New book about Shrubbies "Faith based Initiatives"

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
Exclusive: Book says Bush just using Christians
‘Tempting Faith’ author David Kuo worked for Bush from 2001 to 2003
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/
By Jonathan Larsen
"Countdown" producer
MSNBC
Updated: 7:00 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2006

More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the former second-in-command of that office is going public with an insider’s tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points with both evangelical Christians and traditionally Democratic minorities.

The office’s primary mission, providing financial support to charities that serve the poor, never got the presidential support it needed to succeed, according to the book.

Entitled “Tempting Faith,” the book is not scheduled for release until Oct. 16, but MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” has obtained a copy.

“Tempting Faith’s” author is David Kuo, who served as special assistant to the president from 2001 to 2003. A self-described conservative Christian, Kuo’s previous experience includes work for prominent conservatives including former Education Secretary and federal drug czar Bill Bennett and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Kuo, who has complained publicly in the past about the funding shortfalls, goes several steps further in his new book.

He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“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,’” Kuo writes.

More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly “nonpartisan” events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races.

Nineteen out of the 20 targeted races were won by Republicans, Kuo reports. The outreach was so extensive and so powerful in motivating not just conservative evangelicals, but also traditionally Democratic minorities, that Kuo attributes Bush’s 2004 Ohio victory “at least partially … to the conferences we had launched two years before.”

With the exception of one reporter from the Washington Post, Kuo says the media were oblivious to the political nature and impact of his office’s events, in part because so much of the debate centered on issues of separation of church and state.

In fact, the Bush administration often promoted the faith-based agenda by claiming that existing government regulations were too restrictive on religious organizations seeking to serve the public.

Substantiating that claim proved difficult, Kuo says. “Finding these examples became a huge priority.… If President Bush was making the world a better place for faith-based groups, we had to show it was really a bad place to begin with. But, in fact, it wasn’t that bad at all.”

In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on “compassion” social programs, Kuo claims he discovered the amount was $20 million a year less than during the Clinton Administration.

The money that was appropriated and disbursed, however, often served a political agenda, Kuo claims, with organizations friendly to the administration often winning grants.

More pointedly, Kuo quotes an unnamed member of the review panel charged with rating grant applications as saying she stopped looking at applications from “those non-Christian groups,” as did many of her colleagues.

“Tempting Faith” contains several other controversial claims about Kuo’s office, the Bush White House and even the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress.

Calls and e-mails to the White House have not been returned.
 
I'll give that book the same exact amount of attention you gave to Gary Aldrich's book "Unlimited Access."
 
David Kuo: Contract Said My Book Was To Be Released In 2007
Posted by Dave Pierre on October 17, 2006 - 21:32.

Did publisher Simon & Schuster adjust its release schedule and rush into print a new book unflattering to the Bush administration to make an impact on the forthcoming mid-term elections? If the words of its author, David Kuo, are any indication, it's certainly a possibility.

In an interview today (Tuesday, October 17, 2006) on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Kuo was a guest in addition to prominent evangelical Chuck Colson. The suspicious timing of the release of Kuo's book was discussed. Here's the relevant exchange:

KUO: Maybe if I'm Laura Ingraham or Chuck Colson, I get to choose when my book comes out. As you guys know, someone else decides when that happens.

INGRAHAM: So you had no control over that. None.

KUO: If you look at my contract, when the book is released (sic), it's not when the book was released. All that being said (long 3-second pause) No, what I'm saying is, look - the contract that I signed was for the book to be released in early 2007.

INGRAHAM: So it was rushed to come out before the election by Simon & Schuster?

KUO: You're gonna have to talk to the publishers about that. That's just --

INGRAHAM: Well, we will. And 60 Minutes, obviously - The parent company of 60 Minutes owns Simon & Schuster, David.

KUO (sounding very flustered): But, Laura - But, Laura - and Chuck - if - look - now - but the thing is, guys -

(Simon & Schuster is billed as "a CBS company," and Sunday night, Kuo made a much-publicized appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes.)

Much of the media coverage appears to portray Kuo as a committed conservative (i.e., the 60 Minutes piece). But are you aware that Kuo, according to this 2005 Washington Post article, was once "a campaign volunteer for former representative Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and an intern for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)"? (HT to kcvl at FreeRepublic.) At the end of his 60 Minutes profile, Kuo mocked his critics that would say, "He's really a liberal," but in that same WaPo profile, Kuo is quoted as saying, "I went to the left and to the right, and I've ended up pretty much in the center." Hmmm.

(David Kuo served in the White House for two-and-a-half years as a Special Assistant to the President, and then he was Deputy Director of the Faith-Based Initiative. He left the White House in 2003.)

