Rove Vows to GOP Leaders: 'No Triangulation'-Bush Not Moving to Politcial Center

Roll Call and ABC News ^ | February 3, 2003 | Mark Halperin, Liz Wilner & Marc Ambinder w/Crabtree

[ewing]

Senior White House Advisor Karl Rove has sworn off the concept of 'Triangulating' his fellow Republicans, the approach to Congress once synonymous with the Clinton Adminstration. [and their top advisor Dick Morris]

At a closed door House Republican leadership retreat last Wednesday, Rove repeatedly stressed that the concept of political 'triangulation' does not work and said that President George W. Bush would not alienate House Republicans by moving to the center, leaving them isolated in efforts to rally the party's political base.

Republican GOP Leadership aides said that the comments worked to reassure lawmakers after the President appeared to burnish his 'compassionate conservative' credentials in last weeks State of the Union address by calling on Congress to dedicate more money to combat AIDS in Africa and develop hydrogen powered cars.

[Con X-Poser]

Sorry to post that twice by mistake, I had the 'safety' off on my trigger finger.

<< "Mark my words, I am going to have more problems with the members of my own party than I will with the Democrats."

G.W. Bush 12-12-00 Financial Times >>

Why is that, George? Are you going to align closer to the Democrats?

[jmc813]

Bret Schundler, Matt Salmon, and Simon. There were others.

They lost because they were not good candidates.

You are way off the mark with you "Schundler was not a good candidate" comment. Schundler was the best thing to come out of New Jersey politics in decades, and the extent that the NJGOP (including our RINO governor at the time) absolutely screwed him was absolutely sickening.

I've already put my reputation on the line by guaranteeing Schundler will be back in '05 and will easily defat McSkeevy.

[Carry_Okie]

Get your facts straight. Rove put Parsky there and brought quite a fight with the conservatives to do it. As for whether he's Parsky's a devil, maybe you should read the whole story.

[Recovering_Democrat]

What value is there in taking away campaign issues by embracing them as your own? I have never understood that. In the end, did you win or did they? People come and go; it's the ideals they leave behind we need to concern ourselves with.

I think your questions are valid, RP. There is truly a danger in endorsing a liberal agenda by default. Most of what the President has done, however, is a far cry short of what the liberals REALLY wanted. Consider the kind of CFR or Education Bill that would've come from a Democrat Party House, Senate, and President. Not that what we have is perfect. But 'tis much better than the alternative.

Bush's ability to create a solution, albeit a flawed one, puts him and conservatives in a position with the electorate that shows they are interested in solutions, and not politicking.

As a pro-active example, the Social Security partial privatization issue shows where Bush is in the same place as the up and coming generation of voters is--and whatever policy is finally endorsed by this President, you can be sure it'll reflect a more conservative point of view than the current program.

The tax cuts of 2001 moved the country to a conservativee position...they didn't find a "happy medium" between liberal and conservative.

Just mho.

[RAT Patrol]

Good points.

[dufekin]

George W Bush is quite possibly the BEST (sorry, Ms. Press Corps, not worst) president in most of our lifetimes (and NO, LBJ was the worst president since the Civil War!). Sure, he has his shortcomings, but he has become very learned in foreign affairs and takes national security as a deadly serious priority. Neither of these two paramount qualities was a hallmark of his predecessor, or, for that matter, exists in most any quarters of the Democratic Party.

The Founding Fathers used the veto very infrequently in their Presidencies, and Bush hasn't vetoed a Act of Congress yet. He appears content to allow the Congress to legislate as it wishes with regard to domestic affairs, so long as it passes a few White House priorities. His reluctance to veto legislation probably explains his signatures on the grant to the airlines, the campaign-finance reform law (which, lest we forget, impedes the fundraising activites of DEMOCRATS more than those of Republicans), and the abominable farm bill (which he should have VETOED more than anything else as fiscally reckless).

After the terrorist tragedy in New York, Arlington, and Somerset County, defense and security have trumped all other concerns. When these dastardly terrorists struck our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the embattled President Clinton aimed a multi-million-dollar cruise missile at "a $10 empty tent to strike a camel in the butt" and errantly (?) bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant. Because he did nothing more to retalliate after his domestic adversaries did not relent in their drive to impeach him (and make a President Al Gore [barf!!]), he proved that he was never serious by failing to mobilize the nation and defeat the al-Qaida terrorist organization. I believe that the American people now KNOW deeply how the Clintons and Democrats betrayed them. Although Bush's worrisome initiatives to limit civil liberties in the Patriot act have caused much consternation in some circles (and not enough elsewhere), at least he's TRYING--and trying hard every day of his Presidency--to fight terrorism. And it's obvious--he's winning.

