Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy

Washington Post ^ | 1/30/5 | Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris

[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.

[fallujah-nuker]

"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."

Allow me to quote LowCountryJoe "...many Americans cannot stomach market outcomes and, for that matter, have lost their competitive drive." Sounds like you "cannot stomach market outcome" as it applied to the 1992 marketplace of ideas.

"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."

All the Bush has to do to defuse this single issue is to follow the will of the electorate and ENFORCE THE LAW, which he swore to do with his hand on a bible. BTW Tancredo supported Dubya for president in the last issue, and to my knowledge did not run on a third party ticket and has not expressed any interest in running for the office. When the GOP sells out it's base it has as much entitlement to conservative votes as an illegal alien has to a drivers license.

[RS]

Just so you know, I don't think they have a chance either, but I don't want one dime of Republican election funds or one minute of time wasted responding to what the media would surely toss up at every opportunity.

They and the Dems would like nothing better then to have a splinter group that they can give free publicity to, and Perot still has millions he could toss behind anyone he feels like.

[RFT1]

I think with the likes of Limbaugh starting to talk about the immigration issue, the corner is starting to be turned, though it may be a couple of years before this gets more momentum. Bush knows how to tal;k like Reagan, but on domestic issues he sure govrens like LBJ.

[sinkspur]

One of the most historic days in the Middle East, and you've got your green eye-shades on, worried about "spending."

What a narrow view of life you have, RFTI, both politically AND theologically.

And, you are in the minority here, thankfully.

[Howlin]

I love the way you all suppose to speak for the ELECTORATE.

Hardly.

And you are most assuredly NOT "the base."

[Howlin]

By the time we get to the next elections, the MSM will have been completely marginalized.

[Howlin]

One of the most historic days in the Middle East, and you've got your green eye-shades on, worried about "spending."

It's telling, isn't it? Just goes to show that they know how irelevant they really are and might as well be standing in the corner yelling "Me! Me! Look at me!"

[fallujah-nuker]

"Your qualification regarding that it "had potential" seems to say that you think it was NOT a good thing --- please clarify"

In a word, Newt Gingrich, I was enthusiastic about him at the time. He taught a college course and our local conservative talk radio broadcast his lectures on Sunday nights, listened to one and it opened my eyes. He was a big devotee of a couple named Toffler? who wrote a book titled (IIRC) "The Third Wave." He was rather open about working for the death of the nation state in the lecture, a lot of his work in congress was to that end, NAFTA, WTO and the Mexico bailout.

Taking congress was a very good thing, but much of the fruits of victory were squandered away.

[RFT1]

This thread is not about the Middle East, is it? It is about a possible GOP legacy, and I see domestic issues as having the potential to fracture the GOP base.

As for my everyday life, I do not deal with terrorists, I do not deal with Islam, what I do deal with is the impact of illegal immigratnts on local wages, and on the crime rate, not to mention local govrenmnet expenses. What I do have to deal with is medicare expenses being taken out of my paycheck to pay for the programs enacted in the last few years.

[RFT1]

This thread is not about the Middle East, is it? It is about a possible GOP legacy, and I see domestic issues as having the potential to fracture the GOP base.

As for my everyday life, I do not deal with terrorists, I do not deal with Islam, what I do deal with is the impact of illegal immigratnts on local wages, and on the crime rate, not to mention local govrenmnet expenses. What I do have to deal with is medicare expenses being taken out of my paycheck to pay for the programs enacted in the last few years.

[RFT1]

Again I fail to see what this thread has to do with the Middle East...................

[RFT1]

Gingrich was/is quite intresting. While he gives the conservative line, his politics are difficult to classify, and he would have fit in with the JFK view or the world circa 1960(of course on many issues JFK would have been to the right today). That said, he was insturmental in giving the congressional Republicans, long the domain of go along get along types such as Rep. Michael R-IL a backbone starting in 91 or so, and this helped the GOP along with other factors retake the house in 94.

Also with Gingrich, another thing comes to mind, often those who lead the revelution make poor leaders after the revelution takes place. Still, in terms of personality, Gingrich was one of the most intresting politicians.

[RS]

So, using the 20/200 hindsight, the unintended consequence of pushing Newt into the spotlight where he got taken down, and the squandering of it's potential making the GOP look impotent seems to make me think that you feel that the GOP winning it was a bad thing.

[longtermmemmory]

Clinton sought to create a legacy by spin. (scandal were power grab, missiles launche were not a distraction, did not sell secrets to china, clintoncare was not socialism)

GWBush IS creating a legacy by deed.

GWBush liberated TWO nations and help two nations find democratic elections. Clinton facilitated the slaughter of christians in Bosnia and the area.

GWBush put the UN and in particular France in their place as mere monkeys on the world political stage. Clinton facilitated the largest corruption scandal in Global history with the oil for food program.

GWBush is repeatedly compared to the leadership of Great Presidents. Clinton is compared to the greatest failures of presidents.

THE NEUTERING OF THE DEMOCRAT ("gay")PARTY WOULD BE A VERY FINE LEGACY. Espicially if a new CONSERVATIVE party rises to take its place. Thus debates would be conservative position 1 vs conservative position 2.

[longtermmemmory]

Do you mean like picking up garbage furniture on bulk pick up day?

[fallujah-nuker]

"I love the way you all suppose to speak for the ELECTORATE."

Recall the final 2004 debate;

"SCHIEFFER: Let's go to a new question, Mr. President.

I got more e-mail this week on this question than any other question. And it is about immigration.

I'm told that at least 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. Some people believe this is a security issue, as you know. Some believe it's an economic issue. Some see it as a human-rights issue.

How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?"

"And you are most assuredly NOT "the base.""

Let me see, I'm a heterosexual white male Christian with a wife (Lao, came here legally, waited 6 years to do so, her father fought on our side) and 2 children, gun owner who owns a house and holds down a job, born a citizen and served in the USAF. First vote was for Ford in 1976 (by your logic I was a traitor for supporting Reagan, who would also be a traitor by your logic for challenging Ford). First memory of politics was punching the kid across the street who pulled down our Goldwater sign in 1964.

Go ahead and flip guys like me the bird, pander to the illegal immigrant base of the Republican Party that got Dubya elected.

[sinkspur]

It is about a possible GOP legacy, and I see domestic issues as having the potential to fracture the GOP base.

And, in your mind, Bush's legacy will be "spending"? LOL!! Reagan's deficits as a percentage of GDP were much higher than Bush's, and the Cold War was won as a result of it.

As I said, your view is too narrow, RFTI. Get your nose out of the checkbook and be happy that freedom rings in Iraq!

[bert]

Is forging a legacy a Clinton tactic? sort of like forging National Guard Memos?

I thought only Rats and their propaganda outlets were forgers.

[fallujah-nuker]

"So, using the 20/200 hindsight, the unintended consequence of pushing Newt into the spotlight where he got taken down, and the squandering of it's potential making the GOP look impotent seems to make me think that you feel that the GOP winning it was a bad thing."

You seem to ignore that he was speaker for nearly 4 years, he resigned following the 1998 election. And I said it was a good thing, but it could have been much better.

[RFT1]

Reagan had to deal with Tip O Neil as speaker of the house, and even when the senate had a GOP majority(81-87), there were 10 liberal Jeffords style Republicans Reagan had to deal with then. Reagan would have been far tougher on domestic spending if he had an agreeable congress.

As for Iraq, again, this thread does not deal with it, and in a couple fo weeks, most in the US will not care(most do not care anyways), yet dealing with illegals and taxes will still be with us.