Activism Discussion: Bush's Second-Term Plans Aim To Destroy Democratic Party

Bush's Second-Term Plans Aim To Destroy Democratic Party
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

MrPepper11
2005-01-30 01:34:54 EST
His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.

Washington Post
January 30, 2005

Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy
Second-Term Plans Look to Undercut Democratic Pillars
By Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers

When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to
deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will
not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the
Democratic Party.

But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic
agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial
pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists
from both parties say.

Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would
choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to
the Democratic Party.

GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social
Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the
Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their
interests allied with the Republicans.

Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The
administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal
agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public
employee unions -- an important Democratic financial artery.

If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the
percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in
terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic]
interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax
Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior
adviser Karl Rove.

Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at
work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic
agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing
field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White
House.

All presidents weigh the political implications of their agendas, and
hope that policies that prove popular will strengthen a party's claims
on particular constituencies. What is notable about the Bush White
House, some analysts believe, is the extent to which its agenda is
crafted with an eye toward the long-term partisan implications.

"I've been assuming all along that creating the basis for a durable
Republican majority was one of the major purposes of the
administration's policy agenda," said Gary Jacobson, a political
scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "Indeed, I
don't think these guys do anything without weighing the potential
partisan consequences and are particularly attracted to policies that
might increase the Republican coalition."

John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff under President Bill
Clinton and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, said,
"I think that most of their domestic agenda is driven and run by a
political strategy as much as core fundamentals and belief."

His top example is the curbs on lawsuits. "Why would you make this the
cause célèbre?" he asked. "The notion that this is a key element of
their economic program is laughable. It's important to them in both
directions both in organizing core elements of their business and
doctor communities, and at least undermining a financial base of the
Democratic Party."

Republicans note that limiting the growth of lawsuits and damage
awards, as well as proposed investment accounts in Social Security, are
ideas Bush and other conservatives have championed for years. The Bush
agenda lies "at the wonderful intersection where good policy is good
politics for Republicans and conservatives," said Stephen Moore,
president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which is lobbying for the Social
Security changes.

But, one rung away from the White House, many Bush allies make no
effort to disguise their glee at the payoffs these ideas could bring to
interest groups allied with the GOP, and the heartburn they would cause
interest groups allied with the Democrats.

In an interview last week, for instance, Norquist unabashedly dissected
the political overtones of legislation to limit lawsuits.

"This will defund significantly some of the trial lawyer community, and
it rewards the business community, the Fortune 500 guys who have been
increasingly supportive of the broad center-right coalition," he said.

Of specific provisions protecting gun manufacturers from class-action
lawsuits, Norquist added, "This will strengthen the Second Amendment
community, especially the NRA." He was referring to the National Rifle
Association, a core GOP constituency.

The Bush administration has also challenged predominantly Democratic
organized labor, especially public employee unions, on a host of
fronts. The most recent was a major revision of civil service rules at
the Department of Homeland Security that the administration would like
to expand to the entire government over the next few years. The
National Labor Relations Board has helped make it harder for unions to
represent temporary workers, among several rule changes pushed by GOP
appointees.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman rejected the notion
that Bush's domestic agenda is driven by calculations about
interest-group rewards and penalties. But he endorsed the idea that the
agenda Bush will lay out in his nationally televised speech to Congress
on Wednesday night has implications for the long-term balance of power
between the parties.

He hopes that individual accounts under Social Security would produce a
generation of voters less reliant on government as distributor of
benefits, and more ready to identify with the Republican Party as the
protector of their interests.

"Most people who are investors tend to vote Republican," said Mehlman,
manager of Bush's reelection campaign. "This creates conditions under
which voters are more likely to support politicians who are pro-growth,
pro-ownership, pro-free market."

The expansive nature of the Bush agenda, said George C. Edwards III, a
prominent presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, reflects how
"this is a very strategic administration," which tries to use policies
to advance its long-term party-building goals. "I think Karl Rove views
this as his great legacy."

The danger for Bush is that there may be less support than he imagines
for major changes of the sort represented by proposals for Social
Security and plans to limit civil damages, some experts say.

"These are not incremental policies," Edwards noted. "They have a
greater risk of failure."

Jacobson agreed, especially on the question of Social Security. "I'm
not so sure that a program designed to increase the exposure of
ordinary Americans to market forces in ever-broader aspects of life is
politically sustainable in the long run -- wait till the next
recession."

