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."

[lormand]

"Please recall for me how many times the Republicans passed or voted on bills to outlaw it? I do recall somebody named clinton (Do you remember him?)vetoing their attempts to outlaw it."

Please read my comments more carefully before responding. I am referring to the CURRENT crop of lawmakers...not the past ones in which Klinton was president.

[LarryLied]

I'm afraid that this site is populated primarily by the neo-con (read ex-Trotskyite) armada

Well I am a Unitarian so I guess that makes me close to those "neo-cons" (read JEWS) of which you speak. But, unlike you, I do have a history here and if you care to look you will see I not a supporter of those "neo-cons" (read JEWS) such as Kristol. In fact, this "neo-con" (read JEWS) has no truck with that faction of the GOP. I also believe they have less power than most think. Not that they are not welcome in my party, they are.

But they are a nice whipping horse for those on the left to use in a deluded attempt to peel off conservative voters. As we both know, all conservatives hate Jews. Blacks too. And homosexuals, we really hate homosexuals.

</sarcasm off>

[Saundra Duffy]

This really makes me mad! I ran into these so-called Christians when I campaigned my heart out for Dan Lungren who ran for Gov of CA 1998 AND LOST! Some "Christians" told me God told them NOT to vote for Lungren; it had to do with appointment of judges. Lungren was pro-life but not pro-life enough to suit those creeps from hell. Anyway, that's how we got Gov. "Gay" Davis who is pro abortion up the wazoo and who is destroying the state in every way imaginable. These stay-at-home "Christians" who didn't bother to vote for GWB, SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES ESPECIALLY NOW IN THIS TIME OF WAR!! (We almost had Al Gore who would have been an impotent leader like his boss, the RAPIST! Geeeeez, this makes me mad! For victory & freedom!!!

[butter pecan fan]

Why should Conservative Christians be excited about voting for this little man? He celebrates heathen holidays in our sacred White House. He makes no effort to roll back the tide of murdering the unborn. He is not actively advancing our agenda. Prayer in the schools -"wouldn't be prudent." More federal control of the shools -"a smashing idea." Bush is a LIBERAL and you folks are suckers if you don't believe it.

Why should Conservative Christians be excited about voting for this little man?

I have two words for you: Al Gore.

And if that doesn't put some excitement in your bones, well, you're beyond hope.

[billbears]

Actually Keith it's not in the Constitution and until the 14th Amendment, states had the right to establish their official churches and require leaders to be not only of a certain moral character but also testify to the belief in God Almighty(check some of the state constitutions i.e. Missouri, Maryland, North Carolina, etc)

Secondly this very article and some of the commentary is the exact reason that we were never supposed to vote directly for POTUS. At one time, we were a Republic and not a democracy as established by said Constitution.

[butter pecan fan]

These stay-at-home "Christians" who didn't bother to vote for GWB, SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES ESPECIALLY NOW IN THIS TIME OF WAR!! (We almost had Al Gore who would have been an impotent leader like his boss, the RAPIST! Geeeeez, this makes me mad! For victory & freedom!!!

Hear, hear! You tell 'em!

[LarryLied]

Another disruptor. Took longer this time to expose. What is going on with FR? Usually a lefty posing as a bigot is exposed within ten posts.

[NittanyLion]

You said it all. Great post. I'd love to see the GOP pass larger tax cuts and slash government programs immediately - but I realize there are political realities. Give the people a taste of lower taxes and show them they don't need government to babysit them, and they will come to your side. Try to radically change the course of this nation overnight and the electorate will toss you out of office, if you ever get there in the first place.

The left understands the principle of incrementalism, but I often wonder whether those on the right grasp it at all.

[Eagle Eye]

Nice move, guys! With friends like y'all, we don't need enemies...

Blame the voters for not voting for a candidate that they didn't want? How about the local party apologizing for failing to select a better candidate? Or how about not selecting a candidate that repulses a critical voting block? I won't vote for a gun grabbger or gun grabber-lite. Don't bother to blame me or people like me when you select one to run for office.

[extreme469]

I am a Christian BUT I am not a one issue voter. Get a clue fanatics.

[Revolting cat!]

The battle is as old as this forum (and probably older than it.) It's a battle between the pragmatists and the idealists. The pragmatists would have voted for Al Bore if he were running against Gus Hall, insisting all the while that, relatively speaking, Al Bore is a conservative and that you gotta dance with the one who brought ya!

During the 1960s there was an International Elvis Presley Society, a powerful fan club which salivated over everything their hero put out on disk and celluloid, and if you were around then, you'll remember that he didn't put out a single worthwhile record or movie between say, 1963 and 1968. El is dead now, so we have to switch our allegiances and undivided attention to new heroes and don't you dare criticizing them or us! Would ya rather listen to Frankie Avalon instead? OK now, we unnestan each other, huh?

[Stefan Stackhouse]

In the early days of this land it was the practice that pastors would preach election day sermon, reminding Christians of their civic duties. I don't think that it is asking too much, nor is it an excessive intanglement of church with state, for Christians to reminded from the pulpit the Sunday prior to each election that the God who has given them unprecedented civil liberties also expects us to wisely and responsibly exercise our civic duties.

[SamAdams76]

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.

Well said. You got it right.

[NC Conservative]

I believe a big part of it was the undisclosed past drunk driving problem that came to light late in the campaign. People on our side tend to demand our candidates be pure as newfallen snow.

I think you are correct. I think his DUI did hurt. However, Christians should be the first to know that becoming a Christian is a LIFE CHANGING experience. They should have voted based on that. Many Christians have a checkered past. Look at Frankling Graham. He was a drunk (till his 30's I believe). All the while his dad was evangelising all across the world.

[Bigg Red]

theoldright member since December 4th, 2001

[Bigg Red]

theoldright member since December 4th, 2001

[lormand]

"I can't be overturned until a liberal justice retires. We just need Justice Stevens or Ginsburg to retire. I sure there people on FreeRepublic that think Al Gore would have been great."

Most people are missing the point that I am trying to make here. The partial birth abortion bill is totally independent from the Judiciary. It doesn't matter how many liberals are on the bench, in order to pass laws banning this horrific practice.

Forgive the bold type but here is my point...

Before Jumpin' Jeffords switched sides, Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and House. Did they ban partial birth abortion or even attempt to ban it?

[butter pecan fan]

Another disruptor. Took longer this time to expose. What is going on with FR? Usually a lefty posing as a bigot is exposed within ten posts.

Who's that, LarryLied?

Were you referring to my response to Saundra? If so, you are misreading it as sarcasm. It was not. It was totally heartfelt and sincere (perhaps so much so that it could have come across as sarcastic).

See my earlier response to the original poster (I thin) who asked why to be excited about gwb...

[Sci Fi Guy]

That is precisely why pro-lifers tend to be so cynical about it. Republicans in Congress were all in favor of a late-term abortion ban when they knew Clinton would veto it, but their "courage" disappeared once the party was in a position to ensure that anything they passed would be signed into law.

So now Republicans are condemned for voting Pro-life! Do you think that you might be setting too high a standard, if you condemn them regardless of how they vote? (sarcasm off)

When were the Republicans in "position" to make pro-life laws? After the last election? Wrong We lost pro-life votes after the last election. We don't have any thing close to a pro-life/conservative majority.

[hchutch]

I will not dispute the rationale for the 14th Amendment. Events in Missouri during the 1830s (the extermination order against the Mormons) are but one example as to why the States had to be told not to violate the provisions of Amendments 1 through 10.

IMO, I also am tired of the folks who sit on their hands and stay home. The Democrats will not do so. I won't get everything I want when I want it from the GOP, but I'll get a lot of it eventually. I get little, if any, of what I want from the Democrats.