Honestly, I'm not sure how much of a "base" true fiscal conservatives are. Especially when the likely opponents--Kerry? Edwards?--are likely to be even more irresponsible.

The two constituencies that most matter to Bush are people like the two of us who put security #1 and the social conservatives. Bush has done a damned good job at keeping both happy.

Posted by: James Joyner at January 29, 2004 02:06 PM

Could well be. It's a tricky campaign tactic, anyway, to simultaneously argue "Vote for me, because I've made you safe" and "It's not safe to turn it over to this clown."

Posted by: James Joyner at January 29, 2004 02:18 PM

No, I don't think so. W's father got the boot because of his infamous "no new taxes" fracus. I rather doubt that kind of mistake will be repeated.

His father tried it, and he screwed it up. Now Bush 2.0 trying it, and success or failure has yet to be determined, but thus far he's succeeded in taking away damn near every traditionally Democrat issue away from them.

A great many people on both sides of the aisle underestimate Bush, even after he's pulled a fast one on them several dozen times already.

And to clarify, I'm not defending Bush's spending policies. I'm making an observation on them, and making the assumption that it'll do more good for him than not. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

Posted by: Mr. Lion at January 29, 2004 02:31 PM

I think Bush's political motivation here is a bit different. I DON'T think he is trying to buy Democratic votes. I think he is trying to depress the Democratic base by taking away reasons to vote against him.

In order to motivate your base, you need to either get them excited about voting for you, or angry enough to vote against the other guy. If the Democrats nominate someone who isn't very exciting (like Kerry, in my opinion), then the Democratic base--by default--is going to be pushed by anti-Bush anger. Bush may be trying to placate enough chunks of the Democratic base that they don't feel really enthusiastic about turning him out of office.

I'm not sure I agree the above strategy would work, but I think it's more plausible than Bush trying to get the Democratic base to vote for him. All else aside, maybe Bush just thinks these policies are simply good public policy?

Posted by: Sam Barnes at January 29, 2004 02:46 PM

Bush's actions are definitely diminishing his base support. I might vote for him this time around, but I won't contribute any time or money to the effort. If Bush goes down in flames it might teach the republicans an important lesson. Why vote national defense when he is willing to destroy this country (amnesty for illegals) from within?

Posted by: Dan at January 29, 2004 03:11 PM

He's squandering a great opportunity. He's trying to entice moderates and democrats with this spending, while making conservatives hold their noses and vote for him on the war/security issue. He should be doing the opposite: being fiscally responsible and making moderates and pro-war democrats hold THEIR noses and vote for him based on the war/security issue.

Posted by: James at January 29, 2004 03:48 PM

W.'s dad lost his "base" for 3 reasons:

1: Read our lips, you're fired
2: He didn't win Gulf War I (Saddam was still in charge)
3: He play footsie with the Democrats in Congress, and lost

W. OTOH,

1: Came through on the tax cuts
2: Defeated the Taliban, and defeated Saddam
3: Routinely kicks the sh!t out of the Dems.

41 offered "deals", and repeatedly got publicly taken for a ride. 43 offers programs, and rams them through the way he wants them.

IOW, 43 is a "winner", and 41 was a loser.

Posted by: Greg D at January 29, 2004 04:10 PM

The big difference between W and his father is that the latter pledged "no new taxes" and then raised taxes while the former delivered a series of huge tax cuts (just as he promised he would). This, the absence of a Ross Perot and the presence of a successful war on terrorists should be enough to spell victory for W.

Posted by: tibor at January 29, 2004 04:12 PM

Not only does taking issues away from Dems demoralize the Dem base, but it makes those looney left Bush haters look even more ridiculous when they try to tar Bush as a "right wing extremist" tilting the center to the right.

Plus, just as you say you put security ahead of all else, anyone angry enough at Bush's spending is going to realize that (a) anyone on the Dem side will be worse and (b) it would be unsafe to let any of those other jokers take over the War on Terror.

Posted by: MarkD at January 29, 2004 07:28 PM

My comment -- and I'm not the only person from the more Democratically-inclined crowd to observe this -- is that we see quite a few conservative/Republican/Bush-supporting bloggers saying stuff to the effective of "liberals/Democrats should be very happy with Bush's policies; look at how he's running up spending!"

