Stephen’s Posterous

Karl Rove, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, says that the elections on November 3, should scare Democrats.

President Obama was said to have redrawn the electoral map by winning Virginia last year with 53% of the vote. However, on November 3, Republican Bob McDonnell flipped the state back to the GOP.

Mr. Obama carried New Jersey easily last year with 57% of the vote, but on November 3, Republican Chris Christie ousted Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine.

Mr. Obama carried Pennsylvania last year by 10 points, but on November 3, Republican Judge Joan Orie Melvin was elected to the state's Supreme Court. The trend is that suburban and independent voters moved into the GOP column.

A 5-point swing in 2010 could bring a big wave of change. Democrats currently have 60 votes in the Senate, and Republicans 40. With a 5-point swing away from Democrats last fall, the party would have started this year with 54 seats and the Republicans 46.

A 5-point shift in 2006 would have left the GOP in control of the House. In 2008, a five-point shift would have produced a Democratic loss of six House seats rather than a gain of 21.

The bad news for Democrats is that the legislation that helped lead to the collapse of support for their party on election day may inflict more pain on those foolish enough to support it as the health-care bill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to vote on this week could sink an entire fleet of Democratic boats in 2010.

The bill is more expensive than advertised. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pegs its cost at $1.055 trillion over 10 years, not the $894 billion Mrs. Pelosi claims.

In the House bill there is a $2 billion tax on those who already have health insurance, $20 billion in taxes on medical devices, $8 billion in taxes on anyone who buys over-the-counter drugs with money from their health-savings accounts, and $140 billion in higher taxes on drugs.

Mrs. Pelosi's bill will drive up premiums. A family of four with an income of $78,000 would pay $13,800 for insurance a year by 2016, according to CBO.

The CBO estimates the public option will have higher premiums than private plans, even though it will get a $2 billion, interest-free start-up loan from the government. The bill dumps $34 billion onto already strained state budgets by pushing more of the working poor off private insurance and into Medicaid.

The election results for November 3, were the first sign that voters are revolting against runaway spending and government expansion.

Source.

Karl Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, says that the GOP is winning the health-care debate.

According to recent Fox News surveys, the number of independents who oppose health care reform reached 57% at the end of September 2009, up from 33% in July 2009. Independents are generally a quarter of the vote in off-year congressional elections.

Among college graduates, opposition to health care reform is now 50%, and only 33% support it, according to Gallup's September 24, poll. College graduates are slightly more than a quarter of the off-year electorate.

Among seniors, opposition to ObamaCare hit 63% in last month's Economist/YouGov Poll. Forty-seven percent of seniors said they strongly oppose health care reform, 27% strongly support it. Seniors will likely cast about 20% of the votes next year.

In 2006, the year the GOP lost control of Congress, Democrats enjoyed a double-digit lead in several generic ballot polls, a measure of voters' party preference. Democrats held that lead until 2009. Today, Gallup's generic ballot shows Democrats have a thin 46% to 44% edge. According to Gallop's numbers, independents now favor Republicans by nine points.

Congressional Democrats could also be the first to feel a backlash against rising federal spending. An early September 2009 Gallup poll found that 38% approve and 58% disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the deficit from 49% approve, 44% disapprove in March 2009.

In September 2009, a Fox News poll found that 61% of independents think the Obama administration wants to increase spending too much, 29% thought the amount of spending Mr. Obama wants is about right.

After a $787 billion stimulus package and other spending this year that have the administration planning to double the deficit in five years, many voters are worried about the amount of red ink being spilled.

President Obama's job approval rating appears to be stabilizing. The Rasmussen tracking poll for October 2-3, shows 46% of likely voters approve and 50% disapprove of his performance, unchanged over the past month.

This battle is far from over. Mr. Rove says that Democrats should keep in mind that there are two battles here, one for health care, and the other for keeping control of Congress. By fighting on health care, they may lose the second battle, keeping control of Congress.

