The "Bush White House" is singing a different tune that Mr. Bush himself it seems; which makes me wonder how long some of his "advisors" are going to be around. The elections are over with only some "electoral" issues in 2006 to consider when it comes to triangulation on the issues that Bush wants to be remembered for, he's already been re-elected. And there's no-one in the close-administration / family-circle who are already manuevering for 2008...so there's little electoral baggage. Brother Jeb has his own record and it's too-soon for George-P. Dick Cheney's not interested in the Presidency at this point, and none of the Cabinet Secys are leading contenders.
So I ask the question that I don't have the answer to---what does GW Bush NEED the Evangelicals for? The Rove-in-the-machines within the White House has sold their souls to the Evangelicals for favors-promised, but what does Bush need the Evangelicals for now? Social-secrity reform and the flat-tax?? I suspect not.
Are the mixed messages from Bush vs. those of"his" staff a sign that there is a missed-'half step' between Bush and Rove after all these years ? Several times now Bush has personally made statements out-of-sync withe his own "staff" and the "party-elites" on the subject of civil unions...and the man's famous for NOT going off-topic. And the leadership-circle at the top of the RNC-apparatus is not controlled by Rove and his Evangelicals; and is at-least "gay-friendly" on a personal-level.
The "old" George W. Bush was the hatchet-man in his mother's footsteps during Bush-41. I wonder if we might see some of Barbara-Sr's steel-like spine and long memory against those who crossed the family once Bush-43's 2nd term gets underway? There's George-P's legacy to keep in mind 12-to-16 years out for the family to consider.Not a conclusion, but something to chew-on....
Update:
Allow me to be clearer...I do NOT expect GW Bush to flip-flop in "gay marriage". That's a non-starter issue that not only the Evangelicals oppose on religious-grounds, but that many fair-minded people think is "too-far" outside religious-tradition and society. But, I do think it's conceivable that he will stand aside for "civil unions" in those states that want it...and might even go alone with Federally-recognising those civil unions just as the government recognises civil marriage and civil divorce for Federal-purposes. I do not see Bush supporting forcing states to recognize civil unions judicially or through Federal legislation.
I do think that Bush might sign an G/L-version of ENDA on the basis of fairness and the dignity of the individual; and would support ending DADT on the same basis....plus, we need the manpower
