 |
Hard to find salvation The Sound of BackpedalingBy Rick Horowitz
It has to be the bells. The bells, or all those coins clanging into all those kettles. (I don't think they do the drums anymore.) You stand next to enough kettles and ring enough bells long enough, your ears take a real beating. How else do you explain the Salvation Army getting it so totally, thoroughly wrong? They thought they had a deal with the White House. They thought they had a "firm commitment." The White House can't imagine where they got that idea. Let's review the bidding, shall we? You've noticed the President of These Here United States traveling the countryside pushing for his "faith-based initiative"? Of course you have. Then you've probably also noticed that the sales campaign hasn't exactly been catching fire. When it comes to moving the nation -- or at least the Congress -- on this one, the prez can use all the help he can get. Enter the Salvation Army, looking for a little help themselves -- and according to an internal Salvation Army document, well on their way to getting it. The document, which found its way to the Washington Post, sets out the terms of the deal: The Salvation Army would lobby hard in support of the initiative, and the White House would issue a regulation exempting the Army (and other government-funded religious charities) from state and local regulations barring them from discriminating against gays in hiring and benefits. Just your average Washington arrangement: You scratch our back, we scratch yours -- and gay folks take it right on the chin. Now, federal law already gives religious organizations plenty of leeway to hire only those people whose beliefs square with theirs. The problem is all these other governments -- pesky little devils! -- whose own anti-discrimination laws increasingly include sexual orientation. The Salvation Army wanted out from under those laws, too. And what they got from the White House, they said, was a "firm commitment" to make it happen. Quick Quiz Question No. 1: Wasn't this the administration that favored local control, that vowed to keep Washington from barging in and interfering with state and local governments? Guess it all depends. Quick Quiz Question No. 2: Was the White House thrilled to see this deal splashed all over the front page of the Post? The White House was not thrilled. In fact, the White House went into full damage-control mode. "Absolutely not," the White House said; the Salvation Army had misunderstood the administration's position. (That's what happens when your eardrums are shot.) The issue had been "brought to our attention," the White House conceded, "but no such commitment has been made." In fact, the White House insisted, senior administration officials hadn't even been involved in the matter. And by the end of the day, the White House had sent up the white flag -- there would be no new regulation. End of story? Not quite. Is Karl Rove "senior" enough for you? The Washington Post (speaking of pesky!) now reports that, contrary to White House assertions, the president's "senior adviser" was the Salvation Army's "first White House contact" in this whole scheme and was, according to one anonymous White House official, "intimately involved in courting" the Army. "Literally nothing occurs around here without his blessing," this official told the Post. "He's the air traffic controller." The non-anonymous part of the White House, naturally, puts a different spin on it. Rove, the White House says, merely had a phone conversation with a Salvation Army lobbyist, an old friend. He made a couple of referrals. The lobbyist "stopped by and said 'Hi'" after a meeting. Rove, the White House says, "doesn't think he was told" the specifics. Or maybe they were drowned out by the bells. Posted 7/12/01. Rick
rings your bell twice every week -- spread the word!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
