Bush: A man of faith?

[TexasTiger 13,054]

When President Bush touched on Iraq at his news conference this morning, he may have been revealing more than he knew.

BUSH:  The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives.

He was talking about religious extremists in Iraq. But an hour later, Mr. Bush posed with officials from the Southern Baptist Convention.

It is described as the largest, most influential evangelical denomination in a new book by the former number-two man in Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

The book, "Tempting Faith,"  not out until Monday, but in our third story tonight, a Countdown exclusive we've obtained a copy and it is devastating work.

Author David Kuo's conservative Christian credentials are impeccable; his resume sprinkled with names like Bennett and Ashcroft.  Now, as the Foley cover-up has many evangelical Christians wondering whether the G.O.P. is really in sync with their values, "Tempting Faith" provides the answer: No way.

Kuo, citing one example after another of a White House that repeatedly uses evangelical Christians for their votes — while consistently giving them nothing in return;

A White House which routinely speaks of the nation's most famous evangelical leaders behind their backs, with contempt and derision.

Furthermore, Faith-Based Initiatives were not only stiffed on one public promise after another by Mr. Bush — the office itself was eventually forced to answer a higher calling: Electing Republican politicians.

Kuo's bottom line: the Bush White House is playing millions of American Christians for suckers.

According to Kuo, Karl Rove's office referred to evangelical leaders as 'the nuts.'

Kuo says, 'National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.' "

So how does the Bush White House keep 'the nuts' turning out at the polls?

One way, regular conference calls with groups led by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, and radio hosts like Michael Reagan.

Kuo says, "Participants were asked to talk to their people about whatever issue was pending.  Advice was solicited [but] that advice rarely went much further than the conference call. [T]he true purpose of these calls was to keep prominent social conservatives and their groups or audiences happy."

They do get some things from the Bush White House, like the National Day of Prayer, “another one of the eye-rolling Christian events,” Kuo says.

And “passes to be in the crowd greeting the president when he arrived on Air Force One or tickets for a speech he was giving in their hometown. Little trinkets like cufflinks or pens or pads of paper were passed out like business cards. Christian leaders could give them to their congregations or donors or friends to show just how influential they were. Making politically active Christians personally happy meant having to worry far less about the Christian political agenda.” 

When cufflinks weren't enough, the White House played the Jesus card, reminding Christian leaders that, quote, “they knew the president's faith” and begging for patience.

And the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives?

According to Kuo, “White House staff didn't want to have anything to do with the Faith-Based Initiative because they didn't understand it any more than did congressional Republicans . They didn't lie awake at night trying to kill it. They simply didn 't care."

Kuo relates one faith-based promise after another — billions of dollars in funding and tax credits — that goes unfulfilled year after promise after year.

He recounts one specific funding exchange with Mr. Bush:

Bush: "Eight billion in new dollars?"

Kuo: "No sir. Eight billion in existing dollars for which groups will find it technically easier to apply. But faith-based groups have been getting that money for years."

Bush:  "Eight billion. That's what we'll tell them. Eight billion in new funds for faith-based groups."

Why bother lying?

Kuo says, "The faith-based initiative had the potential to successfully evangelize more voters than any other."

According to Kuo, the Office spent much of its time on two missions:

One—Trying–and failing–to prove Mr. Bush's claim of regulatory bias against religious charities hiring who they wanted. Quote:  "Finding these examples became a huge priority. …[but] religious groups had encountered very few instances of actual problems with their hiring practices." "It really wasn't that bad at all."

Another mission: lobbying the President to make good on his own promises.

How?

Kuo says they tried to prove their political value by turning the once-bipartisan faith-based initiatives into a political operation.

It wasn't just discrimination against non-Christian charities. (One official who rated grant applications told Kuo, " when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero…a lot of us did. ")

The Office was also, literally, a taxpayer-funded part of the Republican campaign machinery.

In 2002, Kuo says the office decided to "hold roundtable events for threatened incumbents with faith and community leaders … using the aura of our White House power to get a diverse group of faith and community leaders to a 'nonpartisan' event discussing how best to help poor people in their area."

