afghan Northern Alliance was fractured and weak. And Pakistan was actively supporting the bad guys. Within days of Sept. 11, the clueless airhead president that inhabits Michael Moore's films and Tina Brown's dinner parties had done this: forced Pakistan into alliance with us, isolated the Taliban, secured military cooperation from Afghanistan's northern neighbors, and authorized a radical war plan involving just a handful of Americans on the ground, using high technology and local militias to utterly rout the Taliban. President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war. This is all barely remembered and barely noted. Most amazing of all, John Kerry has managed to transform our Afghan venture into a failure -- a botched operation in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because he "outsourced" bin Laden's capture to "warlords" in the battle of Tora Bora. Outsourced? The entire Afghan war was outsourced. How does Kerry think we won it? How did Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul and Kandahar fall? Stormed by thousands of American GIs? They fell to the "warlords" we had enlisted, supported and directed. It was their militias that overran the Taliban. "Outsourcing" is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies." (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the United Nations?) And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing which cave to storm without getting blown up. As Kerry himself said on national television at the time of Tora Bora (Dec. 14, 2001): "What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will" -- i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way." Now, as always, the retroactive military genius says he would have done it differently. Yet in the same interview, when asked about how things were going overall in Afghanistan, he said, "I think we have been smart; I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on the right track." Once again, the senator's position has evolved, to borrow the New York Times' delicate term for Kerry's many about-faces. This election comes down to a choice between one man's evolution and the other man's resolution. With his endlessly repeated Tora Bora charges, Kerry has made Afghanistan a major campaign issue. So be it. Whom do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire" during its second week and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything" differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now. letters@charleskrauthammer
Posts: 1845 | From: Chaska | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Did God Intervene? Evangelicals are crediting God with securing re-election victory for George W. Bush.
By Deborah Caldwell On the day after President Bush was re-elected, he gave much of the credit to his political adviser, Karl Rove, whom he called "the architect" of his campaign. But in evangelical churches, on Christian radio, and in voter precincts dominated by conservative Christians, the credit is going instead to someone a whole lot more powerful: God.
The Almighty intervened in the U.S. election, these evangelicals believe, to allow Bush to remain president. They say God has "blessed" America with Bush--and had Sen. John Kerry been elected, God would have "cursed" the U.S. By allowing Bush to be re-elected, God has given America "more time" to stop its slide into evil. "This was Providence," evangelical leader and presidential adviser Charles Colson told Beliefnet. "Anybody looking at the 2000 election would have to say it was.a miraculous deliverance, and I think people felt it again this year." By allowing Bush to stay in office, Colson said, God is "giving us a chance to repent and to restore some moral sanity to American life."
Richard Land, a leading Southern Baptist who participates in a weekly strategy call between the White House and evangelical leaders put it this way: "Whoever won, it would have been God's will." But because Bush won, Land told Beliefnet, God has clearly shown America his blessings. If Kerry had won, it would have proved God was cursing the United States. "The Bible says godly leadership is a sign of God's blessings and a lack of godly leadership is a sign of God's judgment. I don't see Kerry as a godly leader."
Meanwhile, Paul Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation and one of the original engineers of the conservative Christian political revolution, wrote an essay claiming that "God gave this President and this President's Party one more chance.God heard the fervent prayers of millions of values voters to keep His hand on America one more time despite our national sins of denying the right to life, despite ignoring the Biblical injunction against acts which are 'an abomination unto the Lord' and despite the blatant attempt to remove God from the public square."
Jim Rogers of the group Mission America sent out an email the day after the election saying, "Yesterday America cried out and He heard from heaven and answered our prayers. PRAISE GOD!!"
Plenty of ordinary American evangelicals also believe that by allowing Bush to be re-elected, God has given the United States another chance. For months leading up to the election, many Christians nationwide prayed and fasted, in an effort led by Intercessors for America, to assist in Bush's re-election.
Among them was Diana Sheehan, a mother and housewife who led a weekly prayer group at her Pennsylvania church whose sole task was to pray about the election. For 40 days ending on Nov. 2, she also participated in a no-sugar fast. On Election Day, Sheehan paced back and forth reading the Bible in her church, Dove Christian Fellowship in Ephrata, Pa., as part of a round-the-clock 48-hour prayer vigil for the president. His reelection, she said, was God's signal that "he's giving us more time to get our act together. I think this nation is going down the tubes very quickly."
Across town at a local polling place, Republican committeewoman Anna Mae Ressler said Bush's re-election would mean that God has "answered our prayers and given us another chance." Ressler said she had been reading the Book of Jeremiah, which she believes parallels American history. "When that nation got so bad, the Lord sent them into captivity," Ressler explained. "We've done an awful lot of things in this country that are displeasing to God."
Now that God has given America extra time from which to be spared his wrath, evangelicals feel some urgency to buckle down to God's business. That is why, for example, a group called Christian Response has already sent out an email with the subject line "EMERGENCY!" to induce supporters to blast Capitol Hill with faxes condemning Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican Pennsylvania senator who said last week that judicial nominees who oppose abortion would face difficulty getting Senate confirmation. The Family Research Council and Focus on the Family followed within hours with emails entitled "Stop Specter."
Many evangelicals think America is secular and decadent and in cultural decline. Their role, they believe, is to stem that tide and renew the culture. Many of these Christians seem to believe that God will be angry with them-and with the entire nation-if they don't make big legislative changes. And so, they put themselves on a short leash with God, and they hope to convince other Americans to do likewise.
"God is not going to tolerate a nation that thumbs its nose at Him," Colson says. "This whole idea of scrubbing all religious influence out of public life and taking down the Ten Commandments and stopping prayer and not allowing people to talk about their faith for fear of offending someone--I don't think God honors that. God's patience runs out."
Their solution seems to lie in Bush's presidency. "He is one of those men God and fate somehow led to the fore in times of challenge," said New York Gov. George Pataki in the high-profile introduction of Bush at the Republican National Convention, an introduction almost certainly scrubbed if not written by the White House. Pataki and former New York Mayor Rudoph Giuliani both said twice that Americans should "Thank God" that Bush was in office after 9/11.
During the period after 9/11, Bush talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment, according to Time magazine. World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted White House official Tim Goeglein as saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Popular Christian broadcaster Janet Parshall told her listeners: "God picked the right man at the right time for the right purpose." And Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, who got in trouble for derogatory comments he made about Islam, argued that it must have been God who selected Bush in 2000, since a plurality of voters hadn't. "He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this."
It seems clear that the president himself believes that God is orchestrating American history. At the 2003 National Prayer Breakfast, for instance, Bush said, "we can be confident in the ways of Providence... Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."
Barry Hankins, a historian at Baylor University, says these sorts of beliefs arose with the founding of the nation and persist among certain Christians. "There is a strong cultural belief among Protestant Christians that America is a vehicle for God's will," he says. "If you scratch people enough below the surface, there's this belief that Providence has a hand in everything that happens in America. And at times like this it comes out because it's in the back of people's minds or hearts."
The Puritans believed they were establishing the New Israel and that their enterprise was guided by God--that they were God's chosen people headed for the Promised Land. But that metaphorical idea, that America was a beacon, began to mutate by the early 19th Century into the belief that America was the literal instrument to lead a world transformation to Christian democracy.
"That's been a powerful idea in American history, and it usually lays dormant," Hankins says, "but at times, the language is so powerful that when positive things happen in the eyes of evangelicals, there's a tendency to fall back into that language."
The last time this triumphal view was common was during the Reagan Administration. Before then it was the Cold War struggle of the 1950s. "It was very difficult for evangelicals to stop short of saying God was on our side," Hankins says.
Not all evangelicals buy the argument, however. Erwin McManus, a rising evangelical leader who leads a Los Angeles church called Mosaic, believes this interpretation is short-sighted and isolationist. "What we really need to ask is, what choices do we make that serve humanity the best and reflect the value system the Bible teaches? How do I relieve the most suffering? How do I do the most good? How do I give people the best options to live the life they should live? How do I create a culture of life?"
McManus, a registered independent who voted for Bush, says members of his conservative, evangelical, Bible-centered church don't believe God intervened in the election. Their average age is 25 and they represent 57 nations. "They feel embarrassed when they hear language that sounds elitist, because that isn't Christian to them," McManus says.
But that isn't how many evangelicals understand their language. They consider it fair warning. Land looks to the Old Testament for proof. "When God's people were idolatrous and rebellious he sent justice--sometimes evil kings and sometimes foreign conquerors," he says. "I've said on numerous occasions, that if God would allow his chosen people to be taken off into captivity, don't think he won't judge the United States."
Deborah Caldwell is a senior editor and national correspondent at Beliefnet.
posted
Who would you rather have behind you: these religious zealots or us gun nuts? Jo has hit it on the head in the past - you gotta take the good with the bad. The bad obviously is the religious right. Why don't we Atheists have a candidate we can stand behind? It certainly isn't the "Evil" Democrats. Posts: 559 | From: Blaine, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: Go find the craziest shit you can find and attach it to a party
A) I didn't go find it.
B) Your head is in the sand if you don't know that this is a HUGE demographic of the GOP. This is not the fringe, this is the base of the GOP...
C) And the GOP doesn't try and attach stupid, crazy shit to the other party on a daily basis...
D) G.W. openly talked about how he doesn't read books, but talks to God... and think's he talks back..... He makes me want to puke everytime he brings up how "God's greatest gift is freedom... bla bla bla...."...
posted
Keep it up Joe..... Keep looking for any excuse as to how Bush won. Eventully, you will have to accept the fact that 51% of the population voted for him, more then ever voted for Clinton.
Do you think the right would act like this if Kerry/Gore won? I mean some on the left want to join Canada..... Talk about sore losers.. What happened to all the talk about bringing the nation together Kerry was spouting? (lasted just past his concession speech)
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a spray on CS the other day that said "I live with 59 million idiots." What I don't understand is how the people who LOST think that those of us who WON are the idiots.
Could it be that I actually live with 53 million idiots with impressionable minds who were easily swayed by the influence of the media?
posted
Why can't EVERYONE here just accept that we all have different opinions on our "president"? Obviously Joe, Brad, and I are way outnumbered here, but you're NEVER going to sway us to the other side. We believe in what we believe, and you believe in what you believe.
Personally, I don't think W is religious at all, I think he is putting on a front for America. Secondly, I still don't see where the seperation of church and state came into play here. Thirdly, I don't believe in "God" (notice I didn't say "religion") and unless you have some hard core proof for me, I ain't gonna buy into it.
I absolutely agree that some people choose to believe the media instead of educating themselves, BUT that goes for both side. There is a LOT of mud slinging on both sides of the campaigns. Neither candidate is innocent on that account.
With that said: Go HILLARY 2008!! (he he, had to throw that in.)
-------------------- Clinton '08!!!! Posts: 211 | From: Shakopee, MN | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you will find 80% of those that post on this board are non-religious (or dont't believe in a higher power)....And probably 80% of those people voted republican...... So the whole the religious right is why W won arguement is silly.
And Amy I wasn't trying to sway you to the republician side. I was just trying to show you that there are some republican ideas/policies that will help you - it's not all bad. Just like there are things Clinton did that I thought were good for my life.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly would venture to guess that about 70-80% of those who voted for Bush voted for him more out of religious issues than anything else. Look at the states he won, they were on the "bible belt" and are radical religious FREAKS. He really pushed the religious issues and the fact that he is a Christian a LOT during his campaign. Which I didn't think was really right, being that no deccisions should be made based on religion. Those religious FREAKS are very impressionable people and will believe anything that they hear or read. (My friend Stacy is a GREAT example of that!)
-------------------- Clinton '08!!!! Posts: 211 | From: Shakopee, MN | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
There are many reasons you could site for the W victory/Kerry defeat, you are just picking one and trying to make it reflect negatively on the right.
What about the increase from 9%-11% blacks voting for Bush.
What about the large increase of Hispanics voting for Bush.
What about the fact that the 18-25 yr olds didn't turn out for Kerry like they were hoping. (didn't vote at all)
Security Mom's voting for Bush.
Maybe Kerry was a shitty Dem canidate?
Did you catch the O'Reily interview with Bush? He discussed his religious views at length. While he has strong views - it didn't come across to me that he was listening to a little voice in his head - like the dems would like you to believe.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
WHATEVER, your board deleted my first post cause I used too many so sorry I touched the sacred Bush Monkey.. but your oblivious to the world we live in if you don't know that fundamenalist Christians are a huge base of the GOP... THE BUSH CAMPAIGN OPENLY TALKS ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME DURING THE ELECTION.... so whatever...I don't know what world your living in....This board is not a representative cross section of middle america Klaus...