Which is being a victim of -- in the case of those thinking this way, such as David Bernstein at Volokh -- your own caricatures of "liberals," who, back in reality, are actually not in the least interested in arbitrarily spending more government money, let alone in spending it wastefully.

The real argument is whether any given specific spending is likely to accomplish a sufficiently desired goal at a cost worth paying that much for. Naturally, opinions will vary on that, as well as whether it's worth, or a virtue, to spend any money at all on a given goal. But what liberals desire is, in theory, to accomplish something, not just smile in satisfaction at hearing that X billion dollars will be spent on "education" or "health," or whatever.

But, then, Bush and Rove's goal is not, of course, to win over generic "Democrats," but slivers of specific interest groups. Which is more doable with specific programs, though how much or how little, well, depends.

In general I'd agree that trying to buy his way to the election via the federal treasury is apt to be incredibly expensive and of questionable effectiveness. But what else are they going to do to win swing voters otherwise pre-disposed to not favor Bush?

Posted by: Gary Farber at January 29, 2004 09:01 PM

I have voted for every Republican Presidential candidate since I started voting in 1968 with one exception. I voted Libertarian in 1992. Essentially, I am the base. The President is doing everything he can to lose me. At this point, I see two differences between Bush and Clinton. Bush doesn't view foreign policy as a tactic to distract people from domestic scandals and he has avoided appoint hard left extremist judges. That may be enough to get me to hold my nose and vote for him, it may not. Its up in the air right now.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at January 30, 2004 04:57 AM

All the other pseudo-liberal crap Bush has pulled has pissed me off, but I was still going to vote for him -- because the WoT trumps everything. Until the Amnesty Deal -- which I view as a PART of the WoT. Why fight the terrorists "over there" if you're willing to wink and nod at a sea of people violating our borders -- a sea in which a very small number of terrorists may hide? With 800,000 illegals crossing our borders every year, and NO plan to actually stem that tide (instead, just hand everybody a "light green" card once they get here) -- d'ya think a few murderous Islamofascists might ALSO slip across that undefended line?

Bush brought up this Amnesty idea back in 2001, but then 9/11 happened and he shelved it. I THOUGHT he had learned something, and would LEAVE it on the shelf. But no, he dragged out his 9/10-era amnesty plan, and lost my vote.

Posted by: Chuck at January 31, 2004 02:17 PM

Wait a minute -- why does anyone think Bush has a monopoly on national security?

I voted for him, and probably will, but I wish i could say he's made me feel entirely safer.

Indeed, there have been no major attacks on US soil - thank God - but from a domestic security standpoint, it will be in Kerry/Edwards/whomever's interest to do the same - to do all in their power to prevent a homeland attack. We'll hear all about it during the campaign.

And regardless, why the blank check for Bush's national security policies anyway?

Like it or not, 9-11 happened on his watch, and the White House has been stiff-arming the investigation commission. That's disconcerting -- I, as an American, would like to know what went wrong.

The Iraq war indisputably diverted resources from the hunt for bin laden; i hoped we could have done the two simultaneously.

And Bush is "concerned" about the facts for WMD, but unwilling to agree to an independent probe of the CIA's intelligence gathering -- the same intelligence gathering that's supposed to keep us "safe."

And now we have amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Not very reassuring, eh?

Posted by: Vince at January 31, 2004 04:10 PM

Vince: It is silly to blame Bush (43) for 9/11. Any real fault goes back through Clinton, Bush (41), Reagan, to Carter. All of these Presidents showed weakness in the face of challenge to the U.S. Those responsible for the event had little reason to believe that Bush (43) would respond by taking out the regimes in Afganistan and Iraq.

It is also silly to blame the CIA. It has been crippled, esp. as to on-the-ground operations, since the vaunted Democratic reforms. These covert operations are precisely what it would have taken to come up with a better intelligence estimate of Iraq's WMD. And remember, not only did the CIA under Bush possibly make a mistake here, but the same mistake was made by Clinton, the U.K., France, the U.N., etc.

Obviously, the sole purpose of any investigation into any intelligence failure concerning Iraq's WMD would be for the sole purpose of damaging and/or embarrasing Bush in the upcoming election. Why should he go along with this?