White House Political Affairs director Ken Mehlman "loved the idea and gave us our marching orders. There were twenty targets." Including Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and John Shimkus in Illinois.

Mehlman devised a cover-up for the operation. He told Kuo, "It can't come from the campaigns. That would make it look too political. It needs to come from the congressional offices. We'll take care of that by having our guys call the office to request the visit."

Kuo explains, "this approach inoculated us against accusations that we were using religion and religious leaders to promote specific candidates."

Those roundtables were a hit.  Republicans won 19 of those 20 races. 76 percent of religious conservatives voted for Chambliss over decorated war hero Max Cleland.

And Bush's 2004 victory in Ohio? That "was at least partially tied to the conferences [they] had launched [there] two years before."

By that time, Kuo had left the White House, concluding that "it was mocking the millions of faithful Christians who had put their trust and hope in the President and his administration. Bush knew his so-called compassion agenda was languishing and had no problem with that."

If you would question Mr. Kuo's credibility, you should know his former boss also quit the White House complaining in his one public interview that politics drove absolutely everything in the Bush administration. There is more, much more revealed in Tempting Faith… how Jack Kemp was tricked into sounding like a religious conservative without even knowing it; Jerry Falwell's astonishing behavior at the 9/11 Day of Remembrance and considerably more as our Countdown exclusive of Tempting Faith continues here tomorrow night.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/11/o...ith/#more-10956

[LegalEagle 22]

Evey group they claim to support has been duped - except the Republican Party. It's all politics and vote getting. I'm just amazed that some Americans hold this administration in high regard.

[TexasTiger 13,054]

Evey group they claim to support has been duped - except the Republican Party. It's all politics and vote getting. I'm just amazed that some Americans hold this administration in high regard.

Anyone still duped by Bushco is probably beyond all hope.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

You guys need to take a break from parroting garbage you collect on Crooks and Liars and from Jim Hightower. You'd be amazed at how much more enjoyable life would be.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Wow.

I'm going to read this book. I realize you can't take everything any person says as Law and Gospel, but conversely you can't just write them off and ignore them simply because they say uncomfortable things either. And frankly, it sounds a lot like something I said to a friend the other day...that I feel like the GOP plays Christians the way the Dems play blacks. They beat the drum on a few hot button issues that matter to the target group (Christians: abortion, gay marriage / Blacks: discrimination, civil rights issues) and stir up their fears about the situation to get them to the polls. After the election, they posture and basically do nothing on those issues. The way that plays out is, they either ignore the issues altogether or they "shoot the moon", meaning they put a bill out there that overreaches and is too extreme, assuring its defeat. They can then go back and make the claim that they are "fighting for your values" while never really risking a change of the status quo (and thus making the other parts of the party uncomfortable).

And just like Dems, the GOP takes conservative Christians vote for granted. Maybe if we gave it more thought and weren't such an automatic lever pull for them they'd fight for us in meaningful ways instead of just giving us rhetoric. And perhaps if the Dems thought they actually had a shot at getting our votes, they'd consider taking our issues more seriously.

Or maybe we just need another party.

[MDM4AU 336]

Interesting. A book comes out just a couple of weeks before mid-term elections, is pimped by a what appears to be a liberal site, attacks what has been assumed to be the base of the Republican Party and no one has questioned any motive? Republicans will deny all of it and claim it is a smear and that this author has an axe to grind. Democrats will pimp this information and try to pass it on as, no pun intended, the Gospel. "See there, even one of their own says they are (insert damaging info here)!"

It's funny. This is a perfect example of how this board works. No one from the opposite side of the posters view is ever credible or truthful until they appear to say something that could damage the opposition.

And some of you wonder why there are so few real discussions anymore in this forum.

[Tiger Al 0]

Interesting. A book comes out just a couple of weeks before mid-term elections, is pimped by a what appears to be a liberal site, attacks what has been assumed to be the base of the Republican Party and no one has questioned any motive? Republicans will deny all of it and claim it is a smear and that this author has an axe to grind. Democrats will pimp this information and try to pass it on as, no pun intended, the Gospel. "See there, even one of their own says they are (insert damaging info here)!"

