Posted on 01/29/2005 10:09:32 PM PST by SmithL
When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the Democratic Party.
But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists from both parties say.
Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to the Democratic Party.
GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their interests allied with the Republicans.
Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public employee unions -- an important Democratic financial artery.
If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic] interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior adviser Karl Rove.
Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
When you elicit a classic, nonsense sinkspur reply like that you know you've hit the nail square on the head! ;o)
An incredible statement if you think about it. Are you familiar with the concept of selling out?
What do you call this "brave new" philosophy, "Followership", Pyrrhic politics?
Don't bother to answer. I know very well what your thinking is ... in the words of that deep thinking philosopher, Al Davis, "Just win, baby!"
Reagan used our capacity to spend to win the Cold War. I'm glad that he did it so effectively and in a virtually bloodless fashion. In my mind domestic liberalism is as insidious as global communism (the former is a subset of the latter). I'm willing to use the power of the American purse to extirpate the enemy within. Once that's done we can easily put the country back on track.
So lets re-cap --- you're glad that Perot kept Bush from beating Clinton, because Bush's loss led to the House becoming Republican, which lead to welfare reform and a ( so-called) balanced budget for two years....
...which are basically the only things that Clinton can point to as part of his great legacy !
Did you read the Henry Lamb article that said Condaleesa Rice is in favor of the LOST treaty with the U.N. Bush is
Not Conservative about retaining National Soverignity either.
" You've been spending too much time on FR."
On the contrary, I can't stomach the mindless GOP backers here any longer.
There is too little independent though among FReepers, and too much bandwagon jumping by the self-righteous majority.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to bash heads with people who refuse to consider alternative points of view with an open mind.
Most here want nothing more than "Bush/GOP = good, Kerry/RATS = bad". Okay, no problem.
I don't think George Bush has some big scheme to eliminate the Democrat party, nor do I think that we would be better off with a one party system. Do you?
By the way, you should check out the "Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus" and see just how many House members are on board with Tancredo.
http://www.house.gov/tancredo/Immigration/
(It's a bit more than 1%)
PS. According to the posting guidelines, an Opus has to be posted as its own separate thread and designated as a vanity. Unless you do some more work on yours I don't think it's going to get very high ratings.
I didn't mean to say I was "quitting" but just that I haven't been spending much time here lately.
Out of curiosity, are you listening to Rush?
He just said exactly what I said in post #2. I suspect many on this thread who disagreed with me then are now agreeing with me, JUST BECAUSE RUSH SAID IT.
BTW- Excuse my ignorance, but what's an "opus"? I didn't mean to break the rule...
Oh yea, did you look at that link to Tancredo's Caucus?
I'd check out these articles also:
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=9276
Although, having gone around the block with you before, I doubt you'll give serious thought to the opinions/facts discussed therein...
marked #111 for later read
"Unless we get over 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, President Hillary will take all your guns away."
I thought only Democrats used the tactic of "fear mongering"...
Should I tone my tagline down a little by substituting another name for Hillary's? How about "Dean", or "Kerry" or "Boxer"?
The really scary fact is that if Richardson is their nominee he will probably get 95% of the Hispanic vote and Republicans will never again sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Please don't tell any Democrats that secret.
... and a really good opus
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113862/
Aha! It's Limbaugh's drug-withdrawals, legal expenses, and ratings drop (?)--not GWB's idiocy, eh?
Right.
I agree with that. President Bush agrees with that. How about you?
Yes, but that's beside the main point that I made in post 2.
Rush acknowledged the very REAL possibility that a 2008 could be like 92 in that a farther right candidate could split the Bush voters enough to hand the White House to a RAT.
Bottom line, no solution is going to satisfy ME unless step ONE is shutting off the flow of illegals.
I don't care if the ones already here stay or go nearly as much as I care if the ones coming next week or next month make it.
Also, in the "war on terror" world in which we supposedly live, we should be shutting off immigration all together.
BTW-Bayou, did you read those articles?
Can't be done as long as the demand still exist in the U.S and poverty still exists in Mexico.
Why not take a test step and get your town council to let the CBP train a few of your police to bust employers of illegals?
If it drives all the illegals out of town maybe other towns would try it.
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.