Posted on 12/07/2006 5:28:53 AM PST by Small-L
President Bush has a new mandate: It’s back to the basics.
Over the next two years Bush will focus on winning back Republicans and Congress by returning to basic Republican principles, Karl Rove is telling White House allies.
Bush’s political strategist is saying that as part of that process, the party must reevaluate itself.
Down to Business
“We need better candidates, stronger organization, and a sharper, clearer message,” Rove said in a post-election debriefing. “We need to have the courage to say to members who have misbehaved or have overstayed their welcome that it is time to consider retirement.”
At the same time, Rove has stated flatly that Bush does not want to alienate the GOP. One of Bush’s goals has always been to build the party, and he wants to recapture the majority in Congress as part of his legacy, Rove is saying. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and first lady Laura Bush are committed to helping raise money toward that end.
Rove provided plenty of details on Bush’s agenda: The economy and Iraq will dominate the agenda until the end of Bush’s presidency. Given the new circumstances in Congress, achieving results in those and other areas requires good relations with Congress. Bush is committed to reaching out to members of both sides of the aisle. He wants to repair relations and build alliances.
In adhering to basic Republican principles, Bush will not yield on spending issues. More than ever, the White House must reel in Republicans and restrain Democrats when it comes to spending. That means forming majorities that will sustain a veto if required.
As outlined in a Nov. 8 NewsMax story, “Bush Policies Will Not Change,” Bush will not yield on any effort to emasculate tools like the Patriot Act or National Security Agency (NSA) intercepts needed by the FBI and CIA to protect the country from terrorist attacks. While the White House knows Democrats will be launching investigations, a mechanism has been set up to deal with them without allowing staff to become consumed by these events.
One way or another, the situation in Iraq has to improve in the next six to 12 months. In that regard, Bush hopes Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki will be able to produce the results he has promised. Malaki has said he believes Iraqi forces will be able to take full control of security by June of next year.
Steadfast and True
Rove is saying the White House must avoid “triangulation,” a term used by political guru Dick Morris to describe the strategy Morris advocated when he was an aide to President Clinton. As generally understood, Morris’ approach, which Clinton adopted in getting re-elected in 1996, meant appearing to favor policies that appeal to the right and the left to win as many votes as possible. Instead, Rove is saying the party must operate on principle and remain true to its beliefs.
While Bush will tilt more to the right, he will not abandon key programs that illustrate his compassionate conservative approach, a way of helping people by developing government programs and policies that allow them help themselves. Under this approach, Bush does not see government as an enemy, as traditional conservatives do.
He also does not believe the solution to problems is to throw money at programs that do not achieve results. Instead, Bush’s philosophy has favored adjusting existing programs, discarding cumbersome procedures, energizing bureaucrats, or supporting the efforts of faith-based and other volunteer groups to achieve results while saving taxpayers money. Reducing taxes, in turn, is yet another way to help people help themselves.
The No Child Left Behind Act, which seeks to reintroduce phonics, or sounding out letters to reading instruction, is the best example of Bush’s approach. As described in an Oct. 3 NewsMax story, “Margaret Spellings: Media Star,” Bush’s strategy is to get kids to read so they will not wind up in prison, on drugs, or on welfare.
While federal education spending has more than doubled under Bush, according to Bush’s vision, the investment will be worth it because enabling kids to read will strengthen the country and the economy in the long run, not to mention garnering votes.
Programs like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug benefit use “conservative means to achieve liberal ends.” Rove told me for my book “A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush.”
Conservative Means for Health Care
In the case of the Medicare drug benefit, “The liberal end is quality health care for seniors,” Rove said. “The conservative means we’re going to use is the market, choice, innovation, and empowerment of the individual and incentives for savings and for taking personal responsibility to try to achieve it.”
Now Rove is saying the emphasis will be on holding the line on spending. In talking to Republican strategists, Rove has been saying that Bush will be advancing an aggressive policy agenda that will start to become public in the weeks ahead and will be highlighted in his State of the Union address.
Efforts to restrict illegal immigration and re-authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act will be the top priorities.
Social Security Reform
Bush will also be pushing Social Security reform but will not yield when it comes to raising taxes to fund Social Security. He also will not yield on his proposal to offer personal accounts, which was always envisioned as voluntary.
In developing these proposals, Bush will work with the Republican leadership. He recognizes that the White House will not be successful with a “go it alone” strategy, Rove is saying.
Almost from the beginning of the administration, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been critical of Bush for not seeming to recognize that fact. Longtime Washington Republicans complained the White House made no effort to reach out to them.
White House aides would say Bush operates like the Harvard Business School graduate he is and is simply focused on achieving results. Rove would point out that he maintains an intricate system for obtaining feedback from political leaders throughout the country, from governors to members of local school boards.
But Margaret Spellings, when she was White House domestic policy advisor, told me, “My perception is a lot of those people want to say, ‘I was at the White House this morning.’ They get to trade on that and have cachet. We’re not here to puff up the reputations of people who want to trade on their access.”
Spellings has gone on to take an inclusive approach as Education secretary, and Rove is now asking insiders to let him know of members of Congress who need extra love and attention from the White House. In the same vein, since August, the White House has opened up more to the media.
As Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor in charge of communications, told me long before the more open policy took effect, Bush wants results. Too much contact with the media can lead to leaks — as occurred during his father’s presidency — and can undercut the president’s efforts by forcing his hand and allowing aides to push their own agendas in the press.