It's funny. This is a perfect example of how this board works. No one from the opposite side of the posters view is ever credible or truthful until they appear to say something that could damage the opposition.

And some of you wonder why there are so few real discussions anymore in this forum.

There are so few real discussions here simply because of posts like yours. This isn't a personal attack, merely an observation. Too often...no, everytime a book, article or interview comes out with negative statements about the GOP, Bush, his administration or its actions/policies, instead of discussing what was said/written, a campaign is launched to simply discredit the speaker/author. OK, what if this author DID have an axe to grind? What if he DID feel like promises were made and never kept and he's really pissed about it? Does that negate whatever he says? What if he DID release this book at this time intentionally? Does that mean what he says is not legitimate? Do you honestly think he would've been given more credibility if the book had been released in Feb, 2007? Guess what? EVERYBODY, Dem/rep, Lib/con, boy/girl, etc. is motivated to do things for multiple reasons. I've seen many, many times here where the response to a new book is, "Well, this guy can't be believed because he's just trying to sell some books and make some money." Well, no $hit, $herlock!!!

No real discussions take place here because the majority of posters would rather protect their interests than to discuss things openly and honestly.

[TitanTiger 20,530]

Interesting. A book comes out just a couple of weeks before mid-term elections, is pimped by a what appears to be a liberal site, attacks what has been assumed to be the base of the Republican Party and no one has questioned any motive? Republicans will deny all of it and claim it is a smear and that this author has an axe to grind. Democrats will pimp this information and try to pass it on as, no pun intended, the Gospel. "See there, even one of their own says they are (insert damaging info here)!"

I will say this though...the reason you point out someone from "the other side" critiquing their own is because ostensibly, they should have more credibility than someone who always opposed that side. I mean, do you really give a flip if Maureen Dowd or Molly Ivins thinks the Bush admin plays Christians for suckers? I'd imagine the same goes for Democrats and articles critiquing their views by the likes of Cal Thomas or Ann Coultier. You know they have a certain perspective and you don't trust what they say generally speaking. But when a conservative Christian, who worked in the administration and was privy to conversations about the GOP's Christian support and the Faith-Based Initiatives office says they're playing you for a sucker...that tends to be something I give more credence to. I'm going to listen to what the guy says.

[MDM4AU 336]

There are so few real discussions here simply because of posts like yours.

Mind clarifying this for me?

I didn't see this as a personal attack on me. If that is what you think, you are way off base. Did you read my post?

My point is this:

It's ridiculous at how each side will post something and never question any of it when it helps their case but when someone on the other side does it, well then it's questionable.

I'm am not saying ther is no truth to any of the information in the book. But do you blame me for not buying in as whoelheartedly as Legal and Tex considering how conveniently it seems to fit the Democrats strategy for the up-coming elections? And I realize, it may fit so conveniently because it is absolutely true. But with the ridiculous spin that comes from both side about everything, I am skeptical. I wouldn't buy into it wholeheartedly if it were about the left and posted by Tigermike or someone like him.

Too often...no, everytime a book, article or interview comes out with negative statements about the GOP, Bush, his administration or its actions/policies, instead of discussing what was said/written, a campaign is launched to simply discredit the speaker/author.

And I suppose you buy into the belief that everytime a book, article or interview comes out with negative statements about the DNC, The Left, their actions/policies, that civil debate and discussions break out around the world? My point is that both sides are alike.

OK, what if this author DID have an axe to grind? What if he DID feel like promises were made and never kept and he's really pissed about it? Does that negate whatever he says? What if he DID release this book at this time intentionally? Does that mean what he says is not legitimate? Do you honestly think he would've been given more credibility if the book had been released in Feb, 2007?

I never said this guy wasn't credible, did I? Just pointing out that we are going back through the same cycle we go through every two years with elections.

Guess what? EVERYBODY, Dem/rep, Lib/con, boy/girl, etc. is motivated to do things for multiple reasons. I've seen many, many times here where the response to a new book is, "Well, this guy can't be believed because he's just trying to sell some books and make some money." Well, no $hit, $herlock!!!

Good points and I think I phrased my response wrong.

