SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (421082)7/1/2003 2:02:15 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769667
 
Bush, Looking to His Right, Shores Up Support for 2004
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
ASHINGTON, June 28 — A systematic effort by President Bush to enlist members of his party's conservative wing in the White House, and to champion touchstone conservative issues, has produced a unified base of support for him from this sometimes wayward faction of the Republican Party, conservative leaders say.

Mr. Bush's standing among conservatives going into next year's election appears more than strong enough to withstand the strains that have emerged in recent weeks over some of his policies, including his support for providing prescription drug coverage under Medicare and for expanding the child tax credit.

By any measure, Mr. Bush appears to have built up enough good will with his party's right wing to provide him significant latitude as he seeks to appeal to moderate voters by taking positions that might roil conservatives. Indeed, on one potentially pivotal matter — filling a Supreme Court vacancy, should one occur — conservative leaders say the president enjoys a level of trust that would allow him to nominate a candidate without unambiguously conservative credentials, avoiding an ideological battle that could harm his re-election efforts.

Mr. Bush's position among conservatives stands in marked contrast to the troubled relations his father endured with many of them when he lost his re-election bid in 1992.

Again and again in interviews, leading conservatives drew favorable contrasts with the first President George Bush, who endured a debilitating primary challenge from Patrick J. Buchanan, contributing to his defeat by Bill Clinton.

"It's night and day," said Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group. "Every group that this president has kept faith with, the previous president double-crossed."

David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said: "In the first Bush administration, the conservatives were asked to be spectators — and it was hoped that they would applaud the action in the field. In this one, they have a president who wants them to be part of the team."

Mr. Bush's effort to tend to the conservative wing of his party has emerged as a crucial part of his early campaign preparations.

The Bush campaign has begun sending a representative to a meeting of conservative leaders that takes place in Washington every Wednesday, joining a delegation of as many as eight administration officials.

Party officials say Mr. Bush's advisers — starting with Karl Rove, his senior political adviser, and Ken Mehlman, his campaign manager — are now in regular contact with about 60 conservative leaders across the nation, discussing issues of concern to the White House and the re-election campaign.

Mr. Bush has named Ralph Reed, who first rose to prominence as executive director the Christian Coalition, as a senior member of his campaign team. Beyond that, Mr. Rove and Mr. Mehlman are viewed by conservatives as advocates for their point of view in the White House.

Asked about efforts to mobilize conservative support, Mr. Mehlman responded: "Ultimately good policy is good politics. This is a president who has strongly pushed numerous policies that appealed to a lot of different groups — including conservatives."

Many conservatives say Mr. Bush's alliance with their wing of the Republican Party is as solid as that enjoyed by Ronald Reagan. Some suggest it is even stronger.

To some extent, several argued, that is a benefit Mr. Bush is enjoying from following Mr. Clinton in the Oval Office.

"I think the strongest motivating factor out there that I see with gun owners and people who believe in the Second Amendment is that they can still taste eight years of Bill Clinton," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. "They don't ever want to go back to that."

Mr. Bush's White House has also embraced issues that many conservatives described as crucial to their support, starting with tax cuts (the issue that undid Mr. Bush's father with this group) and abortion, and also including national security and foreign policy.

"Just about every conservative is thrilled with a president who tells the U.N. to take a hike," said Nelson Warfield, a conservative strategist.

All this has given Mr. Bush some license to stray on other issues, particularly this long before Election Day. He has taken some positions that have stirred concern among his supporters, like his approval of the expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs, an increase in farm subsidies and the child tax credit measure.

"His fiscal record is appalling — spending is out of control," said Edward H. Crane, president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization. "The fiscal record of the Bush administration makes Clinton look downright responsible."

Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative group, said Mr. Bush had been "one of the biggest-spending presidents we've had in 20 years." But, he added, "he has cut taxes, so politically that has protected him."

"A month ago, he passed this huge tax cut that I think is terrific — I mean, I'm thrilled by that — and now this month he's passing this preposterous prescription drug benefit, and I'm furious at him," Mr. Moore said. "But I can't get too angry with him because he passed this tax cut. That's the way this administration works."

Some conservatives said the real test of their relationship with Mr. Bush would come if there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court and Mr. Bush chose a candidate whose ideological credentials might be in doubt, like Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel.

Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, said, "There are two issues that are nonnegotiable for the base: the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage."

Mr. Connor praised Mr. Bush's record on abortion in particular, but said: "Everything he has done to date on the issue will pale in significance compared to the consequential nature of the Supreme Court nomination. If the president appoints another nominee like David Souter, all of that will be naught."

But other opponents of abortion said they had confidence in any judicial appointment Mr. Bush might make. "The president has made great selections on the Circuit Court, and I trust his judgment on the Supreme Court," said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition.

Anti-abortion groups say they are already moving to make sure rank-and-file abortion opponents turn out solidly for Mr. Bush next year.

"What you'll probably see is pro-lifers trying to make sure that their fellow citizens, family friends, realize how bad at this point all of the Democratic president candidates are — they all support abortion on demand, with no limits," said Carol Tobias, the political director of National Right to Life.

In 1994, when conservatives led by Newt Gingrich took control of the House, there was concern that their time in power would be limited. Today, many conservatives say, American public opinion is shifting their way, so there is no reason to be impatient — or to pressure Mr. Bush into doing things before the election that might hurt him next year.

"The Republicans are looking at decades of dominance in the House and the Senate, and having the presidency with some regularity," Mr. Norquist said. "So if this year the tax cut isn't the one we wanted — no biggie. There's a sense that we can afford to wait."

URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/national/30CONS.html?pagew...



To: calgal who wrote (421082)7/1/2003 2:17:09 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769667
 
Teddy's Triumph
From the July 7 / July 14, 2003 issue: What Kennedy knows that other Democrats don't.
by Fred Barnes
07/07/2003, Volume 008, Issue 42
SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY is more politically astute than Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. He understands the legislative process far better than Senator Hillary Clinton does. He is a much cooler head than Senator Jay Rockefeller. And there's a good chance he'll turn out to be smarter than the entire Bush administration on the subject of Medicare and a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens.

Kennedy was the key figure in last week's Senate approval of a drug benefit and modest Medicare reforms. Without his support, the measure would not have passed. By backing it, Kennedy angered many liberal Democrats who want a more lavish benefit and no reform of Medicare at all. But Kennedy decided it was time to grab a Medicare compromise backed by President Bush and improve it later along liberal lines.

Oddly enough, Kennedy agrees with the analysis of the legislation by conservative critics who want to take Medicare away from the federal government and run it through private insurance companies. Conservatives fear the new legislation will have the opposite effect, keeping seniors in the traditional Medicare system where they'll miss out on free market reforms. Which is exactly what Kennedy wants to happen. He openly says the measure would kill privatization of Medicare, which is a big reason he supports it and conservatives oppose it. "If you think Medicare should be privatized, then you should oppose this bill," Kennedy said in a speech on the Senate floor last month.

The Bush administration takes a different view. It calculates that 48 percent of Medicare recipients would jump to private insurance under the bill, which was negotiated by Chairman Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee under the watchful eye of majority leader Bill Frist. After all that attrition, old-fashioned, government-run Medicare would gradually fade away. Kennedy and conservative opponents don't believe this, and neither does the Congressional Budget Office, which says no more than 12 percent would jump to private plans. The administration originally demanded a strong incentive for seniors to switch: They wouldn't get the drug benefit unless they did. But this provision has been jettisoned. Now seniors would get the benefit either way.

So why is Kennedy wiser than anyone else in dealing with Medicare, wiser than his liberal colleagues and the White House? Because he, unlike them, has figured out how to get what he wants.

For starters, Kennedy is prepared to seize the current opportunity to add a prescription benefit, having seen numerous other opportunities missed. He argues that deficiencies in the Bush-backed bill can be eliminated by the next Democratic president and Congress. My guess is he doesn't really expect Democrats to regain control of Washington any time soon. But he sees the legislation (correctly, as far as I can tell) as the last chance for a long time to get a prescription drug benefit. "We must get started," he said.

When he was majority leader, Daschle could have gotten the same deal. But because he wanted to use the absence of a drug benefit against Bush and Republicans in the 2002 election, he didn't act. Daschle and Kennedy view things differently. Daschle is chiefly interested in exploiting issues for political gain. Of course, Democrats reaped little advantage from the Medicare issue in 2002, as national security dominated the campaign. Kennedy is interested in legislative accomplishment, in getting things done, liberal things. If that requires settling at times for a foot in the door, he's agreeable. And this time, it's a big foot in the door. Sure, Bush will claim political credit, but Democrats will get some, too. That's what happened when Kennedy compromised with Bush on an education reform bill in 2001.

Democrats would get nothing if they followed the advice of Hillary Clinton. She is notoriously inept at judging what can get through Congress. Recall the health care scheme she concocted in 1993 that was summarily rejected on Capitol Hill. Now she says: "We do not want to rush through this legislation at the risk of getting it wrong." She would make the perfect (from a liberal standpoint) the enemy of the good. Kennedy wouldn't.

What about hotheads like Rockefeller who say the Medicare legislation will play into the hands of those who want to kill traditional Medicare? Advocates of free-market Medicare, and I'm one of them, don't think it will happen. The Rockefeller types are reactionary liberals who would preserve and expand every government program outside of the Pentagon, no matter the cost or resulting inefficiency. No change is acceptable to them. Kennedy, however, is not a standpatter. He recognizes that to get a drug benefit, liberals have to give up something, at least in the short run.

Kennedy is gambling. He kept abreast of talks as Grassley and Democratic senator Max Baucus reached a compromise and quickly endorsed it. He's gambling the incentives to lure seniors to private health insurance plans, contained in the Medicare bill passed by the House, will be weakened or dropped when the House and Senate meet in conference to hash out the differences in their bills. He's probably right. Bush, who needs a domestic policy triumph, can't afford to have Kennedy drop his support. Another gamble is that the measure, which would go into effect in 2006, will not prompt a migration out of government-managed Medicare. Bush believes it will. They can't both be right.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

URL:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00...