But he needs to do more to commandeer the Congress to quit the balloning pork budget. In the absence of a line-item veto, I'd propose a new appropriations bill, say "Corporate Welfare and Political Pork." The President would veto any other appropriations bill which contains corporate welfare and political pork provisions. The welfare/pork bill would always get the veto unless it gets down to $0. Perhaps now's the time to force a showdown on this issue...or, better yet, wait until the Democratic primary. That'll leave...The Rev. Al Sharpton.

No Republican is seeking the nomination for the Presidency in 2004, although I expect Bush to run again and win. At the end of his presidency, look out for Pres. Rice. (What will Democrats say then?)

[ApesForEvolution]

"Compassionate Conservatism" is a crock. Conservatism is in and of itself compassionate.

[Ohioan]

You have Rove wrong. He's the one who pushed the 2002 election rhetoric to the Right. He represents the voice telling the administration that conservative issues are winners for the GOP.

Are you suggesting that he, Rove, is the one opposed to reckless medical adventures overseas, increased Federal involvement in medicine at home, and the continued open borders? Just what on the Right is Rove striving for?

I do not consider Rove a serious intellect. If he was, as is generally supposed, the one who orchestrated the images at the Republican Convention in 2000--image manipulation which almost cost us the election--I frankly cannot understand why a man whose perception is so limited would have any influence at all. (See Politics 2001--Lessons 2000, for an assessment of what we should have been doing, etc..)

While I think that Rove was right to have the President out on the hustings, as much as possible in the recent Congressional campaign--because Bush is highly likable as a personality--he totally missed the boat by not haveing Bush on coast to coast TV, on the evening before the 2000 election. It was not only the proper course, under any conditions; but under the peculiar circumstances--the last minute smear over an ancient DUI--it was an absolutely compelling choice. It was Bush's chance to do what Nixon did with his "little dog" speech, and could have been worth millions of votes.

But to really understand how narrow and shallow is Rove's focus and understanding, you have to go back to the 2000 Conventions. I think that Gore gained something like 17% by having a Convention which featured Norman Rockwell type images, while the Republican Convention looked at times like a social workers convention in east L.A.. What was really pathetic about that, is that it was

1. Insulting to the targetted groups, to suggest that they should vote for a party, which instead of offering leadership, nor even a true welcome, was simply pandering to an alien culture--even to the point of appearing almost mocking.

2. Insulting to the American mainstream, whose heritage was downplayed in the Convention of those who were claiming to be representing the Conservative--i.e. traditional--path.

3. Completely confused in failing to recognize that not only were the American mainstream far more numerous than the tragetted groups, but also disproportionately represented in the potential audience who would even bother to watch a Republican Convention. (It was not likely to be the number one viewer's choice in East L.A. or Southside Chicago.)

I will grant you that "take away" visual images can be infinitely more powerful than words in a platform. But Rove created the wrong, least effective images. There is nothing wrong with "outreach," but his was not effective outreach. It meanwhile induced millions to stay on the side-lines. The man is unable to see the forest for the trees.

Of course, when we are talking about the Office to which George Washington gave such dignity, Rove's boasted cynacism is beyond merely unprincipled and stupid. It risks a lasting taint. The President needs to get rid of him, and the sooner the better.

William Flax

[ewing]

You forgot to include giving retirement beneifts to illegal aliens.

[Ohioan]

"Compassionate Conservatism" is a crock. Conservatism is in and of itself compassionate.

Absolutely. We are the one's who stand against the ranting demagogues, stirring mobs and malcontents with appeals to greed, envy and every other base emotion. We are the one's who seek to pass on to the next generation, all of the gains of civilization--including all of the things which we support out of a sense of love and reverence. That motivation is itself inherently compassionate. The "reformer" on the other hand can only accomplish his "reforms" by, to the extent they are effective, disrupting someone else's situation.

This is not to say that no "reform" is ever justified--not at all. But the Conservative approach is to move slowly, cautiously even where change may be in order, because compassion causes us to respect the conflicting interests involved, as well as the potential to harm others.

Recklessly embracing cloudborne programs, to solve half thought out problems, on the other hand, is hardly compassionate. The whole history of the later two thirds of the twentieth century, from the New Deal, through the Great Society, to the Clinton years, provides numerous examples. The Reagan pause in the descent into folly, was the only real bright spot, when true compassion dominated.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[VMI70]

What value is there in taking away campaign issues by embracing them as your own? I have never understood that. In the end, did you win or did they? People come and go; it's the ideals they leave behind we need to concern ourselves with.

I think your questions are valid, RP. There is truly a danger in endorsing a liberal agenda by default.


Most of what the President has done, however, is a far cry short of what the liberals REALLY wanted.
That is a snare and delusion; an argument without merit as the liberals got more than what they thought they would get.

IMO this is no different a mindset that RP stated as follows: "What value is there in taking away campaign issues by embracing them as your own?", and his following statement: "People come and go; it's the ideals they leave behind we need to concern ourselves with." is particularly applicable when faced with the "they do it too" argument.

[Aquamarine]

Bush was probably getting in front of the UN with the AIDS initative in Africa in order to make their future World Tax proposal irrelevant.
People need to stop tunneling when listening to our leaders initatives and start seeing Bush in the two step ahead plan.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Now if Sharpton can start to work some majic on the other side!

Who would you recommend to Al as his running mate?
Dennis Rodman?
Barbra Streisand?
Michael Moore?
Cynthia McKinney?
Janet Reno?
Howard Stern?
Alec Baldwin?
John Paul Stevens?
Peewee Herman?

[F16Fighter]

"Schundler was an exceptional candidate who ran a crappy campaign, IMO. I bet he is not done."

Schundler was betrayed by the petty power-hungry RINO-wing of the NJ GOP who he'd beaten in the primaries.

Bret Schundler is a man of principle who deserved more -- hopefully he isn't done.

[F16Fighter]

"Bush was probably getting in front of the UN with the AIDS initative in Africa in order to make their future World Tax proposal irrelevant....People need to stop tunneling when listening to our leaders initatives and start seeing Bush in the two step ahead plan. "

Wait a minute -- A $15 billion bill paid for by the America taxpayer is essentially indeed a World Tax in proxy -- isn't it?

And for this PC stunt Dubya should get some kind of pre-emptive credit?

Not from me he doesn't.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I guess we're at a fundamental disagreement, VMI, about what is practical/politic and what is preferable. I'll gladly side with the former if I cannot get the latter. Perhaps an example from my experience will illustrate my viewpoint better.

I had a friend once who managed a hotel in a very competitive tourist town. Lots of hotels/motels in a very small area. He had a nice place, but there were lots of nice places. His room rates, determined by his corporate bosses, were supposed to rent for around $65 a night. (This was years ago!) His average rate per room hovered around $50 per room.

Let me explain. People would drive in off the highway, go straight to his hotel, the first off the highway, and ask for a room and a rate. Of course he told them $65. If they were tired and weary, and not wanting to drive any further, of course they took it. Often, however, they weren't too tired to drive another couple of blocks to see if the Motel 6 down the street was any cheaper.

As people turned to leave, he'd say, "Of course, I might be able to get you a (business rate, corporate rate, military rate, family rate, trucker's rate)." This would knock a percentage off the rate. If it were REALLY late at night, and the person was walking out the door, he might say, "Whoa, wait a minute...how much are you looking to spend?" And sometimes he'd sell a $65 room for $35. His theory: "Head in a Bed". He told me he'd risk upsetting his corporate bosses to get the revenue. 100% of SOMETHING is better than 100% of NOTHING.

The result, he moved on up the corporate ladder. The suits in the big city rewarded him for doing something with his resources, getting some kind of revenue, even if he didn't always meet the targets they thought he should meet.

I hope I didn't ramble too much here, but my point is the President is moving the country, by and large, in the right direction. He doesn't always get 100% of what he wants. What President does? Not even Ronaldus Magnus got all he wanted. Not even FDR. None of 'em.

GW Bush is doing great, in my opinion, of satisfying his base (I'm part of his base) and at the same time appealing to moderates and even Democrats. Remarkable, considering the hostility the press and Democrat Party leadership volley at him nearly every day!

[RAT Patrol]

I understnad what you are saying, RD, but squeaky wheels also get the grease. Go in that hotel and start shouting and, while you may not be popular, you will get what you want. People who do not speak up become doormats -- especially when there are so many competing voices.

We need to make sure he knows he will pay for every betrayal. We put him there; we can remove him.

He may have the noblest intentions in the world at all times, but everyone needs criticism and direction from time to time. Never forget, he is ALWAYS being pushed by the other side.

[section9]

It does for Democrats, though. Their base isn't large enough to win elections by themselves. They have to lie during campains and try to decieve the voters. Once they get to washington, they can revert back to the image of the serpant.

One of the reasons I felt that Clinton's triangulation was so successful was that it allowed him to poach a huge block of Republican women. His base hated him for it, but in the end, they had nowhere else to go. Black folks weren't gonna vote for Bob Dole now, were they?

That's the peril of the Democratic base voter. They have nowhere else to go.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[rwfromkansas]

Bush is not perfect, but what pisses me off is when you people ONLY focus on the bad, like your post.

[Askel5]

The barf bag. =)