Karl Rove: Stayaway Christians Almost Cost Bush Election

Charisma News ^ | 12/13/01

[11th Earl of Mar]

STAYAWAY CHRISTIANS ALMOST COST ELECTION

Many Christians believe that prayer played a major role in sending George W. Bush to the White House, but stayaway believers came close to losing him the election, according to his chief political adviser, Karl Rove.

Rove said that one reason the 2000 election was so tight was that as many as 4 million Christian conservatives did not go to the polls, reported "The Chicago Tribune." Although the Bush campaign had expected 19 million evangelical voters to vote for their man, election returns revealed only 15 million turned out to cast ballots.

Speaking yesterday at an American Enterprise Institute seminar, Rove said the Bush campaign "probably failed to marshal support of the base as well as we should have," said the "Tribune." Rove added: "But we may also be returning to the point in America where fundamentalists and evangelicals remain true to their beliefs and think politics is corrupt and, therefore, they shouldn't participate."

Rove said that if the "process of withdrawal" went on it would be bad for the country as well as conservatives and Republicans. "It's something we have to spend a lot of time and energy on."

[ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds]

The abortion discussion appears to be short-sighted. Christians appear to believe, so very much like Islam, that their mythology is the only ideology worth considering and all else is false (must be the virgins rewarded to true Christians in the afterlife). The abortion question is still not well thought out, even after all the verbage that has been applied to it. After analyzing the state of our society, you might consider legalizing abortion up to the age of 18.

[wideawake]

Christ denounced sin. He did not reward it with honors.

[billbears]

1)Separation of church and state is based on the 1st Amendment (and even then wrongly misinterpreted) with the understanding that the 14th Amendment REQUIRES the states to follow the lead of the national government

2)we directly vote for POTUS through the elecotral college because most if not all states REQUIRE the electoral college voters to vote in accordance with the popular election and that was NOT the original intent of the Founders

[NittanyLion]

You know how many conservatives get disgusted with the fact that 90% of the black population votes Democrat election after election, and how so many on the right are quick to point out that the Democrats "take them for granted"? Do you think the same can be said for many conservatives with respect to the Republican Party? I certainly do.

I must admit, that is a compelling point. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

[Keith]

Before Jumpin' Jeffords switched sides, Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and House. Did they ban partial birth abortion or even attempt to ban it?

It was this kind of issue that they were afraid would push Jeffords over, and end their control. Had those Four Million voted for Republican senate candidates, maybe we wouldn't have to have tiptoed around the issue, and it would be law. So thanks for nothing, zealots.

[Dan from Michigan]

Criminalization of sodomy, fornication and adultery. Government censorship of entertainment. Enforced, Fundamentalist Christian prayers in the public schools. Closure of mosques, with frequent pogroms of different Christians - like Catholics. Execution for all abortionists. Prohibition on alcohol and narcotics

If that becoms reality, it's time to start shootin'.

[anniegetyourgun]

Actually, based on my personal experience, I would say Karl is right. I personally know a dozen registered Christians who chose not to vote in the last election. Because not enough Christians register AND vote, the only clout they have is to stay home. I'm not saying it's smart strategy (because it's not), but it's reality. The biggest threat to R's success isn't the lame and insignificant third parties - it's when conservatives stay home.

[CPT Clay]

19 million evangelical vote...

I want a recount.

Where did this figure come from thin air?

[DallasMike]

He celebrates heathen holidays in our sacred White House.

Care to elaborate? I sincerely hope that you're not referring to Hannukah.

[hchutch]

Maybe Newt made that mistake, but then again, I do no tthink that we should have been so foolish as to think he was completely toast. I give Clinton and Dick Morris credit. They knew how to beat us then, and they did manage to skillfully lie to the mushy middle.

However, we need to keep fighting, not take our ball and go home. Or else we get President Hillary. We also need to make our case in a way that convinces the mushy middle. Or else we're toast.

[Dan from Michigan]

You don't like them Joo's much, do ya boy?

The Old Right should spend some time with his friend Hillary. They'll find something in common.

[elfman2]

I don't want to step into this mess,… not again!

I just want to say that we all know that the real enemy of our constitutional republic is socialism, and if we just pull together a little here rather than bicker like children, we can push the Democrats out of all significant government posts. Wouldn't after that be a better time for resolving the libertarian verses social conservative disagreement.

[Sci Fi Guy]

...but when was the last time a Republican Congressional candidate actually made abortion a major campaign issue?

I don't expect to ever see abortion as a main campaign issue. Just because it would not impact that many votes. The pro-life and pro-death sides are already committed. And the sad truth is that the majority of voters don't care about anything that does not effect them personally. That's why I give to Right-to-Life groups, it's their job to try to reach that apathic middle.

If you want to see campaigns that make abortion a major issue. Then work to remove these limits on campaign contributions. Alan Keyes has pointed out that these limits force candidates to water down their message in order to attract support from as many people as possible. Also no limits would allow candidates to base their campaign on just one or two issues. Imagine what would happen if a few rich pro-lifers each gave Alan Keyes a couple of million, to get his message out. At the very least we would be having some very interesting elections.

[TigerLikesRooster]

RE #50. The dark side of Dubya political team showed its face again.

subdue anyone to our right and embrace anyone to our left.

Talking about being suicidal. Carl Rove and Andy Card, smart guys who will end up doing real stupid things. They really believe that history only marches to the left.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I'm not saying that there aren't Republicans for whom I would vote. In fact, I was more than happy to cast my ballot for Bob Schaffer in the 4th Congressional District here in Colorado. He's one of the best Constitutionalists in the entire Congress. Unfortunately (actually, fortunately), he won't be running again next fall because he promised to self-limit himself to three terms. He's keeping his word (though there were MANY in the GOP leadership in the House who tried to persuade him to break his promise) and not running.

The good part is there are at least three VERY conservative Republicans lining up to run for the GOP nomination. I'd vote for any and all of them, and am having a tough time deciding who to support in next summer's primary. The good part is the the election is basically decided at that point because of this district's makeup.

On the flip side, we have Ben Nighthorse Campbell in the Senate. Not even gonna get started on him. Wayne Allard is better, but only slightly so. I wouldn't vote for either of them (and haven't).

[hchutch]

The fact of the matter is that there are two things the RR did wrong after the 1995 budget battle:

1. They did not learn from the loss, and repackage their agenda in a way it could sell to the "mushy middle."
2. When the GOP made a tactical retreat after `95 about 15% of the RR - folks like theoldright - decided to take their toys and go home. That did two things: Conservatives lost, and there is a sense of "what have you done for me lately" from the politicians.

The Religious right has to make a move, recognize that perfect is the enemy of good enough, and learn to get what they can now, and fight for the rest later, or else they will be irrelevant.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

Christians need to force our leaders to enact policies that are pleasing to Him.

Smells like a good ol' fashioned theocracy. Those have worked so well in the past....say, wasn't Ashcanistan one until recently?

Sounds like democracy to me, and makes plenty of sense, provided that by "force", the speaker means "withhold political support, donations, and votes from politicians who solicit our votes and then stuff our issues in the bottom 'forget it until next election cycle' drawer."

There is no warrant for Christians to form rebellious cabals to seek violent subversion of the existing political order, and plenty of severe warnings against them, e.g., Romans 13 (unlike the Quran, which effectively obligates a serious Muslim to carry on a relentless war against non-Muslims, and gives holy approval to killing, robbing, and terrorizing all who resist the extension of Islam).

However, Christians need not invest their resources in lending legitimacy to political leadership that either is actively hostile to or cynically manipulative of Christian citizens.

Mr. Bush may or may not be sincere in his Christian commitment. His administration is, from a Christian perspective, scarcely an improvement over the last several administrations. His personal rectitude is appreciated, to the extent it is real and not spin. Bottom line, however, BUSH II is merely the latest in a growing line of emperor-like chief magistrates, maintaining the facade of republican rule, while continuing to extend the defacto rule of a rebellious class of public and quasi-public nomenclatura. Far from being "one nation under God", America is well along the way of becoming "one nation subordinating many gods" to its rebellious, messianic pretensions. God saves, not the state, the institutional church, corporations, or any other institution or ideology created by humans individually or collectively. Watch the performance of the courts and the functioning of Congress (voting on bills and converting them into laws without even being familiar with their content, for God's sake!). They are increasingly appendages, not co-equal branches. And the states are increasingly provinces of an imperial order with headquarters at our Rome-on-the-Potomac. With the repeal of the Posse Commitatus law, the defacto use of the federal military establishment to police the "homeland" will cease to have even a formal obstacle, and the conversion of "the land of the free and the home of the brave" into yet another absolutist perpetual warfare state will advance another step towards completion.

Christians are commanded to pray for those in positions of leadership, and to encourage them by all legitimate means to govern with equity and righteousness. We need not stroke their messianic pretensions, however, or invariably reward one of the candidates for each position with our votes, if none of them present a convincing case for their election. We have a duty to promote policies, laws, and principles that are consistent with God's direction for those who trust Him.

To the extent that we participate in the civil sacrement of voting, by supporting or opposing candidates with funds, leg work, and our own ballots, we lend legitimacy to those we support. We should grant such recognition with care, and sparingly, while strongly supporting those who honor their commitments and ruthlessly discarding those who renege on them. In the most recent election, I voted for candidates for all county and most state offices, and for a few federal offices. I left my ballot blank in the spaces for presidential electors, since none of the candidates were worthy of support. For the forseeable future, I will be more interested in the activities of local government. That is where the real opportunity for renewal of godly rule exists. If we can't win at that level, there is no point to playing "the Great Game" of empire politics. As we demonstrate competence and trustworthiness at the local level, we will earn support at higher levels (or higher levels will be "transformed" by non-revolutionary, non-subversive means, as our God applies the promise of Psalm 2 to rulers who stubbornly resist). Frequently, God has used one pack of rebellious conspirators to polish off another, and then squashed the "victors". Christians can afford to be patient, planning and working for extending their influence to promote righteous rule by a redeemed, and sanctified electorate, truly under God. We literally have "all the time in the world", although the fruits of our individual efforts may not mature until well after our earthly journey is complete.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

And I just want to say that the Republicans have been nearly as busy as the Democrats in pushing that socialist agenda. Not quite as busy, but not that far behind either.

[Wyatt's Torch]

A question: Assuming the R is a RINO, are you advocating not voting or voting for a thrid party candidate who espouses your beliefs no matter their ability to win? If the latter, I can certainly agree that by "priming the pump" now, you can set the stage for someone to drink more easily in the future. The former seems to serve no reasonable end.

[BplusK]

I agree with you. Bush is not perfect, but there is no doubt that he was the best candidate. I think that many Christians did not vote in 2000 because of "uncertainty". Maybe they could see that George W. Bush sounded better, but they were not sure they could fully trust. As you know, often politicians promise many things but don't deliver. Bush seemed the best candidate, but was he actually the best?
Many people had doubts that prevented them to cast their votes.
However, since now for a while, Bush has been leading this country in the right direction, Christian people should have more confidence in Bush.
We also need to remember that among the Republican voters and leaders not everyone is as conservative as everyone else. Some are more conservative, some are less. Because of this, I understand that George W. Bush has tried (with some difficulties) to satisfy Republican voters and leaders of various shades and by doing that he lost some good voters in the process.
I believe that next time people vote for Bush, more Christians will vote for him.