Evangelicals Going AWOL?

[subgenius]

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.
.....

"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.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-115609-3712r.htm

This is what Bush has to worry about. Not that the social and political radical right votes Democratic, they never would, but that they stay home.

[Tony]

What's stopping them from forming a party of their own?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony
What's stopping them from forming a party of their own?

I don't think that there is anything stopping them, per se, but third parties have a heckuva hard time in this country.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony
What's stopping them from forming a party of their own?

For one, they are stupid.

:D

But in all seriousness, they tried that sort of thing in the eighties with Jerry Falwell and his "Moral Majority" band of flunkies. While the group was useful in attracting a few more of the religious, reactionary, action-oriented types, it did little to influence the mainstream political process since the group was so clearly outside of the mainstream.

Therefore, they adopted a new tactic; take a long-term approach by working from the inside and do what can be done from there bit, by bit, bit by bit.

[corplinx]

The problem with the religious right is that they are "scorched earth voters". If they don't get their way, they don't vote. You are either good or evil, and if the president moderates on gay issues or abortion then he is evil.

[The idea]

The thread title is deceptive. I thought that it was about people in the military who are raptured away to Heaven and then classified as AWOL.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tony
What's stopping them from forming a party of their own?

The Bible says parties are wicked. Unless it's BYOB*













*Bring Ye Olde Bible

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony
What's stopping them from forming a party of their own? This could be quite liberating for the Republican party, if it were to happen. Imagine how many "fiscal conservatives" would feel more at home in the Republican party if the dual agenda of the Christian/social movement conservatives didn't hold so much sway.

The point is, as I stated in another thread, the 2-party system isn't so different from multi-party parliamentary systems in other democracies as we might think. The Democratic and Republican parties are each, in fact, coalitions of multiple, overlapping and sometimes competing constituencies. It's because of our govermental structure that they conglomerate under the 2 party banners, making compromises along the way.

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
This could be quite liberating for the Republican party, if it were to happen. Imagine how many "fiscal conservatives" would feel more at home in the Republican party if the dual agenda of the Christian/social movement conservatives didn't hold so much sway.

The point is, as I stated in another thread, the 2-party system isn't so different from multi-party parliamentary systems in other democracies as we might think. The Democratic and Republican parties are each, in fact, coalitions of multiple, overlapping and sometimes competing constituencies. It's because of our govermental structure that they conglomerate under the 2 party banners, making compromises along the way.

I couldn't agree more. But is that a good thing?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony


I couldn't agree more. But is that a good thing? So to answer your previous question, they don't split out because they would lose their power base, which is considerable, despite the compromises they have to make as part of the Republican coalition.

Is it a good thing? That's a matter of perspective. The point is, governence in a democracy means compromise with competing constituencies.

[hgc]

What always amazes me is how the members are so often in lockstep with the party line on seemingly unrelated issues.

All the Republicans voted to outlaw partial-birth abortions and for the balanced budget admendment. That's mutual discipline.

[Zero]

You know the Religious Wrong is a bunch of fruitcakes when they proclaim that Herr Bush isn't conservative enough!

[digitalmcq]

Originally posted by Zero
You know the Religious Wrong is a bunch of fruitcakes when they proclaim that Herr Bush isn't conservative enough!

You really can't call Bush a 'conservative'. He has pushed very pro-business policies (anti-market), has spent recklessly, has tried to mix government with religion, and has used his position to try to force his morality on the populace. None of these can be considered conservative.

[Zero]

Originally posted by digitalmcq


You really can't call Bush a 'conservative'. He has pushed very pro-business policies (anti-market), has spent recklessly, has tried to mix government with religion, and has used his position to try to force his morality on the populace. None of these can be considered conservative. I know that, and you know that...but do conservatives know that?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Zero
I know that, and you know that...but do conservatives know that? They know it. They just don't know they're mislabeled.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hgc
They know it. They just don't know they're mislabeled. Well, you knew the labeling was screwed up when some people described Clinton as being ultra-liberal, didn't you?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by digitalmcq


You really can't call Bush a 'conservative'. He has pushed very pro-business policies (anti-market), has spent recklessly, has tried to mix government with religion, and has used his position to try to force his morality on the populace. None of these can be considered conservative.

Well you can, and most people, including himself, do call Bush a conservative.

The positions you mention can, and are considered conservative by many, if not most people describing themselves as conservative.
You simply have a different definition of the word.

[Clancie]

Posted by corplinx

if the president moderates on gay issues or abortion then he is evil.
Well, yes, but he won't. Bush is the best President for the evangelicals since Reagan (even Bush's pro-Israel policies on the Middle East go right along evangelical lines).

He is fervently anti-abortion and anti-gay rights, even if he's constrained to not say it as much or as bluntly as they want him to. His conservative judicial appointments speak volumes.

Imo, evangelicals will be there for him again in November. He can count on it.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, yes, but he won't. Bush is the best President for the evangelicals since Reagan (even Bush's pro-Israel policies on the Middle East go right along evangelical lines).

He is fervently anti-abortion and anti-gay rights, even if he's constrained to not say it as much or as bluntly as they want him to. His conservative judicial appointments speak volumes.

Imo, evangelicals will be there for him again in November. He can count on it.
Well, they're saying something different. Maybe they are just negotiating, which, if it succeeds, will alienate other constituencies.

[Zero]

So what it comes down to is this: the evangelicals are abandoning Bush because he isn't a bad enough president. What they really want is a Christian version of the Taliban, huh?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Zero
So what it comes down to is this: the evangelicals are abandoning Bush because he isn't a bad enough president. What they really want is a Christian version of the Taliban, huh?
Acting so much like the ones they hate.
Seperation of church and state, what a concept.

[Zero]

Originally posted by subgenius

Acting so much like the ones they hate.
Seperation of church and state, what a concept. A concept too difficult for the cultists to embrace, apparently.

[waitew]

AWOL?What's it called in the UK?I've herad it before ,But can't remember.What's the acronm..& how is it spelt?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by waitew
AWOL?What's it called in the UK?I've herad it before ,But can't remember.What's the acronm..& how is it spelt?
Absent with out leave.
Edited to add: Sorry I see you were looking for the UK version.