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."

[JoeMomma]

Hey -- great idea. Let's keep the GOP a bastion for ONLY white, straight, pro-life Christian males and their stay-at-home spouses. Forget outreach to the gay community and the pro-choice community.

We don't want no 'big tent' GOP. We want a 'dunce cap' GOP. /sarcasm

Ultraconservatives who believe it is their religious duty to declare jihad on tolerance and big-tent-Republicanism is what drove me away from the Republican party in the first place. Fortunately in the South, Democrats are moderate and conservative enough for me to feel at home there.

BTW I am a pro-life, straight, white Christian male with a stay-at-home wife.

[Scholastic]

Bump!

Im glad we agree! Im very concerned too, becasue conservatives will drop their standards for a GOP president. Not to say that getting a good choice through will be easy, but we should stand up and assert that we want a conservative.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh? I suppose you base most of your plans counting upon the loyalty and good sense of Looney Tunes.

Go right ahead and do so, it is no skin off my ass.

[Hail Caesar]

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

Karl's estimates regarding those types are correct. Also, another relevant factor here is that without those critical "swing voter" shifts, by Catholics and gunowners towards Dubya after McCain dropped out, Al Gore would be President today. I was on the front lines during the 2000 campaign and personally witnessed all this. If the Bush Administration does not do better regarding abortion and gun rights, then 2004 will not be pleasant, regardless of the President's polling numbers today. IMHO, the partial birth abortion ban must pass and several current gun control laws need to be rolled back before Dubya gets a lock on 2004.

[skateman]

So to spite your face, you stay away and Klintoon or Gore or Who knows what next, gets in? Good Move, jerkoff!

[elfman2]

"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. "

I don’t like division here, and I don't have the resources to repeat this debate.

I think that I covered the core of your accusations in a contentions conversation that I had with alpowolf here: 57 Libertarians Elected To Local Office In Nine States #45. If you follow our discussion, stripping away some posturing, there's enough meat to shake any LP member's claim that the RP smaller government platform is hypocritical.

I really should just take the time to organize this into a vanity and then reference it on threads like this.

[JoeMomma]

Here's what likely happened during a so-called "Christian Coalition" meeting when Bush drunk driving incident was made public:

"Oh man, our candidate Bush isn't perfect. Oh well, time to bail on him. We'll regroup in 4 years and see if we can get a real right-winger elected. We'll probably lose, but we'll lose by bringing up OUR issues without lowering ourselves into this namby-pamby tolerance and outreach trash."

[Aristophanes]

Bush is pro-life. The Republican Party is Pro-Life. Throwing your vote away only gets hard core femi-nazi baby killers elected.

Bush will sign a Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Bush will appoint a Pro-Lifer to the Supreme Court.

I think I see your problem now. You mistakenly believe that someone who's in favor of abortion in the cases of rape, incest or RU486, is "pro-life."

My definition of "pro-life" is someone who's against abortion. Period.

[Aristophanes]

Your reading comprehension is as poor as your logic. I did not say that I did not vote.

[Tory-Oxonian]

I share in your views of incrimentalism. But that is way too prudent of an approach for many in this forum. Most people simply don't understand statesmanship--how it is an art and how a statesman must reconcile his ideal objectives with current pragmatic circumstances.

People want to hold out for the perfect candidate (who will never exist). Meanwhile, the liberals have other plans: winning--and that they will until we learn the painful lesson that in the American political system it is often necessary to choose a "lesser evil".

Those who sit at home and don't vote because the perfect candidate hasn't come along are abdicating their responsibility as citizens and as Christians who are commanded to be stewards of the earth and take care of their families. When the liberals win and take away your rights, don't cry about it. You sat home. Your non-vote was a vote for the other side.

Cheers,

Tory-Oxonian

[Aristophanes]

Voting for the lesser of two evils, as you suggest, is the same thing as feeding a junkie. You're just enabling his heroin habit and preventing him from facing his problem.

The junkie in this case is the Republican party establishment.

We cannot expect the party to turn around if we're still willing to vote in lockstep for its pro-choice, big government candidates, just because they're the so-called lesser of the two evils. And we cannot turn this nation around until we manage to turn the Republican party around. When the money and the votes stop flowing, we'll get their attention. The proof of this is in Rove's beginning to notice that Christians aren't all that excited about voting Republican anymore.

