Skip to comments.Bush's faith-filled speech stirs both friend and foe (Peggy Noonan: it was "God-drenched")
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 ...
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.
She's just mad that she didn't get to write the speech.
(This is a prior reply.)
Here is a link to Jack Wheeler's comments about Ms. Noonon in a Newsmax article.
Worth a look for an opinion of one who "worked" with the gracious lady. :-)
I stopped reading him when he spewed bigotry at Mel Gibson and Christianity.
Maybe. Or maybe she's got a problem with mentioning God.
Please send me that link - because, as a Jew Charles was vigorously defending public displays and Christmas celebrations on Fox.
Peggy is past her prime. She should retire, write books, get a face lift, travel and forget about it.
[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.
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.
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
Thanks for that link. A side of Noonan I've never heard before. Puts into perspective her musings of Bush's speech.
What?! Are you sure you have the right man??
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.
Yes, he wrote a notorious column on The Passion.
Noonan is soooo yesterday but the MSM will give her plenty of air time to bash Pres Bush's speech.
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
What is wrong with Peggy as of late?!
Becoming a "has been".
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
It is my hope that the domestic side of it can garner braod national support.
Noonan made a fool of herself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey, I thought Noonan was too self-absorbed long before this latest piece of self-absorption.
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.
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.
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.
I've always thought of Jack Wheeler as a straight shooter......so I believe what he says re Noonan, surprising as it seems.
".....Charles was vigorously defending public displays and Christmas celebrations on Fox."
I saw him do that at least twice, also...