Source.

Karl Rove, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, writes in his weekly Wall Street Journal editorial that President Barack Obama's political health is deteriorating, threatened by his ambitious plan for a government takeover of health care.

Mr. Rove writes that Mr. Obama remains slightly more popular than most presidents have been in their opening months, although his job approval rating has drifted down to 60% in the RealClearPolitics.com average and his disapproval numbers have nearly doubled to 33%.

Mr. Rove says that what is more troubling is the growing gap between the President's approval rating and declining support for major items on his policy agenda.

Mr. Rove says Americans prefer getting their health coverage through private insurance rather than the federal government, and Mr. Obama's record-setting spending binge has made Americans more sensitive to deficits and higher taxes.

Mr. Obama's argument that a government-run health-care plan can control costs better than a market-based system is a mistake. This argument is belied by Medicare's experience. A study published by the Pacific Research Institute finds that since 1970 Medicare's costs have risen 34% a year faster than the rest of health care.

Mr. Obama's trashing of American health care as a broken system that must be brought into the 21st century does not resonate with most Americans, according to data from polls that Mr. Rove provides in his editorial.

Mr. Rove says that everyone agrees that some reforms are needed. But he says that it is also vital to protect areas of excellence and innovation. Stanford University professor Scott Atlas points out that from 1998 to 2002 nearly twice as many new drugs were launched in the U.S. as in Europe.

In the end, Mr. Rove says that transforming health care into a government-run system would be difficult to do under any circumstances. Americans are still wary about big government.

Mr. Rove ends by writing:

Health-care reform was said to be "inevitable" a few months ago. Today, its prospects are less certain, even to Democrats. The issue may even turn out to be a millstone for the party.

Americans are increasingly concerned about the cost -- in money and personal freedom -- of Mr. Obama's nanny-state initiatives. To strengthen the emerging coalition of independents and Republicans, the GOP must fight Mr. Obama's agenda with reasoned arguments and attractive alternatives. Health care may actually be an issue that helps resurrect the GOP.

Source.

Karl Rove, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, writes in his weekly editorial column this week in The Wall Street Journal that if Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on its way to becoming a European-style welfare state. To prevent this from happening, he offers five arguments that the GOP must make.

First, this program is not necessary. A government plan is not needed to guarantee competition's benefits. There are currently 1,300 companies selling health insurance plans.

Second, this program will undercut private insurers and pass the bill to taxpayers and health providers as it does now with Medicare, which pays hospitals 71% and doctors 81% of what private insurers pay. The government passes the rest to providers and families not covered by government programs, which is a forced subsidy. According to a recent study by Milliman Inc., families pay about $1,800 more a year for someone else's health care as a result.

Third, government-run health insurance would force most Americans into the government plan. The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance, about 120 million Americans, would quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced into the government program.

Fourth, the program is too expensive. The cost of Medicare, the purest form of a government-run public choice for seniors, will start exceeding its payroll-tax trust fund in 2017. Medicare and Medicaid cost much more than estimated when they were adopted because there is no competition for these government-run insurance programs.

Fifth, the program puts government firmly in the middle of the relationship between patients and their doctors.

Mr. Rove ends by stating:

The public option is just phony. It's a bait-and-switch tactic meant to reassure people that the president's goals are less radical than they are. Mr. Obama's real aim, as some candid Democrats admit, is a single-payer, government-run health-care system.

Health care desperately needs far-reaching reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge, bring the benefits of competition and market forces to bear, and ensure access to affordable and portable health care for every American. Republicans have plans to achieve this, and they must make their case for reform in every available forum.

Defeating the public option should be a top priority for the GOP this year. Otherwise, our nation will be changed in damaging ways almost impossible to reverse.

Source.

Karl Rove, former Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush, writes in his weekly editorial in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2009, that both President Barack Obama and the Republicans get something they want from the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Mr. Rove says that Mr. Obama nominates someone who has "empathy." Someone who will temper the court's decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.

