Karl Rove: Stayaway Christians Almost Cost Bush 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."

Funny you should mention that. I have a very close friend who may pursue an elected position on a local level, and I have no problem volunteering for him or sticking my neck out for him in any way. He's an unconventional thinker with a lot of wisdom to offer.

My major concern with anyone else is that I know myself too well to risk volunteering for them. If I had worked on Jeffords' campaign and he had pulled that kind of crap, there would have been nothing to argue about in the aftermath. I would personally have made sure that he paid dearly for every minute of my time -- several times over.

That's why I wouldn't have volunteered in the first place.

What, you think blacks, latinos, and others aren't ever pro-life? Not very inclusive, are you. By the by, I don't necessarily dismiss the Lee Atwater brand of politics, still, I am a broken glass republican. But, as a southern boy, you can't escape comprehending the breach of etiquette if one doesn't dance with the one that brung ya, can you? PS. NJ, from whence I came, was once a GOP strong-hold. Then, its GOP got suckered by buying into the whole relatavism, can't we all get along thing. Now it can't, or won't, support a decent GOP candidate--to whit: Brett Shundler--and its base is demoralized, and the larger RINO's flock to demos any chance they get, cuz they aren't really pubbies at all anymore--they've been so "Open" AND "Tolerant" Ooohh!!!.

And the base who could ELECT a conservative can't get the leadership to give up the bucks, in order to do so; in order to get the message out. That's reality. Your kind of inclusion is so eighties. We have to fight now for positive understanding of the moral authority of our position. And, I think it can be done. PS, Congratulations on the lifestyle choice, but the opposition has it in mind to legislate it out of existence so long as we are weak in conviction and therefore numbers. IMHO. V's wife.

But Bush opposes abortion, and supports the traditional family, and he still doesn't get your vote. Than being the case, why should he every do anything you want him to, unless of course, if feels that way himself. You will object to my characterization of his position, but those are the facts. You are letting your disagreement about tactics, something you know little about, obscure that fact that your goals are his goals.

Hey LCS, you should know me better than that! I voted for Bush in the 2000 general, and will most likely again in 2004. Perhaps I was a little unclear. See post 208 for clarification.

"What, you think blacks, latinos, and others aren't ever pro-life? Not very inclusive, are you. "

You misread my post. I didn't imply that. I know that many blacks and hispanics are pro-life, but there are many in the GOP who don't want them in the party. Being a former Republican myself, I tried to help the party develop an outreach committee to help candidates and party members in reaching to non-white constituencies.

What I got was a no vote from the party leadership. They felt that reaching out to non-white voters would somehow 'dilute' the principles of the GOP.

Hence, I am a Democrat now. I can only respect a party that respects racial and ethnic diversity. The GOP doesn't quite measure up in that way. And given the Southern Dems are more econ and socially conservative-to-moderate, I'm right at home in the Democratic party here.

Then it sounds like they need to make sure they dont take us for granted.

Another one of the Liberal anointed will rise up to try and take the exec office again...it would do conservatives well to show some respect or perhaps we will stay away again.

And dont whine about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The Conservative agenda is not our God.

With or without it...Christians already have the victory.

"politics is corrupt and, therefore, they shouldn't participate"

True in Illinois. Even now Bush staffers dont see what a bad choice Gov. George Lyan was to head Bush in IL. If they made the same type of mistake in other states, it's obvious why Bush did so poorly among people who value honesty.

The Illinois establishment has not yet learned this lesson.

But it is not all the establishment's fault. In the 11 working class suburban precincts I have worked since 98, I see people with NRA and Pro-Life bumper stickers, worn Bibles, Christian radio or Fox news turned on; But not registered, or no vote in 8 elections. In a Pro-Life newsletter only 12 of 22 named activists are registered to vote. The establishment knows this.

In contrast, eco-freak feminist NPR voters are fewer, but always vote.

We don't accept it when a murderer blames someone else. So we should accept that it is our own fault when we lose and not blame others. We get the government we deserve.

Who is with me to work a precinct door to door and take the establishment by surprise?