[BplusK]

I agree with you. Once the Holy Spirit has changed our lives, we feel that we have certain responsibilities toward the world. However, I would say that we have two different types of responsibilities. Jesus called us...
- to be the Light of this world.
- to be the Salt of the earth.
As Light, we must clearly proclaim the message of God's Kingdom and live by the righteous rules of that Kingdom. Christians do that essentially through the activities of their church.
As Salt, our "ministry" is more indirect and subtle. In various ways we bring a certain flavor (influence) of righteousness, peace and joy in this world. It is mainly in social work and politics that we can see Christians having such a positive impact as "Salt".

[k2blader]

I heard of Marvin Olasky through reading World magazine, of which he is the editor, and The Tragedy of American Compassion. From what I've heard, he used to be a Socialist, but he was led to the Lord in later days and is now an influential voice in support of Christian Conservatism. :)

[k2blader]

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.

Think I know what you are trying to say. But I believe the problem is that many Christians are uninformed or misinformed about their full responsibility in terms of being Light in a darkened world.

Tragically, I think a large number of Christians have also bought into what has been falsely presented as the "separation of church & state."

[sheltonmac]

"Abortion is a GOP policy."

And its legacy.

[Ohioan]

Karl Rove is the perfect of example of what we have termed the dysron, one who has normal intelligence, maybe in his case slightly above normal intelligence, but is rendered dysfunctional because of his compulsions and fears.

The Republican Convention, orchestrated by Rove, was a major reason that not only fundamentalist Christians, but many other American Conservatives and traditionalists had a very hard time generating much enthusiasm for the campaign. The spectacle was so caught up in pandering to minorities, as to be almost insulting to the American mainstream. (See Campaign 2000 and Politics 2001--Lesson 2000, for a fuller discussion.)

Karl needs to step aside. He does not know how to motivate. For every new vote he garners by some "politically correct" device, he turns away two or three which would have been his for the asking.

This article reveals a man able to recognize a problem, without a clue as to his own role in creating it. Pathetic at best.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[LS]

Clue. Jesus was not a politician, and He specifically EXPLAINED to (apparent) morons that He did not come (then) to be an earthly king. BUT NOTICE that even HE did not criticize ROME, and . . . horror . . . Rome practiced abortion, er, crucifixion. Quite the contrary, Paul said to support the government and JESUS HIMSELF paid at least one tax that we are aware of to ROME. Gee, He must have comrpromised or something.

[LS]

"voting for the lesser of two evils . . . is like feeding a junkie." You know, that is one of the stupidist things I've ever read on this forum.

The POINT of Jesus not coming as an earthly king was to show that there would BE NO perfection on this earth until His Second Coming. Therefore, unless you are in a dictatorship (as He was), ANY AND EVERY election is a choice of the "lesser of two evils" because no people, and thus no parties, will ever be perfect.

So I guess you would have opposed George Washington---the original "big government guy" who CREATED a cabinet when none was outlined in the Constitution (and, I should add, did not believe in personal liberaty because he was a slaver); or opposed Jefferson (because he was a bigger slaver) because he believed in controlling all business (by slapping an embargo on Europe); or John Marshall because he thought the Federal Government should have the authority to take measures "necessary and prudent" to conduct business; or James Monroe because he believed in "compromise" . . .

Well, you get the point. When you get to politics the name of the game is COMPROMISE to get your way. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. The only governments that do not practice compromise are dictatorships. I prefer ours.

[Exigence]

World magazine

Okay. That's where I heard the name. Thanks for the reference.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I'm very much a pro-lifer but can someone tell me what good a PBA ban will do?

It would save some lives. I'm not sure of the figure. I believe that it is 20 to 30 thousand a year.

Also It would be a good first step toward more limits. The Gov't would saying that you can't have this abortion because it would mean the death of a baby. It might affect that mushy middle, toward realizing that abortion can and should be restricted. Especially since pro-lifers could show how babies are dying from other forms of abortion.

This is why the pro-aborts are so opposed the banning PBA. They fear it will lead to an incremental reversal of Roe v Wade.