It's almost twenty years now since Charles Colson wrote in his book "Kingdoms In Conflict" that one of his roles in the Nixon Whitehouse was to schmooze religious leaders -- not to GIVE them a say in the administration's doings and undoings -- rather, to give them the ILLUSION that they had a say in them.

Things haven't changed all that much. I can't speak for Bush's soul any more than I could have spoken for Clinton's soul when he "got religion in the name(s) of Tony Campolo and Bill Hybels in order to get his tarnished rep a good public polishing, but I (as an old-fashioned fundamentalist Christian whose name has been stolen by a charismatic fringe)do think Bush's brand of Christianity is sorta foreign to me.

On the other hand, I don't think it is illegitimate for a Christian to be in public office -- and even to publically state that his religion is what informs his point of view. If we think that (for instance) murder is wrong, it makes no difference to me if a fella claims to have come to that conclusion by virtue of his religious teachings, or through the avenue of common sense. If a preponderance of a fella's religious views are likely to make him respond politically in ways I wouldn't agree with, I'd work to vote him out -- not illegitimize his religion.

But I DO agree with the notion of the public illegitimizing a religion(s). I don't think all religions and/or cultures are equal, and I don't think they are of equal value. When a religion or philosophy stands for principles that are not in the public's best interest, I expect the public to act in a way that marginalizes that religion or philosophy. Illegitimize not illegalize.

Interesting though, I know lots of Christians on the right (not the "Christian Right"). Most of us...

1. Have never been that fond of Bush
2. really resented the PR invention of "Compassionate Conservative". Most of the Christian conservatives I know are conservative at least in part because it already represents the best hope for social compassion.

I'm pretty sure we won't have Bush to worry about (if, indeed, "worry" is an accurate word) after the next election. The interesting ommission in the public discussion surrounding Bush's precipitous drop in approval rating is that he is losing the support of the true conservative.

It's hardly scientific.....but among the conservatives I know (and I know GOBS!), Bush is not a hero -- and he is growing more villainous with each huge spending spree aimed at winning the unwinnable (the "vast middle"). He talks "Republican" but in reality he has been one of the biggest spending presidents in recent history.....

.....and he folds easily at every principle (can't get a single judge appointed, loses every legisative battle, etc). Plus, the Republican party itself is dissolving rapidly into meaninglessness.

Then, ironically, Bush holds more tenaciously to his "tough" foreign policy in hopes of keeping the right in his corner.....

.....but the right has historically been pretty darn isolationist. Sure, the right is for a strong military -- and it's easily spooked into believing that action is in our defensive best interest. But relative to Bush keeping his base -- the right is less monolithic than you on the left seem to think.

If he had been able to keep on the single issue of the war on terrorism he might have secured more of the right -- but in order to make his (rather silly) rhetorical points, he drags issue after issue into the mix, clouds the whole, and loses the only reason the right might actually be for his policy.

The right believes in principles. Bush speaks in cliches that continually illustrate that he doesn't understand the principles in which the right believes.

And it matters more when a Republican loses his idealogical base than it does for a Democrat. This is in part because a Republican's base is more "ideological". A Democrat's base is more "pragmatic". The conservative side of the Republican party cannot be as easily rallied to come and vote -- for one thing, if you'll remember the red/blue Bush/Gore map from 2000, you'll remember that the "right" is more geographically disbursed. Simple logistics make it hard to step up voting. The left, on the other hand, is geographically centralized and pragmatically motivated. Therefore, all it takes is a good "...taking away your medicare-foodstamps-socialsecurity-nameit" and a good bunch of buses and you can give the left's popular vote a HUGE shot in the arm that the right cannot answer.

Just my observations.