Mr. Rove writes:

"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

There is a certain irony in a President who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.

Mr. Obama's pick also allows him to placate Hispanic groups who'd complained of his failure to appoint more high profile Latinos to his administration.

Mr. Rove says that President Obama will gain political points from Latinos as GOP senators oppose a Latina. He also says that the Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages as they can make their concerns about having a judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. The American public supports this.

Mr. Rove writes:

Mr. Obama understands the danger of heralding Judge Sotomayor as the liberal activist she is, so his spinners are intent on selling her as a moderate. The problem is that she described herself as liberal before becoming a judge, and fair-minded observers find her on the left of the federal bench.

Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.

Mr. Rove does point out that both President Obama and the GOP are denied things in this nomination. The GOP doesn't get an easy target as Ms. Sotomayor has a compelling personal story that is attractive for cable, celebrity magazines and tabloids. And President Obama will not get a new leader on the Supreme Court.

The media has quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor, but Mr. Rove doesn't think this is an issue. However, the GOP must treat Ms. Sotomayor with kid gloves compared to how the Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Mr. Rove says that the GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.

Mr. Rove ends with writing:

Mr. Obama won't get a new leader on the Supreme Court. Ms. Sotomayor does not appear to be a consensus builder whose persuasive abilities would allow her to flip a 4-5 decision to a 5-4 decision. She is likely to be just another reliable liberal vote, much as Justice Souter was, only without his gloomy silences and withdrawn nature.

While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents. 

Source.

From Karl Rove, former Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush

President Barack Obama and his West Wing lieutenants are playing on the world's largest stage, yet act as if no one is watching them when they contradict their campaign promises. That behavior is unwittingly giving the Republicans an opening.

For example, Team Obama thinks the president, having spent a good portion of the campaign decrying the $2.9 trillion in deficits during the Bush years, can now double the national debt held by the public in 10 years. Having condemned earmarks during the campaign, the Obama administration now believes it can wave through 8,500 of them in the omnibus-spending bill, part of the biggest spending increase since World War II.

With the Dow at 7,486 and unemployment at 8.1%, Mr. Obama says the economy is fundamentally sound. Does he suppose the nation won't recall him attacking John McCain last September for saying the same thing, when the Dow was at 11,000 and unemployment at 6.2%?

Candidate Obama vowed to end "the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics." Yet his administration geared up MoveOn.org to lead a left-wing coalition to pressure Republicans and centrist Democrats, organized a daily conference call to coordinate liberal attack dogs, and strategized with Americans United for Change on ads depicting the GOP as the party of "no."

Rather than working with Republicans on the budget, the administration attacked them as mindless obstructionists. Yet the administration's policies are not nearly as popular as one might suppose.

For example, the liberal Center for American Progress recently found that 61% of Americans say government spending is almost always wasteful and inefficient, and 57% think free market solutions are better than government at creating jobs and economic growth. A late February poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 61% were concerned "the federal government will spend too much money" and "drive up the budget deficit" versus 29% concerned the government "will spend too little."

These general attitudes translate into opposition to specific policy initiatives. For example, CBS found support for the stimulus bill falling to 51% in February from 63% in January. Meanwhile, opposition to more money to bail out banks rose to 53% in March from 44% in February.

This, in turn, is affecting Mr. Obama's job approval ratings, already just average for a new president. Last week's Pew poll showed Mr. Obama's approval at 59% with 26% disapproval, down from February's 64% approval and 17% disapproval. His standing on the economy is also falling: Newsweek found in January that 71% were confident Mr. Obama would be able to turn around the economy, while 26% were not. By March, his ratings had fallen to 65% confident, 33% not.

Republicans sense the opportunity. The House GOP leadership deputized the top Budget Committee Republican, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to prepare an alternative budget. The GOP budget won't raise taxes, gets spending and debt under control, and will result in a stronger economy with more jobs. House Republicans plan a major selling effort back home during the coming recess. Minority Leader John Boehner is already up on YouTube extolling the plan.