I really can't blame other Christians for staying home.

I see that I got confused about your position, which seems close to mine (I was a Keyes man in the primaries), but I disagree with the italicized statement. The people referred to either are acting out of political inexperience, or in full knowledge of what they are doing. If out of inexperience, they should try to find out the way the world works. If they have full knowledge of the consequences of their acts, then I certainly blame them.

By the way, are you any particular Antoninus, such as Marcus Antoninus or his brother. Or perhaps the fictional Antoninus from Spartacus? As you can imagine I'm interested in characters from Roman history or historical fiction.

(I was a Keyes man in the primaries),

Me too.

The people referred to either are acting out of political inexperience, or in full knowledge of what they are doing.

Probably a mixture of both. I know what you're saying and that is also how my mind works with regard to most elections. However, my sympathy for them comes in when I view an election, even an important one like a presidential election, through the wide-angle lens of human history and consider the inscrutable movement of Divine Providence. Honestly, an election is just a worldly event with wholly temporal consequences. If you are focused completely on the City of God, then it's much better for you to vote or not vote according to the dictates of your conscience than to accept compromise candidates time after time. I understand this point of view. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

By the way, are you any particular Antoninus, such as Marcus Antoninus or his brother. Or perhaps the fictional Antoninus from Spartacus? As you can imagine I'm interested in characters from Roman history or historical fiction.

Actually the name works on many levels for me. 1.) It's the diminutive of my first name. 2.) Antoninus Pius, father of Marcus Aurelius, was one of my favorite Roman emperors. 3.) And of course, we have a very worthy Supreme Court justice who carries the name. I don't even want to know why you chose Sulla. Vicious man, he.

I love reading about Roman characters myself. I found Plutarch's 'Parallel Lives' positively fascinating.

I don't even want to know why you chose Sulla. Vicious man, he.

I really am going to have to post my reasons on my FR homepage. I take my characterization of the character of LC Sulla somewhat from the recent series of Roman historical novels by the author of 'The Thorn Birds'. I see Sulla as a man devoted to the ideals of the Roman Republic, which was falling to pieces around him. He desperately turned to extreme measures which did hold off the final end of the Republic for a generation. It seems clear that he did not commit his abominable crimes from personal ambition, since he resigned his dictatorship after a short term, somewhat in the old Roman tradition.

Well I guess you are right at home on the "liberal plantation". That democratic state of mind that says "we are all about equality and diversity" but, in fact, they are all about tokenism and the welfare state which does more to keep the poor ignorant, disadvantaged, and dependent then typical republican ideologies of self reliance, not that we haven't strayed, too.

Of course all those open and tolerant leaders y'all keep electing send their own offspring to private, mostly lily white schools. And the racial huksters like Jesse Jackson shake down their own bros with protection rackets and vote engineering.

They keep voting into power people who create policies that drive away the tax base and, thus, jobs, while creating hand out services that create dependence and a few jobs for the well connected. Or do you have specific demo policies you can point to with pride. Specifics, not grand brushstrokes that paint a nice picture but don't add up when you read the fine print. Specifics. V's wife. (Oh, and it was republicans who passed the civil rights acts of the sixties, not southern democrats, like Mr. Gore's daddy, or that Klansmen, what was his name, right Byrd). And don't forget how many pro-lifers your party has the temerity to mount campaigns for! What inclusion. Hah. Joemomma, you got that right.

From the article: '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."'

Rove is acknowledging in his first statement that politics is corrupt and not for Christians. But in the second paragraph, he says the Bush bunch will have to spend a lot of time and energy on it.

Obviously, they plan to continue courting liberal causes and promoting illegal immigration and sucking up to sodomites but obviously Rove thinks that they can persuade enough stay-away Christians to vote for them anyway. With just the right polling and advertising, as usual. Of course, I think Rove (possibly not Bush) would prefer to carve out a large enough segment of independents that they could win in 2004 without Christian support.

Is Junior really going to follow in Spook Daddy's footprints and ignore Christians and then try to blame them for not voting for him? I think Junior is smarter than that. I'm not so sure about Rove.

Does Rove really think all his strategies in getting Bush to condemn Christians and congressmen who "depict America as slouching to Gommorrah" would be something that would make Christians more likely to turn out to vote for Bush? Did Rove really think we'd forget about that?

Bush spent a lot of time and money courting California liberals and sodomites and racial minorities. Did it pay off? No! Instead, they polled lower than Dole's miserable campaign did. But now, Rove wants to pretend that it's Christians who are to blame instead of recognizing that the vast majority of minorites and sodomites aren't ever going to vote for conservatives.

Isn't it time for Bush to recognize that Rove is a failed operative?

News Flash: Christians to blame for everything. Film at 11.

Threads like this just point out the number of social Christians there are.

I did not vote for Bush because I had any delusions that the man was really a Christian. I have seen too many political false faces over the years to take that on face value. I voted for him as the least of two evils. It is not necessary for a man to be a Christian for me to vote for him. We just need to share political goals.

Some here are so shallow that they think that the fact GWB drank made the Christians remove support. These people do not understand that Christians all have their own sin stories,and how it is the grace of God saves, not our righteousness....so GWB's drinking history shocks not one of us..and because we believe in God's mercy we could believe he is a new creation...but....and here is my but...

His actions in office have caused me to inspect his "fruit" on a regular basis..other than some very good speech writers I do not see any reason to belief his profession of faith.

His polytheistic worship service ....his "islam means peace" ,his appointment of more homosexuals to governmental positions than even the liar and chief,and the fact the man never goes to church all make me doubt his claim.

If it should happen that the conservatives endorsed another I might vote for him,or I may stay home.Bushes speech writer and political advisors will not deceive me into a vote for him.

In the meantime I remember that no matter what GWB thinks he is not in control God is!

Proverbs 21:1The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

His polytheistic worship service ....his "islam means peace" ,his appointment of more homosexuals to governmental positions...

One could argue pretty forcefully that Bush is not even acquainted with the Ten Commandments. Seems a little strange for someone who likes to put the word "Christian" in his political resume. But Clinton and Gore liked to make the same claims.

I'm not really sure we should be surprised at this. What is surprising is how many FReepers fall for this when you know they're too smart to fall for such political lures from other politicians.

Bush's "testimony" of his faith through his actions in that blasphemous ceremony at the so-called National Cathedral did more to damage my perceptions of his Christianity than anything else could have. And it's undeniable that he knew what he was going to do there in advance. It was willful and premeditated blasphemy for any Christian to do that. We'll leave aside the willful apostasy of Graham on that same platform since careful observers know that Graham abandoned the Bible as his spiritual guide decades ago.

"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"

Could it be because Mr. Bush gave the appearance of appeasing us while trying to play all sides. It was a somewhat smart and necessary move to gain the swing voters approval and he took quite a chance I'll say. It's an uncomfortable position playing both sides of the fence. History will record where he really stands.

I see him as a man to be feared, hated, despised, admired and pitied. More importantly, I see him as a dire warning of the extremes which even a possibly good man can go to as his civilization dies. Since I consider it greatly possible that we ourselves are well on the way down that road, we must take his career as a warning of the temptations which may come to us, and a path to avoid.

Excellent points and ones that I've made myself from time to time. I believe that it would be well if more Americans were familliar with that period of Roman history. I often mention it to liberals and libertarians alike - anyone who proclaims that private morality and ethics has nothing to do with public government. When enough people believe that, and the sense of personal ethcis and civic duty in society as a whole is degraded, the endurance of a free republican form of government is severely taxed. Society is given a choice of anarchy or authoritarianism. Rome chose the latter, but other republics chose the former - and then proceeded to fly apart, or else be gobbled up by their neighbors.

Hopefully, we'll never have to make that choice.

And I believe the author you're talking about is Colleen McCollough. I read one of hers - Caesar. I wasn't thrilled with it - It was ok in terms of her descriptions of military campaigns, but her understanding of Caesar's motivations were uninspired and left him one dimensional. I much prefered I, Claudius and Claudius the God by Robert Graves.

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.