Bush’s Coming Betrayal of the Evangelicals

Ever since the invasion of Iraq, Karl Rove has been traveling the country mobilizing the evangelical vote for the 2004 elections. In city after city, he is meeting with evangelical leaders. He begs: "in 2000, only 16 million of you voted. We need the other four million."

Rove has coupled these overtures to evangelicals with similar meetings with the Jewish community (in Cincinatti, he left the evangelical meeting to join the representatives of Jewish organizations one floor up in the same hotel). In both meetings, Rove stresses the importance of President Bush’s invasion of Iraq and his support of Israel. But only with the evangelicals does he stress the president’s unwavering support for the moral issues that are their priorities – abortion, pornography, judges, and (most important) the Marriage Amendment.

Howard Baker used to say, "That door swings both ways." But this one is going to be slammed in the face of the evangelicals. And they should see it coming.

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the administration worked hard to firm up the alliance of Jews and Christian evangelicals supporting the war. A full year before the Iraq invasion, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman was already complaining about "… the feckless American Jewish leaders, fundamentalist Christians and neoconservatives who together have helped make it impossible for anyone in the U.S. administration to talk seriously about halting Israeli settlement-building without being accused of being anti-Israel."

In late 2002, the alliance which Friedman describes was deployed in support of the invasion of Iraq. Without the unswerving support of the evangelicals, it simply would never have happened. Evangelical leaders strongly supported the war in theological terms that were nearly apocalyptic. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I have yet to see any of the pro-war commentators on Fox News – Cal Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Fred Barnes, or William "Billy the Kid" Kristol – disclose the fees that they receive for serving as "contributors" to the most pro-war network.

Well, the neocons got their war, with the fervent support of the evangelicals. Now the evangelicals want the country to address their priorities. What about the filibustered federal judges? What about the Marriage Amendment? Will the neocons, in gratitude for the indispensable support of the evangelicals for the war, return the favor and support the conservative moral agenda?

Quite the contrary, in fact. The last fortnight has witnessed the emergence of a long-planned neocon assault on any and all efforts to put legal protections of traditional marriage on the books. Day after day, neocons have mounted a concerted barrage across Bush’s bow. Safire, Brooks, Sullivan, and virtually everyone at National Review and the Wall Street Journal have sent Bush and Rove a counter-intuitive message: the Marriage Amendment will divide not the Democrats, but the "Republicans" (in other words, the neocons would jump ship).

And what is President Bush, the firm-jawed, resolute leader in crisis, going to do?

He is aghast. Virtually every neocon supporter of the war just happens to be discovering, quite suddenly, that traditional marriage, so central to Bush’s core evangelical constituency, is a threat to Republican victory in 2004.

And oh, did I mention that they also aren’t happy with the way that Bush is fighting the war lately? In recent weeks Kristol, Perle, Gaffney, Gingrich, and company have had a heyday attacking the administration. They grouse that they have lost control of "their" war. Kristol carps that Dean might win because Bush hasn’t invaded enough countries; Gaffney warns that Grover Norquist has infiltrated the White House with Moslem supporters of terrorism. Last month, Richer Perle startled the policy community when he publicly admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law (but we invaded anyway, because his private agenda was more important). To top it off, Newt Gingrich now announces that Iraq policy has gone "off a cliff."

They flame away, disavowing any responsibility for the mess that Iraq has become under Bush’s guiding hand. Now, like the Mexican truck driver who delivers to Chi Chi’s in Pittsburgh, they wail, "Hey, amigo, them ain’t my onions!" They will be satisfied only with a full, imperial upheaval, and then occupation, of the entire Middle East. Short of that, nothing is their fault.

The neocon treachery has left Bush in a quandary. How will he shore up support for the war from other quarters? Here he confronts two distressing realities: first, with increasing desperation, he is trying to extricate U.S. government forces from Iraq, within six months, under the cover of a quick-start Iraqi "democracy," when in fact everybody admits that American occupying forces will be there for years. Second, the Democrats now have a front-runner who is implacably opposed to the Iraq war, from start to finish. This Democrat position seems ever more credible, even to the likes of William Kristol, with the avalanche of revelations about the disinformation and subterfuge employed by the neocons to stoke American war fever before the invasion.

That fever, plus the lingering bipartisan unity flowing from 9-11, produced a modicum of Democrat support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq. But Newt Gingrich is right: not only has U.S. policy in Iraq gone "off a cliff," but the support for Bush’s war from moderate Democrats, which was tepid and surly to begin with, threatens to do so as well. And Bush simply can’t survive without that support. The neocons,on the other hand, only needed it to get the war started. They don’t need it any more.

But Bush does. Hence, those indispensable Democrats, unanimously opposed both to the Marriage Amendment and to Bush’s judges, are going to demand their pound of flesh. And they are going to get it.

When they do, evangelicals will raise the roof (if not more). And poor W, reeling, will ask Karl Rove, "how did this happen?"

The answer is not difficult to surmise. The neocons have always appreciated the duplicitous Maoist dialectic. Working both sides of the fence, and speaking out of both sides of their mouths, comes as second nature to them. So, sometime after 9-11, and before the Iraq invasion, we can assume that they went to their fellow Democrats and laid out their case along these lines:

"We’re surprised at the sudden prominence we have acquired in this administration, but we’re going to use it for all it’s worth. We would like to have your support on our key issues, and, in return, you will have ours, because, after all, we agree on them – we always have.

"But you need to understand something. You will begin to see us in an alliance with evangelical Christians, the "Religious Right," the bane of your existence. Do not fear. We are using them, on a single-issue basis, for one goal only – to achieve our designs for the Middle East. We know their theology is laughable, but it is also useful. Don’t worry, we will not reciprocate when they begin asking us for our support on "moral" issues. We promise you that. In fact, we will make sure they fail on those issues.

"Remember: for us, President Bush is a means, not an end. You and we agree on the same ends. And we will make sure that the evangelicals don’t frustrate those ends. And neither will Bush."

That was the deal. So, when the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, coupled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Texas sodomy case, thrust into the realm of reality the prospect that all states might be called on to recognize homosexual civil unions, the neocons had their scripts rehearsed and ready. Scarcely a day has since gone by that one or another of them has not resonated to the drumbeat of doom for the Republicans, should Bush support any measure that might impede the glorious diversity of homosexual fidelity.

Sure, Bush will finally realize that the neocons have betrayed him – as true conservatives for two years have warned him they would. About that time, Jim Baker, the Texas street-fighter and the Florida Fixer, will come back with the first draft of a fix in Iraq and tell him, "what the hell did you expect? Broom’em all!"

But Karl Rove, duplicitous to the end, will tell him, "You can’t win without these guys. And they are smart enough to know when they’re being betrayed."

"Smart enough" – unlike the hapless evangelicals, who (Rove will assure Bush) are just as "poor, undereducated, and easily led" as the Washington Post said they were so many years ago.

Bush is afraid of the neocons. They can turn on him, and ruin him, in a New York Minute. But he does not fear the evangelicals. They have nowhere else to go. So Bush will betray them, even as he has been betrayed by the neocons – as planned by the neocons.

This coming year Bush will mouth repeated pieties about the sacred character of marriage, and to do … nothing. No midnight phone calls, no arm-twisting, no bribes, no threats like those leveled at Republicans who dared vote against Medicare, no all-night roll-calls. "You’re on your own," Rove will tell evangelicals, "we’ve done all we can." The judges will lose. The Marriage Amendment will lose. The neocons will have nothing to fear.

I wonder, what will those four million evangelicals tell Karl Rove next November, when he says, once more, how much Bush needs them in 2004?

>Clearly, the Evangelicals would not shift their support to Dean but they might put their support behind a third-party candidate or just not vote at all

There is a third choice!
A few days ago, I asked
in another thread:

Which course is the more
rational: elect someone
you know is evil,

and then use all the
checks and balances to keep
the evil in line;

Or elect someone
who is supposed to be good
and who thereby flies

below the radar
of the checks and balances
and can do real harm?!

Real conservatives
might decide that if we can't
tell who our friends are,

then we'll use our votes
to put a real enemy
right in the spotlight

where we can watch her,
keep constant track of her, and
use activist tools

to fight against her.
Real conservatives might like
Hillary the Prez ...

After all, no one
brought more dis-credit and shame
to all left-wing groups

than Bill did. No one,
now, takes fringe groups like, well, NOW,
seriously. Bill

-- their support for Bill --
wrecked them more than we could have!
With Hillary in

the White House, we all
would have a central focus
to fight against, and

she and supporters
would have to declare themselves
and their plans clearly.

Bringing the good fight
right out into the open
might be a good vote ...

Trying to cut the combat pay of soldiers.

