Former Gore campaign advisor and Gore staffer defends Bush religiosity.

[madfloridian]

I saw this today, and it hit me wrong. Pacify, pacify, agree, agree, I hate it. "The mission may be from above."....this is scary from a Democrat.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2517230

SNIP..."Some critics have called the president's message "missionary." Some have said that it suggests a case for "religious war" by U.S. armed forces. Others have simply waved it about as evidence of a president who is intellectually or strategically shallow.

This is a dangerous path for
Democrats....."

SNIP..."Rather than laughing at the president's invocation of the notion of natural rights to justify his policies in Iraq, Democrats should make it abundantly clear that they share the president's view that all humans are created free and are entitled to enjoy the benefit of that innate freedom. After all, wasn't the idea of an "unalienable" right to liberty put into writing in 1776 by the father of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson? And more recently, haven't these been the ideals that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Gore pursued around the world — often with great derision from conservatives?

Instead of belittling the president's reliance on the Almighty, Democrats should make clear that we share the president's goals but think that his methods have been deeply flawed. The mission may be from above, but the planning has been from someplace else.

[mondo joe]

1. Good Reminder of Why Gore Failed Miserably

Despite the machinations to steal the election, Gore's performance was hopelessly inadequate - an incumbent VP coming off 8 years of prosperity should have clinched the Presidency.

[Q]

14. The Bushies love this type of rhetoric...

...where discussion of stolen elections is reduced to the characterization of 'machinations'. It's like they robbed a bank in broad daylight but no one wants to look at the evidence and point fingers at the guilty parties.

- If Gore's performance was 'inadequate'...then Bush's* was a miserable failure. Unfortunately there was no free press to report it and corporate America preferred CEO Bush* over Gore.

- If Dems continue to underestimate the damage done to democracy in 2000...they shouldn't be surprised when it's done to them again in 2004.

- Gore received more votes than master Clinton. How is that inadequate?

[arcane1]

2. "missionary" = "genocidal"

nobody has EVER asked to have their culture destroyed and replaced with a foreign, arbitrary one

nobody

If that's what they want to call Bush's 'message', then he is unqualified to be a leader of a milirary. Sadly, it's somewhat accurate :puke:

:grr:

[the Kelly Gang]

3. Gore failed because he handed over his presidency to Bush without

a whimper.
This guy was probably one of the reasons why he whimped out.

Defend Bush's religiosity ?..sorry , I don't defend the Devil.

[LisaM]

8. Oh? What about the people who voted for him and then wimped out

during the "recount"? I knew plenty of people who voted for Gore who didn't think he should press for a real recount as much as he did. People like you, and like me (people who are on boards like these) were fairly unique, unfortunately. I couldn't believe the people I knew, liberals, who thought Gore was making a fool out of himself and should step aside. It was utterly maddening; I still haven't repaired my relationship with some of those people. I mean, Gore's own supporters wouldn't stand up for him.

As far as the article goes, I think the person who started this thread is misreading it a bit. I think the point was, don't make fun of * over this, because you will ultimately offend a lot of people. Sad, scary, but true.

[madfloridian]

11. I think there is a point we need to say "enough."

I do read the article differently, and I think they agree with Bush's goals. That is what bothers me.

SNIP.."Instead of belittling the president's reliance on the Almighty, Democrats should make clear that we share the president's goals but think that his methods have been deeply flawed. The mission may be from above, but the planning has been from someplace else...."
I read more than sarcasm there, I read agreement.

Again, to me, it looks like we don't want to stand up to a president who is using religion to start wars.

I don't agree with making fun of anyone's religion.......unless they start wars using it.

[LisaM]

15. Don't get me wrong. I can't stand public displays of religion.

I just think this article is intended as a warning (and probably a justified one) not to mock *'s religiosity too much, because it will turn people off. I would prefer that religion be removed from the debate entirely. However, we are on the heels of millennium fever and we have a large group of wackos running things now who are trying to frame everything as a moral debate.

I believe morality is measured in deeds not words, but the more fundamentalist church going public in this country doesn't see it that way. I think we have the moral high ground. Mocking others' religion, however, is not the way to point that out.

[madfloridian]

16. But my argument is that we are not mocking his religion.

I think the guy starts with the wrong premise. I think we should hold Bush to account for misusing religion for his own purposes. Instead of being afraid to offend the church goers, we should inform them.

I left my church because they supported the war, gave out yard signs. They called me unpatriotic.

I did not give in, and I did offend some friends. Now I have the satisfaction of being right, and I will find another church.

Democrats can not be afraid of being honest. We simply can not.

[robbedvoter]

4. The man sees why the book is on W's recommended list

What looks loony to us will rouse his apocaliptic base.
Frankly, to me, the religious madness is the least of my problems. Lying, stealing , killing are reason enough to attack W - who cares how he justified these to himself?

[orwell]

5. Unamerican

While I would agree that we should champion liberty and justice in our society and assist other cultures or societies in implementing these rights/responsibilities if they so choose, we betray these beliefs if we try to impose our own values on those who do not wish them.

The connection to religious belief could be a personal one, but can empower public policy. In other words, our leaders govern with our consent, not with some divine right. This is exactly what the framers tried to avoid when they changed the governing authority from the king to the people.

Now I am free to say that I believe in a divine rock if I wish, but to claim that this belief should be the basis for public law or policy when I am in a position of power becomes an imposition of my religion over others in the public sector. It is the antithesis of separation of church and state. It is the political equivalent of state establishment of religion.

I would critique the Bushies this way. As citizens of the United States, we all support liberty and justice. The debate should be about the limits and responsibilities of said beliefs when applied to the world community. We as Democrats assert that the current Bush long march across the Mideast and expressed global unilateralism is directly contrary to the notions of liberty and justice, and thus is decidedly unamerican.

O

[Sandpiper]

6. Bush doesn't have religiosity, he has messianic delusions

The reason that Bush is a danger to the world is because he really thinks that he is (in best Blues Brothers voice) "on a mission from God."

And like any religious crackpot, Bush can justify anything he does as "God's will." :crazy:

[peachy]

7. Being religious is one thing

to say that God is on my side and that he wants me to fight violence with violence is something totally different. It is not the statement of a pious man but rather that of a megalomaniac.

How anyone can tolerate this kind of statement from the leader of a supposed secular government is beyond me.

[Jacobin]

9. silly fucks, getting drawn into Smirky's messianic complex

With 'friends' like these.............

[mondo joe]

12. Gore Already Lost by Trying to be More Like Bush

Now his people want us to do it again?

[Prodemsouth]

10. All he is saying is we better think twice about belittling Bush's use

of "faith". I think he had a good tag line "The mission may be from above, but the planing has been from someplace else". Dem's will not be able to win if they are seen as making fun of religious people or Bush's use of religion. I am an Atheist and I think the world would be better off without religion; but I live in the political real world also.

[FredScuttle]

13. TDH had a great take on this piece of garbage

Daily Howler took this apart:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh041904.shtml


The basic premise is - Precisely which national Democrats have mocked *'s faith? Eh? The only prominent Dem who has even raised *'s religion is Sid Blumenthal, who could hardly be described as "mocking" or "belittling" *'s faith, rather than making a valid point about Bush’s ongoing religious statements—statements in which the most powerful person on earth explains his recent military actions:

"The ultimate revelation was Bush’s vision of a divinely inspired apocalyptic struggle in which he is the leader of a crusade bringing the Lord’s “gift.” “I also have this belief, strong belief that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.” But religious war is not part of official U.S. military doctrine."

I love this tanked-up smear of Democrats being anti-religious when it isn't even the case! Grrrr!

[annak110]

17. Horrible but to be expected

They all want to pretend that really, the country shouldn't be run under the Constitution, ratification of which, 1789, was the actual birth of the nation. It has to be run under a god who appears to be a victim of multiple personality disorder. They always want to throw in that Declaration of War, uh, Independence as the "birth of liberty" Hell, more than half the population couldn't even vote until one and one half centuries had passed and then most felt that they still did not fall under the protection the Constitution.