Evangelicals frustrated by Bush

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-115609-3712r.htm

Evangelicals frustrated by Bush

By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush left several million evangelical voters "on the table" four years ago and again is having trouble energizing Christian conservatives, prominent leaders on the religious right say.
"It's not just economic conservatives upset by runaway federal spending that he's having trouble with. I think his biggest problem will be social conservatives who are not motivated to work for the ticket and to ensure their fellow Christians get to the polling booth," said Robert H. Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute.
"If there is a rerun of 2000, when an estimated 6 million fewer evangelical Christians voted than in the pivotal year of 1994, then the Bush ticket will be in trouble, especially if there is no [Ralph] Nader alternative to draw Democratic votes away from the Democratic candidate," added Mr. Knight, whose organization is an affiliate of Concerned Women for America (CWA).
Their list of grievances is long, but right now social conservatives are mad over what many consider the president's failure to strongly condemn illegal homosexual "marriages" being performed in San Francisco under the authority of Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Top religious rights activists have been burning up the telephone lines, sharing what one privately called their "apoplexy" over Mr. Bush's failure to act decisively on the issue, although he has said he would support a constitutional amendment if necessary to ban same-sex "marriages."
"I am just furious over what's going on in California and over what the president is not doing in California," a prominent evangelical leader confided. "He says he's 'troubled' — he should be outraged. If he's troubled, he should pick up the phone and call [California Republican Gov.] Arnold [Schwarzenegger] and tell him we want action against the rogue mayor who is breaking the law."
"They can't possibly guarantee a large turnout of evangelical Christian voters if he does not do what is morally right and take leadership on this issue as he did on the war" in Iraq, said CWA President Sandy Rios.
She echoed other conservative leaders in blaming White House political advisers and not the president himself for the failure to move forcefully against San Francisco's civil disobedience. But the veteran activist and radio host said Mr. Bush could pay a steep price in November for following his strategists' bad advice.
"The strength of this president is in his convictions, but our people do not admire his indecision and lack of leadership on an issue so basic as the sanctity of marriage," Mrs. Rios said.
Religious conservatives helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency in the 1980s and helped Republicans retake the House and Senate in 1994, but complain that they have little to show for their loyalty to the GOP.
"I'm not blaming the president, but religious conservatives have been doing politics for 25 years and, on every front, are worse off on things they care about," said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. "The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."
Religious right leaders say their constituents aren't likely to defect to the Democrats.
"What is at issue here is, will our folks be AWOL when it comes time for the election because they are just not energized and motivated?" said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "Social conservatives coalesce around strong leadership. That's what motivates and energizes them. And on their core issues, the leadership from the White House is not there right now."
Conservative Christian concerns with White House leadership extend beyond homosexuality, pornography and abortion to issues of art, education and law.
Sadie Fields, a Bush supporter and Christian Coalition activist, says she's heard grumbles that Mr. Bush stood aside while the man he nominated for a federal appeals court appointment, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, prosecuted that state's popular chief justice, Roy Moore. Mr. Moore was forced from office after defying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's State Judicial Building.
Mr. Knight points to Mr. Bush's having "promoted the Ted Kennedy Leave No Child Behind education bill, which expanded an Education Department that social conservatives see as a fully owned subsidiary of the National Education Association, which has grown more stridently left wing in recent years. The NEA has boldly promoted the homosexual agenda for schoolchildren."
Also, Mr. Knight said, Mr. Bush "upped the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts, which has boldly promoted the homosexual agenda for schoolchildren. The White House message to social conservatives was: 'We don't share your values, folks. We would rather impress the art elite at cocktail parties.' "
Mr. Bauer, a former Reagan White House adviser who was briefly a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination four years ago, said pro-life voters were dismayed by Mr. Bush's repeated statements during the 2000 campaign that he would not make abortion a "litmus test" issue for judicial appointees. Since Mr. Bush took office, Mr. Bauer said, many of the same voters were disappointed by Mr. Bush's ineffectiveness in pushing conservative bench nominees past liberal Democrats in the Senate.
Mr. Knight said runaway federal spending under Mr. Bush worries some social conservatives who "fear their children will become slaves to the government someday. It's not just an economic issue. It's about freedom."
With more than eight months remaining until Election Day, American Family Association founder Don Wildmon said the president "has already upset the economic conservatives, and I know the problem he is having with evangelicals. ... There is a major problem there."
 