I forget the the SOP of the GOP lately is damn the consequences, full steam ahead, and for GODS sake no CRITICAL ANAYLSIS WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT....
Thanks again for making me sorry I post something I thought some of you would be capable of objective discussion about it... thank you for proving me wrong again....
Not religiously based huh Klaus???? MORAL VALUES???? WTF is that and how do you at all gauge it... I call that ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS....
Yes BOON I do think that a significant portion of thos 59 mill people are sheeple idiots who think Iraq attacked us on 9/11 or some other such nonesense.. ....
DISCLAIMER: The following images contain trends based on a percentage of votes and avg edu level. There is no statistical analysis done on the comparison, it is completely anecdotal to compare the two trends observationally for the point of a discussion.***
which lines up pretty good to the results
I thought I'd use pictures, as I know the Bush supporters have a little trouble with big words...
Yes, there would of been plenty of sore loosers on the GOP side had Kerry one, but you probably wouldn't have heard as much, as they'd be busy figuring out how to get the supreme court to appoint their candidate again....(Since you bring up CLINTON all the time, voter fraud is at least as pertanent to this election as him... )
posted
I wonder how the election would have went had lieberfart been the candidate?
-------------------- Gisel, I was looking at the picture page and I do have to admit, you look pretty good for a gaming female. Having said that, don't expect any sympathy when we meet on the battlefield. I am a fighter first, lover second. Posts: 2220 | From: Prescott, WI, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: There are many reasons you could site for the W victory/Kerry defeat, you are just picking one and trying to make it reflect negatively on the right.
What about the increase from 9%-11% blacks voting for Bush.
What about the large increase of Hispanics voting for Bush.
What about the fact that the 18-25 yr olds didn't turn out for Kerry like they were hoping. (didn't vote at all)
Security Mom's voting for Bush.
All valid points, I would of loved to discuss all of the election results..
But a discussion would incorporate ALL sides of the issue, and thats certainly not allowed on here...
posted
WTF are you talking about since when has anything you said "been not allowed on here"?
I have no control over the number of similes you can use on this board - it's part of the software. (please smiley responsibly)
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Klaus: WTF are you talking about since when has anything you said "been not allowed on here"?
I said critical open discussion of ALL perspectives isn't allowed here without snide remarks, inuendo, and veiled insults...
I know its the board software, but its the only forum I've been on that has a image limit.
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What did I start? How exactly is welcome to jesus land a direct attack on anyone here??? wtf?? I guess I didn't think I had to qualify that I know that that article does NOT represent the reasons you guys voted... or anything that I've ever brought up about politics.... Fer fucs sake it was just a bloody article, cant anything be interesting without it being a agenda...FUCK!!!!!!!!! WTF??? Thats the difference, I'm presumed to be supporting/pushing the DNC platform, just because I don't lockstep in with & question the GOP.... I do give ya'll more consideration than that whatever...
As far not picking on poor ol'georgie porgie because he's President that noise, didn't stop anyone on the right from dispariging Clinton when he was prez... Hypocracy.... Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Joe, putting on even my most objective analytical eye, I do not see any significant trends to correlate education to political affiliation quantitatively or qualitatively using the graphical data on the maps you posted. There are some areas that trend the way you claim but it appears there are as many if not more regions that trend the opposite. The majoity of people that are claiming this now are the same ones that claimed it was all the right's fault that being a "minority" somehow makes it harder for you to GET a good education thus logically minorities should support the left....
My point being; it proves nothing.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion as none of this really maters. The sky is not falling and won't over the next 4 years. I do not particularly like organized religion.
BUT, when it comes to religious fanaticism, it is not the christians I am woried about...
posted
You posted the Jesus land map - which is a funny joke I agree. But lately the left (not saying you personally Joe) have started to really believe that's how the country is divided.
