← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 11440 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2003-12-11
2003-12-11 20:03 | User Profile
Bushââ¬â¢s Coming Betrayal of the Evangelicals by Christopher Manion
Ever since the invasion of Iraq, Karl Rove has been traveling the country mobilizing the evangelical vote for the 2004 elections. In city after city, he is meeting with evangelical leaders. He begs: "in 2000, only 16 million of you voted. We need the other four million."
Rove has coupled these overtures to evangelicals with similar meetings with the Jewish community (in Cincinatti, he left the evangelical meeting to join the representatives of Jewish organizations one floor up in the same hotel). In both meetings, Rove stresses the importance of President Bushââ¬â¢s invasion of Iraq and his support of Israel. But only with the evangelicals does he stress the presidentââ¬â¢s unwavering support for the moral issues that are their priorities ââ¬â abortion, pornography, judges, and (most important) the Marriage Amendment.
Howard Baker used to say, "That door swings both ways." But this one is going to be slammed in the face of the evangelicals. And they should see it coming.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the administration worked hard to firm up the alliance of Jews and Christian evangelicals supporting the war. A full year before the Iraq invasion, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman was already complaining about "ââ¬Â¦ the feckless American Jewish leaders, fundamentalist Christians and neoconservatives who together have helped make it impossible for anyone in the U.S. administration to talk seriously about halting Israeli settlement-building without being accused of being anti-Israel."
In late 2002, the alliance which Friedman describes was deployed in support of the invasion of Iraq. Without the unswerving support of the evangelicals, it simply would never have happened. Evangelical leaders strongly supported the war in theological terms that were nearly apocalyptic. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I have yet to see any of the pro-war commentators on Fox News ââ¬â Cal Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Fred Barnes, or William "Billy the Kid" Kristol ââ¬â disclose the fees that they receive for serving as "contributors" to the most pro-war network.
Elmer Gantry, please call you office.
Well, the neocons got their war, with the fervent support of the evangelicals. Now the evangelicals want the country to address their priorities. What about the filibustered federal judges? What about the Marriage Amendment? Will the neocons, in gratitude for the indispensable support of the evangelicals for the war, return the favor and support the conservative moral agenda?
Donââ¬â¢t hold your breath. Quite the contrary, in fact. The last fortnight has witnessed the emergence of a long-planned neocon assault on any and all efforts to put legal protections of traditional marriage on the books. Day after day, neocons have mounted a concerted barrage across Bushââ¬â¢s bow. Safire, Brooks, Sullivan, and virtually everyone at National Review and the Wall Street Journal have sent Bush and Rove a counter-intuitive message: the Marriage Amendment will divide not the Democrats, but the "Republicans" (in other words, the neocons would jump ship).
And what is President Bush, the firm-jawed, resolute leader in crisis, going to do? Heââ¬â¢s going to cave.
He is aghast. Virtually every neocon supporter of the war just happens to be discovering, quite suddenly, that traditional marriage, so central to Bushââ¬â¢s core evangelical constituency, is a threat to Republican victory in 2004. And oh, did I mention that they also arenââ¬â¢t happy with the way that Bush is fighting the war lately? In recent weeks Kristol, Perle, Gaffney, Gingrich, and company have had a heyday attacking the administration. They grouse that they have lost control of "their" war. Kristol carps that Dean might win because Bush hasnââ¬â¢t invaded enough countries; Gaffney warns that Grover Norquist has infiltrated the White House with Moslem supporters of terrorism. Last month, Richer Perle startled the policy community when he publicly admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law (but we invaded anyway, because his private agenda was more important).
To top it off, Newt Gingrich now announces that Iraq policy has gone "off a cliff."
They flame away, disavowing any responsibility for the mess that Iraq has become under Bushââ¬â¢s guiding hand. Now, like the Mexican truck driver who delivers to Chi Chiââ¬â¢s in Pittsburgh, they wail, "Hey, amigo, them ainââ¬â¢t my onions!" They will be satisfied only with a full, imperial upheaval, and then occupation, of the entire Middle East. Short of that, nothing is their fault.
The neocon treachery has left Bush in a quandary. How will he shore up support for the war from other quarters? Here he confronts two distressing realities: first, with increasing desperation, he is trying to extricate U.S. government forces from Iraq, within six months, under the cover of a quick-start Iraqi "democracy," when in fact everybody admits that American occupying forces will be there for years. Second, the Democrats now have a front-runner who is implacably opposed to the Iraq war, from start to finish. This Democrat position seems ever more credible, even to the likes of William Kristol, with the avalanche of revelations about the disinformation and subterfuge employed by the neocons to stoke American war fever before the invasion.
That fever, plus the lingering bipartisan unity flowing from 9-11, produced a modicum of Democrat support for Bushââ¬â¢s invasion of Iraq. But Newt Gingrich is right: not only has U.S. policy in Iraq gone "off a cliff," but the support for Bushââ¬â¢s war from moderate Democrats, which was tepid and surly to begin with, threatens to do so as well. And Bush simply canââ¬â¢t survive without that support. The neocons,on the other hand, only needed it to get the war started. They donââ¬â¢t need it any more.