Thus, the hope of Democrats is that Bush's move to lay claim to the
issue of retirement security will in the end only buttress the
Democratic advantage on this issue.

In the meantime, the financial contributions of various groups make
plain they have decided where their interests lie in the coming debates
over domestic policy.

Continuing a trend, lawyers gave Democrats $107.3 million in 2004,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and $39 million to
Republicans. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave a total
of $2.4 million, and 92 percent went to Democrats. Baron and Budd, a
trial lawyer firm based in Dallas, gave 98 percent its $1.1 million in
contributions to Democrats.

Public sector unions, which are most threatened by Bush administration
labor initiatives, gave a total of $13.1 million in campaign
contributions in 2004, of which $10.8 million went to Democrats.

The finance and investment banking community, which stands to benefit
from the creation of private savings accounts financed through Social
Security, provided overwhelming support to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
The top 10 employers of Bush donors all are part of this sector,
including Morgan Stanley, $604,480; Merrill Lynch, $580,004; and UBS
Americas, $459,075.

"The dividend tax cut, expanding IRAs and private Social Security
accounts are all examples of President Bush and Karl Rove understanding
that the more people we can lure into the 'investor class' with private
pools of private capital, the better it is for Republicans and
Republican issues," Moore said.


N*@newsfeeds.com
2005-01-30 01:57:34 EST
>
>
>His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule.
>Great system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"......under ONE-PARTY rule......"



Republican Presidents for the next 1000 years.