Senate Republicans will not prepare a complete alternative, but they will offer a robust package of amendments, with a wave of proposals for each of the three weeks the upper chamber will devote to the budget. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander foreshadowed the GOP's theme by saying the Democratic budget taxes, spends and borrows too much.

Sen. Alexander is also working with Sen. Judd Gregg, the ranking Budget Committee Republican, on a statement of budget principles that sharpens the contrast between the two parties' approaches to America's economic future.

The GOP's challenge is winning attention for its vision. True, its megaphone isn't nearly as big as those of the White House and the Congressional Democratic majorities, and Mr. Obama still has the upper hand. Yet by discarding so much of what people found appealing in him, Mr. Obama may change that.

Every president eventually depletes his political capital. Some have done so advancing great, difficult causes. Others squander it because of missteps, and what the public views as breaches of faith. Having been president for all of eight weeks, Mr. Obama retains much residual goodwill and could still change course on the budget to reach across the aisle. But his current strategy has made him weaker than he was and weaker than he needs to be. It's turning into a costly two months for America's 44th president.

Source.

Rush Limbaugh is right where he wants to be and right where the White House wants him: in the news. But Republicans have more mixed feelings about the controversial talk radio host's recent elevation.

Mr. Limbaugh dominated headlines this week, as a drive by the White House and other top Democrats to paint him as the leader of the Republican Party left the GOP flummoxed. Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, illustrated his party's dilemma, first calling Mr. Limbaugh's style "ugly," then phoning him to apologize.

One committee member labeled Mr. Steele's handling of the matter a "Republican Horror Show" and called on him step down just weeks after taking on the job.

Behind the political theater lay a fundamental challenge for a party seeking a way out of the wilderness after last November's drubbing. Republican leaders and activists are grappling with how to joust with a popular new president, particularly after years of being accused of embracing a cutthroat style of politics.

Yet some Republicans also sense openings in the early days of the Obama presidency. They argue that Democrats may be overreaching with an ambitious big-government agenda and that voters will turn to Republicans once they absorb the impact of spending bills that greatly expand the deficit without, they contend, doing much to stimulate the economy.

"There are clear opportunities for Republicans," says party strategist Dave Winston, who suggests party leaders are starting to find their voice on targeted issues. Republicans are painting newly Democratic Washington as a hotbed of higher taxes and spending.

By week's end, Republicans broke through the Limbaugh-dominated political news with their own story line: repeated attacks on "earmarks" in a spending bill passing through Congress. They even forced a delay in a Senate vote until next week.

Still, Mr. Winston said, Mr. Obama continues to benefit from the goodwill created in 2008. "The question is when do we get to the point where the afterglow of the election dissipates," he said. "That'll be an important inflection point."

Many party activists hunger for direct confrontation. This past week, Tony Perkins, who heads the Family Research Council, excoriated Republicans for not resisting Kathleen Sebelius, the nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, who supports abortion rights. "If Republicans won't take a stand now, when will they?" Mr. Perkins demanded in an online newsletter.

Some Republicans argue that Democratic attacks on Mr. Limbaugh will backfire by rallying disenchanted conservatives who lost enthusiasm for the party in 2006 and 2008. "They've miscalculated big time," said Greg Mueller, a conservative strategist and veteran of the Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes presidential campaigns.

"The best thing they can do for the Republican Party is energizing the base, by attacking Rush. He communicates more effectively to the Reagan coalition that most elected Republicans."

But others say the party risks alienating voters by attacking the president at a time of financial crisis. In Florida, Jim Greer, the party's state chairman, is urging Republicans to "move on to the issues that are important to American voters in addition to [social] issues -- education, the economy, things that affect people every day." Mr. Greer kicked off a youth-outreach program this past week emphasizing young people's financial concerns.

Republicans clearly are on the defensive. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll this week found nearly half of respondents viewed the Democrats positively and 31% negatively, while 26% viewed the GOP positively and 47% negatively.

Still, the poll also showed an opening for the emerging Republican line of attack against Mr. Obama's early policies. By 61% to 29%, those surveyed said they were more worried the government would "spend too much money trying to boost the economy" than too little.

Republican guru Ed Gillespie, who held Mr. Steele's job during the George W. Bush years, says the floundering and internal debate is to be expected for a party out of power. "The fact is there is a natural process that goes on when you don't have the House, the Senate or the White House, where a lot of voices start to emerge," he said. "Let a thousand flowers bloom."

Source.

His grandfather Prescott Bush was a U.S. senator, and his father and brother were presidents. Yet Jeb Bush doesn't believe in political dynasties, and seems perfectly willing to let his family's legacy of serving in high office in Washington pass him by.

It's "possible," he says, that he'll never run again -- for anything. That includes the presidency in 2012. "I'm totally comfortable with what I'm doing and how I'm going about it. I hope I can find a role to play that doesn't include running for office to make a contribution."

Mr. Bush, who turned 56 this week, stepped down in 2007 after eight years as governor of Florida. Now he's working in real estate, consulting, giving paid speeches, promoting education reform, and offering advice to the Republican Party. Even the U.S. Senate seat that Republican Mel Martinez will vacate next year didn't entice him. That, he says, would require a seven and a half year commitment, a year and a half of campaigning and six years in office. He sounds weary merely discussing another campaign.

But Mr. Bush becomes animated when talking about ideas and policy innovations -- he's an unorthodox Republican who latches onto reform ideas wherever he finds them. He's a fan of the school system in Sweden. Currently he's reading Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns on his Kindle. And he's convinced Republicans should make a heroic effort to govern California because it's "a center of innovation and a place that looks like the changing demographics of our country, similar to Florida."

But the first question I ask Mr. Bush is about his life and work after declining to seek a Senate seat. He's not second-guessing his decision. He's relaxed, dressed Miami-style in slacks, a tattersall shirt and no tie. When Mr. Bush left the governor's mansion in Tallahassee, he worked out of an office in his Coral Gables condo. Six months later, he moved to the Four Seasons office complex five miles away on the fringe of downtown Miami. It is not plush, but modest and functional with a modern print on the wall and a few dozen books, on policy, politics, religion, on two shelves.

Nevertheless, his current lack of interest in elective office surely is not the last word on Mr. Bush's political career. He's popular with both moderate and conservative Republicans, and more easy-going and genial than his brother George. Mr. Bush was a successful governor, 1999-2007, of the fourth most populous state. His tenure was memorable because of his intense focus on reform of education, government, the budget process, civil service, health care, procurement and race-based programs. He also cut taxes in a state with no income tax.

What comes through when Mr. Bush is asked about education is how radical his views are. He would toss out the traditional K-to-12 scheme in favor of a credit system, like colleges have.

"It's not based on seat time," he says. "It's whether you accomplished the task. Now we're like GM in its heyday of mass production. We don't have a flourishing education system that's customized. There's a whole world out there that didn't exist 10 years ago, which is online learning. We have the ability today to customize learning so we don't cast young people aside."

This is where Sweden comes in. "The idea that somehow Sweden would be the land of innovation, where private involvement in what was considered a government activity, is quite shocking to us Americans," Mr. Bush says. "But they're way ahead of us. They have a totally voucherized system. The kids come from Baghdad, Somalia, this is in the tougher part of Stockholm, and they're learning three languages by the time they finish. . . . there's no reason we can't have that except we're stuck in the old way."

So are Republicans, Mr. Bush believes. But with a few adjustments, the GOP can become a modern reform party. "I don't think there's anything that holds us back," he says. "I think we're actually well positioned to do exactly that." Mr. Bush would stand the party on its head by de-emphasizing Washington and mounting "a real effort to play offense outside of Washington in advancing a reform agenda. I think a respectful, policy-oriented opposition in Washington will be quite effective." But the states are where "being able to change things is easier to do."