*owned*
 
A Faith-Based Battle for Voters

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006; Page A21

The very fact that it took David Kuo's book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," to put President Bush's faith-based initiative back into the news proves that the author's thesis is right.

His argument -- Kuo went on the record with it long before this book appeared -- is that the White House never put much money or muscle behind Bush's "compassionate conservatism." It used the faith-based agenda for political purposes and always made tax cuts for the wealthy a much higher priority than any assistance to those "armies of compassion" that Bush evoked so eloquently.

As a result, the faith-based initiative has largely been off the public radar for years. And after Sept. 11, 2001, the president made the war on terrorism his central cause, both for substantive reasons and because (until now, at least) it proved to be a great vehicle for winning crossover votes. Compassionate conservatism gave way to martial conservatism.

The headlines that have come Kuo's way have focused on the author's claims that White House staffers ridiculed some of their evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" and that public events surrounding Bush's faith-based initiative were geared toward Republican electoral fortunes. As a former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Kuo has a fair claim to knowing what he's talking about.

Exposés of hypocrisy are the mother's milk of Washington journalism. Yet the most useful thing that could flow from Kuo's revelations would not be a splashy exchange of charges and countercharges but rather a quiet reappraisal by rank-and-file evangelicals of their approach to politics.

I hope Kuo's book promotes serious discussions in religious study groups around the country about whether the evangelicals' alliance with political conservatism has actually made the world, well, more godly from their own point of view. What are evangelicals actually getting out of this partnership? Are they mostly being used by a coalition that, when the deals are cut, cares far more about protecting the interests of its wealthy and corporate supporters than its churchgoing foot soldiers?

Kuo is being cut up by some administration loyalists. That's not surprising, but it's painful for me. I met Kuo in the 1990s through a conservative friend and was impressed by the power of his religious faith and his passion for developing a conservative approach to helping the poor that would be as serious as liberal efforts but, in his view, more effective.

The faith-based initiative was one of the few Bush policies I defended against liberal attacks during the administration's early months -- before I concluded that it was not really an administration priority. Kuo and I are both friends of John DiIulio, who briefly headed the faith-based office and brought Kuo in. DiIulio and I collaborated on research into religiously inspired social service work in the 1990s.

All of which is to say that I once hoped -- and, for the future, still hope -- that left and right might meet in some compassionate center to offer support for expanded government help to the needy while also fostering the indispensable work of religious and community groups.

Kuo has always thought that nongovernmental groups could carry a larger share of the load in fighting poverty than I do. Kuo, you see, really is a conservative, although he does acknowledge that not all past efforts by government to help the poor are failures.

Despite our disagreements, I have always shared Kuo's view that liberals who care about the poor should be less squeamish about building stronger alliances between government and religiously based social action work. Government can do things the religious and community groups can't, but the religious and community groups can do things government can't.

Kuo's book comes on the eve of an election in which the odds suggest that voters will administer a strong rebuke to Republicans and the administration. It will thus be read as another argument for why such a reproach is merited.

But the power of his case should be felt after the election. Kuo suggested on "60 Minutes" that evangelical Christians take "a fast from politics." Personally, I don't favor "fasts" from political participation, even if the one Kuo proposes might help the sort of candidates I support. Instead, I hope Kuo's reflections will encourage a less rigidly partisan approach to the role of religious faith in our public life.

When Kuo says there's something wrong with "taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy," he sounds a trumpet that makes you want to follow him into the battle.

It must really suck being sodomized by the political party you supported. Maybe the "Evangelical Christians" will wake up and smell the KY jelly.
 
Kuo is being used by the Democrats and the MSM to attempt to suppress voter turnout. He has no credibility. In fact, his words are not even reliable, based on his interviews.

But I have a question for you, Johnny (hat tip to poster Mykindaspam on Newsbusters):

Why is it that when Republican Christians use religion in speeches or on the campaign trail and visit churches, they are exploiting religion and wrongly using it to get votes, but when Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama or Jesse Jackson visit churches, especially predominantly black churches and use religion in speeches they are just "getting in touch with the people" and "staying true to their roots?" How is there any difference?
 
fossten said:
Why is it that when Republican Christians use religion in speeches or on the campaign trail and visit churches, they are exploiting religion and wrongly using it to get votes, [they are because they ARE HYPOCRITES] but when Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama or Jesse Jackson visit churches, especially predominantly black churches and use religion in speeches they are just "getting in touch with the people" and "staying true to their roots?" [they are because it's TRUE] How is there any difference?

:D
 
fossten said:
but when Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama or Jesse Jackson visit churches, especially predominantly black churches and use religion in speeches they are just "getting in touch with the people" and "staying true to their roots?"

Or when Hillary starts sporting a new chain with a cross on it? LMAO
 
Will the book be featured on 60 minutes this week? That's how it usually works.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top