Posted on 02/14/2006 7:29:25 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
In a recent USA Today op-ed, Tom Krattenmaker argues that “playing the God card” has backfired on President George W. Bush. The president’s favorability has fallen through the floor, Krattenmaker argues. And surely God would never side with unpopular presidents. “The God’s-on-our-side rhetoric is looking even less credible now, after more than a year of frequently bad news for the president and his administration,” he writes....
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
no one said that he did.
re-read that sentence of the article (the rest of which is found at townhall.com). Tom Krattenmaker is the one that wrote that statement. As you can see, that statement is in quotes along with the rest of what Krattenmaker said. Though the author of the article posits a sarcastic comment in between the statement, the whole thing is still one thought from Krattenmaker...like so:
In a recent USA Today op-ed, Tom Krattenmaker argues that “playing the God card” has backfired on President George W. Bush. The president’s favorability has fallen through the floor, Krattenmaker argues. “The God’s-on-our-side rhetoric is looking even less credible now, after more than a year of frequently bad news for the president and his administration,” he writes.
If you read the rest of the article, Hynes (the author) address that more fully..
Bump for later.
"Tom Krattenmaker is the one that wrote that statement."
Then Krattenmaker said it. What do you mean "no one said that he did"?
This from a party that doesn't even acknowledge that HE exists?
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
i.e. only an idiot becomes a liberal.
What is your angle, bro? Bush appeals to conservative Christians on policy and values, he's never said that "God was on our side". Krattenmaker is just another bitter Demosocialist yearning for votes they'll never get.
So..why is it Christians should not "put their faith" on one Party? What in the world do the Democraps have to offer besides income redistribution? (or are you saying that should be enough, troll boy?)
no one said that George Bush said that.
You said that George Bush never said it...I agree, and no one claims that Bush said it. That phrase was Krattenmaker's, no one elses. The author of the column is the one who quoted Krattenmaker.
#2 AGREE!
Christians are called to put their faith in Christ, not the RNP. True, the RNP has more things that align with Christian principles. But not everything about the RNP lines up with Christian principles, or even conservative principles. Case in point-the erosion of civil society via the ever-enlarging domestic US budget, especially in the area of education. No Child Left Behind was a massive failure and provided excellent proof that MORE government intervention is not the answer (which is generally the liberal tagline). Even at CPAC this past weekend, there was a lot of talk about the Republican party losing sight of its conservative principles in light of its increasingly Big Government tendencies.
My angle is that I'm conservative, and this administration hasn't been conservative straight down the line. I'm not saying I would rather have another party in office, I'm just raising the point that a lot of conservatives are raising.
Thats too silly even to say.
Fine, but thats not what you said. You said "There are things that both parties get right"
Well, what do the Democraps "get right", besides income redistribution? Do they respect the majority religionists? Are their policies anti-family, anti-Christian, ant-normative behavior, or are they not? Back up your assertions, or quit your belly aching.
Don't get hung up over "third parties"; the two-party system - with the threat to each main party that it is not guaranteed to remain a main party as a discipline to it - is a good system.Granted that neither of only two parties is ever likely to exactly fit your preferences or mine, the limiting case of rejecting parties is that everyone goes into the ballot box and writes in his own name - resulting in a tie.
Granted that neither of the two main parties may nominate the best person for the job. But what system actually can place the best person in the job??? If there are even as few as three choices to select from, there is no principled way to gurantee that the best candidate will prevail. If one gets 45% of the vote and another gets 40% of the vote, are you guaranteed that the candidate who only got 15% of the vote is not the most acceptable to the most people? Or that he is?
If you do not have word directly from God, you will always be reduced to voting for one fallible person or another (or, if you consider "third parties," another or another or another . . .). Better we have two parties which cull our choice down to manageable proportions, and hold those two parties responsible for their choices. Which is why I found the decision of the NJ Supreme Court so offensive back in '02 when it allowed the Democratic Party of New Jersey to replace its nominee on the ballot after the deadline to do so had passed. Doing so "gave the good people who vote Democrat a real chance" - but it allowed the Democratic Party to escape the consequences of its own venality in renominating a crook (Robert Torricelli) to be its candidate for the US Senate.
fair enough.
i'm not belly-aching. i was trying to provoke thought. i find this stuff interesting to think about, and i was more or less thinking "out loud."
I think that at the base of Democratic ideology, is the notion that the strong should help the weak, that those who have should give to those that don't. obviously the way that Democrats have translated that into policy is just grossly ineffective and wrong. In theory, I think that they start in a defendable place, but almost after the first step, it's just too easy to disagree with them.
I vote Republican because I think that they are the closest ones to what the Founders had in mind, but even they have lost their way from time to time (as Rep. Pence pointed out in his speech at CPAC).
I agree that most of the liberal policy today is just what you said it was: anti-family, anti-Christian, anti-normative...but I don't think every Democrat falls into that category.
I'm not hung up over third parties.
As a conservative, I'm all for competition and I think that we certainly get a fair dose of that in our current system.
I agreed with most of what you said, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
What I meant is that George Bush never said that "God is on our side."
The implication of the statement made by Krattenmaker is that Bush had made such a statement. He referred to the "God is on our side rhetoric" and said it was backfiring on Bush. Bush had no such rhetoric. It's entirely a figment of Krattenmaker's imagination.
fair enough. thanks!
I agree. But we have to be careful not to classify all mentions of the Lord the same way. If we are honest and have our eyes open, we can generally tell if someone is being sincere or not.
Care to show me a quote where GWB says "God is on your side"?????
I think, as some others have pointed out, that that is more of Krattenmaker attributing a certain mindset to George Bush that may or may not be founded. I personally don't have such a quote, and Krattenmaker doesn't provide one.
Read the rest of the article, it has much more to say about the misuse of the name of God by Democrats and I thought they were pretty good points.
The Founders were confident that God was "on our side," while constantly invoking his protection, guidance and wisdom.
I'd ask this smart-@ss Tom Krattenmaker whether it "backfired" on them as well?
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.