"The gay rights movement is more powerful, the culture is more decadent, the life of not one baby has been saved, porn is in the living room, and you can't watch the Super Bowl without your hand on the off switch."

And government is the answer? :rolleyes:
 
Skunk, they're talking about the presidential bully pulpit being awfully silent on issues important to a core constituency, not about government action...
 
One of Bush's few redeeming virtues

One of Ws few redeeming virtues is not catering to the political agenda of the Christian Right. I fear them as a threat to individual freedom even more than I fear the left. Of course, not all Evangelical activists are interested in establishing a quasi-Christian fascist state, but many are, and don't even realize it. Using national religious destiny and "chosenness" as a source of legitimacy for policy decisions is very threatening to individual rights.
 
Bush panders to the RR with rehtoric but comes up short when it's time to deliver the goods (sorta like with RKBA).

Why would Rove want to piss off centrist and center left swing voters when they know the RR has nowhere else to go?
 
This article is very innaccurate. Conservative evangelics gave up on fighting the culture war via elected government about halfway through Reagans second term when it became obvious that the Gipper was only kidding when he said he supported a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. Ralph Reed for example commented that trying to affect social change via electing Republicans was futile. Many other leaders in the conservative christian ranks have said the same thing.

The notion amongst conservative evangelics that the culture war is better fought from the pulpit and through community activism is well over 15 years old now. Where has this reporter been?

This reporter doesn't seem to have any direct experience with the evangelic movement and didn't consider it important enough to actually go out and do some homework before writing his article.

As for Bush II, most conservative evangelics were pleasently suprised by seeing the partial birth abortion ban signed and still give him credit for that.

Are the evangelics dissappointed enough to stay home and let Kerrry win? not really, they weren't expecting a whole lot from Bush II in the first place and recognize that Kerry is a far worse alternative. Edwards would have a much better chance of convincing them that the election really doesn't matter.
 
President Bush left several million evangelical voters "on the table" four years ago and again is having trouble energizing Christian conservatives, prominent leaders on the religious right say.

Not any more.

The idiot Democrat mayor of San Francisco just re-charged the batteries in the radical right and handed the election to Bush. The "gay marriage" issue is a death sentence for Kerry. Bush will have the Christian conservatives stampeding to the polls to vote against Kerry.
 
"One of Ws few redeeming virtues is not catering to the political agenda of the Christian Right. I fear them as a threat to individual freedom even more than I fear the left. Of course, not all Evangelical activists are interested in establishing a quasi-Christian fascist state, but many are, and don't even realize it. Using national religious destiny and "chosenness" as a source of legitimacy for policy decisions is very threatening to individual rights."

cloudkiller,

Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't think painting with a brush that wide is one of your stronger skills. You come off sounding a tad shrill, which I'm sure was not your intent.

The original Times story is just an opinion piece on what many have been saying about Bush for some time now. He has some problems with his voting base. The Christian Right (whatever that is) is just one sticky wicket for George. He has others. I don't consider myself part of the Christain Right but if the term means what I think it does I'm 100% sure George Bush is as far removed from it as Joseph Stalin. Well, maybe not quiet that far but close.

No matter how the election goes I think you're in good shape certainly as regards any impact the CR or RR might have on eliciting a sea change with Bush that will impact your "individual freedoms".

Sadly, I feel like we 2A loving, smaller government loving, lower taxes loving, nix the Patriot Act, give-me-at-least-an-illusion-of-a-boarder etc type-peps are in the same boat right along with the CR/RR. No steering input in the Oval Office. Abandoned, we all is!

I don't see either Bush or Kerry as icons of championing individual freedom along with plenty of others.

S-
 
Bush gives a fair bit of lip service to christianity though, and the christians due respect him for that. Remember in the 2000 campaign when Bush was asked who from history would the most like to meet? Bush said Jesus. Gore had said someone else much less satisfying (Gandhi was it?). The left was up in arms over Bush's answer but my family took note. While Bush does not always make decisions as I would, he often carries himself as a man of faith (unlike every Democrat except Leiberman). There is a lot of respect and support to be gained from that.
 
Mr. Knight said runaway federal spending under Mr. Bush worries some social conservatives who "fear their children will become slaves to the government someday.
Where has this guy been for the last 30-40 years?? "Become slaves to the government someday"???? Something like half of the GNP has been going to the government for many years. How can giving half your lifeblood to the government not be slavery to the government?

Not long ago, I was getting ready to make a major posting here in THR about how it is futile to vote for third parties, that the only way to change what is happening is to support the Republican side, and simultaneously educate enough of the "swing" voters about the principles of freedom and liberty that we start moving the Republicans back in the direction freedom and less government.

But I am now too disguested with Bush to, in good conscience, vote for him. He did good when he lowered taxes (although it was really only a token cut), and his response to the 9/11 attacks did him proud. But, the list of his bad acts is just too long:
  • His spending is just totally out of control. Ya, we're at war. When you're at war, you spend whatever you have to to win the war, and you cut back on everything else.
  • His grotesque expansion of the federal government's unconstitutional meddling in education with the "No Child Left Behind" act. Not to mentional the increase in the size and expense of the federal government.
  • His huge expansion of the unconstitutional Medicare program.
  • The trampling of our liberty through the PATRIOT act.
  • The trampling of our freedoms, and the huge expansion of the federal government, in nationalizing the airport inspectors. (Ya, I know that it was the Dems who pushed that through, but he certainly had the power to stop it.)
  • I'll step on some conservative toes, but that partial-birth abortion ban is a totally unconstitutional act. The federal government has absolutely no authority over murder and medical procedures--that's the province of the several states.
  • This National Endowment for the Arts increase. Ya, it's just small potatoes. But, it shows where is head's at. Not to mention that the whole program is unconstitutional to start with.
  • The sense I have is that he hasn't been appointing judges who are particularly strong in protecting the Constitution. And he hasn't been willing to use his power as president to bring a vote on his nominees who the Democrats are holding up.
  • And, as the article heading up this thread points out, he's not exactly standing up to evil and coming out forcefully to protect marriage against the likely forced nationwide recognition of marriage under the full faith and credit clause, which requires a constitutional amendment to prevent.
  • He supports extending the unconstitutional "Assault Weapons Ban."
I've now reached the point that I will likely vote for either the Constitution or Libertarian candidate. I can't in good conscience cast a vote that says that I want more of what Bush has already given us. Yes, I know that that could, in theory, contribute to an even worse situation under a Democrat president. But, I think that is unlikely. Under Clinton, the Republican Congress blocked most of Clinton's excesses; under Bush, they have been going along with his excesses, even though many have been "holding their noses" when they did it.

Bush has been pandering too much to the "get everyone into the tent" crowd, and sacrificed his values in order to please everyone, even those who are evil. There is no good in pandering to evil.

I think that a Bush loss due to a large vote for the Libertarian and Constitution parties would not convey the message that people want the Democrats' big government policies. Rather, it would signal that conservatives aren't just going to go along with the Republican Party's slide towards big government because we have no alternative. This is a lot different from the Democrat winning because he got more votes in spite of all the conservatives voting for the Republican. It says, "You lost because you've moved too far in the direction of big government," instead of, "You lost because you need to move more in the direction of big government."

Finally, for those mentioned in the article who sat out the 2000 election, I note that a vote for a third party carries far more weight than just neglecting to vote.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top