Why do Christians still support Republicans?

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.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

7 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Doc Paradox
    Oct 12, 2006 @ 10:28:00

    "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
    An evil soul producing holy witness
    Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
    A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
    O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

    Antonio, Act I, Sc. 3, The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare.

    Reply

  2. lightandstorm
    Oct 12, 2006 @ 10:32:00

    What I don't understand is: why is this surprising and enlightening? Since when have politicians cared about what actually happens to the people they claim to support? I'm not saying there aren't good politicians, but I bet they get weeded out pretty early on, because in order to win, you have to stoop to appeals to emotion and other cheap tactics. You can't win honestly, therefore there aren't very many honest politicians.

    Reply

  3. TechMusicGospel
    Oct 13, 2006 @ 08:52:00

    First…anyone can say they're a Christian, (heck the KKK and Neo Nazis say they are Christians), I go by what Dr. Charles Stanley says, "I'm a Follower of Jesus Christ". Second…by me being a African American I know the Republicians and other Christians does not have my best at interest. (Ever notice how Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses…other congregations are intergrated except most of us Christians?) LOL. I love the Lord and He has always said there would be hypercritical Christians in the mist of us. And no I did not vote for Bush, Regan or Bush Sr. 🙂

    Reply

  4. CollegeJay
    Oct 13, 2006 @ 20:56:00

    I personally don't trust politicians. Bush is so transparent at times, throwing the FMA to the conservative Christian base in order for his horrid immigration plan to be overlooked. Nothing in this surprises me. And come on, who couldn't meet Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell without talking about them behind their backs?

    Reply

  5. Timmy!
    Oct 14, 2006 @ 17:02:00

    Hi Jay. ;-)And come on, who couldn't meet Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell without talking about them behind their backs?I don't know. Those two are pretty bad. But I wasn't so much talking about obvious, long-time over-the-top examples like Robertson or Falwell. This comes from hearing comments like bow-tie conservative Tucker Carlson: CARLSON: It goes deeper than that though. The deep truth
    is that the elites in the Republican Party have pure contempt for the
    evangelicals who put their party in power. Everybody in…
    MATTHEWS: How do you know that? How do you know that?
    CARLSON: Because I know them. Because I grew up with them. Because
    I live with them. They live on my street. Because I live in Washington,
    and I know that everybody in our world has contempt for the
    evangelicals. And the evangelicals know that, and they're beginning to
    learn that their own leaders sort of look askance at them and don't
    share their values.
    MATTHEWS: So this gay marriage issue and other issues related to the gay lifestyle are simply tools to get elected?
    CARLSON: That's exactly right. It's pandering to the base in the most cynical way, and the base is beginning to figure it out
    Here, I've posted the video of the clip for you here.

    Reply

  6. vespalass
    Oct 15, 2006 @ 23:59:00

    Part of the reason that the Repulicans get the Fundamentalist vote is the same kind pandering and appeasement that all politicians do. THe Republicans throw the fundies a bone with talk of protecting marriage and banning abortion, and yet mysteriously never follow through. Politicians on the left do a similar shuffle with the liberal base by talking of anti-war efforts (though the majority of them agreed with Bush on sending troops to Iraq.) The Democrats can barely steel themselves to tolerate the views of more liberal christians, never mind the fundamentalist ones. The Republicans for all their seeming intolerance manage to choke down and do a more effective job with the big tent philosophy than the Dems do.At the 2004 Republican Nat'l convention, pro-choice Republicans, and hell, even a Democrat, got to address the floor. You wouldn't see a pro-lifer given that same opportunity at a Democratic convention, dissent is neither encouraged nor welcome. As long as that's the attitude, people will vote for those candidates that they perceive as sharing their values, not matter whether the candidates do or not.

    Reply

  7. Timmy!
    Oct 16, 2006 @ 00:35:00

    Part of the reason that the Repulicans get the Fundamentalist vote is the same kind pandering and appeasement that all politicians do. THe Republicans throw the fundies a bone with talk of protecting marriage and banning abortion, and yet mysteriously never follow through.Zero follow through. The right wing has a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a fairly conservative court and they haven't done SHIT to outlaw abortion. You know why? Because abortion works better for the right wing as a motivator to get the anti-choice nuts to the polls. These people will never ever ban abortion. It will never ever happen. And I laugh at Christians who vote for Republicans with the hope that the Republicans will ban it one day. Politicians on the left do a similar shuffle with the liberal base by talking of anti-war efforts (though the majority of them agreed with Bush on sending troops to Iraq.) Well, that's B.S. The Democrats aren't in charge of squat. They have no power. They have no subpoena powers. They can't even call hearings. You can't accuse them of not following through when they have no power to do anything.And yeah, some of them voted to authorize the use of force as a last resort, but nobody voted for this clusterfuck.The Democrats can barely steel themselves to tolerate the views of more liberal christians, never mind the fundamentalist ones. The Republicans for all their seeming intolerance manage to choke down and do a more effective job with the big tent philosophy than the Dems do.Do you really believe the Republican Big Tent is more welcoming than the Democrats? Maybe if you're white and heterosexual and male, sure. Other then that, you're simply wrong.At the 2004 Republican Nat'l convention, pro-choice Republicans, and hell, even a Democrat, got to address the floor. You would! n't see a pro-lifer given that same opportunity at a Democratic convention, dissent is neither encouraged nor welcome.Did you completely miss Barak Obama’s speech? You can find it on iTunes and listen to it for free. Harry Reid is the leader of the Senate Democrats and he's a pro-lifer. Bob Casey is going up against Santorum for Pennsylvania and he's a pro-lifer. The fact is, there's are many pro-lifers in the Democratic party, just as there are a few pro-choice people in the Republican Party. As long as that's the attitude, people will vote for those candidates that they perceive as sharing their values, not matter whether the candidates do or not.Yeah, well most people are stupid, especially those who vote Republican, thinking the Republicans are the Party Of God.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: