I said "terribly incompatible" and I said "for the most part" which are some pretty significant qualifiers. You quoted my entire post, saying "I'm certainly glad to hear that" followed by concluding "evangelicals...adamant...only salvation...through Christianity...Bush...isn't so...in line with...evangelical community with this." The progression of thought there infers either your conclusion as a result of my post, or my agreement with your conclusion, and I was setting the record straight.
A note about my qualifiers: the "Evangelical community" has itself been affected by some serious doctrinal errors, as represented by Bush's statements. e.g. universalism/Gnosticism/eastern "cosmic consciousness", the "prosperity gospel", and also affected by public relations and marketing as represented by the "Saddleback" type mega-churches, who preach only the warm and fuzzy side of the gospel, giving people what they think they want to hear and not what they must hear. So my original statement holds in that I don't see any statements of Bush quoted in that article as terribly inconsistent with much of what the Evangelical community preaches today. I never said they were right or that I agreed with them, so Bush's statements don't reflect my own beliefs, and I probably should have made that plain right out, so that it couldn't be inferred that they did.
But you'll get the last word on that, since I've got stuff to do and don't have the time. So, just to get back to the original topic of this thread and what I wanted to say about it: the article doesn't support the contention in the opening thread that Bush "no longer has a need to pander to the religious right" because the statements don't reflect any great departure from the religious right. Of course!! Bush was pandering to his constituency, just as much as any politician panders to his/her constituency, including Barak Obama. That's no surprise. And even given he doesn't need to pander anymore, this article doesn't support that. So what if he pandered and now he isn't pandering? It's just politics, and to get any more out of that than just politics as usual is a stretch.