"Der Thousand Year Reich".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Washington Post
>January 30, 2005
>
>Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy
>Second-Term Plans Look to Undercut Democratic Pillars
>By Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris
>Washington Post Staff Writers
>
>When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to
>deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will
>not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the
>Democratic Party.
>
>But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic
>agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial
>pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists
>from both parties say.
>
>Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would
>choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to
>the Democratic Party.
>
>GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social
>Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the
>Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their
>interests allied with the Republicans.
>
>Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The
>administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal
>agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public
>employee unions -- an important Democratic financial artery.
>
>If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the
>percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in
>terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic]
>interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax
>Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior
>adviser Karl Rove.
>
>Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at
>work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic
>agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing
>field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White
>House.
>
>All presidents weigh the political implications of their agendas, and
>hope that policies that prove popular will strengthen a party's claims
>on particular constituencies. What is notable about the Bush White
>House, some analysts believe, is the extent to which its agenda is
>crafted with an eye toward the long-term partisan implications.
>
>"I've been assuming all along that creating the basis for a durable
>Republican majority was one of the major purposes of the
>administration's policy agenda," said Gary Jacobson, a political
>scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "Indeed, I
>don't think these guys do anything without weighing the potential
>partisan consequences and are particularly attracted to policies that
>might increase the Republican coalition."
>
>John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff under President Bill
>Clinton and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, said,
>"I think that most of their domestic agenda is driven and run by a
>political strategy as much as core fundamentals and belief."
>
>His top example is the curbs on lawsuits. "Why would you make this the
>cause célèbre?" he asked. "The notion that this is a key element of
>their economic program is laughable. It's important to them in both
>directions both in organizing core elements of their business and
>doctor communities, and at least undermining a financial base of the
>Democratic Party."
>
>Republicans note that limiting the growth of lawsuits and damage
>awards, as well as proposed investment accounts in Social Security, are
>ideas Bush and other conservatives have championed for years. The Bush
>agenda lies "at the wonderful intersection where good policy is good
>politics for Republicans and conservatives," said Stephen Moore,
>president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which is lobbying for the Social
>Security changes.
>
>But, one rung away from the White House, many Bush allies make no
>effort to disguise their glee at the payoffs these ideas could bring to
>interest groups allied with the GOP, and the heartburn they would cause
>interest groups allied with the Democrats.
>
>In an interview last week, for instance, Norquist unabashedly dissected
>the political overtones of legislation to limit lawsuits.
>
>"This will defund significantly some of the trial lawyer community, and
>it rewards the business community, the Fortune 500 guys who have been
>increasingly supportive of the broad center-right coalition," he said.
>
>Of specific provisions protecting gun manufacturers from class-action
>lawsuits, Norquist added, "This will strengthen the Second Amendment
>community, especially the NRA." He was referring to the National Rifle
>Association, a core GOP constituency.
>
>The Bush administration has also challenged predominantly Democratic
>organized labor, especially public employee unions, on a host of
>fronts. The most recent was a major revision of civil service rules at
>the Department of Homeland Security that the administration would like
>to expand to the entire government over the next few years. The
>National Labor Relations Board has helped make it harder for unions to
>represent temporary workers, among several rule changes pushed by GOP
>appointees.
>
>Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman rejected the notion
>that Bush's domestic agenda is driven by calculations about
>interest-group rewards and penalties. But he endorsed the idea that the
>agenda Bush will lay out in his nationally televised speech to Congress
>on Wednesday night has implications for the long-term balance of power
>between the parties.
>
>He hopes that individual accounts under Social Security would produce a
>generation of voters less reliant on government as distributor of
>benefits, and more ready to identify with the Republican Party as the
>protector of their interests.
>
>"Most people who are investors tend to vote Republican," said Mehlman,
>manager of Bush's reelection campaign. "This creates conditions under
>which voters are more likely to support politicians who are pro-growth,
>pro-ownership, pro-free market."
>
>The expansive nature of the Bush agenda, said George C. Edwards III, a
>prominent presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, reflects how
>"this is a very strategic administration," which tries to use policies
>to advance its long-term party-building goals. "I think Karl Rove views
>this as his great legacy."
>
>The danger for Bush is that there may be less support than he imagines
>for major changes of the sort represented by proposals for Social
>Security and plans to limit civil damages, some experts say.
>
>"These are not incremental policies," Edwards noted. "They have a
>greater risk of failure."
>
>Jacobson agreed, especially on the question of Social Security. "I'm
>not so sure that a program designed to increase the exposure of
>ordinary Americans to market forces in ever-broader aspects of life is
>politically sustainable in the long run -- wait till the next
>recession."
>
>Thus, the hope of Democrats is that Bush's move to lay claim to the
>issue of retirement security will in the end only buttress the
>Democratic advantage on this issue.
>
>In the meantime, the financial contributions of various groups make
>plain they have decided where their interests lie in the coming debates
>over domestic policy.
>
>Continuing a trend, lawyers gave Democrats $107.3 million in 2004,
>according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and $39 million to
>Republicans. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave a total
>of $2.4 million, and 92 percent went to Democrats. Baron and Budd, a
>trial lawyer firm based in Dallas, gave 98 percent its $1.1 million in
>contributions to Democrats.
>
>Public sector unions, which are most threatened by Bush administration
>labor initiatives, gave a total of $13.1 million in campaign
>contributions in 2004, of which $10.8 million went to Democrats.
>
>The finance and investment banking community, which stands to benefit
>from the creation of private savings accounts financed through Social
>Security, provided overwhelming support to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
>The top 10 employers of Bush donors all are part of this sector,
>including Morgan Stanley, $604,480; Merrill Lynch, $580,004; and UBS
>Americas, $459,075.
>
>"The dividend tax cut, expanding IRAs and private Social Security
>accounts are all examples of President Bush and Karl Rove understanding
>that the more people we can lure into the 'investor class' with private
>pools of private capital, the better it is for Republicans and
>Republican issues," Moore said.


The_Great_NeoCon
2005-01-30 08:24:07 EST
And the DNC is helping Bush out tremendously by aligning itself with extreme
left radicals, should be a cakewalk!

"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:1107066894.450044.163060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.

Washington Post
January 30, 2005

Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy
Second-Term Plans Look to Undercut Democratic Pillars
By Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers

When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to
deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will
not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the
Democratic Party.

But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic
agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial
pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists
from both parties say.

Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would
choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to
the Democratic Party.

GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social
Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the
Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their
interests allied with the Republicans.

Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The
administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal
agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public
employee unions -- an important Democratic financial artery.

If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the
percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in
terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic]
interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax
Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior
adviser Karl Rove.

Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at
work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic
agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing
field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White
House.

All presidents weigh the political implications of their agendas, and
hope that policies that prove popular will strengthen a party's claims
on particular constituencies. What is notable about the Bush White
House, some analysts believe, is the extent to which its agenda is
crafted with an eye toward the long-term partisan implications.

