PDA

View Full Version : Former Aide says Bush's Compassionate Conservatism a sham


irishgrl
02-15-2005, 07:37 AM
Bush lacks compassion (can I insert a DUH here?) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1803&e=1&u=/washpost/20050215/pl_washpost/a24561_2005feb14)

Ex-Aide Questions Bush Vow To Back Faith-Based Efforts

Tue Feb 15,12:00 AM ET
By Alan Cooperman and Jim VandeHei, Washington Post Staff Writers

A former White House official said yesterday that President Bush has failed to deliver on his promise to help religious groups serve the poor, the homeless and drug addicts because the administration lacks a genuine commitment to its "compassionate conservative" agenda.

David Kuo, who was deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for much of Bush's first term, said in published remarks that the White House reaped political benefits from the president's promise to help religious organizations win taxpayer funding to care for "the least, the last and the lost" in the United States. But he wrote: "There was minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda."

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.

"Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort," Kuo wrote on Beliefnet.com, a Web site on religion. "No administration since [Lyndon B. Johnson's] has had a more successful legislative record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.' "

Kuo's remarks were a rare breach of discipline for an administration that places a high premium on unity among current and former officials, and they mark the second time a former high-ranking official has criticized Bush's approach to the faith-based issue.

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."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said yesterday that Kuo is wrong about the president's commitment.

"The faith-based and community initiative has been a top priority for President Bush since the beginning of his first term and continues to be a top priority," Duffy said. "The president has mentioned the initiative in every State of the Union and fought for full funding."

In his first major policy speech as a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush proposed an $8 billion program to promote religious charities and other community groups. The idea quickly became the centerpiece of his call for compassionate conservatism. But it met stiff resistance in Congress, where Democrats said it threatened the separation of church and state, while Republicans showed little enthusiasm for new welfare-related spending.

After Congress balked at allowing religious groups to receive government funding and still hire, fire and promote employees on the basis of their faith, Bush issued executive orders to make it easier for religious groups to compete for government grants to run homeless shelters, counseling centers for teenagers and a wide range of other social programs.

"I think some good progress has been made, especially administratively," said John Bridgeland, White House director of domestic policy during Bush's first term. He added that Bush's decision to give chief speechwriter Michael J. Gerson responsibility for expanding the initiative should give the effort a lift in the second term.

In his Beliefnet column, Kuo said it was "a dream come true for me" when Bush promised in 2000 that in his first year in office he would provide $6 billion in tax incentives for private charitable giving, $1.7 billion for groups that care for the poor and $200 million for a Compassion Capital Fund to assist local faith-based organizations.

"Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact," he wrote.

In June 2001, the promised tax incentives were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation "to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy," Kuo said. The Compassion Capital Fund has received a cumulative total of $100 million in the past four years, and new programs for children of prisoners, at-risk youth and prisoners reentering society have received a little more than $500 million over four years, he said.

"Unfortunately, sometimes even the grandly-announced 'new' programs aren't what they appear," Kuo wrote, citing as an example the three-year $150 million "gang prevention" effort Bush announced in this year's State of the Union address. In reality, Kuo said, that money is being taken out of the "already meager" $100 million request for the Compassion Capital Fund.

Kuo, 36, served as a special assistant to the president for 2 1/2 years and was deputy head of the faith-based office from February 2002 to December 2003. Before joining the White House, he worked for several prominent conservatives, including John D. Ashcroft and William J. Bennett. But before that, he had been a campaign volunteer for former representative Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and an intern for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

"I have always sought to try and figure out what's the best way for government to care for the poor. I went to the left and to the right, and I've ended up pretty much in the center," he said in a telephone interview yesterday.

In the Beliefnet column, Kuo said that he continues to have "deep respect, appreciation and affection for the president." Kuo added: "No one who knows him even a tiny bit doubts the sincerity and compassion of his heart."

Asked whether that meant he believes that Bush was sincere about the faith-based initiative but other White House officials were not, Kuo said he would "let the column speak for itself."

"The point of the column is that the poor need to be dealt with by everybody. There was phenomenal promise in the original vision for compassionate conservatism . . . and to try to pin blame on any one institution, one person, one body, one policy, is wrong," he said. "It's not about the White House, it's not about the Congress, it's not about interest groups. It's about everybody."

DrummerDeanna
02-15-2005, 09:37 AM
The heck you say! Bush NOT a compassionate conservative!?! :eek:

:laugh: This comes as absolutely NO surprise....he doesn't give a damn about anyone under the what couple hundred thousand a year mark??

SuzeQuze
02-15-2005, 12:02 PM
The heck you say! Bush NOT a compassionate conservative!?! :eek:

:laugh: This comes as absolutely NO surprise....he doesn't give a damn about anyone under the what couple hundred thousand a year mark??

And he doesn't care much about them either! He only cares about money, power, and Dubya.

irishgrl
02-15-2005, 07:22 PM
This wasnt to inform us of something WE didnt know but rather to underscore something the Bush Lovers apparently wont SEE. Or maybe dont care about.

