Posted on 11/08/2002 3:02:32 PM PST by Jean S
It was a major applause line in President Bush’s stump speech in state after state last week as he asked voters to give him a Republican Senate and a bigger Republican majority in the House.
"The Senate has done a lousy job with my nominees," said Bush. "I need a senator with whom I can work to make sure we stop playing petty partisan politics with the judicial nominations I’ve sent up, to make sure people’s records aren’t distorted, and to make sure we have a bench that is full of judges who aren’t there to write laws, but are there to strictly interpret the United States Constitution."
This was central to the President’s pitch in Minnesota, where former St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman returned Democratic dinosaur Walter Mondale to the political tarpits. It was central to his pitch in New Hampshire, where he helped boost Rep. John Sununu into the Senate over an incumbent Democratic governor. It was central to his pitch in Missouri, too, where he declared: "I know I’ll be able to count on Sen. Jim Talent’s support for putting up judges that you’ll be proud of."
"Make no mistake about it in this race," Bush told Georgia in calling for the defeat of incumbent Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, "if you’re interested in a judiciary which is going to work and represent your views, Saxby Chambliss is the right United States senator"
The other two pillars of the President’s issue-driven campaign were tax cuts and national security. In every state he struck the same themes.
"We need to make tax relief permanent," he said. "Be wary of folks that say we need to revisit the tax relief plan. That’s Washington, D.C., code for ‘I’m fixing to raise your taxes.’"
His most powerful issue, however, was national security. In every speech the President pounded the Democratic Senate for kowtowing to Big Labor by refusing to create a Homeland Security Department unless it included labor-union type job protections for workers charged with following the orders of the Commander-in-Chief in defending America against terrorists.
"The House of Representatives passed a good bill," said Bush. "This bill is stuck in the Senate. It’s stuck in the Senate because some senators are trying to extract a price from the President, and the price is that I will give up the capacity to suspend certain bargaining rules in the name of national security, the ability that every President since John F. Kennedy has had."
"It doesn’t make any sense," said Bush. "I need to put the right people, at the right place, at the right time, to protect the American people."
This was the endgame of a brilliant, carefully crafted, and beautifully executed campaign—one of the best in American history. And indeed, its results were historic. As Human Events presents graphically on Page 3, President Bush has put himself in position to become the first Republican President since Calvin Coolidge to govern alongside a wholly Republican controlled Congress for an extended period of time.
The future shines brightly for the GOP if the party stays on track.
By contrast, a bloody civil war looms among Democrats. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.) has already announced he is surrendering his leadership position. Leftist Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and conventional liberal Rep. Martin Frost of Texas will battle ferociously for control of House Democrats.
Ambitious Democratic senators and governors will soon be wandering all over Iowa and New Hampshire running "exploratory" campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination. They will be trying to outmaneuver one another to the left, to attract the primary votes of the most rabid and ideological Democratic partisans. They will be driven even further left as they try to outflank the certain frontrunner, former Vice President Al Gore, who has already hit the trail talking a leftist line not seen since the days of . . . Walter Mondale.
The Democrats show every sign of forgetting the lesson Bill Clinton’s fleeting and essentially fraud-based political success should have taught them: To win they must pretend to be conservatives, who can win swing voters in Middle America. They must fool people into believing they intend to "cut taxes for the middle class," "end welfare as we know it," make "abortion safe, legal and rare."
And now, in the wake of September 11, they must do something Clinton never did, and could not have done: They must create the illusion they can be trusted with national security
President Bush set up Tom Daschle’s Democrats for a fair-and-square political fistfight. He asked them to make his tax cuts permanent, to confirm his judges, and to give him all the tools he needs to win the war on terrorism. The Daschle Democrats failed on all three counts. The President went to the people. They responded with an election-day knock-out punch that blasted Daschle right out of the Senate leadership and gave the President a bigger, more conservative, House majority.
The Democrats are not just down, Republicans have a chance to keep them out of power for years to come. If Republicans stay their course, they will keep voters’ confidence. If Democrats stay their course, they will fall even harder in 2004.
It wasn't Bush, it was Bush's "message."
Dan
They will have to construct a massive vault to even begin to hope have a place to store Dubya's political capital. Dubya invested every cent he had in the 2002 election and the last I looked it payed 3,000 percent interest.
They talk about Bush having problems in the Senate. There are 19 Democatic senators up for relection in 2004. Cross Dubya and they will find Karl Rowe and a candidate to be named later who will give the Senator the same treatment Max Cleland got in Georgia.
It is not normal for a president to pick up senate seats in an off year election. Bush picked up seats. It is very normal for a president to pick up 8 or 9 seats in his on year election. Bush just might pick up 10 or 12 seats Depending on who he decides to target. Do you think it has occured to any Democratic Senators that NOT being a bush TARGET in 2004 might be a good thing?
If Daschle says to his caucus let's stand up to bush. Let's not vote for CLOTURE. Lets make this filibuster stick.
Bush then calls up that same senator and says, "You going to give me reason line up a candidate and have Karl take you out in 2004 Senator?"
The prefered answer will be NO Mr. President. If you would be so kind as to dictate what I am to tell Mr Daschle I'll read it to Tom so I am sure to get every word just the way you want it.
Daschle will be very ineffective at holding his causus together. He needs 40 of his 48 senator to prevent Bush from doing what ever he wants to do. Daschle will not get them very often ...if at all.
I know Zell is on board.
There must be a few Dem senators up for reelection in conservative states who are going to be very obedient as well!
Bush was very active inselecting candidates that could win.
Coleman is a former Democrat Mayor of St Paul. He is a HUGE RINO. He will also get us a lot of conservative judges confirmed.
Jim Talent is a RINO as is LIBBY DOLE and John Sununu.
That is what it takes to govern and change America. It is what the democrats did for nearly 2/3 of a century.
We have turned the tables.
But don't buy the crap that it was our issues. We took this election by wining liberal states with RINO candidates. New Hampshire, North Carolina, Missouri, and Minnesota were won with RINOs. They were not the only ones. That is how we did it. And if we are not so stupid as to forget how it is done, we may keep on doing it for a long time. These RINOS's will help us defeat Sadam, change our tax laws, put jugdes on the courts who will reafrim all our rights.
For Democrats, the end result was far worse than just the numbers.
Either he will accept the veep nomination in 2004 (unlikely, since we are a small state and don't bring much clout) or he will be running for reelection.
The Indiana Republicans, who finally have a new chairman, have been very quiet about who will run against Bayh. I would guess the next few months Bayh is going to be very careful, since he would not like to have a Norm Coleman appear and run against him. HA!
That is just the class of 2004. There will be some in the class of 2006 who will sweat a bit too and even some 2008 guys who just won a close one.
Most likely it will be CMA types. The group will shift on various issues. Some will be with bush on one issue and against him on the other. But Bush will always get the 9. It is typical CMA. In the primary against a liberal the Senator will want to name 15 times he stood up to Bush. In the General election he will want to name 15 times he stood with him. They will take turns.
Coleman is a RINO? He has a reputation as a moderate mostly based on the fact that he talks nicely and used to be a Democrat. But his positions, except for on ANWR, were rock solid conservative.
Saxby was also hand picked. Hardly a RIBO.
Liddy Dole, you are right.
But you labelled way too many people there as moderates.
How do you account for the Senate losses that ocurred in 2000? I agree that they don't want to be in the crosshairs come 2004. I would also look for them to get along the first year and pass some things so that in the following election year they can be more true to their democrat party line. just a guess.
It might also be noted that most RINOs vote more conservative than most "conservative Democrats" (a mostly mythic species). Susan Collins's lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 58; Snowe's is 50; they have gone up as high as 76 and 80 respectively; John Breaux's lifetime rating is 47 and 48 is the highest annual rating I could find for him. His rating was 17 in 1998 and 21 in 1999.
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.