"I've been assuming all along that creating the basis for a durable
Republican majority was one of the major purposes of the
administration's policy agenda," said Gary Jacobson, a political
scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "Indeed, I
don't think these guys do anything without weighing the potential
partisan consequences and are particularly attracted to policies that
might increase the Republican coalition."

John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff under President Bill
Clinton and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, said,
"I think that most of their domestic agenda is driven and run by a
political strategy as much as core fundamentals and belief."

His top example is the curbs on lawsuits. "Why would you make this the
cause c\ufffdl\ufffdbre?" he asked. "The notion that this is a key element of
their economic program is laughable. It's important to them in both
directions both in organizing core elements of their business and
doctor communities, and at least undermining a financial base of the
Democratic Party."

Republicans note that limiting the growth of lawsuits and damage
awards, as well as proposed investment accounts in Social Security, are
ideas Bush and other conservatives have championed for years. The Bush
agenda lies "at the wonderful intersection where good policy is good
politics for Republicans and conservatives," said Stephen Moore,
president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which is lobbying for the Social
Security changes.

But, one rung away from the White House, many Bush allies make no
effort to disguise their glee at the payoffs these ideas could bring to
interest groups allied with the GOP, and the heartburn they would cause
interest groups allied with the Democrats.

In an interview last week, for instance, Norquist unabashedly dissected
the political overtones of legislation to limit lawsuits.

"This will defund significantly some of the trial lawyer community, and
it rewards the business community, the Fortune 500 guys who have been
increasingly supportive of the broad center-right coalition," he said.

Of specific provisions protecting gun manufacturers from class-action
lawsuits, Norquist added, "This will strengthen the Second Amendment
community, especially the NRA." He was referring to the National Rifle
Association, a core GOP constituency.

The Bush administration has also challenged predominantly Democratic
organized labor, especially public employee unions, on a host of
fronts. The most recent was a major revision of civil service rules at
the Department of Homeland Security that the administration would like
to expand to the entire government over the next few years. The
National Labor Relations Board has helped make it harder for unions to
represent temporary workers, among several rule changes pushed by GOP
appointees.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman rejected the notion
that Bush's domestic agenda is driven by calculations about
interest-group rewards and penalties. But he endorsed the idea that the
agenda Bush will lay out in his nationally televised speech to Congress
on Wednesday night has implications for the long-term balance of power
between the parties.

He hopes that individual accounts under Social Security would produce a
generation of voters less reliant on government as distributor of
benefits, and more ready to identify with the Republican Party as the
protector of their interests.

"Most people who are investors tend to vote Republican," said Mehlman,
manager of Bush's reelection campaign. "This creates conditions under
which voters are more likely to support politicians who are pro-growth,
pro-ownership, pro-free market."

The expansive nature of the Bush agenda, said George C. Edwards III, a
prominent presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, reflects how
"this is a very strategic administration," which tries to use policies
to advance its long-term party-building goals. "I think Karl Rove views
this as his great legacy."

The danger for Bush is that there may be less support than he imagines
for major changes of the sort represented by proposals for Social
Security and plans to limit civil damages, some experts say.

"These are not incremental policies," Edwards noted. "They have a
greater risk of failure."

Jacobson agreed, especially on the question of Social Security. "I'm
not so sure that a program designed to increase the exposure of
ordinary Americans to market forces in ever-broader aspects of life is
politically sustainable in the long run -- wait till the next
recession."

Thus, the hope of Democrats is that Bush's move to lay claim to the
issue of retirement security will in the end only buttress the
Democratic advantage on this issue.

In the meantime, the financial contributions of various groups make
plain they have decided where their interests lie in the coming debates
over domestic policy.

Continuing a trend, lawyers gave Democrats $107.3 million in 2004,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and $39 million to
Republicans. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave a total
of $2.4 million, and 92 percent went to Democrats. Baron and Budd, a
trial lawyer firm based in Dallas, gave 98 percent its $1.1 million in
contributions to Democrats.

Public sector unions, which are most threatened by Bush administration
labor initiatives, gave a total of $13.1 million in campaign
contributions in 2004, of which $10.8 million went to Democrats.

The finance and investment banking community, which stands to benefit
from the creation of private savings accounts financed through Social
Security, provided overwhelming support to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
The top 10 employers of Bush donors all are part of this sector,
including Morgan Stanley, $604,480; Merrill Lynch, $580,004; and UBS
Americas, $459,075.

