Replies

The Bush Administration has gotten away with a "third way" approach which in its own way "triangulates," on the Dick Morris model, between the conservative and liberal philosophies of governance.

On the conservative ledger:

On the foreign relations front - which is the essence of the constitutional role of the federal government - Bush has led as a president should and must, whereas Democrats posture rather than leading. On the core mission of the presidency, Bush earns high marks compared to any alternative which has been on offer.
On taxes, Bush has been steadfast in his opposition to confiscatory tax rates.
On Social Security, Bush has put sensible reform on the table, even if he has gotten nowhere with it.

On the unconservative side:

On controlling discretionary spending in order to protect the value of the dollar, Bush has not led.
On controlling immigration in order to protect the national sovereignty, Bush has not led.
And on the make-or-break issue of defending the political honor of his base against the arrogant assault of "objective" journalism and the rest of the left, George W. Bush has not led. The failure of Jack Kemp to do that was the final nail in the coffin of the Dole/Kemp '96 campaign.

Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent. However, given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them, the administration has seized practically every opportunity to do so. The latest comes from the normally classy First Lady, who again promoted Ed Gillespie's barnburner accusation of sexism among the ranks of conservatives: Joining her husband in defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Laura Bush today called her a "role model for young women around the country" and suggested that sexism was a "possible" reason for the heavy criticism of the nomination. . . .

It's enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.

Bush considers it critical that he avoid having a SCOTUS nominee fail of confirmation, and he has good reason to think so. Both Nixon and Reagan had that experience - and nothing good came of it for either president, or for the country. Bush thinks to assure the confirmation of his nominee by naming someone in whom he has every confidence but who has no public bona fides as someone who has a bone-deep philosophical commitment to the Constitution.
But in mounting an affirmative-action offensive in favor of the Miers nomination the WH is demeaning its own political base. Especially when that is viewed in the context of its other triangulations, that is playing with political fire.

On Social Security, Bush has put sensible reform on the table, even if he has gotten nowhere with it.

Ahem. The proposed SS reform was a smoke-screen designed to hide the actual reform Bush is putting in place.

He (his appointed SS commissioner, really) signed a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico that among other things, give Mexican illegal aliens access to our SS system.

With the totalization agreement, they can apply for and receive SS benefits at home, in Mexico even if they were working here illegally at the time.

In addition, whereas a US citizen has to work 40 quarters (10 years) before we become eligible to apply for benefits, under the terms of this agreement a Mexican illegal alien only has to work 6 quarters (1-1/2 years).

It also allows the Mexican illegal alien to apply for and receive benefits at home, in Mexico for the illegal alien's wife and children, even if they have never stepped foot in the US.

This is what George W. Bush calls SS reform and he hasn't wasted any time implementing it.