Will President Bush reward or turn his back on conservative Christians?

[The Laughing Man]

Someone please clear this up for me since the liberals apparently can't reach a consensus on the issue. Some liberals claim that President Bush used conservative Christians to get re-elected and now he will turn his back on them. Other liberals claim that President Bush will push more religion into the government up to and including enacting a theocracy. So which is it going to be? The former or the latter? Or how about neither since liberals are not only clueless on this issue, but they are also blinded by their hatred?

[EvoUK]

they are also blinded by their hatred?

[cweb255]

it's called making a conjecture.

[Jme]

I'm betting on both (which is possible), then I think he'll declare himself a

[SteveF]

All conservatives are clueless.

[guacamole]

All conservatives are clueless.

I don't get it.

[SteveF]

I don't get it.

Thats probably because you are conservative. They are all clueless y'see. All of them. Each and every single one.

[patteeu]

I think Christian conservatives will fare better (in terms of political spoils) under a Bush presidency than they have under any other president during my lifetime (including Ronald Reagan) and certainly better than they would under a Kerry presidency.

I don't know what was in Reagan's heart, but he was limited in what he could do to implement any agenda by the fact that Democrats controlled Congress, for the most part, during his administration. Bush is the first Republican to have control of both houses of Congress since the current ideological alignment of Republican (predominantly conservative) v Democrat (predominantly liberal) has been in place. That alone should mean increased success for Republican initiatives.

Will Roe v. Wade be overturned? I don't know. I kind of have my doubts. But I do think there is a chance and I think there's an even better chance that it will at least be trimmed back if Bush gets the opportunity to nominate 2 or 3 new justices as is expected. We can only hope that he will be better at picking justices than Bush I, Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower were, but with a substantial majority in the Senate, I'm fairly optimistic about this.

I don't think there will be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage just because it is so hard to get done (and frankly, I hope there isn't). But I do think that a transformed SCOTUS will go a long way to prevent the type of creative interpretation of the equal protection clause that made some think an amendment was necessary.

On the legislative front, I think you can expect some movement on issues that tend to be favored by religious conservatives. Family tax cuts will be made permanent. Bush's faith-based initiative concept will probably be advanced. I wouldn't be surprised to see school vouchers expanded.

But I don't think we are all going to have to start assembling in the streets for morning prayers. Personally, I'm definitely in favor of a more conservative SCOTUS, but I'm not really supportive of many of the other items I've listed. I'm not a Christian (although I play one on Sundays in church for the benefit of my wife and kids), but even though I'm not gung ho for things like school vouchers, increased tax deductions for dependants, and faith based initiatives, I'm not concerned that America is on the verge of fundamentalist extremism either.

Just my opinion.

[anthrogirl]

they are also blinded by their hatred?

ag

[Beanieboy]

I believe that Bush manipulated the public by his claims to make a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and his anti-abortion stance.

Why? Bush will propose an Amendment, the first in history discriminating against individuals, rather than one protecting one's right. From there, it will go to the House and Senate, who will question the Amendment's attempt to discriminate. Those who are for it will question whether this is not a state matter. The result is that it will not be passed, and Bush will say, "look - I tried." He knows it will fail, if he is that smart, but would swing votes his way. Even a failure would keep him in office.

Reagan was in power for 8 years and Bush Sr. for 4, and you could get abortions during their presidency.

But exactly how the president will reward Conservative Christians is puzzling, but I don't see christianity itself under attack. Unless you are counting the freedom of religion practiced by others, such as Hindus threatening Christianity simply because they don't agree, or choose to practice differently, or choose to raise children as Hindu.

[EvoUK]

Cool- that's now two people openly laughing at jinx for his liberal hatred lines...

[Da Blonde]

I believe that Bush manipulated the public by his claims to make a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and his anti-abortion stance.

Why? Bush will propose an Amendment, the first in history discriminating against individuals, rather than one protecting one's right. From there, it will go to the House and Senate, who will question the Amendment's attempt to discriminate. Those who are for it will question whether this is not a state matter. The result is that it will not be passed, and Bush will say, "look - I tried." He knows it will fail, if he is that smart, but would swing votes his way. Even a failure would keep him in office.

Reagan was in power for 8 years and Bush Sr. for 4, and you could get abortions during their presidency.

But exactly how the president will reward Conservative Christians is puzzling

Exactly. Mr. Bush is first and foremost a politician and a very good one at that. (We went to the Clinton Library opening Thursday and among the mutual congratulatory remarks from Messrs. Clinton, Carter, and Bush I and Bush II was this from Elvis Himself toward Junior, recalling an observation of GWB's strategies and so forth: "This guy can beat us.")

Mr. Bush is no Falwellian or Robertsonian; he is a manistream Protestant with Episcopal roots and mainline tradition (United Methodist) but evangelical bent not unlike many liberals and apolitical folks, as well as a good number of conservative Christians who are not fanatics. During his first term of Texas Governor he openly tussled with some religious rightys. His mother, wife, and daughters are unabashedly pro-choice. He served in 1988 as his father's liasion to the political religious right and learned to speak their language (yes, the characterizations of his dullness are indeed exagerrated as he would have been unable to pull this off were he not sharp in places. While he is unlikely to be of much use on a Trivial Pursuit team save for baseball questions for the sports wedge, his emottional IQ obviously exceeds Mr. Kerry"s.).

Mr. Bush's father, like Mr. Reagan and several other GOP notables, made an effortless switch to being anti-choice during primary campaigns to pass the litmus test there (Dick Gephardt and Jesse Jackson made the opposite switch for the same reason). The Elder Bush, in his two terms in Congress was such a fervent supporter of Planned Parenthood that other Congressmen nicknamed him "Rubbers".

Like Mr. Reagan and his father, Mr. Bush has mastered the technique of utilizing the individualistic political culture to reward religious right minions with appointive positions but no great substantial legislative action. The leaders of the RRs are just careerist enough that this is quite suitable to their needs.

While conservatives constantly admonish African-American Democratic voters for buying the same old song and dance every election cycle, in short, they are no different.

The numbers of abortions performed while Bush has been President has increased and researchers cite economic reasons, as has been the case since homo sapiens first emerged eons ago. You won't hear the RR political apparatchicks discuss this, however.

but I don't see christianity itself under attack. Unless you are counting the freedom of religion practiced by others, such as Hindus threatening Christianity simply because they don't agree, or choose to practice differently, or choose to raise children as Hindu.

Mr. Bush like many liberal Christians adheres to a nonstructured form of Universalism in which he cannot conceive of a God who would exclude his confidante, Saudi Ambassador Prince Bangalar from Heaven because of his friend's Muslim affiliation, nor if he could, that such a God would be at all worthy of our worship.

[Jaltus]

Da Blonde,

Can you substantiate any of your claims about Bush being a liberal Christian?

[SteveF]

Da Blonde,

Can you substantiate any of your claims about Bush being a liberal Christian?

If Bush is a liberal, then what on earth is a conservative!

[EvoUK]

Cheney!