Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's faith-filled speech stirs both friend and foe (Peggy Noonan: it was "God-drenched")
Houston Chron ^ | Jan 22 05 | Houston Chron

Posted on 01/22/2005 9:18:55 AM PST by churchillbuff

Presidents as far back as Washington frequently invoked faith and religion in their public statements. Some scholars have said President Clinton made more frequent mention of Jesus Christ than has Bush, who is more closely associated with devout Christianity than his predecessor.

Even so, Bush's lyrical and at times defiant knitting together of religion and American democratic principles was widely noted, to mixed reviews.

Peggy Noonan, a conservative author and former speechwriter to former Presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan, on Friday in the Wall Street Journal criticized the president's speech as "God-drenched."

(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: bush; inauguraladdress; noonan; w2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last
I usually don't read articles by Peggy Noonan. Too long. Too unfocused. To self-referential and self-glorifying. Sometimes, she uses them, in a small petty way, to settle personal vendettas instead of focusing on the issue she claims to be writing about.
1 posted on 01/22/2005 9:18:56 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

And I am currently listening to my hero Charles Krauthammer who makes more sense than anyone living on this earth today.

Peggy is Ok, but she loves the sound of her own voice and her own work too much to be objective.


2 posted on 01/22/2005 9:23:28 AM PST by highflight (from a distance - buzzards might appear as eagles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

She's just mad that she didn't get to write the speech.


3 posted on 01/22/2005 9:24:17 AM PST by reportgirl73 (I wish I had a clever tagline....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

(This is a prior reply.)
Here is a link to Jack Wheeler's comments about Ms. Noonon in a Newsmax article.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/18/141839.shtml

Worth a look for an opinion of one who "worked" with the gracious lady. :-)


4 posted on 01/22/2005 9:24:54 AM PST by Prost1 (I get my news at Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highflight
my hero Charles Krauthammer """

I stopped reading him when he spewed bigotry at Mel Gibson and Christianity.

5 posted on 01/22/2005 9:28:03 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reportgirl73
She's just mad that she didn't get to write the speech."""

Maybe. Or maybe she's got a problem with mentioning God.

6 posted on 01/22/2005 9:29:33 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Please send me that link - because, as a Jew Charles was vigorously defending public displays and Christmas celebrations on Fox.


7 posted on 01/22/2005 9:30:07 AM PST by highflight (from a distance - buzzards might appear as eagles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
O'Reilly related that Bush said "God" four times. Ooops, forgot his "God bless America."
FOUR (five, with his standard sign-off) times is "God-drenched"?

Peggy is past her prime. She should retire, write books, get a face lift, travel and forget about it.

8 posted on 01/22/2005 9:30:13 AM PST by starfish923
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

[In his campaign, Bush frequently justified military action by saying that "freedom is almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."]


How dare President Bush utter such a divisive remark.

Dictators all over the world are surely offended by this rhetoric and will hate the United States EVEN MORE.


9 posted on 01/22/2005 9:30:19 AM PST by spinestein (Do I really need the sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

You definitely have her pegged! Even when she says things that I agree with (which is often), she makes me uneasy with
the "me, me, me" and "I, I, I". She certainly shows her "sense of self-importance". She gives the impression she is afraid
Bush might come to "overshadow" Reagan.....as if that would be bad.


10 posted on 01/22/2005 9:30:29 AM PST by Winfield (sham)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reportgirl73

LOLOL....all I remember about the brilliant Peggy's speechwriting was the line the first President Bush used that brought endless ridicule.....Thousand Points of Light


11 posted on 01/22/2005 9:30:39 AM PST by OldFriend (Isaiah 40:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

Thanks for that link. A side of Noonan I've never heard before. Puts into perspective her musings of Bush's speech.


12 posted on 01/22/2005 9:32:34 AM PST by CAluvdubya (From the RED part of California)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

What?! Are you sure you have the right man??


13 posted on 01/22/2005 9:32:53 AM PST by Winfield (sham)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: highflight
Please send me that link """

Sorry, I don't have time to find it. You might try some googling - with Krauthammer's name and "The Passion." His column got a lot of play - and a lot of negative comment on Freerepublic. Very hate-filled toward christianity, in my opinion (and the opinion of a lot of others). When I heard that he wrote a pro-Christmas piece recently, I wondered whether he might be engaged in some damage control.