Good grief...you actually believed the leftist drivel? Yes, there was apparently a statement from the Pentagon saying they were going to cut the combat pay, but it was retracted the very next day (reading between the lines: Bush slapped someone upside the head for making the statement). Bush actually INCREASED the imminent danger pay in April for the first time in more than a decade, from $150 a month to $225. The "family separation allowances" was also increased from $100 a month to $250. He also expanded the Combat zone income tax exclusion. Even when they were discussing a supposed "cut", it was not really a cut, just a return to the old figure previously paid, as the increase was a temporary measure provided until the supplementary bill could be passed, which it was.

Here is what was included in a recent supplemental bill, note that the bold section states that they will be covered through Oct 2004:

¶ Combat zone income tax exclusion: Not paying the IRS income tax can save thousands of dollars. Those who benefit the most are in the government’s highest tax category: unmarried members without dependents or mortgages.

¶ Family Separation Allowance: For servicemembers with families, this helps pay the added housing expenses resulting from enforced separation. In April, Congress enacted a temporary increase, to $250 per month from $100 per month.

¶ Imminent Danger Pay: All servicemembers deployed to Iraq qualify for $225 per month in danger pay, which was boosted from $150 per month by Congress in April. Servicemembers get a month’s worth of this pay even if they were assigned to a designated area for just a single day.

¶ Hardship Duty Pay: All military personnel in Iraq get $100 per month.

¶ Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay: This generally is paid at a rate of $150 per month to officers and enlisted members whose orders require them to participate in “frequent and regular” duties considered unusually arduous or hazardous. The pay is prorated, meaning someone who works less than a month would get $3.33 per day. The pay comes in several categories, such as Crew Member Flight Pay, Non-crew Member Flight Pay, Parachute Duty Pay (“jump pay”), Demolition Duty Pay, Toxic Fuels (or Propellants) Duty Pay, Dangerous Viruses (or Bacteria) Lab Duty Pay, and Chemical Munitions Pay.

The boosts approved in April for Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay, which were retroactive to October 2002, expire Oct. 30. But both pays are funded through the end of fiscal 2004 — October 2004 — in the Iraq supplemental bill now making its way through Congress. [Note: the bill was passed]

While lawmakers are arguing about portions of the supplemental bill related to civilian Iraqi development, no one has contested the military request, which accounts for the lion’s share. Meanwhile, if for some reason the supplemental bill does not pass, congressional authorizers may choose to include the pays in their 2004 defense budget as well, a pay and benefits official said Friday.

Stars and Stripes

They are also extending TriCare to Reservists and the National Guard now:

Starting March 10, 2003, Guard and Reserve family members, if their sponsor is on active duty (federal) orders for more than 30 days, will be eligible to enroll in Tricare Prime and enjoy the access standards and cost shares associated with the Prime benefit.

Source

And they got a pay raise for 2003, also concurrent receipt, improvements to TriCare:

Under the two bills, servicemembers will receive at least a 4.1 percent pay raise beginning Jan. 1. Many mid-level NCOs and officers will receive a pay jump of between 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent. The bills call for an increase in the basic allowance for housing to cut out-of-pocket expenses to 7.5 percent. The bill puts elimination of this financial inequity to servicemembers on course for fiscal 2005.

The act also deals with the hot button issue of concurrent receipt. Currently, military retirees who receive Department of Veterans Affairs disability payments have their retired pay reduced dollar-for-dollar by the VA payment.

The act authorizes an enhanced special compensation for military retirees who "incurred a qualifying combat-related disability." The retiree must have received the Purple Heart for the injury or have a service-connected disability of 60 percent or higher incurred as a direct result of combat or training for combat.

The act continues special pays and bonuses for active duty and reserve personnel and expands special pays given to high-demand military specialties. It also increases the bonus awarded to prior-service personnel.

The act makes medical improvements a high priority. The legislation calls on the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs to share assets, especially in regards to pharmacy benefits.

Congress continues to improve the TriCare program. The legislation expands TriCare Prime Remote to cover dependents who remain in remote locations when they cannot accompany sponsors. Congress also expressed concern over the stability of the TriCare provider networks. Many providers complain that claim processing takes too long. Under the legislation, the requirements for TriCare and Medicare are the same.

Source

On death benefits, Bush has a bill on his desk (H.R. 3365 Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act, passed 11/06/03) that DOUBLES the benefit and exempts it from tax, as well as many other tax benefits:

H.R. 3365 Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act

I don't want to hear ANYONE say that Bush does not take care of our troops!

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.