I agree with you that some of the republican base is made up of religious people (even zealots). But an equal number of the lefts support is from Michael Moore type of people. So what does that leave us with? The people like you and I that are in the middle or slightly to one side. So blaming the election results on "idiots" or religious people is silly.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taken from Atlapedia.com: RELIGIONS: Mostly Christians with 53% of the population Protestant while 26% are Roman Catholic and 8% are other denominations. Other religious minorities include Jews, which account for 2% and Muslims for 2% of the population.
My less then 9 years of education (must be because I voted for Bush) tells me that the above equals 91%. While I respect everyone here in the right to not believe in a god, I think your heads would be in the sand if you refused to accept the fact that you are in the minority in this country.
Joe: If your logic from that article applied like I think you would like it to, the election results would have been 91% to 9%, and Kerry wouldn't have been a candidate (Kerry is Catholic). If that article was a serious attempt to affiliate all Bush supporters with radical religious extremism you only degrade your own ability to formulate a valid argument.
Posts: 486 | From: Eagan, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: Taken from Atlapedia.com: RELIGIONS: Mostly Christians with 53% of the population Protestant while 26% are Roman Catholic and 8% are other denominations. Other religious minorities include Jews, which account for 2% and Muslims for 2% of the population.
My less then 9 years of education (must be because I voted for Bush) tells me that the above equals 91%. While I respect everyone here in the right to not believe in a god, I think your heads would be in the sand if you refused to accept the fact that you are in the minority in this country.
Ya, U.S. breakdown on Religion, I've seen it...but you left out that a very large percentage of the WORLD doesn't believe in the Chrisitan God?? So, are they wrong too???
FURTHRERMORE: Who said I don't believe in God or have any issue with the concept of God.... or that the article had anything to do with atheist vs people who believe in God....Back to the assumptions....
Catholics, Lutherans, and mainstream christians are NOT Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians... both fruit (no offense intended), but apples & oranges If you guys don't know the difference, and wont' acknowledge the desires of the religious right for the future of this country.. than really, GOD help us all (NOTE: just because I post a concern over this does not mean I think the world will fall apart in 4 years, I guess I have to put disclaimers on everything I say as well for some peoples benefit )
quote:Originally posted by Mikey: If that article was a serious attempt to affiliate all Bush supporters with radical religious extremism you only degrade your own ability to formulate a valid argument.
Like I said mike... where did I say that the article was "Gospel"????
Where did I say, OH HEY LOOKIE HERE THIS EXPLAINS THE WHOLE ELECTION AND WHY ALL BUSH SUPPORTERS VOTED THE WAY THEY DID... again.. whatever....??
Posts: 2469 | From: Anchorage, AK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chadwick: Joe, putting on even my most objective analytical eye, I do not see any significant trends to correlate education to political affiliation quantitatively or qualitatively using the graphical data on the maps you posted. There are some areas that trend the way you claim but it appears there are as many if not more regions that trend the opposite. The majoity of people that are claiming this now are the same ones that claimed it was all the right's fault that being a "minority" somehow makes it harder for you to GET a good education thus logically minorities should support the left....
My point being; it proves nothing.
I have nothing more to add to this discussion as none of this really maters. The sky is not falling and won't over the next 4 years. I do not particularly like organized religion.
BUT, when it comes to religious fanaticism, it is not the christians I am woried about...
Will this suffice??
DISCLAIMER: The following images contain trends based on a percentage of votes and avg edu level. There is no statistical analysis done on the comparison, it is completely anecdotal to compare the two trends observationally for the point of a discussion.***
...in the future I'll be sure to include lengthy disclaimers on eveything I post here...
posted
Sure is fun to go back and adjust that you were implying......... Come on we all know what conclusion you and Amy.... (oops and I lumping you guys together) are trying to draw. Why else would you post the two graphics with the text (kinda looks the same)..... Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[weep]](graemlins/weep.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. $15 at Sam's
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[crazy]](graemlins/crazy.gif)
![[lame]](graemlins/lame.gif)
boy I love living in a theocracy... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[demon]](graemlins/demon.gif)
![[argue]](graemlins/argue.gif)
![[brd]](graemlins/brdflick.gif)
![[bs]](graemlins/bs.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/jpshakehead.gif)
(NOTE: just because I post a concern over this does not mean I think the world will fall apart in 4 years, I guess I have to put disclaimers on everything I say as well for some peoples benefit 
