I'm about as fundamentalist Christian as they come and that's simply not true. Christians believe in redemption and do not hold a person accountable for a traffic ticket written twenty-five years before.
What concerns us about Bush is what another poster here said, that we get the symbols and the other side gets the actions.
Consider RU-486, the abortion pill which Clinton legalized. If someone handed Bill Clinton a billion dollars under the table and asked that the pill be taken off the market, Clinton would have found some technicality the next day. Bush, however, can't do that. It would be 'honorable.' So he lets babies die instead.
Then there's the flip side. Spending federal money on public schools is clearly unconstitutional. The Bush spin, however, is that we must live with current circumstances as a matter of compromise.
So, do you get it? We can't compromise to stop abortion because that wouldn't be honorable, but we can compromise over federal spending in public schools because to stop wouldn't be practical. So one day they're 'honorable,' the next day they're 'practical' -- and the only consistent part of the formula is that conservative Christian beliefs get smashed down each time.
So, do you get it?OK, let me see if I get it. Bush is either unwilling or unable to be an anti-abortion crusader in office. There are a lot of other things wrong with the federal government that he either can't or won't fix. Or at least, he didn't do as much of that in his first year as many convervatives would have liked. Granted.
So the best thing to do is to make sure candidates like Al Gore are elected instead, so that rather than at least slowing down liberal trends and nibbling at the fringes, we put the pedal to the metal and accelerate the leftward shift of government? That'll sure show 'em!