This approach "worked in the early 90s," Mr. Bush says. "We had some fantastic governors who were my role models." He mentions his brother when he led Texas, John Engler of Michigan and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin. "We had an all-star team." He likes the current crop of Republican governors, including Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

"Beyond the ideas and all of that," Mr. Bush says the GOP must be a national party. That means "we need to be competitive in California," where the "burden of big-government policies" has produced a $42 billion deficit. "I don't care how big the state is, that's mind-boggling. It's not a tax problem. Don't they have the 'excuse me for living' tax out there? The growth of government spending has been enormous. And a creative, reform-minded candidate on the Republican side" could be elected governor.

He encouraged Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, to try. "She's the kind of person who's lived and managed and led through the disruptive changes that are going on in our lives," Mr. Bush says. On Feb. 9, Ms. Whitman set up an exploratory committee, normally a precursor to running.

Mr. Bush commented last fall that "a big-government Republican" is a nonexistent species. What did he mean?

"I think the one common thread throughout all these strains of conservative thinking and Republicanism is limited government. If we don't have that in common, what else do we have? And the next question you'll ask is what do I think of my brother's record. I think circumstances come into play. When you're attacked as a nation it's legitimate to spend resources to deal with huge holes in national security. And so there are times in history when it's important to use the power of government."

Republicans must also clean up their act on immigration, Mr. Bush insists. Last year, he says they "set a tone" that pushed Hispanic voters away. "The tone of the debate reached a point that was very damning to the Republican Party, and the evidence is in. The chest pounders lost."

Mr. Bush supports immigration reform as championed by his brother and John McCain, which would allow illegals already in this country to stay. "Politics has to be about ideas and values and aspirations." he says. "It shouldn't be about anger and preying on people's emotions. You can't lead a mob."

To publicize their alternatives to President Obama's policies, Mr. Bush wants Republicans to emulate the British ("recognizing that we have a different system") and set up a shadow cabinet. "We should organize our opposition based on policy," he says. "I don't think the [2008] election was a transformational one in the ideological sense. I don't think Americans went to the left. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get that sense. It's a huge opportunity to advocate reforms and advocate our beliefs and do so with some humility and recognition that the other guys won."

What did he take away from his experience as governor? Mr. Bush says he "learned you could change things if you worked at it. What I learned was how to take ideas and implement them over the long haul. The thing with politics is that it's focused on the here and now." However, "by focusing on the longer-term things I had a chance to take conservative ideas and reform-minded thoughts and put them into practice. It was invigorating. It was uplifting to me personally to see that in America a whole lot of people can work together to accomplish that."

As Mr. Bush explains it, an exhausting strategy is required. "You have to have an aspirational goal, and you have to communicate it over and over and over. You have to have the humility to recognize that people aren't watching your every word. . . . You have to be constantly adding to the reforms. You have to take the risk of measuring the success or lack of it. You have to be held accountable . . . Sometimes it's not fun."

Mr. Bush has kind words for Mr. Obama. He was the first Democrat to win Florida since 1976, and Mr. Bush has nothing but praise for his "spectacularly well-run campaign. They started with the premise that we're going to have a huge database and we're going to connect people to this campaign. When things got going in earnest in the general election, it was a finely tuned machine, to Obama's credit." The campaign spent $60 million in the state, Mr. Bush says, based on the correct assumption that "if they won Florida, they'd win the election."

He also has a suggestion. "I think it would be great politically for President Obama" to break with one of his party's interest groups, Mr. Bush says. "I hope it's the teachers' union. He can bring about a transformation of education" and speak "on behalf of the kids that traditionally are shut out of the learning process, and [allow] a thousand flowers to bloom, not just one prescribed from Washington."

