Bush admin. uses Department of Education as a GOP campaign tool

If we were making a list of the most offensive things the Bush administration has done to the federal government, the politicization of cabinet agencies would have to be in the top 10. Examples like this one just leave me shaking my head.

U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was in Minnesota on Tuesday to announce a proposed pilot project for the federal No Child Left Behind law that would give 10 states more flexibility in addressing struggling schools’ specific needs. […]

However, Minnesota doesn’t yet have enough of those schools to participate in the pilot project, prompting some to question why Spellings made the announcement here and whether it was an effort to help Sen. Norm Coleman in his reelection campaign.

Spellings appeared at the state Department of Revenue and the State Capitol alongside Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Coleman.

“It certainly smells that no Democrats were invited to this event, when we already know that this administration has politicized Cabinet agencies,” said Matthew Miller, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “It looks like a stunt to help Norm Coleman’s campaign.”

Ya think? As Paul Kiel noted, “Spellings announced a pilot program in Minnesota that won’t even be taking place in Minnesota.” But it just so happens, Minnesota is home to a very competitive Senate race, where a Republican incumbent wants to look education-friendly, and wouldn’t you know it, there was Sen. Norm Coleman (R) standing alongside the Secretary of Education at a press conference that had no business being held there in the first place.

Lest anyone think I’m being unnecessarily cynical here, consider the administration’s recent history.

In my favorite example, David Kuo, the former second-in-command at the White House Faith-Based Office, publicly acknowledged that the office was used as a tool to help elect Republicans.

…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. According to Kuo, “Ken loved the idea and gave us our marching orders.”

Among those marching orders, Kuo says, was Mehlman’s mandate to conceal the true nature of the events. Kuo quotes Mehlman as saying, “…(I)t 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 [of faith-based initiatives] to request the visit.”

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.

(I have a unique interest in this because I personally exposed the trend of using the faith-based initiative in this fashion in a 2002 expose. The Washington Post picked up on the story after seeing my piece. Kuo confirmed what I reported at the time.)

Remember, this was happening throughout the Bush administration. Kiel summarized what we learned last summer: “Karl Rove’s machinations in the White House Office of Political Affairs was his use of cabinet members to create free publicity for endangered Republicans. Agency heads or officials who traveled only a handful of times on off years suddenly found themselves whipped into service in an election year. Republicans facing tough challenges could count on a constant stream of photo-ops with administration officials announcing good things for his or her constituents. Rove called the operation his ‘asset deployment’ team.”

But here’s the funny part: after having been caught abusing federal agencies for campaign purposes in 2002, 2004, and 2006, the Bush administration, as the Coleman example highlights, is still pulling the exact same stunts. They’re misusing cabinet agencies and federal resources to help Republican campaigns, and they just don’t care whether it’s obvious or not.

What a shameless bunch of hacks.

Was Bush’s using the White House for McCain’s coronation as the Republican nominee a proper use of public facilities? Or just more of this type thing.

  • What a shameless bunch of hacks.

    Look. They launched an illegal war based on lies, and killed thousands of people. Does anyone think they wouldn’t pull stunts like this?

    What they know is that the press corpse won’t call them on any of it for more than a few moments if at all, because unless there’s a sex involved it really isn’t worth reporting. And what’s worse, the American people don’t seem to care.

  • RacerX (2) And what’s worse, the American people don’t seem to care.

    Or know! And the media is largely responsible for both the ignorance and the apathy. This is one of the two main reasons impeachment is so impossible NOW. The other is that it would force both parties to decide which of these many unique precedents are going to be considered acceptable.

  • I read this on Wikipedia yesterday, and I hadn’t appreciated the parallels between Bush and Andrew Jackson, so at the risk of simply displaying my own ignorance I thought I’d post it here.
    “In its early form, the Whig Party was united only by opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson, especially his removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States without the consent of Congress. The Whigs pledged themselves to Congressional supremacy, as opposed to “King Andrew’s” executive actions. The Whigs saw President Andrew Jackson as a dangerous man on horseback with a reactionary opposition to the forces of social, economic, and moral modernization. As Jackson purged his opponents, vetoed internal improvements, and killed the Bank of the United States; alarmed local elites fought back. They argued that Congress, not the President, reflected the will of the people. Controlling the Senate for a while, Jackson’s enemies passed a censure motion denouncing Jackson’s arrogant assumption of executive power in the face of the true will of the people as represented by Congress. (The censure was later expunged.) ….. The Whigs came to unite around economic policy …. which favored government support for a more modern, industrial economy in which education and commerce would equal physical labor or land ownership as a means of productive wealth. Whigs sought to promote domestic manufacturing …. a growth-oriented monetary policy with a new Bank of the United States, and a vigorous program of “internal improvements”—-especially to roads, canal systems, and railroads-—funded by the proceeds of public land sales. The Whigs also promoted public schools, private colleges, charities, and cultural institutions.”

  • They’re misusing cabinet agencies and federal resources to help Republican campaigns, and they just don’t care whether it’s obvious or not. — CB

    Well… Give me one reason why they *should* care? The tactics have worked before ([…] Kuo attributes Bush’s 2004 Ohio victory “at least partially … to the conferences we had launched two years before.”), right? Nobody’s ever noticed it much and nobody’s likely to (who’s Star-Tribune, when it’s at home?). And there’s not going to be any consequences, or not on the table set by Pelosi. So, what’s not to like? And why change a thing? Don’t fix what ain’t broke…

    “Shameless hacks”, you say. But, in order to feel shame, you have to have some honor to lose. And they’ve had it surgically excised the moment they assumed their positions in this mal-administration.

  • No Child Left Behind is a terrible program designed to make sure that public schools fail so that the education system can be privatized. Schools aren’t properly funded and when they don’t meet testing requirements, they’re penalized. If I were the Al Franken or a democrat in Minnesota, I’d use the opportunity to expose Coleman and Bush’s farcical education program for the failure that it is. Besides, the democrats in congress allow Bush to abuse cabinet agencies for republican purposes, if anyone should make a big deal about it, they should and they’re not. What can we do?

  • And the media is largely responsible for both the ignorance and the apathy. -Danp

    and then you’ve got to ask yourself, “Who’s responsible for the Democrats’ apparent ignorance and/or apathy?”

    I’m feeling cynical today, so excuse me for thinking that the Dems would probably do the same thing… hopefully it wouldn’t be so shameless…

  • Interesting. Isn’t the Dpt of Ed. one of those government agencies – like the IRS – that conservative want to see erased from the government payroll. Guess this is another example of how Dubya isn’t a “true” conservative.

  • there was Sen. Norm Coleman (R) standing alongside the Secretary of Education at a press conference that had no business being held there in the first place.

    there was Sen. Norm Coleman (R) standing alongside President Bush’s Secretary of Education at a press conference that had no business being held there in the first place.

    Just two words can easily make this photo op into a liability.

    Coleman supports Bush and his policies.

    Like Bush? By all means, Coleman and he are buddies!

  • @9 tooweary:

    Exactly.

    Al Franken, who’s almost assuredly going to be Coleman’s democratic opponent, was on Letterman the other night, and one of the things he was hammering was NCLB. If Coleman’s going out of his way to link himself to Bush’s Dept. of Education, that only helps him make the case.

  • NB (7): I think Democratic ignorance is largely due to the same media. It’s easy to watch a few minutes of nightly news or CNN each day. It’s harder to seek out multiple sources on a regular basis. Informed people spread information, but the mainstream media is largely used to give people a reason to disbelieve. While some think that the media is in it for the money, I would argue that in most cases news is a loss leader. That is it is used to create conditions friendly to the corporations.

    I would argue that we did have a Democratic-friendly media in the seventies. It was anti-war, pro-integration, and pro-tolerance. One interesting difference was that most of the legal dramas were based on the formula that an innocent person is charged with a crime and ultimately proven innocent. Today most are of the CSI/Law and Order variety showing that forensics are never wrong.

  • Do you think if a bunch of top level (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al) spent a few well publicized years in Leavenworth after this criminal conspiracy is finally booted out of Washington DC, it would help this country get back on track?

    Just a suggestion.

  • I’m with NB @#7, turnabout is fair play, I say. When we get our shot, we do it all. I’m sick and tired of, as Colbert put it ( I think it was him), being a “silly democrat, bringing ONLY a knife to a knife fight”.

  • I want to know when Obama is scheduling his BBQ for the press too. Only he should be sure that the fare is “white” (i.e. no watermelon or fried chicken) or it will turn into a parody…

  • Gotta better idea. How about just dumping the DoE altogether, and put all the Pell grants and whatnot where they belong. Under the Treasury Dept.

  • Actually, it’s an extremely bad idea to try and use the machinery of state to further party supremacy. Nothing is more sure to anger independents than naked partisanship in government administration. Without the independents, neither party holds a majority.

    Call me old-fashioned, but I think governing well is the surest path to long-term
    electoral success.

  • Comments are closed.