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."

[Sci Fi Guy]

Yes, I know, but I think that you are being very unfair. 2 REASONS: 1) The Republicans didn't control congress and the WH long enough to do anything."

How long is enough? Abortionist allow a few inches of the baby's head inside the womb before they kill it. Does the Senate need 2 years?

Huh? It doesn't matter how horrible abortion is. Under our system of gov't, it actually does take time to pass laws. And Yes it might take two years. Sometimes its most effective to have a vote close to an election,

"It was just few months, during which Bush was trying to set up his administration."

That didn't stop him from passing some of his agenda items, why did it stop him from doing what Karl Rove is concerned about?

Huh? Are you agreeing with me that Bush didn't have time to pass his entire agenda? A simple fact of politics you start with your strengths. Bush started with a tax cut something that he campaigned on. Something that a lot more Americans care about than a PBA ban. Yet the Repub control was so weak, we got a watered down delayed temporary small tax cut.

"Jeffords jumped when they began to push a conservative agenda (the judges)."

John Breaux by himself would negate that along with several other DemocRATS.

I was talking about control of the Senate and its agenda. We need to control the agenda, if we want to get a ban passed .And since Breaux hasn't switched parties. He's still a rat. And the Rats still control the Senate and its agenda. I'm sure that the Repubs would love to have him (or any other rat) switch to give them control of Senate. (Of course they would need 2 rats to switch, otherwise Chaffee will switch parties to keep conservatives out of power.)

"2) We lost a lot of Pro-Life votes in the last election. I don't think that we would have had the votes even if the Republicans had voted on it."

I wonder why we lost Pro-life votes? Could it be partially because of the very excuses/reasons that you are using now?

Oh good a personal attack. It's the fault of those who hold my position that we lost pro-life votes, even though we are talking about something that happened long after the election. Personal attacks are the sign of a weak position.

Reread what I said. You want a vote on a PBA ban. What good would that do if we don't have the votes. If we need to build support for it, then that takes time!! It might have been that the only way to have gotten enough votes to pass, would have hold a vote right before the 2002 election. When a rat would have been afraid of angering voters right before an election. That's what it takes to get some laws passed.

"Can you name 51 Senators who would vote for it? Keeping in Mind that the Democrats would put a lot more pressure on any democrat who voted pro-life, since clinton isn't there to veto it."

It takes leadership, the power of the Bully Pulpit and cajones to pass things that, at the momemt, may seem politically impossible. I don't think that I could accurately name the number of Senators who would vote one way or another and I doubt if you could either.

Actually that was a rhetorical question. And since I just said that I don't know if we had the votes, why do you doubt if I could answer it. My point was and is that without the firm support of at least 51 Senators, it will do more harm than good to hold a vote. I agree with you that it takes leadership, and the bully pulpit. But those take time. The Repubs lost control of the Senate far sooner than anyone expected. Keep in mind that the Jeffords switch came as a surprise. The rats were keeping a death watch on old Strom, the week prior.

(If you really want to, Go to the ACU website, checkout their record of the last vote. And compare it to the current Senate see how many votes we lost. I believe it was 5 or 6, but I havn't bothered to check.)

"I think that the heart of your complaint is that the Republicans didn't make it their #1 vote."

No need for hyperboli. My gripe is they didn't even try.

It's not hyperboli, I'm serious. In your response you complained that Bush managed to get part of his agenda passed. Why complain, unless you are upset that He put other issues ahead of a PBA ban.

I think that there is a way to end our discussion. Let me tell you what is necessary for me to agree with you. It's simple, prove that there was overwelmning support for a PBA ban. Not only enough votes to pass it, but enough votes to end any filibuster and force a vote. Because without that it would have taken time and effort to pass it. Repubs were denied that time because of the unethical actions of Jeffords.

Also I would agree with you if the Repubs had retained control of the senate and didn't hold a vote. Because then they would have had time to lobby, for Bush to use the Bully Pulpit. And even if that failed to gather enough votes, they could have held a vote prior to the election to show who the pro-death rats are, and maybe get them voted out.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

But abortion isn't a legal "crime" at the moment either.

Precisely, that's why I have no trouble with the Tom Ridge appointment.

[section9]

Let me see if I have this straight.