14 posted on 01/22/2005 9:33:28 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Winfield
What?! Are you sure you have the right man??"""

Yes, he wrote a notorious column on The Passion.

15 posted on 01/22/2005 9:34:16 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Noonan is soooo yesterday but the MSM will give her plenty of air time to bash Pres Bush's speech.


16 posted on 01/22/2005 9:35:28 AM PST by daybreakcoming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winfield

I'd ask for a link; Krauthammer was on FNC constantly saying that as a Jew he did not find Christmas or Christian displays offensive at all


17 posted on 01/22/2005 9:37:41 AM PST by Peach (The grill on the hill. The Democrats are toast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

What is wrong with Peggy as of late?!


18 posted on 01/22/2005 9:38:03 AM PST by zzen01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zzen01

Becoming a "has been".


19 posted on 01/22/2005 9:39:20 AM PST by MKM1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: reportgirl73
Sounds like she's un-professionally P/O.
20 posted on 01/22/2005 9:39:31 AM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peach; Winfield; highflight
Here's the link to the FR discussion of Krauthammer's smear against Mel Gibson and Christianity. Krauthammer's article, in the Washington Post, was titled, "Gibson's Blood Libel"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091133/posts

21 posted on 01/22/2005 9:42:27 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Winfield

Here is Krauthammer's article that supposedly bashed Christians. I've just read it and will have to disagree that it bashes Christians. It bashes the movie in some aspects, and perhaps appropriately so. It is so violent I couldn't go see it and I'd have liked to see it.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/2431


22 posted on 01/22/2005 9:45:39 AM PST by Peach (The grill on the hill. The Democrats are toast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Peach; Winfield
. It bashes the movie """in some aspects,"""

In some aspects!!!?!! Give me a break. It calls it a "blood libel"!! Since all the movie did was portray the passion narrative on film, that's calling the passion story a "blood libel."

23 posted on 01/22/2005 9:47:48 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

Read your link. I never got that inside stuff on Noonan before. But now I see why she continues to be invited to liberal talkshows, even though none of her erstwhile "colleagues" are even known to the public.


24 posted on 01/22/2005 9:50:34 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Pretty much anything you say, I know it's the exact opposite.

And the movie was so incredibly violent and many good people, women especially that I know, were unable to go see it. It's unnecessary to expose people to that level of violence in order to make a Christian movie.

But go ahead and bash Krauthammer unnecessarily. Most freepers have long figured out your agenda.


25 posted on 01/22/2005 9:51:26 AM PST by Peach (The grill on the hill. The Democrats are toast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Noonan is obviously very bright, but her writing lacks discipline - - - so does her behaviour, because she's unable to stop herself from using her writing for petty score-settling (even a column about Reagan's funeral she debased by spending paragraph after paragraph on digs at former colleagues.)


26 posted on 01/22/2005 9:53:12 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I love you peggy, I think you're the best, but you're wrong about the speech.


27 posted on 01/22/2005 9:54:08 AM PST by rcocean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daybreakcoming

What is her e-mail address? I agree she loves the sound of her own voice. She treats herself as some kind of an icon. She loves the camera. I'm sure she doesn't like her negative press. Hey, Peggy, we can't have too much God!


28 posted on 01/22/2005 9:56:50 AM PST by Old anti feminist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Peach

First, you implied there was no such column. (Wrong as usual). Then, when I linked to the column, you go into a defensive mode, trying to excuse Krauthammer for calling the Christian Passion story a "blood libel". Glad I found the link, so anyone who wants to, can read the column for themselves.


29 posted on 01/22/2005 9:58:12 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

All I have to say is..some people act as if the mention of God in an Inaugural speech has never been done before Pres. Bush. GET OVER IT! I LOVED his speech! It made me proud to be an American and helps us to remember our deep roots as a country in Christianity. Not saying anyone else is excluded, it's just that people need to respect that many of our traditions come from Christianity.


30 posted on 01/22/2005 10:01:15 AM PST by FeeinTennessee (*2005...A year for Miracles! BELIEVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Pretty much anything you say, I know it's the exact opposite."""

Well, the point of this thread - - my post - is that Noonan's all wet in saying Bush used "God" too much. Apparently, since you alway disagree with me, you believe the opposite on this, too -- you agree with Noonan.

