Posted on 12/13/2001 7:50:35 AM PST by 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."
I can cut off my nose just as sure as you can cut off your own.
I voted for neither. I was an opponent of both, because neither is a friend of the Constitution and the form of government established therein.
I knew I shouldn't have gotten into this. Back in spring I was in a debate with someone, they said I didn't know anything about politics, I referenced my experience, and they complained because I answered them. Of course this person doesn't post on FR anymore. Why point out that your duty is to follow St. Paul, and to 'fight the good fight', not because you expect to win, but because it is right, that the 200 Spartans at Thermopolae did accomplish great things, even though they were all killed, and the barbarians passed on to take Athens.
why would I share anything with a stated enemy.
Here I will just repeat what I said to a Democrat poster on the Slate site, that as a conservative in a war, my enemy is the one who is killing our soldiers, and our citizens. Like them, you make an enemy of those who disagree. Osama has taught you well.
So do I.
He could make a good start by getting us out of places such as Kosovo and Bosnia (where we have NO business being in the first place), but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to do so.
Without the slightest doubt they are far, far more conservative than the republican leadership of the 1960's. Where are the Hugh Scott's, Jacob Javits's, Nelson Rockefellers, John Lindsays, etc.?
ME: We'll get a chance to see your theory put to a test. Schundler got creamed in the NJ Governor race espousing pro-life positions, tax cuts and school choice. Therefore, according to your theory, Schundler or some other true conservative Republican should be elected in 2005.
YOU: Well, according to the opposing theory, Kristie Todd Whitman should have led to a dynasty of GOP NJ governors.
What opposing theory? Whitman's an out and out liberal. She supports partial birth abortion. Bush is clearly more conservative. If Congress passes a partial birth abortion ban, he'll sign it. The votes are there, but because the Democrats control the Senate, it won't even come up for a vote. This is the whole point that the more realistic conservatives keep making. It's either all or nothing with your type. So you always get nothing.
I actually agree with the essence of what you're saying. Schundler defeated Franks, the establishment's choice, for the GOP nomination. If I was still living in NJ, I would have voted for Schundler even if I was sure he would lose, rather than give it to Franks, because Franks is another Whitman.
Bush isn't another Whitman. Bush is a pragmatist, but he's clearly way more conservative than the Whitman's of the world. The fact you can't see the distinction is why there will probably never be a conservative Supreme Court majority and we may never get a partial birth abortion ban.
The GOP has the chance to take back the Senate next year. Under the best scenario, they could gain four or five seats, enough that the remaining RINO's in the Senate would no longer have the tremendous leverage that Chafee and Jeffords had early this year. But people like you won't show up to vote. The GOP probably won't gain the four or five seats. They may not gain any seats. Then there'll be a Supreme Court vacancy, and the only nominee that'll have a chance will be another Souter. Then people like you will go berserk, saying "See, I told you Bush is liberal!". Amazing.
Wow, you have the worst case of burnout I've ever seen. Up to now I hadn't understood how the GOP could lose the governorship in Virginia, last year. Folks like you actively drove away possible supporters. I am sure that less conservative (read 'nearly all') Republicans could pick up the attitude you and your ilk had towards Bush. You have badly damaged our country as a result of your Virginia debacle, and now you want to finish off the rest of us. Well I'm sorry, I won't drink that KoolAid.
I'm very much a pro-lifer but can someone tell me what good a PBA ban will do? Aren't there other procedures to murder the child at the same stage of development that would remain legal under any proposed PBA ban?
Hey, Osama, Ho, Osama, how do you like the climate up there. Did you get to keep Johnny Jihad company at night?
Of course he was, but the fellow I was responding to considers Christ to be a politician, not the Son of God.
It's true. Judas was a liberal Democrat, the "social conscience" of the Disciples.
The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. The PBA ban is the first step, as the pro-death crowd know.
BRAVO! Perfect reply!
I guess I should have given you a timeline on my tenure. My resignation as chairman was effective in July of 1999, long before the "debacle" of the Earley-Warner election this past November.
And in case you missed it (and it appears that you most definitely did), Mark Earley lost for one reason and one reason only: his opposition to gun rights. He helped push through a bill that eventually became law that bars Virginians from purchasing more than one handgun in a 30-day period. Gun rights supporters let him know about it at the polls, and rightly so. The message is clear: support the 2nd Amendment or forget about winning a statewide election.
And my opposition of Bush is based on his opposition to Constitutional government.
Also, I didn't "burn out"; I wised up. I took a long, long look at what the Republican Party has been saying and what they have been doing. I'll urge you to take a look at the platform that the rank-and-file members of the GOP put forth at the national conventions over the last several elections and what the "leadership" (and that is a VERY loosely-used term) has brought forth in the way of legislation. If that doesn't make the case for the "top brass" taking for granted the grassroots types, then I don't know what will open your eyes.
That, and several other items. Then again, I don't expect you to see past those Bush-colored glasses of yours.
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.