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 ...
Competition is being suppressed by the NEA! It is rude and shameful to be a winner according to some educators!
Public gloating is rude but winning is wonderful! Spelling bee nixed because it 'leaves child behind'
Red Herring.
Now remind us again how it is that a "true conservative" can both promote AND ignore an Illegal Invasion; As a CiC refuse to enforce the US sovereign border FROM said illegal invasion; and spend OUR money like a socialist?
"If there was no Perot on the ballot most of the people who voted for him would simply have not voted and Clinton would still have won."
We disagree, without the distraction of Perot, the Republicans could have presented a more cohesive message without having to fight on two sides.
In any case, I don't believe that 20% of the voters in this country go to the polls for a single issue, or once there, that they would decline to vote for President at all.
Here is what Don Feder wrote back in 1992, "After winning as a conservative in 1988, Bush extended an olive branch to his enemies and his middle finger to his erstwhile allies. He signed the quota bill, and all the racial con men were for him this year, weren't they? He initialed the Clean Air Act, and all the environmental wackos were in his corner, weren't they? He signed the Hate Crimes Bill and invited homosexual activists to the White House for the signing, and that crowd clambered aboard his reelection bandwagon, didn't they?
And what did he do for his core constituency from 1988? For evangelicals, he appointed John Frohmayer head of the National Endowment for the Arts and stuck with him through Mapplethorpe and "Piss Christ." His first Supreme Court appointment voted to uphold Roe v. Wade and declare a graduation invocation a violation of the First Amendment.
For fiscal conservatives, he raised taxes, rolled over for congressional spending, re-regulated and gave us the greatest bureaucratic expansion of all time."
Regarding conservative votes as an entitlement program got Bush Sr. defeated in 1992.
"Regarding conservative votes as an entitlement program got Bush Sr. defeated in 1992."
Which proves my point... without Perot to run to and "feel good" Perot voters would have had to actually use their brain, and voted against the Clintons.
Using 20/200 hindsight, do you seriously think that Clinton was a better President from a Conservative standpoint then Bush or Dole would have been ?
"Too bad many GOP voters are on the verge of breaking away over the immigration and spending issues."
You're so right. There's something you missed though--many conservative voters are disillisioned by the Free Trade At Any Cost crowd. If Republicans don't reject free trade and return to their roots of economic patriotism, they will create an opening for the 'Rats.
"A positive outcome of Clinton's victory was the GOP taking control of congress in 1994, Bush Sr. even made a similar comment at the time."
... and you take this as some sort of endorsement of Clintons presidency ?
BTW, is the GOP taking control of Congress a good thing from your Conservative point of view ?
That's why I don't take Buchanan/Tancredo for granted.
They do not have the vote drawing power like Perot did. But they are a very serious, very real danger to the future of the Republican party if the Old Media can succeed in portraying their racism, bigotry, meanness, and xenophobia as the position of the Republican party.
Republicans are not racist. Republicans are not anti-Hispanics. But it is going to be difficult to convince Hispanic voters of that when Buchanan/Tancredo are being promoted by the Old Media as representative of Republicans.
Ross Perot got 9 percent of the vote nationwide; Tancredo can't even muster 2 percent here on FR. Pat got .45 percent of the vote.
Try to be real.
"Try to be real."
REAL
Perot at one time had 0% of the vote, he did not even announce he was running until Feb 1992, quit the race in July, started running again in October.
REAL
Perot got over 18% of the votes in 1992, when the Clintons might have been stopped.
It is the devil you don't know that can jump in and bite you.
Yes. And look at the stupid people who could have STOPPED the Clinton's but put their SINGLE AGENDA and their tunnel vision before what was best for the country.
BTW, Perot was NOT a one issue candidate; Tancredo is; and Pat Buchanan is finished, not just as a candidate, but as a person anybody pays any attention to.
I see no such effort on the democrats. They act like its 910 and they have no such effort to honestly analyze what went wrong in 2002 and 2004.
The problem with GWB is that he govrens far more like LBJ than Reagan.
"I think it may have been even better than Reagan's victory in 1980, or at least it had the potential to be."
??? So - Was the GOP taking control of Congress in 1994 a good thing from your Conservative point of view?
Your qualification regarding that it "had potential" seems to say that you think it was NOT a good thing --- please clarify
When Uber Neo-Con David Frum and RNC shrill Limbaugh raise issues with the uncontrolled lebvels of immigration, then one knows there is an issue building. The pro business wing of the GOP better take note.
Even though we've got nine hours left, yours can be safely awarded "The Dumbest Post of the Day."
Many things came together in 94 to help the GOP take over congress. For sure, Clintons poor performance in his first 2 years was a big factor, but others factors were the retirements of many Democrats from nominally Democratic seats and the re alignment of the south.
I stand by what I say, sorry if I tell it like it is. When a politician raises spending, domestic spending at a rate not seen since the mid 60s, when a politician does not do somthing about a threat to society such as illegal immigration, and inm fact wants to change laws to accomodate it, I call it like it is. The election is over thankfully, and I will not bite my tounge any more.
Yes Sinkspur, your understanding of both the political and theological worlds has much to be desired.
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.