No real discussions take place here because the majority of posters would rather protect their interests than to discuss things openly and honestly.

Did you honestly feel I was protecting an interest?

[Tiger Al 0]

There are so few real discussions here simply because of posts like yours.

Mind clarifying this for me?

Sure, and maybe I should've said, "posts like this," instead of "yours" because, again, I wasn't singling YOU out but, rather, replies to posts that don't address the original topic but simply attempt to discredit the source by questioning motives, political leanings, 'timing', etc., instead of addressing the points of the post. Now, admittedly, we really have nothing to discuss here because the book isn't even out yet, but, it's still indicative of the environment here.

I didn't see this as a personal attack on me. If that is what you think, you are way off base. Did you read my post?

Yes, i read it.

My point is this:

It's ridiculous at how each side will post something and never question any of it when it helps their case but when someone on the other side does it, well then it's questionable. I agree.

I'm am not saying ther is no truth to any of the information in the book. But do you blame me for not buying in as whoelheartedly as Legal and Tex considering how conveniently it seems to fit the Democrats strategy for the up-coming elections? And I realize, it may fit so conveniently because it is absolutely true. But with the ridiculous spin that comes from both side about everything, I am skeptical. I wouldn't buy into it wholeheartedly if it were about the left and posted by Tigermike or someone like him.

Again, whether it's from the left, the right or the middle, the timing doesn't change the content of the book, article, statement or interview does it? If I state an opinion and provide facts to back up that opinion and those facts are true, what difference does the 'timing' make to my argument? None.

Too often...no, everytime a book, article or interview comes out with negative statements about the GOP, Bush, his administration or its actions/policies, instead of discussing what was said/written, a campaign is launched to simply discredit the speaker/author.

And I suppose you buy into the belief that everytime a book, article or interview comes out with negative statements about the DNC, The Left, their actions/policies, that civil debate and discussions break out around the world? My point is that both sides are alike. I agree. I have zero control over debates and discussions that take place around the world. But, I do post here and have for a while, so I'm able to excercise what little influence I might have here to try to steer things in a different direction. By and large, that has failed.

OK, what if this author DID have an axe to grind? What if he DID feel like promises were made and never kept and he's really pissed about it? Does that negate whatever he says? What if he DID release this book at this time intentionally? Does that mean what he says is not legitimate? Do you honestly think he would've been given more credibility if the book had been released in Feb, 2007?

I never said this guy wasn't credible, did I? No, you didn't. Just pointing out that we are going back through the same cycle we go through every two years with elections. It's the 'timing' today. After the elections it will be for the money or it's the 'liberal media bias' or it's 'we hate Bush' or one of the other defenses that are used to stifle discussion.

Guess what? EVERYBODY, Dem/rep, Lib/con, boy/girl, etc. is motivated to do things for multiple reasons. I've seen many, many times here where the response to a new book is, "Well, this guy can't be believed because he's just trying to sell some books and make some money." Well, no $hit, $herlock!!!

Good points and I think I phrased my response wrong.

No real discussions take place here because the majority of posters would rather protect their interests than to discuss things openly and honestly.

Did you honestly feel I was protecting an interest? To a point, probably. My response wasn't directed solely toward you. Your post was simply the vehicle I used to voice an opinion. Since this book hasn't been released yet, I doubt that you would know right now exactly what interests of yours this guy is attacking, if any.

[LegalEagle 22]

Don't forget that N. Korea is in bed w/ the Dems and is blowing up nukes at their request to throw the election. Why else would this be happening right before the election?

Sounds logical to a rabid far right-wing radical "conservative" I'd imagine.

[Tiger Al 0]

Don't forget that N. Korea is in bed w/ the Dems and is blowing up nukes at their request to throw the election. Why else would this be happening right before the election?

Sounds logical to a rabid far right-wing radical "conservative" I'd imagine.

Let's not do this right now, OK?

[MDM4AU 336]

There are so few real discussions here simply because of posts like yours.

Mind clarifying this for me?