Laying the Groundwork for Greater Appeal
As Bush’s poll numbers began to drop, he and his advisors began to recognize that, while his press policy was based on high-minded principles, it simply will not wash in this media-driven age. Without a higher approval level, Bush was in danger of losing his effectiveness.
Reporters are human, and even if they are not pushing a liberal agenda, they will take it out on Bush if the White House does not return their calls and does not feed them tidbits for their stories. Sen. John McCain, in contrast, has enjoyed good press because he gives the press access.
As with the new policy agenda recently outlined to insiders by Karl Rove, Bush has reversed course on his press policy, the subject of an Aug. 17 NewsMax story, “New White House PR Pro: Who is Kevin Sullivan?”
More lame Bush-bashing posts.
The time to bash President Bush is over. Get off your armchair and do something positive.
add to the list... what happened to
TORT REFORM,
ENERGY BILL
DRILLING IN ANWAR
No. "Good solid conservatives" did not stay home. Smug, self righteous idiots did.
Why don't you ask those dimwits that were in Congress what happened to those bills?
To wit: “We need better candidates, stronger organization, and a sharper, clearer message,” Rove said in a post-election debriefing. “We need to have the courage to say to members who have misbehaved or have overstayed their welcome that it is time to consider retirement.”
"It's not our [Bush's and Rove's] fault,
Rove! You're the problem!!! along with your uncontrolled deficit spending, big government "solutions", earmarks (alias Corruption), NCLB, snuggling up to Mexico and the Hispanics, ...
"Good solid conservatives stayed home".
This is like saying "Good solid soldiers deserted to Canada"!
You are either one clueless fool or a DU troll....
That is very true, and I said the exact same thing the other day to a friend. I teach my kids to sound the word out, like I was taught. Not only do they remember the word they sound, it gives them a skill to figure out other words they don't know or haven't yet remembered. You've nailed the core problem.
Nothing about our problem with illegals.
"He sees a problem and immediately posits a big government program as the only solution. A true conservative ( one without "compassion," I guess) would view government as the last possible solution, if at all."
Very well said.
Remember the highly proven method of victory in war, discovered several thousand years ago and even more true in this age;
DIVIDE AND CONQUER!
The Democrats have executed this law flawlessly. And the ignorant/clueless Neanderthal factions in the conservative ranks, still cannot fugure it out nor they probably never will.
“We need to have the courage to say to members who have misbehaved or have overstayed their welcome that it is time to consider retirement.”
It's the American voters who own that voice, Karl. Not you, not Republicans, not Democrats, not Conservatives, and not Liberals.
"The standards set in the No Child Left Behind Act are federal standards which districts must meet in order to get federal money."
It is all about the money. I would so love to see a school district tell the feds to keep their money, similar to what Hillsdale College has done. I doubt it will ever happen, but I continue to hope.
The question you have to ask yourself is would Buh and Rove be making these kind of statements the Repubs had won the election? Methinks not. The fact that they got trounced is reason one for the turnaround. So something good DID come out of the election...
Their focus is on not losing instead of winning, and that's a no win.
The first step in curing the disease is to know what is causing it. If Bush, Rove, the RNC, and the PTB in Congress aren't willing to look into themselves for the cause of the problem, the GOP is doomed to another 40 years wandering in the wilderness.
The Smug, self righteous idiots didn't stay home. The party didn't give the voters a reason to come out to vote. Many saw little difference between Republican big spenders and Democratic big spenders; Republicans who want amnesty for illegal immigrants and Democrats who want to allow illegal immigrants to vote; Republicans who take campaign contributions from those to who they give earmarks and Democrats who are corrupt; Republicans who want Medicare Drug Coverage and Democrats who want universal health care; ...
Don't blame the voters for the choices they made, or the non-voters for not coming to the polls, blame the politicians who didn't provide a reason for them to vote for the GOP.
Sorry, but having an "exit strategy" is not the first rule of war. Having a definition of victory, that is, knowing what you're entering the war for, is the first rule of war. If you don't have a clear idea of why you're fighting, then there's no way to develop a strategy for achieving victory.
The latest edition of Air Force Doctrine Document 2 notes that the "ultimate aim in war" is not to destroy the enemy but to bend him to your will. Before you can do that, you need to have a will to bend him to. Without a goal of what you want the enemy to do (or quit doing), you're just flailing.
Thanks for the compliment. It should be remembered that W. was a free-spending big-government governor of Texas as well. Becoming president in 2001, he believed that he could implement his expensive programs without increasing the national debt because the economy was healthy and tax revenues were still pouring in. Well, you know what they say about the best laid plans. The Internet bubble was bursting, and then 9-11 really put a serious hit on the economy. Add in unvetoed pork barrel spending, the two wars and the billions spent on Homeland Security and you get a monster federal bloatocracy and $400 billion annual budget deficits. We're slowing digging our way out, but it's much worse than it could have been.
I somehow missed what Sun Tzu wrote about having an exit strategy when going to war. I also don't recall George Washington, Lincoln, Patton, et. al. saying much about the matter either.
Well, you're probably right that it isn't the "first" rule of war. And I would agree you must have a clear "definition of victory". However I would say that a clear definition of victory is different from an "idea" of why you're fighting. "Removing Sadam from Kuwait" is a clear definition of victory. "Fighting terrorists" or "Stabblizing Iraq" is an idea. How do you know when you achieve your goal?
As much as I hate to admit it, the Democrats are right when they compare this to Vietnam. The mottos back then were to "Fight communists" and "Stabblize Southeast Asia". (Anyone remember the Domino Effect?) We are fighting for an idea, but without a clear definition of victory. If the Republicans don't see this then they will be a minority power for another forty years.
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.