Bush, GOP Congress Not On the Same Page (Political treason or stupidity, you decide)

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | March 4, 2004 | Robert Novak

[quidnunc]

At 1 p.m. on Feb. 25, some 15 prominent Republicans invited to be surrogates in the coming presidential campaign gathered at Bush-Cheney headquarters in suburban Northern Virginia for a private briefing. Less than two hours earlier that day, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan detonated a political bombshell. To judge from the bland and uninformative briefing, nobody on the president's campaign team heard the explosion.

Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, a Washington lawyer-lobbyist who last year resigned as figurehead chairman of the Republican National Committee to become figurehead chairman of Bush-Cheney '04, led the precisely orchestrated, one-hour briefing. He did not mention that Greenspan had just testified to Congress advocating reduced Social Security benefits. Racicot might be excused for being silent and unaware of the central banker's latest political mischief, since it also escaped the attention that morning of key Bush policymakers.

The invited advocates were handed a thick batch of talking points to ingest by the campaign's appropriately named chief of surrogates, Julie Cram. Nowhere in the handout did the forbidden words ''Social Security'' appear. ''The president's opponents are against personal retirement accounts'' is the closest the briefing material came to the dreaded subject. Many prospective surrogates left campaign headquarters profoundly depressed by the mediocre briefing and the material given them.

This fits the deepening malaise among Republicans in the capital. They are neither surprised nor terribly worried by polls that temporarily show George W. Bush trailing John Kerry. What worries the GOP faithful is the absence of firm leadership in their party either at the White House or on Capitol Hill.

-snip-

[kaktuskid]

And then they got less than less than third rate with Hastert.
Don't forget there are 2 parts to the legislative body..all of the president's bills have flew through the House and get constipated in the Senate!(remember, the senate is 50/50 due to RINOs)

[jpsb]

Yes, he does appear to be getting the message, so maybe there is reason to hope and reason to vote Bush in this election. But there is every reason to believe Bush is by nature a big spender, big government Republican. So blind support of Bush, is in affect, badly hurting the GOP and the chances of ever electing a conservative president. Blindly supporting Bush is suicide for conservatives.

[jpsb]

The one Bush I actually like is waiting in the wings. Jeb Bush. I wish he was running in the GOP preimaries this year. I'd vote for him.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

I for one am tired of the constant f-----g wining

No such word.

Are you tired of winning or whining?

[cksharks]

So I left out an h you must have got the point. So sue me.

[Mudboy Slim]

"...blind support of Bush, is in affect, badly hurting the GOP and the chances of ever electing a conservative president. Blindly supporting Bush is suicide for conservatives."

I agree...and I'm keeping both eyes wide open from now until November...MUD

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Well, some Republicans have a lot more to lose via a Kerry win than others.

Social conservatives are the ones with the most at risk here – rally-the-troops rhetoric aside they are fighting rear-guard actions on most issues, their hopes really hinge on two or three friendly SC appointments which would clear the way (perhaps via vouchers) for Federal and state funding of religious elementary and secondary education - which would make it much easier to raise their children according to their values.

The economic elite have the least at risk – over the last decade they have already received substantial tax relief (reduced dividend taxation, lower long they capital gains rates and the like) - in a high deficit environment all they forgo is the elimination of the estate tax.

"Pragmantic" Republician politicians have long courted the former - while delivering the goods for the latter.

So it does not strike me as surprising that the political priorities and tactical decisions of the congressional Republican leadership (who can expect to be there long after the Current administration has departed) might be at odds with those of an Administration that looks only as far as the next election in shaping it's appeal to these two very different groups of voters.

[Copernicus]

Perhaps this might help:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a40bb29017b.htm

Best regards,

[Alcibiades]

The political parties never really have "benches". The difference is that the press reports widely on the democrats and ignores the republicans unless the news if negative for one of them. The democrats just recycle the same tired old people (Kerry, Daschle, Gephart). Republicans run with a different set of nominees every time. Many of the Republican nominees are not elected officials (Buchanon, Forbes, Keyes)or they are governors so they return to obscurity, at least nationally, but the Dems are generally senators or representatives that remain in the spotlight. If Kerry loses the press will start on the 2008 election in December and it will be Hillary vs. Edwards. The press will keep them in the spotlight for years.

[Biblebelter]

I am not sure if it is accurate to say the Republicans run a new set of nominees every time. Robert Dole or George Bush was on every presidential ticket from 1976 through 1996. In the 1996 election, Dole was one tired recycled Washington insider. Republican governorships have been a source of new blood for Republicans. I follow politics beyond what the lamestream media covers, and I do not see any rising stars in the governorships.