Sure, and maybe I should've said, "posts like this," instead of "yours" because, again, I wasn't singling YOU out but, rather, replies to posts that don't address the original topic but simply attempt to discredit the source by questioning motives, political leanings, 'timing', etc., instead of addressing the points of the post. Now, admittedly, we really have nothing to discuss here because the book isn't even out yet, but, it's still indicative of the environment here.

I didn't see this as a personal attack on me. If that is what you think, you are way off base. Did you read my post?

Yes, i read it.

My point is this:

It's ridiculous at how each side will post something and never question any of it when it helps their case but when someone on the other side does it, well then it's questionable. I agree.

I'm am not saying ther is no truth to any of the information in the book. But do you blame me for not buying in as whoelheartedly as Legal and Tex considering how conveniently it seems to fit the Democrats strategy for the up-coming elections? And I realize, it may fit so conveniently because it is absolutely true. But with the ridiculous spin that comes from both side about everything, I am skeptical. I wouldn't buy into it wholeheartedly if it were about the left and posted by Tigermike or someone like him.

Again, whether it's from the left, the right or the middle, the timing doesn't change the content of the book, article, statement or interview does it? If I state an opinion and provide facts to back up that opinion and those facts are true, what difference does the 'timing' make to my argument? None.

Too often...no, everytime a book, article or interview comes out with negative statements about the GOP, Bush, his administration or its actions/policies, instead of discussing what was said/written, a campaign is launched to simply discredit the speaker/author.

And I suppose you buy into the belief that everytime a book, article or interview comes out with negative statements about the DNC, The Left, their actions/policies, that civil debate and discussions break out around the world? My point is that both sides are alike. I agree. I have zero control over debates and discussions that take place around the world. But, I do post here and have for a while, so I'm able to excercise what little influence I might have here to try to steer things in a different direction. By and large, that has failed.

OK, what if this author DID have an axe to grind? What if he DID feel like promises were made and never kept and he's really pissed about it? Does that negate whatever he says? What if he DID release this book at this time intentionally? Does that mean what he says is not legitimate? Do you honestly think he would've been given more credibility if the book had been released in Feb, 2007?

I never said this guy wasn't credible, did I? No, you didn't. Just pointing out that we are going back through the same cycle we go through every two years with elections. It's the 'timing' today. After the elections it will be for the money or it's the 'liberal media bias' or it's 'we hate Bush' or one of the other defenses that are used to stifle discussion.

Guess what? EVERYBODY, Dem/rep, Lib/con, boy/girl, etc. is motivated to do things for multiple reasons. I've seen many, many times here where the response to a new book is, "Well, this guy can't be believed because he's just trying to sell some books and make some money." Well, no $hit, $herlock!!!

Good points and I think I phrased my response wrong.

No real discussions take place here because the majority of posters would rather protect their interests than to discuss things openly and honestly.

Did you honestly feel I was protecting an interest? To a point, probably. My response wasn't directed solely toward you. Your post was simply the vehicle I used to voice an opinion. Since this book hasn't been released yet, I doubt that you would know right now exactly what interests of yours this guy is attacking, if any.

Fair enough.

[TexasTiger 13,054]

But when a conservative Christian, who worked in the administration and was privy to conversations about the GOP's Christian support and the Faith-Based Initiatives office says they're playing you for a sucker...that tends to be something I give more credence to. I'm going to listen to what the guy says.

Exactly. What website carries the story isn't really that relevant in a case like this. If you want, ignore the website, ignore the program and read from the horse's mouth.

This guy is no fan of Dems either:

Analyzing Bush's failure to secure $8 billion in promised funding for the faith-based initiative during his first term, Kuo said there was "snoring indifference" among Republicans and "knee-jerk opposition" among Democrats in Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Feb14.html

This guy's boss also quit in disgust years ago:

In August 2001, John J. DiIulio Jr., then-director of the faith-based office, became the first top Bush adviser to quit, after seven months on the job. In an interview with Esquire magazine a year later, DiIulio said the Bush White House was obsessed with the politics of the faith-based initiative but dismissive of the policy itself, and he slammed White House advisers as "Mayberry Machiavellis."

To the extent these guys are partisan, they're Republicans. But mostly they seem to be true believers who believe that they were taken for a ride.