"The dividend tax cut, expanding IRAs and private Social Security
accounts are all examples of President Bush and Karl Rove understanding
that the more people we can lure into the 'investor class' with private
pools of private capital, the better it is for Republicans and
Republican issues," Moore said.



Sandman
2005-01-30 08:43:06 EST
Just like one world democracy.. Republican style!!

Sounds like world domination to me... oh no the Soviet Union is back!!!!


"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:1107066894.450044.163060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.

Washington Post
January 30, 2005

Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy
Second-Term Plans Look to Undercut Democratic Pillars
By Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers

When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to
deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will
not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the
Democratic Party.

But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic
agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial
pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists
from both parties say.

Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would
choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to
the Democratic Party.

GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social
Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the
Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their
interests allied with the Republicans.

Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The
administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal
agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public
employee unions -- an important Democratic financial artery.

If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the
percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in
terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic]
interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax
Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior
adviser Karl Rove.

Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at
work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic
agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing
field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White
House.

All presidents weigh the political implications of their agendas, and
hope that policies that prove popular will strengthen a party's claims
on particular constituencies. What is notable about the Bush White
House, some analysts believe, is the extent to which its agenda is
crafted with an eye toward the long-term partisan implications.

"I've been assuming all along that creating the basis for a durable
Republican majority was one of the major purposes of the
administration's policy agenda," said Gary Jacobson, a political
scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "Indeed, I
don't think these guys do anything without weighing the potential
partisan consequences and are particularly attracted to policies that
might increase the Republican coalition."

John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff under President Bill
Clinton and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, said,
"I think that most of their domestic agenda is driven and run by a
political strategy as much as core fundamentals and belief."

His top example is the curbs on lawsuits. "Why would you make this the
cause c\ufffdl\ufffdbre?" he asked. "The notion that this is a key element of
their economic program is laughable. It's important to them in both
directions both in organizing core elements of their business and
doctor communities, and at least undermining a financial base of the
Democratic Party."

Republicans note that limiting the growth of lawsuits and damage
awards, as well as proposed investment accounts in Social Security, are
ideas Bush and other conservatives have championed for years. The Bush
agenda lies "at the wonderful intersection where good policy is good
politics for Republicans and conservatives," said Stephen Moore,
president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which is lobbying for the Social
Security changes.

But, one rung away from the White House, many Bush allies make no
effort to disguise their glee at the payoffs these ideas could bring to
interest groups allied with the GOP, and the heartburn they would cause
interest groups allied with the Democrats.

In an interview last week, for instance, Norquist unabashedly dissected
the political overtones of legislation to limit lawsuits.

"This will defund significantly some of the trial lawyer community, and
it rewards the business community, the Fortune 500 guys who have been
increasingly supportive of the broad center-right coalition," he said.

Of specific provisions protecting gun manufacturers from class-action
lawsuits, Norquist added, "This will strengthen the Second Amendment
community, especially the NRA." He was referring to the National Rifle
Association, a core GOP constituency.

The Bush administration has also challenged predominantly Democratic
organized labor, especially public employee unions, on a host of
fronts. The most recent was a major revision of civil service rules at
the Department of Homeland Security that the administration would like
to expand to the entire government over the next few years. The
National Labor Relations Board has helped make it harder for unions to
represent temporary workers, among several rule changes pushed by GOP
appointees.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman rejected the notion
that Bush's domestic agenda is driven by calculations about
interest-group rewards and penalties. But he endorsed the idea that the
agenda Bush will lay out in his nationally televised speech to Congress
on Wednesday night has implications for the long-term balance of power
between the parties.

He hopes that individual accounts under Social Security would produce a
generation of voters less reliant on government as distributor of
benefits, and more ready to identify with the Republican Party as the
protector of their interests.

"Most people who are investors tend to vote Republican," said Mehlman,
manager of Bush's reelection campaign. "This creates conditions under
which voters are more likely to support politicians who are pro-growth,
pro-ownership, pro-free market."

The expansive nature of the Bush agenda, said George C. Edwards III, a
prominent presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, reflects how
"this is a very strategic administration," which tries to use policies
to advance its long-term party-building goals. "I think Karl Rove views
this as his great legacy."

The danger for Bush is that there may be less support than he imagines
for major changes of the sort represented by proposals for Social
Security and plans to limit civil damages, some experts say.

"These are not incremental policies," Edwards noted. "They have a
greater risk of failure."

Jacobson agreed, especially on the question of Social Security. "I'm
not so sure that a program designed to increase the exposure of
ordinary Americans to market forces in ever-broader aspects of life is
politically sustainable in the long run -- wait till the next
recession."

Thus, the hope of Democrats is that Bush's move to lay claim to the
issue of retirement security will in the end only buttress the
Democratic advantage on this issue.

In the meantime, the financial contributions of various groups make
plain they have decided where their interests lie in the coming debates
over domestic policy.

Continuing a trend, lawyers gave Democrats $107.3 million in 2004,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and $39 million to
Republicans. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave a total
of $2.4 million, and 92 percent went to Democrats. Baron and Budd, a
trial lawyer firm based in Dallas, gave 98 percent its $1.1 million in
contributions to Democrats.

Public sector unions, which are most threatened by Bush administration
labor initiatives, gave a total of $13.1 million in campaign
contributions in 2004, of which $10.8 million went to Democrats.

The finance and investment banking community, which stands to benefit
from the creation of private savings accounts financed through Social
Security, provided overwhelming support to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
The top 10 employers of Bush donors all are part of this sector,
including Morgan Stanley, $604,480; Merrill Lynch, $580,004; and UBS
Americas, $459,075.

"The dividend tax cut, expanding IRAs and private Social Security
accounts are all examples of President Bush and Karl Rove understanding
that the more people we can lure into the 'investor class' with private
pools of private capital, the better it is for Republicans and
Republican issues," Moore said.



Steven L.
2005-01-30 09:36:11 EST


MrPepper11 wrote:

> His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
> system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.

After the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964, the DEMOCRATS controlled
everything--BOTH houses of Congress, the White House, their appointees
were on the Supreme Court, everything. Bpth houses of Congress were
overwhelmingly comprised of liberal Democrats who rubber-stamped
everything LBJ wanted. From Medicare to Vietnam.

You probably thought that was cool.

Now the shoe is on the other foot.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.


Mitchell Holman
2005-01-30 09:54:48 EST
"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in news:vh6Ld.3999$Ix.1481
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>
>
> MrPepper11 wrote:
>
>> His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
>> system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.
>
> After the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964, the DEMOCRATS controlled
> everything--BOTH houses of Congress, the White House, their appointees
> were on the Supreme Court, everything. Bpth houses of Congress were
> overwhelmingly comprised of liberal Democrats who rubber-stamped
> everything LBJ wanted. From Medicare to Vietnam.
>
> You probably thought that was cool.
>
> Now the shoe is on the other foot.


Remember the last time the GOP controlled
all three branches of government? The year was
1928. Remember what their stewardship of the
economy gave us? It is now known as the Great
Depression.


Mitchell Holman

"Selfish men have always tried to skim the
cream of our national wealth in order to satify
their own greed, and their instrument in this
effort has always been the Republican Party."
President Harry Truman, Aug 1948




Julian D.
2005-01-30 10:23:52 EST
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:43:06 GMT, "Sandman" <Sandman@me.com> wrote:

>Just like one world democracy.. Republican style!!
>
>Sounds like world domination to me... oh no the Soviet Union is back!!!!

Why don't the Dems represent what the majority of Americans want?
That's a start.

>
>"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
>news:1107066894.450044.163060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
>system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.
>
>Washington Post
>January 30, 2005
>
>Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy
>Second-Term Plans Look to Undercut Democratic Pillars
>By Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris
>Washington Post Staff Writers
>
>When President Bush stands before Congress on Wednesday night to
>deliver his State of the Union address, it is a safe bet that he will
>not announce that one of his goals is the long-term enfeeblement of the
>Democratic Party.
>
>But a recurring theme of many items on Bush's second-term domestic
>agenda is that if enacted, they would weaken political and financial
>pillars that have propped up Democrats for years, political strategists
>from both parties say.
>
>Legislation putting caps on civil damage awards, for instance, would
>choke income to trial lawyers, among the most generous contributors to
>the Democratic Party.
>
>GOP strategists, likewise, hope that the proposed changes to Social
>Security can transform a program that has long been identified with the
>Democrats, creating a generation of new investors who see their
>interests allied with the Republicans.
>
>Less visible policies also have sharp political overtones. The
>administration's transformation of civil service rules at federal
>agencies, for instance, would limit the power and membership of public
>employee unions -- an important Democratic financial artery.
>
>If the Bush agenda is enacted, "there will be a continued growth in the
>percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republican, both in
>terms of self-identified party ID and in terms of their [economic]
>interests," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax
>Reform and an operative who speaks regularly with White House senior
>adviser Karl Rove.
>
>Many Democrats and independent analysts see a methodical strategy at
>work. They believe the White House has expressly tailored its domestic
>agenda to maximize hazards for Democrats and tilt the political playing
>field in the GOP's favor long after this president is out of the White
>House.
>
>All presidents weigh the political implications of their agendas, and
>hope that policies that prove popular will strengthen a party's claims
>on particular constituencies. What is notable about the Bush White
>House, some analysts believe, is the extent to which its agenda is
>crafted with an eye toward the long-term partisan implications.
>
>"I've been assuming all along that creating the basis for a durable
>Republican majority was one of the major purposes of the
>administration's policy agenda," said Gary Jacobson, a political
>scientist at the University of California at San Diego. "Indeed, I
>don't think these guys do anything without weighing the potential
>partisan consequences and are particularly attracted to policies that
>might increase the Republican coalition."
>
>John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff under President Bill
>Clinton and now head of the liberal Center for American Progress, said,
>"I think that most of their domestic agenda is driven and run by a
>political strategy as much as core fundamentals and belief."
>
>His top example is the curbs on lawsuits. "Why would you make this the
>cause célèbre?" he asked. "The notion that this is a key element of
>their economic program is laughable. It's important to them in both
>directions both in organizing core elements of their business and
>doctor communities, and at least undermining a financial base of the
>Democratic Party."
>
>Republicans note that limiting the growth of lawsuits and damage
>awards, as well as proposed investment accounts in Social Security, are
>ideas Bush and other conservatives have championed for years. The Bush
>agenda lies "at the wonderful intersection where good policy is good
>politics for Republicans and conservatives," said Stephen Moore,
>president of the Free Enterprise Fund, which is lobbying for the Social
>Security changes.
>
>But, one rung away from the White House, many Bush allies make no
>effort to disguise their glee at the payoffs these ideas could bring to
>interest groups allied with the GOP, and the heartburn they would cause
>interest groups allied with the Democrats.
>
>In an interview last week, for instance, Norquist unabashedly dissected
>the political overtones of legislation to limit lawsuits.
>
>"This will defund significantly some of the trial lawyer community, and
>it rewards the business community, the Fortune 500 guys who have been
>increasingly supportive of the broad center-right coalition," he said.
>
>Of specific provisions protecting gun manufacturers from class-action
>lawsuits, Norquist added, "This will strengthen the Second Amendment
>community, especially the NRA." He was referring to the National Rifle
>Association, a core GOP constituency.
>
>The Bush administration has also challenged predominantly Democratic
>organized labor, especially public employee unions, on a host of
>fronts. The most recent was a major revision of civil service rules at
>the Department of Homeland Security that the administration would like
>to expand to the entire government over the next few years. The
>National Labor Relations Board has helped make it harder for unions to
>represent temporary workers, among several rule changes pushed by GOP
>appointees.
>
>Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman rejected the notion
>that Bush's domestic agenda is driven by calculations about
>interest-group rewards and penalties. But he endorsed the idea that the
>agenda Bush will lay out in his nationally televised speech to Congress
>on Wednesday night has implications for the long-term balance of power
>between the parties.
>
>He hopes that individual accounts under Social Security would produce a
>generation of voters less reliant on government as distributor of
>benefits, and more ready to identify with the Republican Party as the
>protector of their interests.
>
>"Most people who are investors tend to vote Republican," said Mehlman,
>manager of Bush's reelection campaign. "This creates conditions under
>which voters are more likely to support politicians who are pro-growth,
>pro-ownership, pro-free market."
>
>The expansive nature of the Bush agenda, said George C. Edwards III, a
>prominent presidential scholar at Texas A&M University, reflects how
>"this is a very strategic administration," which tries to use policies
>to advance its long-term party-building goals. "I think Karl Rove views
>this as his great legacy."
>
>The danger for Bush is that there may be less support than he imagines
>for major changes of the sort represented by proposals for Social
>Security and plans to limit civil damages, some experts say.
>
>"These are not incremental policies," Edwards noted. "They have a
>greater risk of failure."
>
>Jacobson agreed, especially on the question of Social Security. "I'm
>not so sure that a program designed to increase the exposure of
>ordinary Americans to market forces in ever-broader aspects of life is
>politically sustainable in the long run -- wait till the next
>recession."
>
>Thus, the hope of Democrats is that Bush's move to lay claim to the
>issue of retirement security will in the end only buttress the
>Democratic advantage on this issue.
>
>In the meantime, the financial contributions of various groups make
>plain they have decided where their interests lie in the coming debates
>over domestic policy.
>
>Continuing a trend, lawyers gave Democrats $107.3 million in 2004,
>according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and $39 million to
>Republicans. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America gave a total
>of $2.4 million, and 92 percent went to Democrats. Baron and Budd, a
>trial lawyer firm based in Dallas, gave 98 percent its $1.1 million in
>contributions to Democrats.
>
>Public sector unions, which are most threatened by Bush administration
>labor initiatives, gave a total of $13.1 million in campaign
>contributions in 2004, of which $10.8 million went to Democrats.
>
>The finance and investment banking community, which stands to benefit
>from the creation of private savings accounts financed through Social
>Security, provided overwhelming support to the Bush-Cheney campaign.
>The top 10 employers of Bush donors all are part of this sector,
>including Morgan Stanley, $604,480; Merrill Lynch, $580,004; and UBS
>Americas, $459,075.
>
>"The dividend tax cut, expanding IRAs and private Social Security
>accounts are all examples of President Bush and Karl Rove understanding
>that the more people we can lure into the 'investor class' with private
>pools of private capital, the better it is for Republicans and
>Republican issues," Moore said.
>



JD

"On the other hand, I think sometimes I take kind of a delight
in who the critics are."
-President George W. Bush
Time's Person Of The Year
2004

"The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of
others."
-President George W. Bush
SOA
2003

"Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of
voting equipment. Our analysis of the difference between the vote
count and the exit poll at each polling location in our sample has
found no systematic differences for precincts using touch screen and
optical scan voting equipment," the report found.
-CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/

Deaf Power
2005-01-30 11:03:26 EST
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:36:11 GMT, "Steven L."
<*n@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>MrPepper11 wrote:
>
>> His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
>> system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.
>
>After the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964, the DEMOCRATS controlled
>everything--BOTH houses of Congress, the White House, their appointees
>were on the Supreme Court, everything. Bpth houses of Congress were
>overwhelmingly comprised of liberal Democrats who rubber-stamped
>everything LBJ wanted. From Medicare to Vietnam.
>
>You probably thought that was cool.
>
>Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Gone are the good old days of freedom...... welcome the new United
States of Nazi America....


Julian D.
2005-01-30 12:01:07 EST
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:03:26 -0500, Deaf Power <deaf@power.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:36:11 GMT, "Steven L."
><sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>>MrPepper11 wrote:
>>
>>> His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
>>> system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.
>>
>>After the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964, the DEMOCRATS controlled
>>everything--BOTH houses of Congress, the White House, their appointees
>>were on the Supreme Court, everything. Bpth houses of Congress were
>>overwhelmingly comprised of liberal Democrats who rubber-stamped
>>everything LBJ wanted. From Medicare to Vietnam.
>>
>>You probably thought that was cool.
>>
>>Now the shoe is on the other foot.
>
>Gone are the good old days of freedom...... welcome the new United
>States of Nazi America....


oh...what freedoms have you lost?


JD

"On the other hand, I think sometimes I take kind of a delight
in who the critics are."
-President George W. Bush
Time's Person Of The Year
2004

"The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of
others."
-President George W. Bush
SOA
2003

"Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of
voting equipment. Our analysis of the difference between the vote
count and the exit poll at each polling location in our sample has
found no systematic differences for precincts using touch screen and
optical scan voting equipment," the report found.
-CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/exit.polls/

Egbert_Sous=E8_=3Cegbertsouse=40WCF=2Ecom=3E?=
2005-01-30 14:59:17 EST
On 29 Jan 2005 22:34:54 -0800, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:

>His real goal is to put America permanently under ONE-PARTY rule. Great
>system for patronage, cronyism, larceny, and utter total corruption.
>
...and the Democrats are doing their damndest to see that he succeeds.

>Washington Post
>January 30, 2005
>
<snipped>
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron