Norquist-Gaffney feud leads to exile

The Hill.com ^ | February 26th, 2003

[cyncooper]

Ample evidence has been offered above, by ksen and Sabertooth and TLBSHOW, to convince me of a figurative hand holding between Grover and GW.

What do you consider handholding and can you please post the evidence that has been offered?

I take the phrase to mean that President Bush is defending Norquist against allegations. I haven't seen one teeny iota of even a hint of such.

[Seeking the truth]

In any case, I can see the 113 members of the "Nordquisling Wednesday Meeting Group" dwindling rather rapidly in the future. The ten foot pole rule is about ready to go into effect!

[Willie Green]

I used to respect Norquist, but now he's an apologist for Islamism.

Grover Norquist is a prostitute.
His "principles" are variable based on the size of the campaign contribution.

[Seeking the truth]

This is a far more serious story than feuds, squabbles, and personality conflicts between posters on Free Republic

Amen...ditto...I second that.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

I take the phrase to mean that President Bush is defending Norquist against allegations.

Well, why didn't you say so? That's our problem, we have a failure to communicate. I only meant it in the terms already specified, i.e. as having "an influential relationship" with the President stretching back over some time... ample evidence of which, as I have stated before, has already been posted. I am not about to post anything further right now, except for this:

The article that started it all

Does this concern you? It does me....

[AmishDude]

Mr. Norquist warned his critics to back off because Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove were on his side.

Come on, this is a simple example of a guy who has an inflated view of himself.

[Sabertooth]

I know that. I clearly am asking for anything showing he does, in fact, still wield some influence, sinister or innocent, in the WH.

"If what people remember about you is that you are not helpful, you are probably not going to be first in line when we do the next tax bill," warned Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has helped the White House rally support behind its plan.
Bush wins business support for growth plan
Washington Post - February 21, 2003

Republican sources and economists said Mr Greenspan may have thrown his future into question by breaking publicly with Mr Bush on tax cuts. Some Bush allies were fuming after Mr Greenspan bluntly told Congress in closely watched hearings on Tuesday that economic stimulus was not needed right now and warned of the dangers of rising budget deficits. "I think he's getting old," Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, said of the 76-year-old Mr Greenspan.
Greenspan and Bush in public clash
Los Angeles Times - February 14th, 2003

WASHINGTON — Two years ago, Donna Brazile, then Al Gore's campaign manager, was engaged in daily combat with Karl Rove, then George W. Bush's top campaign strategist. Today, they chirpily exchange e-mail, chat on the phone and write letters, indulging in their shared zeal for the inner workings of politics.

"I like her a lot," said Mr. Rove, now ensconced in the West Wing as President Bush's chief political adviser.

Ms. Brazile, a committed Democrat who was the first black woman to manage a presidential campaign, has built similar relationships with other Republicans, like Grover Norquist, an influential conservative strategist.
Frustrated Democrat Makes Friends in G.O.P.
New York Times - February 21, 2003

However, attempts by the White House to patch over the rift did not prevent speculation that Mr Greenspan may not be reappointed when his term expires in June 2004. Some analysts even suggested that Mr Greenspan could retire early to avoid a change in a presidential election year.

Grover Norquist, head of the think-tank Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and a man with close links with the Republican Party, was among those questioning Mr Greenspan’s suitability for a fifth term.
Rift brings calls for Fed chief to stand down
Times Online - February 14, 2003

Neas, quoting a colorful quip by Grover Norquist, a key Bush advisor and president of Americans for Tax Reform, "has summed up the strategy: 'my goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.'"
Liberals Promise 'Largest Grassroots Efforts Ever' to Thwart Bush Tax Cut
Crosswalk.com - February 12, 2003

Activist Grover Norquist, who works closely with the White House, warns the business world to think long term.
Time Magazine excerpt
February 2, 2003

Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, said his group did not need to jockey for a mention of its goal in the president's speech.

"We already knew the tax cut would be front and center," said Norquist, who is close to presidential adviser Karl Rove.
Some items in State of Union address mirror lobby groups' wish lists
Associated Press - January 29, 2003

Fair enough?

[aristeides]

I have a feeling Norquist's meetings have suddenly become much less desirable events to attend for ambitious people in Washington.

[TLBSHOW]

:You might want to take 5 minutes and read this:


Norquist IS A THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY THE PRESIDENT AND THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA........

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/responsetonorquist27.pdf

[Sabertooth]

Ping to #107. I believe this answers a question you had on a deleted thread, about the nature of Norquist's current relationship with the White House. He's tight with Rove, and he's a player.

[AmishDude]

If Norquist wasn't influential, then why would the WH bother sending anyone to Norquist's meetings?

The question is, influential with whom? Because of AFTR, he has gained a following and it's only now that people are waking up to him. That doesn't mean he's influencing WH policy. And don't point to "religion of peace" rhetoric, the USF professor's arrest speaks much more loudly than words.

[cyncooper]

Fair enough. But as I have clarified (I thought the topic was obviously the Muslim groups gaining entrance to the WH), I was referring to Norquist and the Muslim business.