31 posted on 01/22/2005 10:03:04 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FeeinTennessee
as if the mention of God in an Inaugural speech has never been done before """

It's standard to invoke God. "God-drenched" is a really smarmy way to put down the speech.

Come to think of it, most of Peggy's articles are "Peggy-drenched" -- cluttered with references to Peggy!

32 posted on 01/22/2005 10:05:51 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Reading comprehension is really a problem for you, isn't it?

I didn't imply there wasn't a column. I said the freeper should ask for the link to the article. This was so they could decide for themselves if Krauthammer was in fact "bigoted toward Christianity" as you stated in your previous post.

I've read the article and certainly don't feel Krauthammer was displaying a bigotry to Christians. And anyone who saw him on Fox during the Christmas season saw that he was one of the most STAUNCH defenders of Christians I've ever seen from a nationally syndicated columnist.

As a Jew, it was quite astounding. And it's not just this Christmas that he has staunchy defended Christianity, although you say you think he only did that as "cover" for his "bigoted" article.

Anyone who has followed Krauthammer knows that what you are saying is untrue.

And anyone who has followed your "career" on Free Republic knows your true intent. Krauthammer is a neocon, after all.


33 posted on 01/22/2005 10:06:01 AM PST by Peach (The grill on the hill. The Democrats are toast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: reportgirl73
I really enjoyed the speech...I cannot understand all the carpping about it, excluding. of course, than the usual suspects.

It is my hope that the domestic side of it can garner braod national support.

34 posted on 01/22/2005 10:06:09 AM PST by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Noonan made a fool of herself.


35 posted on 01/22/2005 10:07:14 AM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

If your point is that Noonan is wrong, for one time, and one time only, we agree.

But your point that Krauthammer is a bigot toward Christianity is incorrect and worse, a lie.


36 posted on 01/22/2005 10:07:39 AM PST by Peach (The grill on the hill. The Democrats are toast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Yeah Peggy's last article was clearly written in a fit of savage jealousy... something way out of character for her. Sometimes, Peggy, the best speech of a generation will be written by someone not named Peggy Noonan. Sorry.


37 posted on 01/22/2005 10:09:38 AM PST by thoughtomator (Meet the new Abbas, same as the old Abbas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Thank you.

I have not seen the movie. I am not a Christian. I am not a Jew.

Obviously Dr. Krauthammer studied the Passion of The Christ and was disturbed by the portrayal/perception of bloodthirsty Jews and other subliminals that he witnessed.

As a Jew, his discomfort is understandable and a reminder to himself and others that Jews and Christians have shared pain and contradictions in our history.

He has every right to his interpretation and assessment...and yes........his anger.


38 posted on 01/22/2005 10:09:46 AM PST by highflight (from a distance - buzzards might appear as eagles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: highflight
He has every right to his interpretation and assessment...and yes........his anger."""

His "interpretation" and "anger" are directed toward the story that Gibson put on film. That's the Gospel story. If you're ok with somebody slamming the Gospels as a "blood libel," that's your right. Me, i'll stick up for the Gospels as an inspired message of hope - - and as a literal depiction of an historical event.

39 posted on 01/22/2005 10:23:43 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I read the piece Krautheimer is bashing Gibson for making the Jews look bad in the movie. A couple details of his particulars, however, didn't ring quite true. During the scourging scene, while the Jewish high priests were looking on--it was the Romans who were doing the scourging. And Gibson clearly shows that it was the Roman scouragers who went overboard with their tourture--by exceeding their commands. The point here is that guilt for the scouraging was shared between the romans and the jews. In a similiar vein the figure of the devil walks among the Jews from time to time. Krautheimer takes this to mean that the devil is associated with the Jews. Trouble is the devil figure doesn't look jewish. Rather the pasty white oval faced straight nosed devil figure looks nordic. In fact, that version of the devil is quite familiar to European cinema fans. That devil shows up in Ingmar Bergmann movies like The Seventh Seal (1957). This devil looks like Gibson's devil, and dresses exactly the same way.

The Seventh Seal

The Seventh Seal

The Seventh Seal

Passion of Christ

Passion of Christ

Passion of Christ
The devil walked among the jewish crowds but he does not look jewish. The point here is that once again like the scourging the guilt is shared by both the romans and the jews. And by extension--the whole human race.
40 posted on 01/22/2005 10:26:12 AM PST by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

FR's fair-weather goon squad is on the prowl I see. Miss Noonan's gone and criticized President Bush, so now she has no class, is self-reverential, and her writing sucks.

Zombies.


41 posted on 01/22/2005 10:34:54 AM PST by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
I read the piece Krautheimer is bashing Gibson for making the Jews look bad in the movie. """

Strictly speaking, this is an accurate description of Krautheimer's theme. But it's a pernicious theme - - because it basically says you're not allowed to put the Christian Gospels on film, because certain groups of people (the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees) don't come off well in the Gospels. (Well, the Romans don't come off well either, but that's apparently not a reason to suppress the Gospels). It's impossible to do an accurate depiction of the Gospel narrative and make the Pharisess and the the Sanhedrin look good (or the Roman soldiers look good). so Krauthammer is essentially saying that the Gospels shouldn't be depicted on film. He's saying that the Gospels are a "blood libel." That amounts to slamming Christianity, slamming the Gospels - and calling for their censorship, at least in films and public portrayals. Never mind, apparently, that nearly all the Gospel's heroes (from Jesus to MAry to Peter) happen to be Jewish.

42 posted on 01/22/2005 10:36:16 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: avenir
Noonan's gone and criticized President Bush, so now she has no class, is self-reverential"""

Hey, I thought Noonan was too self-absorbed long before this latest piece of self-absorption.

43 posted on 01/22/2005 10:40:32 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

The first President Bush was criticized for not "getting" the "vision thing."

His son "gets it," in the tradition of the great visionaries who laid the foundations of our liberty in that bold statement, the Declaration of Independence--and he gets criticized for that!

Not only does President Bush (43) grasp the Founders' concepts of the Source of the individuals life and liberty, but he insists on speech writers who will incorporate those concepts into his speeches! Perhaps he should have quoted Jefferson's "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." Bet that would have shaken them up.

Perhaps the "politically correct" pundits may not approve, but the majority of Americans do, and we applaud this President.


44 posted on 01/22/2005 10:44:13 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highflight
She's too prissy and it takes her too long to say something. What I love is that George Bush couldn't care less what anyone says about him, conservative or liberal. He's a religious man who happens to be president (or the other way around). That's a lot of reason why he was elected. So if people don't like all the references he makes to God, too bad, he ain't changing.
45 posted on 01/22/2005 10:49:45 AM PST by ladiesview61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

In Dr. Krauthammer's article - he cited several gospels and noted that Mel Gibson had selected accounts of the crucifixion that were more virulently "Jews as Christ-killers" than others.

Dr. Krauthammer, as a student of both the Old and New Testaments does not appear in any way to be anti-Christian. The thrust of his article, I believe, was his regret that Mel Gibson's portrayal of the Jews in Jesus' crucifixion was biased.


46 posted on 01/22/2005 10:51:18 AM PST by highflight (from a distance - buzzards might appear as eagles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: avenir

President Bush gave an Inaugural Speech. And a damn fine one, too.

I like Peggy Noonan. She's far from washed up and over-the-hill. She's expressing her opinion.

I work in a uniform so she and many, many others may express those opinions. Come to think of it, that's what FR's all about. Some agree. Some disagree.

I'm willing to cut Peggy some slack. Though I have no problem with the word "God" in an Inaugural Speech. Maybe Peggy does, but that her opinion.

Jack.


47 posted on 01/22/2005 10:52:23 AM PST by Jack Deth (Knight Errant and Disemboweler of the WFTD Thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Prost1

I've always thought of Jack Wheeler as a straight shooter......so I believe what he says re Noonan, surprising as it seems.


48 posted on 01/22/2005 10:53:09 AM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: highflight

".....Charles was vigorously defending public displays and Christmas celebrations on Fox."

I saw him do that at least twice, also...


49 posted on 01/22/2005 10:55:52 AM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
I have read articles by Noonan, Buckley and some other former speech writer and what I have deduced is that these guys over critical of the semantics of the speech and can't resist offering their supercilious, pedantic, opinions. The fact is the speech got across what the President had to say to the American public and the rest of the world. Bush was speaking to people of all faiths and telling them that the true God is a just God, not a God of hate and murder and that there is such a thing as a "just war."
50 posted on 01/22/2005 10:57:47 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson