Posted on 12/13/2001 7:50:35 AM PST by 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."
And it is true, LC Sulla was a pagan, like every non-Jew on earth until more than a century after he was dead and gone. I've really got to post my reasons for the name on my FR homepage -- too busy fighting here, though.
God hasn't left his children as orphins in the world, to not care for them
Well, back to the heresy, success in the world is NOT evidence of either God's love, or the virtue of the fortunate one.
US senators have agreed a new set of procedures which they hope will avoid gridlock in a Senate evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
Under the new agreement, both parties will have equal representation on the various committees, and be entitled to equal staff and budgets.
The new regulations also include a series of mechanisms to resolve tied votes at different stages.
The plan - which was approved by voice vote - was the result of two weeks of negotiations between the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, and Republican leader Trent Lott.
The US Congress is for the first time in its history divided 50-50, but Republicans will have the edge once Dick Cheney is sworn in as vice-president on 20 January, as he will have the deciding vote.
'Fair deal'
"This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of this Senate," said Senator Daschle.
"More importantly, it reflects the political thinking of the people themselves," he added.
Senator Lott, who will become the majority leader when the new administration takes office, described the deal as reasonable.
"This resolution may haunt me, but it's fair and it allows us to go on with the people's business."
Political realism
Many Republicans had resisted the idea of parity in the committees because of the one-seat majority they will have when Mr Cheney takes office. The vice-president does not participate in committee work.
Correspondents say the deal reflects the political reality, because the Democrats now have enough votes to halt Senate work with procedural delays.
US senators have agreed a new set of procedures which they hope will avoid gridlock in a Senate evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
Under the new agreement, both parties will have equal representation on the various committees, and be entitled to equal staff and budgets.
This resolution may haunt me, but it's fair and it allows us to go on with the people's business
The new regulations also include a series of mechanisms to resolve tied votes at different stages.
The plan - which was approved by voice vote - was the result of two weeks of negotiations between the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, and Republican leader Trent Lott.
The US Congress is for the first time in its history divided 50-50, but Republicans will have the edge once Dick Cheney is sworn in as vice-president on 20 January, as he will have the deciding vote.
'Fair deal'
"This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of this Senate," said Senator Daschle.
"More importantly, it reflects the political thinking of the people themselves," he added.
Senator Lott, who will become the majority leader when the new administration takes office, described the deal as reasonable.
"This resolution may haunt me, but it's fair and it allows us to go on with the people's business."
Political realism
Many Republicans had resisted the idea of parity in the committees because of the one-seat majority they will have when Mr Cheney takes office. The vice-president does not participate in committee work.
Correspondents say the deal reflects the political reality, because the Democrats now have enough votes to halt Senate work with procedural delays.
US senators have agreed a new set of procedures which they hope will avoid gridlock in a Senate evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.
Under the new agreement, both parties will have equal representation on the various committees, and be entitled to equal staff and budgets.
This resolution may haunt me, but it's fair and it allows us to go on with the people's business
The new regulations also include a series of mechanisms to resolve tied votes at different stages.
The plan - which was approved by voice vote - was the result of two weeks of negotiations between the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, and Republican leader Trent Lott.
The US Congress is for the first time in its history divided 50-50, but Republicans will have the edge once Dick Cheney is sworn in as vice-president on 20 January, as he will have the deciding vote.
'Fair deal'
"This agreement accurately reflects the historic composition of this Senate," said Senator Daschle.
"More importantly, it reflects the political thinking of the people themselves," he added.
Senator Lott, who will become the majority leader when the new administration takes office, described the deal as reasonable.
"This resolution may haunt me, but it's fair and it allows us to go on with the people's business."
Political realism
Many Republicans had resisted the idea of parity in the committees because of the one-seat majority they will have when Mr Cheney takes office. The vice-president does not participate in committee work.
Correspondents say the deal reflects the political reality, because the Democrats now have enough votes to halt Senate work with procedural delays.
I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Technically Lott was Majority Leader, but looking beyond form to substance, he and Daschle were coequals. Again, Cheney only matters on a tie vote!! If Jeffords or Chafee or Spector or the liberal Maine Senators voted with the Democrats on an issue and a like number of Dems didn't switch sides, Cheney was irrelevant.
