Posted on 11/16/2006 5:03:44 AM PST by Zakeet
The election results pose two enormous strategic choices for America. First, the obvious outcome of a Democratic-controlled Congress and a Republican White House is the need for bipartisan cooperation in order to get anything done. The key question is: Which kind of bipartisanship will emerge? Will there be a Ronald Reagan approach to bipartisanship which appeals to the conservative majority of the House? Or will there be an establishment bipartisanship which cuts deals between liberals and the White House? Second: Will the departure of Donald Rumsfeld and his replacement by Robert Gates lead to a tactical effort to minimize the difficulties of Iraq, or to a fundamental rethinking of the larger threats to American safety?
These two choices are strikingly interrelated. An establishment bipartisanship between the White House and liberal congressional leaders will almost certainly make it necessary to focus narrowly on how to minimize difficulties in Iraq and postpone consideration of the larger threats to America for the remainder of this and into the next presidency. By contrast, a conservative bipartisanship that knits together the House Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats into a floor majority, working with a White House that emphasizes popular issues at the grassroots, would make it much easier to focus on the larger threats to American safety. (Such a bipartisanship could stress making the cap gains tax cut permanent; controlling set-asides and discretionary spending; oversight on failing bureaucracies and waste; English as the language of government; and biofuels as part of an energy policy.)
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
bump for later
Is is my opinion that one of Bush's real strong points is legislative. He displays more skill in this area than anyone since LBJ. If he can, he will want to return to the climate that passed No Child and tax cuts before Dems decided to be obstinate obstructionists. However, Pelosi and Reid probably think that their just say no strategy brought them victory.
I vote for the Ronald Reagan approach.
No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug bill were not the results of conservatives from both parties legislating together.
Those were the result of the establishment wheeling and dealing that Newt is warning against.
Those deals and more like them are the reason the base was lost and the election was lost.
"I vote for the Ronald Reagan approach."
Makes a heck of a lot more sense for a conservative, doesn't it? If overtures to Pelosi and the nutroots left are made, we'll know that amnesty trumps all for the Nancyboys, because there is no other reason.
Ronald Reagan did not deal only with Congressional leaders when there was some program or initiative he wanted passed. His strategy was to appeal directly to the voters and the grass-roots level, who in turn put the pressure on their local Congressmen or Senators for what they saw as a greater vision for America.
Ronald Reagan did not get everything he asked for, but he did sufficiently shame Congress into doing the right thing on a number of occasions.
Just sitting here waiting for the "bash Newt" crowd to weigh in as usual ignoring what he has to say.
That by Newt illustrates why the Republican Party must give Newt some high priest position.
Whether it is public as a candidate or behind the scenes like Rove is uncertain.
But the leadership are fools if they do not use him to the max.
And the party will suffer for it.
/tongue now removed from check
I vote for Newt
Newt BUMP
The idea that Blue Dogs would align with the GOP is dreaming.
First off, the GOP is split and it doesn't appear that reconciliation is on the menu.
Second, an alliance between the Blue Dogs and the Rinos against extremists in both parties is more likely.
"Those deals and more like them are the reason the base was lost and the election was lost."
I don't think we lost the base because of NCLB and a prescription drug plan. I think we lost the base because of Amnesty and Harriet Miers.
The base voted. They just didn't vote for a candidate. They voted for issues that won the day for Conservatives. If the base decided to pull the lever for a Republican instead of just voting on issues, we wouldn't be reading about Speaker Elect Pelosi.
The MSM fails to mention this, as usual.
President Bush is a very smart man. Doesn't always get what he wants, i.e social security reform, but he get most of what he wants out of congress. And I'm afraid this year it will be amnensty to the illegals.
The thing I worry about is impatience. George Bush ran on certain proposals, so those who didn't like them have no room for surprise. However, those who expect to gin up an immigration issue that had never been an election issue are flirting with populism and demogogery. Nothing could be more dangerous.
I did not want to make a laundry list of 500 items.
The immigration mess and the Harriet Miers thing are all part of the "lets make a deal" mentality that will be worse with the influence of Baker, Gates and Hamilton.
While the Blue Dogs might not switch parties, they will align with conservatives on legislative issues. They have in the past, and there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.