Anyway, here some writer named Paul Kengor makes the astonishingly foolish and dishonest claim: the "press does not express outrage when Democratic politicians talk about God, though they certainly do when Republicans mention religion." He fails to provide even one example of the press expressing "outrage" in this way, but since he's writing for other right wingers apparently he expects them to accept this bizarre assertion sans support.

Kengor goes on and on whining that it's not fair to criticize Bush for talking about his religion because - Kengor claims - Clinton did it! Someday I hope a psychologist will discover why right wingers think "Clinton did it!" are magic words that - whether accurate, appropriate or not - automatically excuse any crime, lie or idiocy by any right winger.

This is odd. I just reread this article and although the writer CLAIMS Bill Clinton mentioned "Jesus" many many many times more than Bush, he fails to provide even ONE SINGLE example of Bill Clinton saying the name Jesus in public. This indicates to me that the writer is just lying. I do recall many of Clinton's public statements, but I don't recall him mentioning Jesus. Not even once. It'd be nice if Kengor bothered to give us a date or a link, but like Ann Coulter and other right wingers, he expects us to just believe him. I don't and neither should anyone else.

Whenever a right winger says something that seems hard to believe, don't believe it. Unless and until he or she provides proof - not just a reference or a vague description about how they Googled, Lexus-Nexused, or poured through presidential papers - don't buy it. More times than not, the right wing didn't get it, didn't do the research, and / or is just plain lying. They do it all the time.

Now, say Clinton DID mention Jesus more than Bush does as claimed. Once again, other than the word of an avowed right-winger writing for a magazine known for lying, we have no reason to think that's true. But what if Clinton did mention Jesus more than Bush? So what? The National Review would have us think Clinton should be attacked for that because in the National Review's view, people attack Bush for mentioning Jesus.

Once again, Kengor we have a problem. There's no example of that in the article. The closest is when Mo Dowd - the product of a right wing Clinton-hating family who often savagely attacked Bill and Hillary Clinton - refers to Bush playing the "Jesus card." How is that an "attack?" It isn't.

No one I know attacks Bush for mentioning the name "Jesus," but some do raise eyebrows if Bush implies Jesus tells him to kill people or something like that. Bush does claim Jesus talks to him and some see that more like "Son of Sam" psychosis rather than a matter of religion. Many people question Bush's oft-spoken devotion to Jesus when so many things Bush does directly contradict Jesus' teachings. Saying that is not an attack. Why does the National Review whine on and on about unfairness without substantiating it at all?

Bottom line: this article is crap. There is no "double standard" that says liberals and moderates can express religious views but conservatives and right wingers cannot. The mere suggestion indicates a near-paranoid delusion. So why all the crying from the right wing rag National Review essentially lying about unfair treatment for Bush? The lying from the right is nothing new, but when did right wingers turn into such cry babies?

Whatever happened to right wingers like Ronald Reagan? You'd never see him whining about someone saying he was playing the "Jesus card." He'd make a joke about it and turn it around. He'd use it to his advantage. I guess all the guts went out of the right wing when the Gipper quit and the right wingers turned over their leadership to wimps like Newt Gingrich. Gingrich used to call his fellow House Republicans sobbing about how people were mean to him. I think I liked the Reagan right wingers better. The policies still sucked, but you didn't have to put up with all the boo-hooing.

Here's an excerpt of this pissy little article called "God is O.K. on the left, but not the right" and a link at the end so you can see I'm correct. Kengor makes a lot of claims about unfair treatment, but proves nothing. One interesting note: Zell Miller is a DINO - a Democrat in name only - and his rant at the GOP Convention was a hypocritical litany of shameful bald-faced lies. For one thing, Miller listed a series of weapons systems Sen. Kerry supposedly opposed - which wasn't true - without mentioning that as Secretary of Defense working for George HW Bush, Dick Cheney demanded that the Congress completely eliminate many of them. When Chris Matthews called Miller on his obvious deceit, the traitor to his party mentioned he'd like to shoot Matthews in a duel.

<hr size="1">

God is O.K. on the left, but not the right. By Paul Kengor

It was quite telling that the strongest religious statement made at the Republican convention came not from a Republican but from a Democrat, Georgia Senator Zell Miller, who claimed (among other things) that the current president is the same person on Saturday that he is on Sunday morning. Convention speeches are carefully managed, and I suspect that a shrewd Republican handler ensured that the convention's most emphatic statement in support of Bush's faith was offered by a Democrat. Why? Because the Bush team has learned a crucial lesson: The press does not express outrage when Democratic politicians talk about God, though they certainly do when Republicans mention religion. Consider the example of the two most recent presidents, Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican George W. Bush.

The underreported story at the start of convention week was Bill Clinton's Sunday talk at the radical Riverside Church in New York. Clinton addressed the congregation during the worship service, accusing Republicans of bearing "false witness" and being "the people of the Nine Commandments." The pastor introduced Clinton as part of an announcement of the church's Mobilization 2004 campaign, the kind of political activity that drives liberals wild when done by Republicans or conservative churches.

Liberals in the media must ignore the Clinton-Riverside incident; otherwise, it becomes harder to vilify George W. Bush as a man who (uniquely, in their view) drags God into politics for his own purposes. Here's the reality:

Though clearly a devout Christian, Bush is no more outwardly religious than the vast majority of this nation's presidents, including his most recent predecessor. I researched the Presidential Documents (the official collection of every public presidential statement); an examination of the mentions of Jesus Christ by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton showed that through 2003, Bush cited Jesus, or Jesus Christ, or Christ in 14 separate statements, compared to 41 by Clinton. On average, Clinton mentioned Christ in 5.1 statements per year, which exceeded Bush's 4.7.