It has been interesting to observe the "random" new stories coming one on top of the other as the former wanes. Bob Woodward's "State of Denial" was followed by the Foley affair, which has now been succeeded by David Kuo's book tour.

The Crats wouldn't be trying to depress Republican turnout would they?

You bet they would. Notably, the Foley scandal and Kuo's 60 minutes interview with Leslie Stahl (which I thought was fairly balanced) are aimed directly at Evangelicals, who in the eyes of many Democrats (and a few so-called Republicans) shouldn't be allowed to vote anyways.

"Yes. I think that Christians, particularly evangelical Christians need to take a step back. To have a fast from politics," he replies. "People are being manipulated. Good well-meaning people are being told, ‘Send your money to this Christian advocacy group or that.’ And that’s the answer. It’s just not the answer. It’s not the answer."

In other words...stay home this November.

I'm sure Kuo himself is sincere, but he's a useful idiot in a larger game. His editors and the media aren't "accidentally" launching his book before the election any more than Woodward's book launch fell to the fates.

I consider myself a Christian conservative and this is how I see it:

1. Robertson in particular, is in fact a goof and nut. I'm not the only Christian to think so. I strongly suspect that liberals are extrapolating their own relationship with the black community by compariing this with dissing Martin Luther King. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'd personally be a lot more worried if there was reverence for Pat Robertson in the White House.

2. Christians aren't necessarily all that enthusiastic about the so-called "faith-based" initiatives. With money comes strings, and not a few Christians are concerned about getting into bed with the federal government. The Mormon church (I'm blogging from Utah, so deal with it) has simply rejected any federal funds to compliment its own substantial charitable efforts. Who this really affects are the few politically-active pastors who by no means represent any where close to a majority of Evangelical Christians.

3. The odd thing about Kuo, is how much he is part of a problem that simply doesn't affect most Christians, Evangelical and otherwise. Frankly, I've never met this highly-politicized Evangelical Christian that Kuo seems to represent--they must be exceedingly rare birds. Evangelicals are concerned about the same things other Republicans are, with the addition of issues like abortion and gay marriage. Bush's supreme court picks have justified Evangelical votes to date, and the still-liberal character of the courts insures that Evangelicals and other conservative Christians will be voting Republican for the foreseeable future.

4. This isn't going to work. Once again, liberals betray a fundamental ignorance about who conservatives, and particularly Evangelical conservatives are, much less what motivates them. The Republican party's ties to Evangelicals aren't like the Democrats ties to the black community--brokered by "leaders". Evangelicals are an integral part of the process. They are precinct captains and committee members, not sheep waiting for a signal from the shepherd. The reaction so far has been more a sense of embarrassment for David Kuo, who is clearly being used.

Michael Stickings predictably calls it hypocrisy. It apparently never occurs to him that you can respect Evangelicals and still think Pat Robertson is a nut. Does his failure to make the distinction mean that he dismisses all Evangelicals as nuts?