W library in record book ($500M center would be priciest for a Prez)

New York Daily News ^ | November 27, 2006 | THOMAS M. DeFRANK

[RWR8189]

WASHINGTON - He may be a certified lame duck now, but President Bush and his truest believers are about to launch their final campaign - an eye-popping, half-billion-dollar drive for the Bush presidential library. Eager to begin refurbishing his tattered legacy, the President hopes to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Bush lived in Dallas until he was elected governor of Texas in 1995.

Bush sources with direct knowledge of library plans told the Daily News that SMU and Bush fund-raisers hope to get half of the half billion from what they call "megadonations" of $10 million to $20 million a pop.

Bush loyalists have already identified wealthy heiresses, Arab nations and captains of industry as potential "mega" donors and are pressing for a formal site announcement - now expected early in the new year.

"You can't ask people in Dallas for $20 million until they can be sure the library won't be in Waco," one Bush source noted.

The rest of the cash will come from donors willing to pony up $25,000 to $5 million.

"It's a stretch," said another source briefed on the plans. "It's so much bigger than anything that's been tried before. But the more you have, the more influence [on history] you can exert."

The half-billion target is double what Bush raised for his 2004 reelection and dwarfs the funding of other presidential libraries. But Bush partisans are determined to have a massive pile of endowment cash to spread the gospel of a presidency that for now gets poor marks from many scholars and a majority of Americans.

The legacy-polishing centerpiece is an institute, which several Bush insiders called the Institute for Democracy. Patterned after Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Bush's institute will hire conservative scholars and "give them money to write papers and books favorable to the President's policies," one Bush insider said.

Presidential libraries are run by the National Archives and Records Administration, but building costs must come from private donations. Bells and whistles, like an institute or an academic program like Bush's father's public service school at Texas A&M, are also extras.

The News reported in March 2005 that the library will be at SMU, where First Lady Laura Bush is an alumna and sits on the board of trustees. But a formal announcement has been delayed by a legal dispute over some of the land where the library complex will be built.

It remains to be seen whether Bush's low standing in the polls and his rejection by voters in the midterm elections will make it harder to raise funds. That was true for former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled to fund his library center after being defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

But planners believe hometown and Texas pride will outweigh any drag from Bush's diminished political fortunes. "The money will be there," a senior Bush adviser said. "The President is very popular in Dallas and the library will be great for the city and SMU."

There's another major inducement for potential donors: Their names aren't required to be made public.

[raybbr]

No, it's actually quite comfortable. I'm all the more comfortable and also rather pleased knowing deficits and discretionary spending are not the same.

I had posted that chart to support your posts. I am on your side regarding Bush's unrepentant spending.

[backtothestreets]

"So, you think it's OK that the people elected a republcan congress and a republican senate and expect a republican president to veto them? How about the congress do it's job?"

As a matter of fact, I not only believe it OK, but admirable when a person has the courage, conviction, and strength of character to stand against those nearest to himself when they are doing something wrong. That's what leadership is. It has been quite commonplace in the history of our nation for presidents to veto legislation despite their own party controlling both house of Congress.

[McGavin999]

Ah, so you think the president should disregard the will of the people when it comes to the duty assigned to congress by the constitution?

[McGavin999]

You know, I seem to recall all kinds of people going off the deep end about the deficits caused by Reagan too.

Sure, we could have eliminated most of the deficit by telling New York they have to fix their own hole, and tell the airlines that Americans would rather walk than have to subsidise the airlines. We also could have avoided all that military spending too just by coming up with some kind of theory about fuel lines or something causing those "accidents" at the WTC.

[backtothestreets]

"Better yet--don't build it with anybody's money, and close all the rest of the damned "library pyramids". "Presidential Library" my a**. "

I'm with you! Unfortunately, most people in our nation, including "conservatives", have a difficult time separating themselves from anything begun by FDR.

[backtothestreets]

Sorry! My bad!

[DTogo]

Will W's library be built by ILLEGAL aliens - building presidential libraries no American is willing to build??

[backtothestreets]

"Ah, so you think the president should disregard the will of the people when it comes to the duty assigned to congress by the constitution?"

Dang right I do, and apparently the framers of the Constitution felt the same way or they wouldn't have made accommodations for the president, beginning with George Washington, to veto bills passed by Congress.

You find no provision in U.S. Const., Article I, Section 7, stating presidents should neglect this responsibility when their pals control both houses of Congress.

[McGavin999]

No, I think the people have an opportunity to change congress every two years. The fact that the people didn't do that until 2006 probably told Dubya that they were doing their constituants will. Considering he needed the support of congress in order to fight the WOT, I think he did what he thought was best, just as Reagan did what HE thought was best when he upped the military budget during his tenure.

Are you too young to remember all the screaming and moaning about the deficits during the Reagan administration?

[SmoothTalker]

"Yeah, and.......? What part of CONGRESS HOLDS THE PURSE STRINGS don't you get? "

Doesn't the President have a little thing called a veto?

[McGavin999]

Pay attention, that's what we've been discussing on this thread.

[backtothestreets]

"We also could have avoided all that military spending too just by coming up with some kind of theory about fuel lines or something causing those "accidents" at the WTC."

We could have avoided a great deal of that military spending had our military been allowed to chase down the Al Qaeda and Taliban devils into Pakistan and by just leveling Iraq at the very beginning of that war.

[McGavin999]

Oh yeah, just a nice little walk in the park, those Hindu Kush mountains are nothing, just ask the Russians.

[SoFloFreeper]

But Bush partisans are determined to have a massive pile of endowment cash to spread the gospel of a presidency that for now gets poor marks from many scholars and a majority of Americans.

No bias here.

[backtothestreets]

Military spending during a time of war is good reason to incur deficits. Unfortunately, all the debts incurred during the GW BUSH administration were not defense related. Hundreds of billions were wasted on boondoggles. And it wasn't even our money being spent, but the money of future generations.

Now, you wonder if I am old enough to remember the Reagan deficits. Indeed I do. But I am also old enough to have experienced the lingering effects WWII on our nation, and the difficult choices made by that generation to act most prudent to guard what we have as there was no assurance it could be easily replaced tomorrow.

By his own admission, President GW Bush has stated the WOT may last decades. Because the enemy rising against us is in a region of the world that controls the vast oil and gas resources our nation is dependent upon, and if things turn very ugly, as they did during the Arab induced Oil Embargo during the Yom Kippur War, the wasteful spending of this administration will have us on our knees.

To win the war we must harden ourselves, not just militarily, but financially and with utmost respect for our limited mineral resources.

[McGavin999]

Riiiigt. And you actually think that a soft and pampered people would put up with "utmost respect for our limited mineral resources." LOL, what color is the sky in your world? Half this country isn't even aware there is a war. Most of this country was totally unaware of what Clinton did to our military. This war can't be fought like WWI or WWII, the days of Dresden, Hirosima are GONE. There is no way the US will EVER be able to fight a war like that again because our own people won't allow it.

[antisocial]

Ha!
I bet he'll have that Mexican pamphlet that tells how to illegally enter the US.

[Moonman62]

A lot of Mexicans can be employed with $500 million.

[Moonman62]

Apparently Congress never allocated a buck for even a cheap pen made in China the President could have used to veto the appropriation bills they passed.

No, but they did find the funds for a rubber stamp.

[DTogo]

It's certainly part of W's "legacy."