Posted on 01/23/2005 9:12:42 PM PST by RWR8189
One of the (many) reasons George W. Bush infuriates Democrats: He's a great party leader.
Last week's inaugural events at the Capitol and in the capital were designed to portray the president as a national leader. Presidents since Thomas Jefferson have used their inaugural moment to place the ceremony above party, and to place themselves above party. The president accomplished that. But he did one thing more. Amid the pomp that accompanied Inauguration Day, he also set out to reinforce his role as a party leader.
Not all presidents succeed at that. Richard Nixon, uncomfortable with the very party leaders who three times nominated him for president, was peculiarly ineffective as a party leader, and that's not even counting his effect on party fortunes after his resignation in disgrace in 1974. (The Republicans lost 48 seats in the House, and the Democrats of the Class of 1974 were a force on Capitol Hill for a generation.) Jimmy Carter was no party leader, either; to a remarkable degree, Carter ran the country and House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. ran the party in those years. It was not a model to be admired, or imitated.
But Bush sees himself not only as a war president but also as a party leader. His guru, Karl Rove, has no small ambition; he wants to establish the Republicans as the natural party of government. The president knows firsthand the value of governing with a Congress controlled by his own party -- an advantage Carter possessed but never seemed to exploit, and one that Bill Clinton so
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
PITTSBURGH RULES!!!
The most underestimated President of the century. He's powered Republicans to bigger majorities in two elections in a row. That's a party leader. Even Ronaldus Magnus couldn't do it. We'll see if Bush makes it 3-0 in '06.
Go back to DU, troll!
DU down tonight?
I'd say the worst president has to be James Buchanan.
I see the Admin Mod already ZOTTED the troll!
What the hell is this BS?
More than I can say of media darlings Rudy Giussolini and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Neither gave/give a damn about party building in their own states/cities.
Yeah, he didn't last long. Didn't even get a chance to play with him. Then again, most trolls just make their post and run off.
They have to remind us how much Bush still gnaws at their thoughts. **How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Democrats**
Sad specimen. Boss offered me three cents, “take it or leave it.”
Wow, that was fast! It obviously expressed it's feeble opinion in the wrong place.
Good article, and here's to more Republican gains in the House and Senate in '06!! YEEEEAAAAUUUUGGGGHHHH!
Here's hoping Iraq shapes up by then so we can get those gains.
I am so worried that things will not get much better after elections, or worse, the terrorists will reject the new govt.
Iraq will face sustained violence for months and possibly years. I am also confident the elections will mark a turning point. The terrorist insurgents have no platform, no program, no vision for the country. We on the other hand only want the Iraqi people to make their choice. And when their freely elected leaders decide our time is up, we will depart from their land.
I do think once we take the road, support for the insurgents will collapse (right now there is enough sympathy for them because we are seen as invaders by many despite our reason for going that it keeps the insurgency propped up for the time being).
And, once we go, without that support, any attacks will be dealt with harshly, even by the ordinary citizens.
I can understand how the Iraqi's are not showing overwhelming anger at the insurgents, but just opposition in words.
After all, would YOU want to have foreigners keeping you safe in your own country? I would consider an army here an invader, even if they came to free us from some oppression or something here.
It is only natural when you are a patriot that you will on the one hand support people for freeing you, but due to your pride in country still not really fight against the people opposing those who freed you. It is ironic.
It is also why I think we need to get the heck out of Iraq as soon as we can after elections are over. Maybe 6-10 months.
Been saying this for awhile.
Bush & Rove are determined to destroy the Democratic Party as we know it. I, for one, do not believe it is coincidental that Texas democrats hate G.W. more than even D.C. Dems. They first hand were the first benefactors of the B/R strategy.
The model for this last election was not based on an electoral landslide. Rather, on the model that produced a 40 year Republican majority. The elections in 2004 were a landslide but not in the limited sense people have come to think of landslides. Bush invested some of his capitol in electing other Reps. A number of these people would not have squaeked out a win had Bush not carried them on his coattails.
People continually underestimate Bush. They fail to understand this man is an adept political engineer.
But .. I remember the media saying exactly the same things about Afghanistan .. too violent .. people don't know anything about democracy .. people don't really want democracy .. too violent {oh yeah, I already said that}
However .. the people came out to vote in droves. And .. what happened to the violence .. it's so small an issue the media barely covers it anymore.
I'm actually crazy enough to believe it can happen in Iraq. I guess I want it to happen so badly .. just to show all those idiots how wrong they are.
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.