CBS' 60 Minutes: A Month of "October Surprises"

Flopping Aces ^ | 10/17/06 | Wordsmith

[Starman417]

I've never heard the President say anything bad about religious leaders, and I don't name names in the book because I don't want to be personal--" -David Kuo

"There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the -- I think Dan is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too. But I think he should be more careful."-Andy Rooney on Larry King Live; one of the best things he's ever said...ever! (Hat tip: Bernard Goldberg's Arrogance).

Are they going to do this all the way up through to November Elections? Unbelievable! It's a repeat all over again, of 2004.

A couple of weeks ago, Bob Woodward got to promote his recent release, State of Denial. I posted then about how 60 Minutes has a history of agenda-driven, anti-Bush stories, often running at least a segment a week that is in some manner, an attack on the Bush Administration.

So this past Sunday, and 23 days away from the Elections, 60 Minutes drops their latest "Bush bomb": David Kuo's new book, Tempting Faith. It is published by Free Press, which is a conglomerate of Simon & Schuster, which is a division of CBS Corporation (which, of course, owns 60 Minutes).

Former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, David Kuo, wrote a book, released today, in which he asserts that administration officials have referred to evangelical leaders as "nuts" and that his office was used to curry favor with "Republican base voters," evangelical Christians, rather than to help the poor.- from NewsBusters

In the aftermath of the Foley scandal, which appears to be politically motivated in order to alienate the "values voters" from the Republican Party (forget about the hypocrisy), Harry R. Jackson writes,

Two years ago, I predicted that the October Surprise for the 2004 election would be a major shift among black voters toward a family-values platform. The Washington Times was bold enough to print this prediction as an Op-Ed piece on October 29, 2004. The shift we spoke of was undoubtedly a part of the Bush and the GOP 2004 victory.

Ever since that election, Democrats and liberals have lost sleep worrying about the power of the evangelical Christian vote. They have taken aim at the faith community with two clear strategies. First, they have mobilized a group of left-leaning, “pseudo-evangelicals” to critique our moral, political movement. At least twenty books have been written to denounce evangelical Christian involvement in American politics.

Michael Medved mentions a host of these books including Christian Soul, by Andrew Sullivan (obviously has the wrong take on LotR), pointing out on his Monday program that the Left has been constantly on the attack about how "the religious right" have taken over the White House and how America is being turned into a theocracy.

So which is it, Democrats? Are Bush and Co. religious fanatics who wish to turn us into a theocracy? Or are Bush and Rove deviously using the "religious right" for selfish, political gain?

Medved derides Leslie Stahl for labeling David Kuo as "a card-carrying member of the religious right". Medved points out that Kuo has worked for Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart, as well as for conservatives such as William Bennett and George W. Bush. He was hardly a member of the hardcore Christian religious right.

One of David Kuo's complaints is that President Bush and lobbyists did not deliver on following through with funding for faith-based initiatives. Of the $8 million, only around 10% has been delivered. But different spending priorities have been created after 9/11; and fighting hard for tax cuts and growing the economy has been meaningful to the nation. Building a strong economy is every bit as important to helping the poor as is charitable money. And as Jim Towey told Leslie Stahl,

"He’s [President Bush] not king. He had to work with Congress. It’s naïve to say, 'Oh, because the president asked for it and didn’t get it, that meant he didn’t really want it.'"

It's great that Kuo has a passion for helping the impoverished; but his disillusionment with the political process has made him nothing more than a tool of it. Can anyone seriously doubt that 60 Minutes' "hard-hitting breaking news" hit-piece is nothing short of politically motivated to stem the tide of Christian voter turnout?

Harry R. Jackson concludes his piece by saying he believes the October surprise this year will be evangelical voters returning to the voting booths.

God....I hope that's true. It's a miracle that George Bush won re-election, considering how hard he was hammered in 2004 by a hostile media.

I wonder what other "October surprises" 60 Minutes has in store for Republicans in the next 3 Sundays, before Elections?

For the 60 Minutes David Kuo segment, you can download it at CrooksandLiars.com.

As a footnote on 60 Minutes last sunday, I could not help but roll my eyes at Andy Rooney's icing on the liberal cake:

"I don't understand why we think it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons but it isn't all right for some other countries to have any."

And there ya have it, folks. We begin and end this post with the venerable Andy Rooney. God bless the ol' fossil!

[MikeA]

My question for David Kuo is, why release this book right before a hotly contested election when you know if it is believed it will suppress GOP turnout and help Democrats who any REAL Christian Conservative would agree will be horrible on the issues Christians hold deer?? Why David if your motives are so pure and you're so free of any agenda or guile??

We know why David. You're a Pat Buchanan type out to punish the "neo-cons" as you see it and to bring down the GOP for its lack of ideological purity. But I think it won't impact a damned thing. You mention a couple unnamed people at the White House as making disparaging remarks at Christians, yet the president himself is a conservative Christian and isn't named, nor his inner circle, of being contemptous of Christians.

So you got nothing David. Slip away back into blissful obscurity to slip your nose back up Buchanan's rectum or whatever Bush hating demagogue whose interests you're serving. You're barely even a blip on anyone's radar screen and you won't even have so much as 15 minutes of fame son.

And if your agendized, Democratic-assisting rag isn't on the 99 cent table at the local bookstore and car wash by Christmas, I'll eat my hat.

[Dante3]

By him not naming names causes the book to lose credibility or for those accused to give perhaps a explanation or refute the allegations.

[TYVets]

Is 60 Minutes still on the air?

[Kirkwood]

"I don't understand why we think it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons but it isn't all right for some other countries to have any."

Andy Rooney would give out h-bombs to every terrorist state to make the world a safer place, but will demand you give up your guns so you can't protect yourself.
Liberal (il)logic.

[popdonnelly]

"Is 60 Minutes still on the air?"

Is the 60 Minutes team still alive?

[popdonnelly]

Having heard Andy speak once, I can tell you he is one unpleasant liberal.

[unspun]

"Is 60 Minutes still on the air?"

Maybe they should change their name.

"Sudden Death Overtime?"

[Oberon]

"I don't understand why we think it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons but it isn't all right for some other countries to have any."

For the same reason you want to be the only guy in your neighborhood who owns a big-@ss shotgun, Andy...it ain't Disneyland out there.

[D-fendr]

Why was it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but Hitler not?

It's just all so unfair!

[Bubba_Leroy]

"I don't understand why we think it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons but it isn't all right for some other countries to have any."

This pretty much sums up the liberal mindset. They really don't see any difference between the United States and third world dictatorships like North Korea or Cuba.

I would really love to send a few select liberals to live among the masses in North Korea for a few years and report back the difference.

[t2buckeye]

This is the line I continually hear from Dems..."why shouldn't others have what we have, i.e. nukes"

First...who are those that are seeking nuclear? People who have said over and over again that they will use them to "wipe Israel off the map" or those who would eagerly give it to people who piloted aircraft into buildings of civilians.

The Dems are a group of people who live by idealistic "theory" and not "reality." Theoretically, they believe we should all get the same assets just as in a board game where everyone starts with the same amount of money, etc. Except, this is not a game! Do we REALLY want the people now seeking them to have nukes??
The Dems feel that....despite the evidence to the contrary...America is just as bad as everyone else.