But Bush does. Hence, those indispensable Democrats, unanimously opposed both to the Marriage Amendment and to Bushââ¬â¢s judges, are going to demand their pound of flesh. And they are going to get it. When they do, evangelicals will raise the roof (if not more). And poor W, reeling, will ask Karl Rove, "how did this happen?"
The answer is not difficult to surmise. The neocons have always appreciated the duplicitous Maoist dialectic. Working both sides of the fence, and speaking out of both sides of their mouths, comes as second nature to them. So, sometime after 9-11, and before the Iraq invasion, we can assume that they went to their fellow Democrats and laid out their case along these lines:
"Weââ¬â¢re surprised at the sudden prominence we have acquired in this administration, but weââ¬â¢re going to use it for all itââ¬â¢s worth. We would like to have your support on our key issues, and, in return, you will have ours, because, after all, we agree on them ââ¬â we always have.
"But you need to understand something. You will begin to see us in an alliance with evangelical Christians, the "Religious Right," the bane of your existence. Do not fear. We are using them, on a single-issue basis, for one goal only ââ¬â to achieve our designs for the Middle East. We know their theology is laughable, but it is also useful. Donââ¬â¢t worry, we will not reciprocate when they begin asking us for our support on "moral" issues. We promise you that. In fact, we will make sure they fail on those issues.
"Remember: for us, President Bush is a means, not an end. You and we agree on the same ends. And we will make sure that the evangelicals donââ¬â¢t frustrate those ends. And neither will Bush."
That was the deal. So, when the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, coupled with the U.S. Supreme Courtââ¬â¢s decision in the Texas sodomy case, thrust into the realm of reality the prospect that all states might be called on to recognize homosexual civil unions, the neocons had their scripts rehearsed and ready. Scarcely a day has since gone by that one or another of them has not resonated to the drumbeat of doom for the Republicans, should Bush support any measure that might impede the glorious diversity of homosexual fidelity.
Sure, Bush will finally realize that the neocons have betrayed him ââ¬â as true conservatives for two years have warned him they would. About that time, Jim Baker, the Texas street-fighter and the Florida Fixer, will come back with the first draft of a fix in Iraq and tell him, "what the hell did you expect? Broomââ¬â¢em all!"
But Karl Rove, duplicitous to the end, will tell him, "You canââ¬â¢t win without these guys. And they are smart enough to know when theyââ¬â¢re being betrayed."
"Smart enough" ââ¬â unlike the hapless evangelicals, who (Rove will assure Bush) are just as "poor, undereducated, and easily led" as the Washington Post said they were so many years ago.
Bush is afraid of the neocons. They can turn on him, and ruin him, in a New York Minute. But he does not fear the evangelicals. They have nowhere else to go. So Bush will betray them, even as he has been betrayed by the neocons ââ¬â as planned by the neocons.
This coming year Bush will mouth repeated pieties about the sacred character of marriage, and do ââ¬Â¦ nothing. No midnight phone calls, no arm-twisting, no bribes, no threats like those leveled at Republicans who dared vote against Medicare, no all-night roll-calls. "Youââ¬â¢re on your own," Rove will tell evangelicals, "weââ¬â¢ve done all we can." The judges will lose. The Marriage Amendment will lose. The neocons will have nothing to fear.
I wonder, what will those four million evangelicals tell Karl Rove next November, when he says, once more, how much Bush needs them in 2004? Will it be, "Youââ¬â¢re on your own, Karl. Weââ¬â¢ve done all we can"?
Now is the time to ask.
December 11, 2003
Christopher Manion is president of Manion Music, LLC, which produces copyrighted, royalty-free music collections for telecommunications media and commercial and hospitality sites that use background music or music-on-hold. He writes from the Shenandoah Valley.
Copyright é Christopher Manion 2003. All Rights reserved.
[/url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/manion/manion47.html][url]http://www.lewrockwell[/url]
It couldn't happen to a more deserving collection of idiots. It is possible that the neo-cons might realize that it is a mistake to dump these sheep at this time and therefore cease with the sort of columns that Manion refers to. There are a few more wars they need to start and the facade needs to kept up as long as possible. Of course, it is equally possible that the tribe's traditional arrogance may cause them to overreach themselves again.
Sure, Bush will finally realize that the neocons have betrayed him ââ¬â as true conservatives for two years have warned him they would. About that time, Jim Baker, the Texas street-fighter and the Florida Fixer, will come back with the first draft of a fix in Iraq and tell him, "what the hell did you expect? Broomââ¬â¢em all!"
I wouldn't be surprise if Baker indeed did says something along this line. After all, when the Jews got mad at Geo.H.W. Bush over Bush's refusal to allow the Israelis to build more sqauttlements (i.e., "settlements") in the occupied territories, Baker supposedly said "F*ck the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway." And Bush will do as his dad did and cave to them.
"Smart enough" ââ¬â unlike the hapless evangelicals, who (Rove will assure Bush) are just as "poor, undereducated, and easily led" as the Washington Post said they were so many years ago.
At the time this was written years ago, I disagreed. Now, after all of this I sadly have to write that the snobs of the Post are right about most of these people. I wonder if they have the brains to dump the parasites they have taken up with along with the Judas' goats like Pat Robertson who know that this is a scam and have lied to them?
2003-12-11 21:06 | User Profile
Great post Sertorius. We live in interesting times. The neoconzionists completely dominate the policies of the US and also the minds of the cattle-goy. Obviously, they're not going to let go of their massive, dominating, all encompasing power without lighting off a few nukes throughout the world before they go away. The election of '04 is already assured to Bush and with that victory, Armeggedon is all but a coming reality. Get ready.
2003-12-11 23:06 | User Profile
Nothing is ever zhids' fault. Predictable, and not suprising. Being in a position to depend on zhid humility and decency is a sure way to fail. Don't rely on zhids' decency, better let them rely on yours.
2003-12-11 23:21 | User Profile
Without the unswerving support of the evangelicals,
it simply would never have happened. Evangelical leaders strongly supported
the war in theological terms that were nearly apocalyptic.
I could say something really snotty right now about evangelical Christians, but I will control that urge...
2003-12-12 04:10 | User Profile
Go ahead and flame the hell out of the "christian"Zionuts, Franco.
I have been cussing these fools since all this started. They will truly learn that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Xmetal,
Thanks. It appears that they will make this, shall we say, a self fulfilling prophecy.
2003-12-12 16:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Go ahead and flame the hell out of the "christian"Zionuts, Franco.
I have been cussing these fools since all this started. They will truly learn that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Xmetal,
Thanks. It appears that they will make this, shall we say, a self fulfilling prophecy.[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
The whole Left Behind/Freeper lot of them are mega-morons and they deserve what they get. No true conservative could have anything to do with the GOP and the Trotsyites who control it. Not that they'll learn a thing from the coming betrayal. These people are inveterate chumps.
Shrub just signed into law the biggest entitlement since LBJ, refuses to enforce our borders, started an illegal war for foreign interests, gave us the Orwellian Patriot Act, refuses to enforce our borders, praised SCOTUS for mandating racial discrimination, signed campaign finance restrictions into law, and the list goes on.
Cheney's daughter is a fish-breathed carpet muncher, and Shrub publicly met with the pedophile Log Cabin Republicans. Why in the world do they think he's on their side? Because they're chumps, and one is born every minute.
Shrub is obviously corrupt. His job is to let Cheney funnel money to the Houston Oil Boys (Halliburton is ripping of the feds big time), and of course to advance the interests of our Elder Brothers in Faith. Amazing that they don't see it.
They're such morons. Freepers really are enough to give a dog's a$$ the heartburn. And the worst part is that they're really the best of the American electorate.
Anyway, I've left all of that in 1992 when George I broke his "read my lips" pledge.
I'm just hoping that the thing collapses soon enough to save a few scraps of our heritage.
Walter
2003-12-12 16:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Go ahead and flame the hell out of the "christian"Zionuts, Franco.[/QUOTE]
Remember the story of the prodigal son? Evangelicals may be seriously misguided politically right now, but they are still our (or some of our) people and shouldn't be written off.
While they're most assuredly Bush and the GOP's most solid base, I think their true influence is being blown way out of proportion because they are an easy target for left-wing partisan shots at Bush.
I'll criticize evangelicals all day long, but I'll be damned if I'll cheer on some leftist commie jew doing it.
2003-12-12 22:28 | User Profile
I'll criticize evangelicals all day long, but I'll be damned if I'll cheer on some leftist commie jew doing it.
:clap:
Amen, brother!
I can shoot my own dog, thanks. I don't think I'll invite the neighbors to help or criticize my aim.
2003-12-13 01:06 | User Profile
Walter Yannis wrote:
Anyway, I've left all of that in 1992 when George I broke his "read my lips" pledge.
Yeah, I bailed out of the wimpy conned-servative scene around that same time. It took me quite a while, ideology-wise, to go from "regular Republican" to "Super-Duper Anti-Semite And All-Around HateMonger," but it was worth the trip.
:king:
2003-12-13 08:25 | User Profile
Bush is all palsy walsy with the queers because apparently his father likes to boink young boys. There was a story I glanced at called the Franklin report. Claims that during Reagan/Bush years, 15 year old boy prostitutes were being brought to the White House to service Bush.
2003-12-16 19:45 | User Profile
Texas:
I agree with you, once again. I wish you'd run for political office, b/c you'd have my vote.
-Jay
2003-12-17 13:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=yummybear]Bush is all palsy walsy with the queers because apparently his father likes to boink young boys. There was a story I glanced at called the Franklin report. Claims that during Reagan/Bush years, 15 year old boy prostitutes were being brought to the White House to service Bush.[/QUOTE]
I read that, too.
Seems somewhat odd for a guy with all those kids.
Who knows, though.
Walter
2003-12-17 13:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Yeah, I bailed out of the wimpy conned-servative scene around that same time. It took me quite a while, ideology-wise, to go from "regular Republican" to "Super-Duper Anti-Semite And All-Around HateMonger," but it was worth the trip.
:king:[/QUOTE]
When did you realize that you were actually as sweet and harmless as a little, white puppy dog?
Walter