Ripping the mask off of Bush’s ‘faith-based’ initiative

Long-time readers may recall that we’ve been covering David Kuo, the former second-in-command at the White House Faith-Based Office, since he first went public with his concerns in early 2005. Kuo, an evangelical Christian and conservative Republican, joined the Bush gang after stints with Bill Bennett and John Ashcroft, thinking he would help implement an aggressive policy that funded churches with tax-dollars to tackle social problems.

What he found, however, is that the White House’s interest in the faith-based initiative was a charade; it was a political ploy from the outset. Kuo is setting the record straight in a new book, “Tempting Faith.”

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.

Kuo has noted before that the White House never committed any real resources to the initiative, and never seemed particularly interested in the plight of the poor. Worse, Kuo’s new book insists the Bush gang had contempt for the religious-right leaders.

“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 wrote. He added that Karl Rove called some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders “the nuts.”

Perhaps the biggest scandal was the way in which the Faith-Based Office was used in the 2002 campaigns.

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. 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 is now confirming what I reported at the time.)

As for the religious right, how will conservative activists respond to the revelations that they’re held in contempt by the GOP elites? Tucker Carlson noted the other day that GOP leaders “have pure contempt for the evangelicals who put their party in power.” He added that “the base is beginning to figure it out.”

But are they? Kevin Drum recently compared it to Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. That’s exactly right — every campaign cycle, the GOP tells its theocratic wing that they’ll deliver a religious-right agenda in exchange for votes. Every cycle, followers of Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, et al, fall for it. Two years later, it happens again, with the same results.

Kuo is making plain what most of have known for years. Face it, religious right, the Republicans just aren’t that into you.

Damn, CB…

You’re so good at highlighting what really needs to be highlighted…

This is perhaps the most underreported abuse of the Bush administration… And when Kuo first went public, I thought it might get some attention… Even heard Robin Quivers on Howard Stern talking about how the money was going to nobody but Christian groups .

But then… Nothing…

I hope this time will be a little bit different, especially with the new revelations about just how corrupt the program really is…

I won’t hold my breath, though.

  • Why is anyone surprised? It was only a matter of time. Maybe this will prompt Dobson and his ilk to start thier own party. The they can really see what losers they are.

  • Face it, religious right, the Republicans just aren’t that into you.

    Great line. I think you’re right to say that the followers are like Charlie Browns trusting Lucy’s football holding promises. The leaders of the religious right probably know full well what the scam is, but as long as it means power for them they go along.

  • “He added that Karl Rove called some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders ‘the nuts.'”

    That actually makes me feel better. I’m glad I’m not the only one who considers Dobson a nut.

    These are the three questions it is fair for any voter to ask a candidate about religion:

    1) Do you share my religious beliefs,
    2) Do you respect my religious beliefs,
    3) Do you respect my right to have my religious beliefs.

    Answer from a Republican’t:

    1) I probably do,
    2) If I share them,
    3) If you have the right religious beliefs, you don’t need a ‘right’ to have religious beliefs.

    Answer from a Democrat:

    1) Possibly not,
    2) If they are tolerant and charitable, especially to the poor,
    3) As long as they don’t involve human sacrifice.

    Think really hard about whose answers you’d rather hear.

  • This guy is on Olbermann tonight. Talk about a must-see!! Damn, the Repugs this year are the gift that keeps on giving.

  • As the old saying goes . . .

    If you can’t take their money, and drink their booze, and eat their food, and sleep with the women they provide . . . and STILL vote against ’em . . .

    you just don’t belong in politics.

  • Great work, CB.

    But am I the only one who’s frustrated that none of this came to light before the 2004 campaign? WashPo picked up your story, yes, but why didn’t the likes of Kuo come out swinging THEN? Or is it just that religious groups were inclined to give Repubs the benefit of doubt in ’04, so even these revelations THEN would have had no impact just because of the climate?

  • CB,

    I don’t think the Dobsons and Fallwells fall for anything. They’re well aware of what’s going on and they don’t want to lose their access and the perks of doing business with the administration. They milk their “flocks” and live luxuriously and to have to give that all up, well, that’s just not gonna happen.

    They know how to go along to get along.

  • The fundies allowed themselves to be fitted with tunnel vision blinders by ShrubCo, (and his shyster fundie enabler/cohorts), and now they are being instructed that it’s time to take them off. A modicum of critical thinking and analysis would free these folks up to make a decision occasionally that wasn’t spoon fed to them.

    True believing ain’t so useful when you believe in dreck.

  • As long as the Dems represent the majority view on abortion (right to choose, with reasonable limits), where else are the religious VFRW going to go?
    This is the seminal issue, and it does not matter if the Dems have Right-to-Lifers in leadership roles (Harry Reid), or actually want to reduce abortions (95-10 Initiative) they are going to be drawn to the Repub demagogues. Remember, reality does not matter to these people.

  • My fear is that this will condense and unify the fundamentalists into a (2-issue) party of their own. Not a contender now, but something to worry about over the coming years as America continues its intellectual decline.

  • As for the religious right, how will conservative activists respond to the revelations that they’re held in contempt by the GOP elites?

    The Base was already angry because getting an abortion isn’t punishable by death and discrimination against gays and lesbians hasn’t been written into the Constitution.

    As for this latest evidence of BushCo trickery, it depends on who hears about it. Falwell &c would go on TV bark like a dog for the devil if they could get filthy rich by doing so. There just aren’t enough Satanists in the US to make it profitable. They won’t be surprised to hear about this because they’re already in on the plot to fleece the flock.

    If Kuo goes on Limpbag or one of the right-wank spoutlets there will be plenty o’ trouble. If he sticks to speaking with sane people (ie Olbermann) the righties won’t even hear about it. Fallwell, Dobson might even use his appearance on the show to paint him as a running dog liberal traitor.

  • As I pointed out in my comment to the Wednesday mini-report, while Olbermann discussed Kuo’s book on Wednesday, he’s featuring him as a guest tonight, so both Beth and Susan are right.
    As for the RR sticking with the Republicans because they have nowhere else to go, you forget that in the pre-Vigurie era, most Fundamentalists avoided the ‘godless arena of politics.’ Either they will return to that stance, or they will start a drive to have ‘one of their own’ (Brownback, Huckabee) as the nominee running on a platform giving more than lip service to their demands. If they lose the battle, they stay home, if they win it, they will be crushed, because their ideas are NOT as popular as they think.

  • LWordLover: “Why is anyone surprised?”

    Because one of the slams against Bush is that he’s trying to impose medieval theocracy on the USA by channeling public money to churches. Doing it insincerely and incompetently takes the edge off the theocracy rap, but it makes Bush an even worse excuse for a leader.

  • “…one of the slams against Bush is that he’s trying to impose medieval theocracy on the USA by channeling public money to churches. Doing it insincerely and incompetently takes the edge off the theocracy rap, but it makes Bush an even worse excuse for a leader.” Grumpy

    I often wonder just how religious Boy George II is. Did he just submit to Laura’s insistence that he embrace religion and stop using legal and illegal drugs, or did he have a real conversion. If the latter, he is not much of a religious person in that he does not attend church often, and when he does, strangely it is a liberal Espiscipalian church, and not a conservative Methodist one (his professed sect, I believe). He claims to be doing God’s will and to be God’s annointed President. An observation that I can understand, as he was clearly NOT America’s elected President in 2000.

    I feel that Boy George II’s handlers have used him as a prop to ensnare the True Christians in this country. They already had the leaders of the Theocratic Reactionaries, and as Theocratic Reactionaries can not think for themselves (that’s the definition) they have them too. Still, it take a little more than support from The Base to come within Diebold striking distance of claiming an election, and for that Rove has to appeal to a slightly wider portion of the electorate for support.

    Appeal to, not deliver to, of course.

  • The reason the GOP panders to the religious right is simple:

    They vote.

    By convincing the masses that GOP = GOD, they have a ready-built chunk of votes. Whether it’s true or not really doesn’t matter.

    It’d be nice of the ultra-religious would actually read the book the profess to love so much — if they did, they’d soon realize that torture isn’t a family value, that Jesus never said a word about gays, and that, in reality, GOP = SOL.

  • These are the three questions it is fair for any voter to ask a candidate about religion:

    1) Do you share my religious beliefs,
    2) Do you respect my religious beliefs,
    3) Do you respect my right to have my religious beliefs.

    Comment by Lance — 10/12/2006 @ 9:21 am

    I suggest Mr. Lance read Article Six of the federal Constitution.

    “No religious test” means just that. I don’t care what anyone says, a candidate’s religious views are officially irrelevant.

  • Lance -re #18- Bush is not religious, he’s delusional. In his damaged mind, God has chosen him to lead. But he’s not bright enough to see that Cheney is using him as a meat puppet, controlling his actions.

    As for delivering the goods to the fundies, remember that they rely on belief, not facts. As long as they are convinced that the Repubs are on their side, and the Dems are Godless sodomites, that’s how they will vote.

  • This question has been asked and answered a million times.
    Who exactly are the “nuts” going to vote for. They will take appeasement over straight out denial any day of the week.

    Quit with the “they are coming around” non-sense. Coming around to what ? I doubt Jesus himself could have gotten the Farwell/Dobson crown to vote for Kerry.

    They will NEVER vote D, so quit with the analysis and speculation, they are a lost cause and move on, please.

  • Does anyone else note the similarities between how the White House viewed “the nuts,” and how Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlan viewed their Native American lobbying clients? (Called ’em “monkeys.”)

    This is not a coincidence. And you have to savor the irony of Ken Mehlman, a Jew and probable closeted gay, directing the zombie armies to the polls.

  • George W. Bush is as about as religious as my pet goat. When Karl Rove started creating this monster in Texas he made George act the religious part. He sent Georgie and a buddy off to a religious retreat for days of Bible study. Upon returning, a reporter asked him what his favorite Bible passages were. He couldn’t reply. There were so many after all. The punk has been trying to fool us ever since.

  • “I suggest Mr. Lance read Article Six of the federal Constitution.

    ‘No religious test’ means just that. I don’t care what anyone says, a candidate’s religious views are officially irrelevant.” – Mark

    Mr. Mark, let me suggest to you that a voter exercising his personal franchise is in fact not restricted by the Constitution from asking a candidate any damn thing he wants, nor may his reasons for casting his votes be limited by the Constitution as long as we have secret balloting (which we did not always have) in this country.

    The “No Religious Test” clause means that Governments, Federal, State and Local, can not deny a candidate access to the ballot based on his religion (or lack thereof) nor discard the votes he receives. As you point out, religious views are “officially irrelevant”. Run for office and see how far you will get trying that line on a potential voter who asks your religion.

    Mark, you are the very definition of a “smart ass”. Enjoy the distinction.

  • ScottW: Quit with the “they are coming around” non-sense. Coming around to what ? I doubt Jesus himself could have gotten the Farwell/Dobson crown to vote for Kerry.

    That’s what makes me pity the poor religious wingers, and indeed all non-mainstream voters. With only two parties to pick from, a lot of people have to compromise on principles to choose the lesser evil. Based solely on the simple axes of economic and social liberty, we ought to have *four* political parties in the USA (economic & social liberal, econ lib/social conservative, econ lib/social con, or econ & soc con). May the strongest one prevail.

    How do we go about restructuring American democracy into something more parliamentary?

  • Lance:

    While the franchise of a voter in this country is of the highest order it is also accompanied by a responsibility not to abuse the right by using obtuse reasons for voting one way or another. A candidate’s views on religion are just such an example of this obtuseness. Why? Because religion is not an instrument of government. Frankly, it is an instrument of propaganda when conflated with government. While you state correctly that candidates may not be excluded from any ballot based on their religious views, choosing to vote for or against someone in the privacy of the voting booth based on the candidate’s religious views is a de facto violation of Article Six. In other words, even if the franchise is not limited expressly by the Constitution in this regard, it is the responsibility of the voter to disregard a candidate’s personal religious views, whether or not you agree with them. The fact that candidates have to tip-toe around this issue for fear of offending the precious little pious frauds is the reason we can’t have a real discussion about the pathologies related to religion in this country.

    Were I to run for office and the question regarding my religious beliefs was posed to me I would answer truthfully that I am not religious and do not belong to any church. In my naive view, honesty is better than false piety. I wouldn’t necessarily crawl up someone’s ass screaming about Article Six even though I might want to. And if this information was a disincentive to the voter, my conscience would be clear nontheless.

    As to me being a smart-ass, well, worse things could happen. Didn’t someone else at one point say, “To thine own self be true.”?

    Peace. Out.

  • If David Kuo said it then it must be true. Also, Sam the dog just furnished a report that pegs the latest Iraqi death total at 4 million billion. However, neither of the two reports are for the purpose of electioneering; that is reserved for Foley (who resigned long ago). No, this election will be won or lost on the facts. As long as those facts exclude: 4.6% unemployment, DOW 12,000, and any national security issues.

    Natures Blessing’s
    Al_democueda

  • How about this for denial.. All these so called Christian leaders are criticizing the book!!!!!! This really is a faith based administration and apparently they think Bush is Jesus…

  • This is all just part of the age old spiritual conspiracy we are all caught in the middle of. Some are deceived into thinking they will make a difference against the easily recognizable injustice that surrounds us all. I lament the well meaning, ‘the path to destruction is paved with good intentions.”
    When a third of the heavens fell, politics was doomed. (E.G. the first great war.) mankind still imagines they are capable of managing their own enviornment without oversite from their origonator. Well, time is short & with religon falling into goose step with the white house, lured by the almighty dollar, it should be obvious where the fallicies exist. “get out of her!!” cried the angel in mid heaven. I emplore anyone who reads this to use discernment.

  • Replace your wood fence for the last time – we can ship our product anywhere in the country:

    Take time to truly “appreciate” your property with Oasis™ simulated rock fencing from Mity Fence Systems. With stunning design and uncommon durability, our granite-look fencing panels offer you the look and rough-hewn feel of natural granite stone!

    • Steel reinforced for superior wind resistance
    • Thermally stable for hot and cold weather extremes
    • UV stabilized for a lifetime of vibrant color
    • Maintenance free – no sanding or painted needed
    • Graffiti resistant
    • Lifetime warranty
    – Basically it is awesome.

    For Pics and additional info visit: champifence.com or mityfence.com

  • Oh, give him a break!
    God wants Bush to be President. And his successor Huckabee. Republicans for 2008!

  • Comments are closed.