ShangriLaTroubl
02-16-2005, 09:40 AM
They will never get it--I'm certain...they are convinced their blood thirsty president is just a good ole man, never could hurt a soul, prays for those troops he kills every day, prays for the innocent iraqi's dead, prays that he wont hurt the environment too much more...yea yea


Chris

strandinthewind
02-16-2005, 09:49 AM
Oh why not - from www.bettybowers.com (emphasis supplied)

Dear Fellow Cons:

Many people have come to me a bit bewildered by the tone and emphasis of Republican politics this year. Perhaps, they are a bit thrown by someone who used to preen in skimpy swimwear, made himself available as a frolicsome plaything to lecherous old men and is a supporter of a president who spent high school and college as a giddy cheerleader, calling other males "girly men." Others, carelessly veering from their talking points to lazily succumb to reality, were perplexed when the No. 2 (at least officially) man from an administration that purports to provide civil counterpoint to "angry liberals," would take to the Senate floor and offer the brusque motto of extreme self-reliance: "Go [unchristian word starting with an F] yourself!"

Friends, if you are surprised by any of this, you simply aren't paying attention. Good. We need more of you in the GOP! But why would it come as a shock that Mr. Cheney would say to a senator what Mr. Bush has been saying to America and our allies for the past three years? Indeed, if politics allowed for candor (which, thank the Lord, it doesn't because who really would have rallied around a Bill "Leave No Woman's Behind" Clinton?) the GOP's slogan this year would be "Bush/Cheney: America Go [unchristian word starting with an F] Yourself!"

Alas, such frankness alienates prickly focus groups, to say nothing of congenitally indecisive swing voters. Therefore, we are left with the tricky conundrum of having to give voice to immutable principles of unbending resolve. And than doing precisely the opposite. This moral circumlocution has to be done deftly. Or at least quickly. To help you understand how it works, I am providing some pointers on Republican paradoxes:

The United States should get out of the United Nations because it is a useless institution that furthers anti-American policies. In the meantime, however, our national raison d'etre is spending thousands of lives and billions of dollars to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Support for our troops is best shown by bumper stickers, festooning trees with yellow, ridiculing people who are sticklers for a justification for getting Marines killed, and using aircraft carriers and the enlisted as photogenic backdrops for partisan political opportunities. Cold, unsentimental cash, such as for veterans' benefits and combat pay, cheapens our affection for our brave boys and gals in uniform.

If we don't allow teachers to talk about it in schools, adolescents won't even know that sex exists until after they are safely married (in which case, they will surely come to question its existence yet again).

If Teresa Heinz Kerry tells an irritating reporter to "shove it," she is rude, tactless and probably deranged. On the other hand, if Dick Cheney stands on the Senate floor and snarls at a United States Senator "go f__k yourself," he is a candid statesman who simply voiced what needed to be said.

It is the coming together (marriage), not the rending apart (divorce) that is most likely to undermine a marriage. After all, the biggest threat to marriage is allowing people to do it.

If you are an entertainer who remakes your entire career to ride the coattails of conservative jingoism all the way to the nearest bank, you are hailed as a man of principle (Tobey Keith). If, however, you mouth passing praise for someone liberal in between songs (Linda Ronstadt), you will be escorted from the stage by armed men in natty brown shirts.

Being a drug addict, in addition to being rather expensive, comes as a result of an inability to muster a simple "no" and is irrefutable proof of moral turpitude necessitating mandatory jail time. If, however, the junkie is either a bombastic (yet conservative) radio host or a bomb-happy President, anything more than simple prayers for recovery would be shockingly punitive.

Christ told us that if an enemy strikes us, we are required to forgive them and turn the other cheek. This is why savvy Christian nations work around Jesus' girly-man approach by preemptively attacking first.

Long-time Allies respond best to a coquettish "hard-to-get" approach from America, the ultimate alpha male in the diplomatic dating pool. After several years of harsh insults and pointed indifference, they will all swoon when we show we care by asking for troops and money.

Saddam Hussein (who when haplessly groomed begins to look alarmingly like Dennis Miller, only with an audience), was a good guy when Mr. Reagan armed him and Mr. Rumsfeld shook his hand, an evil guy when W's daddy verbally attacked him (but left him otherwise unscathed), a good guy (again) when Mr. Cheney's wildly resourceful company did business with him, and an evil guy (yet again) when the Prodigal Bush needed an enemy with an address.

If you want to provide the people of Iraq with health care, police, roads, sewers, a new power grid and education, irrespective of cost, you are a fiscally sound conservative. If, on the other hand, you want these same things for Americans, you are a tax-and-spend liberal.

So close to Jesus, I know which press coups for Kerry trigger terror alerts,

Mrs. Betty Bowers

America's Best Christian

Spiritual Advisor to Mr. & Mrs. George W. Bush

Miss Vicky
02-16-2005, 12:52 PM
Why am I not surprised?

Dubya's the devil, I tell ya!

I say we bring back witch trials, death by stoning, etc. :laugh:

I vote Dubya and the Governator as the first to go on trial! :thumbsup:

gldstwmn
02-16-2005, 02:20 PM
No ****, David? :confused: