Who represents Christians if Falwell, Dobson and Robertson don't?

Seems to me Billy Graham has a much more direct "connection" with Bush than Falwell, but you don't see liberals attacking Billy Graham as much because he is more popular than Falwell. Imo, this whole line of argument is somewhat silly. Plenty of black church leaders also have "direct connections" to the White House, and so do all sorts of prominent folks. Anytime a minister or media person has a group of people listening to them, they are going to all have "direct connections" to all White Houses if they are at all potential backers. It's called politics, and there is nothing sinister about it.Moreover, I didn't see too many dems howling about Clinton's religiousity when he carried a Bible openly during the impeachment saga and met with ministers. Maybe though that's because they didn't think he was for real with it and so it didn't matter.Also, there are have been prominent Moslems that also had "direct connections" to the White House, or did at one time.

Subtitles should contain some indication of the content of the message.Adminnemooseus

and This, to me, is the relevant portions of your message. My impression is that those assertions are not true. Care to back them up with some reference material?Moose

It's common knowledge Billy Graham is close friends of the Bush family and counseled George personally during his time of conversion. What's not so common knowledge by the way is that, contrary to some claims, George actually prayed "the sinners prayer" with a lesser known evangelist travelling through Waco.There have been well-publicized meetings with prominent black church leaders with the president. I bet TD Jakes has a far closer relationship with Bush than Falwell or Pat Robertson, for example. Bishop T.D. Jakes on African Aid and President Bush : NPR

http://www.thenewstribune.com/...tory/4654653p-4315551c.html Black leaders praise Bush for outreach - Washington TimesI'd have to say though that despite many prominent black clergy backing Bush, the stats indicate dems got most of the African-American vote by a massive margin.Nevertheless, Bush and the GOP do have close ties to many conservative, black church leaders.This message has been edited by randman, 01-23-2006 04:09 PM

Lots of people get what could be called "direct" contact with the president. When I am talking about it I mean as part of consultations on issues, and in a regular way. and I'm with moose in wanting to see some support for that. I know that Graham was influential to the Bushes, even W, but as far as I understand the only ones with regular contact on policy discussions are Robertson and Falwell. You do know the both of them got into an argument about Robertson's revelations of what went on in their meetings?I have not heard of any black church leaders being called in to discuss policy decisions on a regular basis. Once again, I'm not here arguing whether they are good or bad, or whether what they do is right or wrong. The issue I am bringing up is what they are representing themselves as at the white house and being treated as at the white house.I am surprised that it doesn't garner more reaction. As far as I know he only met people for personal reasons, as opposed to policy discussions. And I know of no muslim leaders with direct (regular) contact with the white house on policy discussions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have not heard that Falwell or Robertson are called in to discuss policy issues either on a regular basis. Bush has met with black evangelicals and so has Rove.Can you document where Falwell and Robertson regularly meet with Bush to discuss policy issues? I don't think they do, nor that they agree with Bush all the time either.

You are clearly discussing a newer movement and of political nature regarding reps courting blacks. Yeah, that is true.Do you have any indication of any black church leaders being routinely invited by the white house to discuss general policy decisions, particularly throughout the presidency, and not as part of a push to court black voters.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes, I have heard some say they have been consulted, but honestly, I think you guys are way, way off the mark if you think the Bush WH consults with Robertson and Falwell over policy decisions.Once the WH has made a policy decision, they may contact these guys and others to see if they can get their support, such as was the case with the Meiers nomination, but the idea they are consulting with Falwell and Robertson to develop policy is wacko, imo. It doesn't happen.This message has been edited by randman, 01-23-2006 04:55 PM

Well I have done some digging and I have to admit that what might have been true at one time may not be true anymore, and so you may be right... kind of.I already told you that Falwell himself described the intimate connection they had with Bush on policy discussions. I don't know how to ref 60 minutes segments or I'd link to it some way.In any case it turns out that might be old news. It appears that after 911, and specifically after comments by falwell and robertson, Bush began distancing himself from those guys. Thus they were no longer meeting with him as they had been.Then again, we do have the fact that before the Iraq invasion Bush did discuss this issue with Robertson. There is a question regarding what actually was said, but clearly he was discussing how to approach the war with Bush. So despite not meeting as often as I was implying (so I am wrong about that) they still seem to discuss policy when they meet. If evidence surfaced that this was true, what would you say about that kind of relationship?But we are again getting off track. When they went there (at least in the beginning) they were as reps for Xians, and treated as such. They said so publically at the time. And there was no backlash. Honestly I was stunned after the 60 minutes thing, and the lack of reaction did make me wonder why there was such a lack of interest in this kind of posing and support for such posing.Thankfully it does appear Bush has taken to courting other religious leaders to get more support outside the evangelical community, and not meeting with them in the same capacity he once did. That would explain why there is no backlash at this time.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Look, 60 Minutes is about as objective as Howard Dean when it comes to politics. They were invited to the White House. Big deal! So were tons of other people, and guess what, they all "discussed policy."Anytime a new president takes office, the people that helped him get elected are invited to the White House, and if you go back and review the period prior to 911, there were prominent Moslems that were also invited to "discuss policy", so much so Bush was criticized after 911 for meeting with people sympathetic to Hamas.Is Bush a Moslem now? I mean after all, he met with them "to talk policy."

I bet Franklin Graham and advisors like Marvin Olasky and many other evangelicals have had greater access and influence in the WH than Falwell and Robertson. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0122-26.htm

http://ampolitics.ghazali.net/index.htmlProminent Islamic leaders were invited to the White House as well. 911 changed things since the Patriot Act moved the Muslim vote back to the dems, but prior to that, Islamic leaders were also being consulted on policy.

Arrrrrrrrgh! Read these words carefully. I already told you it was not something that 60 minutes alleged or twisted through editing. It was a 60 minutes segment on evangelicals and the white house in general. In that segment Falwell was discussing his relationship. He was very proud of what he was doing and saying. Now if you want to claim he was just bragging, that is one thing. What you cannot do is make it some liberal spin or made up story.Unless you are claiming Falwell was working for liberals at 60 minutes? Falwell was helping them create some illusion to help criticize Bush? That can't make sense to you, can it?So I am discussing what came right from the horse's mouth, and that his comments were backed by the Bush administration at that time. What he said was not rejected at all. Given that they have rejected statements made by them at other times, this tends to suggest those comments at that time were probably accurate.You did understand that the sum of my response was to admit you were right that they were no longer active in the capacity I had implied, right?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Falwell bragged about his access to the White House. Good for him. It doesn't mean he was effecting policy. The fact is Bush made a big effort to include the faith-based community and leaders early on, and this included liberals as well. He wanted their support and wanted to hear their ideas, and I think that was a good thing.But it's not like it was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson making policy. You have to realize that at this same time, CAIR was also being invited to the White House to hear their ideas. That didn't last so long since 911 occurred, and some CAIR folks are on tape backing groups like Hamas and Islamic jihad, but nevertheless, Bush did make an effort to reach out, embrace and include faith-based thinkers.Taking Falwell's statements and presenting them as somehow different than dozens of other religious leaders' access, imo, is probably where the spin was, but then again, I did not see the segment. To my knowledge, Falwell has not been very close to Bush, Rove, Cheny, Condi and the rest.