Mr. Bush has a personal motive for urging Republicans to "avoid personal, partisan attacks" on Mr. Obama, a strategy they've largely followed in Washington. "I would never want Obama to go through what my brother went through. It might be fair that every president gets the same amount of vitriol. But it's not right for our country, it's not going to help us, and it's not going to help Republicans."

Source.

From Karl Rove, former Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush

Congressional Republicans lack President Barack Obama's bully pulpit and do not have the majorities that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid enjoy. But they are playing their hand extraordinarily well.

Over the past month, House Republicans have used the stimulus bill to redefine their party, present ideas on how to revive the economy, and force congressional Democrats and the president to take ownership of the spending programs soon to be signed into law.

The first smart move House Republicans made was to raise objections to specific parts of the House stimulus bill. Pointing out that there is money in the bill for condoms, livestock insurance, refurbishing the National Mall, and other outlandish things revealed that it is a massive spending spree, not an economic stimulus.

House Republicans had the wisdom to continue to talk to the Obama White House. This made them look gracious, even as the president edged toward a "my way or the highway" attitude.

They also wisely put ideas on the table, such as cutting the bottom two income tax rates and small-business taxes while extending unemployment insurance and other safety-net provisions. With these proposals, Republicans generated news and made it possible for their members to be for something that made sense to their voters.

It also helped that the same methodology that the White House used to claim that the Democratic stimulus bill would create four million new jobs showed that the Republican approach would create six million new jobs, at half the cost.

The payoff is that support for the stimulus bill is falling. CBS News polling reveals a 12-point drop in support of the bill over the past month. Pew Research and Rasmussen have turned in similar numbers. The more Americans learn about the bill, the less they like it.

What is becoming clear is that the House GOP is becoming energized by empowering its "Young Guns." Leader John Boehner has been good. But he wouldn't be as effective if he didn't have the help of Reps. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, and Mike Pence, the House GOP conference chairman. Reps. Paul Ryan and Dave Camp, the top Republicans on the Budget and the Ways and Means committees, are impressive and add depth to the leadership team.

Over in the Senate, Republicans have likewise followed a "better ideas" strategy. Mitch McConnell pushed to make aid to states loans, not grants, and to cut income taxes for the middle class. Other Republican senators came in with ideas to fix housing, put money in the hands of taxpayers, and cut fat from the stimulus.

They also asked the Congressional Budget Office if the Democratic Senate bill was actually stimulative. The nonpartisan CBO found it would have a "negligible" impact on jobs by 2011 and hurt economic growth and prosperity over the next decade.

Mr. Obama will get his bill. But it won't be one focused on job creation and stimulus. The bill he signs will create a raft of new programs and be the biggest peacetime spending increase in American history, which will give us larger deficits and create pressure to raise taxes. It will also hinder the president's other goals, such as expanding government health care.

But if Republicans predict economic doom, they will overplay their hand. The Democratic stimulus will slow recovery, but not stop it. Recessions don't last forever and, if history is a guide, sometime late this year or early next the economy will rebound on its own. When that happens, Democrats will argue that their untargeted, permanent spending actually revived the economy.

Americans are skeptical of the notion that increasing the size and cost of government will lead to an increase in jobs and economic growth. A recent CBS News poll, for example, shows that 62% of Americans think "reducing taxes" will "do more to get the U.S. out of the current recession" -- nearly three times the 22% who prefer "increasing government spending."

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 60% of Americans are worried that government will "spend too much" to boost the economy. Only 33% worry it will spend "too little."

The debate here is about means, not ends. Americans and both parties want a revived economy. Republicans want focused proposals that create jobs and growth, while the White House seems ready to accept what House and Senate appropriators have drawn up.

Mr. Obama, for all his talents, has already re-energized the GOP and sparked a spending debate that will last for years. The president won this legislative battle, but at a high price -- fiscally and politically.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Visit Mr. Rove on the web at Rove.com.

Source.