We stay home because the candidate doesn't go all the way in our beliefs, often on just one single issue. Meanwhile, others who could not have a decent conversation about the issues are dragged to the polls to vote. So, while those on our side sit on the sidelines as a matter of "principle," the other side gets elected and shoves everything we hate down our throats in droves and droves.

Do I have this right?

Yes, you have that right.

Now many of those Conservative Christians simply stayed home because, while they were active churchgoers, they did not feel a compelling need to participate in the process.

But there are a few goofballs who actually believe that it is preferable to "teach the Republicans a lesson" by inflicting the likes of Clintoon and the Hitlery on us. If you point out the folly of this thinking to them, they accuse you of using the ends to justify the means.

So as Republicans, we must go on, secure in the knowledge that our issues are the right issues.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Interesting distinction. Might have something to do with the issue.

Might have something to do with the fact that the national interest, the interests of the Republican party, and the interests of the conservative movement are not always in perfect agreement, on every issue, all of the time. If this is news to somebody here, they really should spend more time lurking until they know what they are talking about.

[kempo]

What is the name of your Talaban group?

[OldFriend]

Sounds like you would be sooo much happier if Gore were the President. You would feel sooo self righteous wouldn't you. Kind of like all those good christians who sat home on election day and punished his father. Well, no doubt all those who died on the eleventh are thanking you and blessing you for your righteousness about now.

[185JHP]

"Watch your mouth, Rove" - Christians don't need "advice" like that from you. Either say good things about us, or keep your "policy hole" shut.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Not to mention his baby-killing stem cell decision.

Under the Bush decision no embryos will be killed. Since you have no trouble with bearing false witness against thy neighbor, are there any of the 10 commandments which you DO obey.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Yes, one of them was named Jesus Christ.

So to you, Jesus, the Son of God, was a political activist. I guess that makes two of you who believe that, Patriot76 and Judas Iscariot.

[classygreeneyedblonde]

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

" He celebrates heathen holidays" is an allusion (I think) to inviting Muslims at the White House during the Ramadan prayers.

It is not surprising, bearing false witness seems to be what their 'Christianity' is all about.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Exactly! We are bing played for CHUMPS.

No, no, no, you are being played for CHIMPS, you're too ignorant to be chumps.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Sorry to be so late in replying. Had an appointment that lasted all afternoon.

As to "debating", I see an unanswered question dodged by you. I'll put it again:

Have you compared the GOP's platform to those things which they actually attempt to do or succeed in getting done?

If that's not germane to the discussion, then please pose something more so.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Looks like you've got me on the Texas Supreme Court. Mea Culpa! While I have not looked into it extensively, I suppose that GWB supported them for other reasons than this, and is one reason why I am a little concerned about his future US Supreme Court nominations, until he actually gets a choice of his thru, and we can let reality decide the question.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Since I spent Clinton's entire 8 years in office on active duty, I am well aware of his doings in that area.

I also know that he snowballed the drawdown begun by Bush41. That's a fact conveniently overlooked by many folks in the GOP. For instance, are you aware of the fact (do the homework yourself, the info is out there) that Bush41 deactivated more ships in our Navy during his four years in office than Clinton did during his eight?

The big problem with Clinton's handling of the military was taking the reduced forces available and acting like he still had the Desert Storm level at his disposal. Thus far, Dubya hasn't reined in the myriad of peace-keeping missions that expose us to potential problems at home.

[alrea]

those that don't participate refuse to even give the slightest aide to those that are trying to stem decay and looting that is threatening all our families. in the name of god at least get out and choose the lesser of two evils.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

By cutting taxes, there will be less money to spend by the government.

The last two times taxes were cut (Kennedy and Reagan), the intake to the federal coffers increased. Therefore, a tax cut isn't exactly a recipe for starving the beast.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

The political facts of the last 45 years do not bear you out.

So you're of the opinion that the current crop of elected Republicans at the federal level are more conservative than those of, say, 1960?

If that's not what you're saying, please expound.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

If you really think that the volunteer citizens who run politics in this country at a level lower than the presidential concern themselves with winning the votes of people who are clearly looking for a reason not to vote for your candidates, I am sure that you have not been a member of too many party organizations.

And you would be incorrect, yet again. I served two years on the Portsmouth, VA, Republican City Committee, followed by 18 months as its chairman.

I can see now that your surety of thought is indeed worth questioning.