Nice commentary indignantly lamenting a takeover of the Republicans by christist evangelicals. Another one on the same lines, from an American liberal perspective uses the term "Christianist". In my opinion, "Christist" sounds better and is more factual :-)
Republicans are known to be conservative on economic, national security and "societal" issues, but are not necessarily christist zealots, at least not all of them. Mainstream America abhors christist fundamentalism. The increasing support for the "Penniless Wisecracking Two-bit preacher" should be disconcerting to traditional Republicans. How is this relevant to Hindu nationalists? An evangelical "father" in the White House is a losing proposition for everybody, particularly Hindus in India because he would be more inclined to make proselytisation an overt instrument of foreign policy. Imagine India negotiating the nuclear deal with John Dayal. (And you thought Nicholas Burns, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright etc were obnoxious!)
The greatness of America is derived not from christists, but rather exists despite them. A padre President would be a catalyst in the decline of the US. If the current front runners from both parties are any indication - a Madarsa educated (ok, Madarsa pre-school educated) Mohammedan former drug abuser out to prove his Christian faith and a two-bit Baptist padre, the future seems bleak for what is Karmabhoomi to many of us.