You seem unwilling to deal with the world as it is. I think reasoning with you is kind of like trying to reason with a soccer mom on gun control. You point out that we already have a ton of laws on the books and they're not being enforced. You point out that statistics on gun deaths don't reflect how many crimes were prevented because someone was allowed to have a gun. You point out studies that show that less restrictive gun laws decrease gun deaths, not increase. It all falls on deaf ears. The soccer mom thinks with her emotions. She doesn't want to hear it. Same thing with you.
If the GOP still held the Senate, a partial birth abortion ban would have been brought up for a vote by now, and quite possibly passed, just as it did when the GOP controlled the Senate in the Clinton years, although it would have been alot more difficult with the Senate evenly divided and with five liberal GOP Senators whose vote on this is unpredictable
Partial birth wasn't the first thing Congress or Bush brought up. They were preoccupied with the tax cut and the economy sliding into recession early in the year. You can't bring up alot of different controversial bills at the same time. That's how the world works. So it makes no difference that now it can never be brought up with Daschle in control. It makes no difference who controls the Senate, right?
Sheesh! What a freakin eedjit!
I have actually read the entire platform (of 1964, at the convention there were some slow spots), as I guess you have, and unlike you realize that it is more of a wish list than a set of legislative proposals. In any case, this is not Great Britain, the party cannot bind the votes of the legislators. The Dem party platform of 1932 bore very little resemblance to what they did in government, and it didn't seem to hurt them much (except for Al Smith, of course).
Regarding Virginia, I bow to your local knowledge, but can't refrain from pointing out that the actions of some conservatives have placed an opponent in the governor's chair, instead of a less than perfect friend. This appears to be what you want for the entire country.
I bow to your higher rank (I was never higher in a party committee than municipal party Secretary), but will rest on my seniority (I entered the county committee in 1965). I also realize than the only way one can achieve total enactment of their agenda is to use the approach of my man Sulla, and I do not believe things have gotten to that point yet. Failing that, one can only maneuver, unless the entire society has become illegitimate, in which case people of conscience must oppose everything about that society, and expect that they and their family will perish as a result. I do not think that things have gotten to that point either.
No s**t, Sherlock.
"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.""
No, Karl, you idiot. You ran a piss-poor campaign. You ignored the "base". You damned well should've known better. You squeaked through this last election by the skin of your teeth (when it should have been a romp on AlGore's wooden carcass). Bush should've fired your sorry a** rather than make you some "advisor".
Rove, the Party will be FAR better off without your "come one, come all.............except you nagging Christian rightists; y'all just don't fit the desired stereotype we seek" bulls**t.
You really think the continuing slaughter of the unborn is anecdotal? I don't. I look at a picture of an aborted fetus and it pricks my conscience. It affects me the same way watching people jump off the world trade center affected me. I'm glad the numbers have gone down, but the pro-abort crowd still pushes there agenda and they are well funded. I want to see the people I elected bring the abortion issue to a debate in the house. The Republicans already compromised on the stem cell debate while claiming victory. Do you think there is much of a chance they will work hard for pro-lifers to introduce a bill to ban partial-birth and other forms of abortion? I seriously doubt it.
Sorry no suckers here. Take your hatefilled self elsewhere.
So much for forgiveness...
Probably neither. This is not a "new" problem. Christians always tend to stay home and it's hurt other candidates before Bush. Some just don't feel a need to participate in "this world." Leaders such as Dobson and Colson are trying to reverse that trend.
This, I'm afraid will have to be my last reply on this thread about this subject, which is far off-topic. I'm afraid that we are not going to settle this dispute here, nor is this the appropriate place to discuss it. The topic here is in regard to political tactics, not the nature of God and his benevolence.
Huh??? You mean like Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter?
I agree. They fail to recognize that God invented government.
There is one way to reach God - through His Son. There is one way to receive forgiveness for sins - repent and believe on His Son. Once that is taken care of, Christians can look at God's Creation through radically different eyes, and can make a difference in their world. This is done by reminding our world that everyone is accountable to God, and His holiness, love, and justice are just as relevant today as always. From that we can speak to our culture that has lost its way. This is what Christians are supposed to do, and why they should vote and be actively involved in our culture and politics.
This is probably more of an answer than you bargained for, but I hope it helps. God bless.
YES. AMEN.
Absolutely! 'Anecdotal' is a technical term in analysis. It means that the evidence is not rigorous or scientific, but is instead testimonial in nature. It is not a description of importance.
That is it is not a description of the importance of the evidence.
Some of the problem stems from that fundamentalist Christians make religion a way of life instead of a part of their life. They get so wrapped up in their religion nothing much matters after that.
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.