The WH listens to a variety of groups and individuals on a variety of topics. The allegation has been made that Norquist got *terrorists* into the WH willfuly and knowingly. Yes, I would like the answer, but unlike some, I do not think it has been proven (I refer to all elements: that KNOWN terrorists were"willfully" and "knowingly" allowed in.) And yes, if it is shown (IF) that Norquist did that--then I would want him prosecuted. I think some are jumping the gun on reaching a guilty verdict-----way too much innuendo and speculation that that is even the charge.

[Neets]

Considering the source of those quotes...kinda makes one go "Hmmmmmm"...

Now if those were in say the Washington Times....or the National Review...i'd give more weight to them.

[TLBSHOW]

see link in 109 no one is jumping the gun on reaching a guilty verdict.........

[AmishDude]

5 minutes??? I scanned it. Here's the deal: I'm on Gaffney's side. But you have to get some perspective here. This is like the intrigue in the palace at Versailles. Norquist is positioning himself, trying to convince others in the court that he has the president's ear. The WH is probably going to stop sending people to Norquist's stuff, but Norquist's capitalizing on his past recognition, not his present position.

[TLBSHOW]

We have the AMC and Cair problem that is still a problem.

Besides Grover..........

[cyncooper]

see link in 109 no one is jumping the gun on reaching a guilty verdict.........

If you are saying that the letter (link in #109) proves the elements I referred to, you need to read it again. Gaffney certainly has not reached a guilty verdict, he is asking Norquist pointed questions.

Gaffney refers to a WH staffer that he criticized. He blames Norquist for being an influence for mainstreaming radical Muslims, but he does NOT charge him as being responsible for the visit he references.

Further, Gaffney cites criticism Norquist made of the Bush White House after September 11, and on a separate occasion, John Ashcroft, in the year 2002, as part of his litany of complaints against him (I am not saying here who is right and who is wrong).

Also, may I point out that Gaffney's letter talks about a recent change in WH policy about the type of Muslim groups allowed in. Please note the date of the letter is well before you could possibly be the reason for the change, and it answers the cry here by some that the WH DO SOMETHING. Looks like they did--which is what I and others said was the most likely scenario all along.

[Sabertooth]

Considering the source of those quotes...kinda makes one go "Hmmmmmm"...

Now if those were in say the Washington Times....or the National Review

You must be joking.

Who do you think has posted a great deal of the damning information about Grover Norquist's activities?

It was in response to Washington Times and National Review articles at #49 that I was asked for different and recent sources.

[AmishDude]

For conservatives, CAIR isn't a problem because we knew it was run by a Democrat for a long time. It's just important that these folks are above the radar.

What is AMC? The American Museum Council? ;)

[TLBSHOW]

Now if those were in say the Washington Times....or the National Review...i'd give more weight to them.

......
Did I hear National Review?

Here now is where the story gets painful for us Bush Republicans. Not only were the al-Arians not avoided by the Bush White House - they were actively courted. Candidate Bush allowed himself to be photographed with the al-Arian family while campaigning in Florida. Candidate Bush denounced the immigration laws that detained - and ultimately deported - Mazen al-Najjar. In May 2001, Sami al-Arian was invited into the White House complex for a political briefing for Muslim-American leaders. The next month his son, Abdullah, who was then an intern in the office of Congressman David Bonior, joined a delegation of Muslim leaders at a meeting with John DiIulio, head of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. After the group entered the complex, a red flag belatedly popped up over the al-Arian name, and the Secret Service ordered him out of the complex. The entire delegation marched out with young al-Arian - and soon afterward, President Bush personally apologized to the young man and ordered the deputy director of the Secret Service to apologize as well.

(Young al-Arian published a strikingly disingenuous account of this experience in the online edition of Newsweek on - note the date - September 14, 2001. Newsweek - a magazine normally celebrated for its rigorous fact-checking - permitted young al-Arian to claim on its site that he had been "singled out" only because of his "name and physical features." Now in one sense that's true - had Abdullah al-Arian been named Abdullah al-Shmarian, nobody at the Secret Service would have troubled him. But al-Arian and Newsweek cooperated in leaving the reader with a very false impression that he had been the victim of some kind of bigoted anti-Muslim dragnet.)

The al-Arian case was not a solitary lapse. The Bush campaign in 2000 very determinedly reached out to Muslim voters. Indeed, Muslim-Americans may have tipped the election to George Bush. One survey suggests that the 50,000 Muslim voters of Florida, normally staunch Democrats, reacted to Al Gore's selection of Joe Lieberman as his running mate by voting 80% for Bush. That outreach campaign opened relationships between the Bush campaign and some very disturbing persons in the Muslim-American community. Many of those disturbing persons were invited to stand beside the president at post-9/11 events, like his meeting with Muslim community leaders at the Massachusetts Avenue mosque.

Over the past year, the White House has become much more selective about its invitations. More selective - but still far from selective enough.

There is one way that we Republicans are very lucky - we face political opponents too crippled by political correctness to make an issue of these kinds of security lapses. At least - so far. But who knows? The day may come when some Democrat decides he cares more about winning elections than he does about liberal pieties. Against the day, is it too much to ask a wartime White House - please, please choose your friends more prudently!

Correction

Memory failed me on point above: Sami al-Arian's visit to the White House occurred in June 2001, not May; his son's visit was later in the same month.

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary022103.asp#004026