Does the reason for this failure, if there was one, really matter? Only revisionists, who have failed to reread Bush's 2003 State of the Union message, believe that Iraq's WMD were the sole reason for the war. These are, of course, many of the same people who opposed the war because they believed that SH would use those same (so far missing) WMDs if we invaded Iraq.

I opposed the Medicare prescription drug benefit, but then I oppose non-means-tested Medicare in general. The entire program is an income transfer program from those working to those who already control a majority of the wealth in this country.

I do not know where I sit on the immigration reform proposal. Both sides grossly overstate their cases. It is a problem, and it is getting worse. The sad reality is that we can't lock up all of our borders, south and north against illegal immigration. This would cost far more, both monetarily, and in terms of our freedoms, than any of the programs being discussed here.

But I suspect that it is going to be good politically for Bush. Hispanics are up for grab, more than ever, in this election, and Bush is making a lot of the right moves, and the Democrats, a lot of the wrong ones (Kerry?).

Posted by: Bruce Hayden at January 31, 2004 05:26 PM

I will vote for Bush based on national security and the appointment of judges. But if nothing changes with the Republicans real damn fast, he's the only Republican I will vote for. If I had a way to vote for a Democrat house, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, I would push that button.

The Republicans have proven that as a party in power, they spend and expand just like Democrats.

Posted by: pilsener at January 31, 2004 06:35 PM

I will vote for Bush based on national security and the appointment of judges. But if nothing changes with the Republicans real damn fast, he's the only Republican I will vote for. If I had a way to vote for a Democrat house, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, I would push that button.

I wholeheartedly agree with this comment. We need divided government, but we need the Senate to be filibuster proof so that GWB can get his judicial nominees through.

Posted by: Ken at January 31, 2004 07:08 PM

Vince,

Have you paid any attention to Kerry or Edwards? People who talk about terrorism as a "police problem" don't have a clue how to deal with it.

They're also the biggest threats to our civil liberties. Dealing with terrorism as a war issue means killing bad guys, mainly far away from here.

Terrorism as "police problem" means spying here. It also means more dead Americans.

That's why anyone who's serious about terrorism opposes the Democrats.

Greg

Posted by: Greg D at January 31, 2004 08:21 PM

Oh, and guys,

Does anyone think Democrat control of the House would mean LESS spending? Can you point to any time in the past where it's meant that?

From 1995 to 1997, Republican control of Congress v Clinton in the White House meant spending was a bit under control, and taxes were too high. Starting in 1998, the spending became less under control (which really hurt the Republicans in the 1998 elections, because the base stayed home in disgust).

Those who talk about the golden days of divided government hark back to a myth.

Posted by: Greg D at January 31, 2004 08:25 PM

Hate to say it, but this may be approaching moot. H.W. Bush did poorly in New Hampshire (as did Ford and Carter as incumbents). George W. Bush did better than Clinton and Nixon, and nearly as well as Reagan. No doubt some on the right are agitated by the president's soft line on spending, but there doesn't seem to be a corresponding dent in votes. Approaching primaries will tell.

And I wouldn't underestimate the impression of September 11th. Non-political voters I know aren't exactly quoting Reuel Marc Gerecht, but they seem to know the score.

Posted by: Michael Ubaldi at January 31, 2004 08:47 PM

Am I 100% happy with Mr. Bush? Hell, no - the domestic-spending runup makes me want to lose my lunch. And am I even 100% happy with him concerning the WoT? Sorry, not even there, sports fans. The Saudi royal family still hasn't been turned into worm chow, he's still letting those damned junior-league Neville Chamberlains at the State Department cozy up to Arafat and the Iranian mullahs, George Tenet and Robert Mueller still haven't been unceremoniously fired - and don't even get me started on that @#$%*&! illegal-alien amnesty proposal!

Given the above, I'm still going to have to get my carcass to the polls and vote for GWB, and encourage like-minded acquaintances to do likewise. What's the alternative? National-security and foreign policies that consist of "don't even sneeze unless Jacques Chiraq gives permission". An orgy of domestic spending that will make GWB's recent spree look like a trip to the supermarket, complete with big-time tax hikes on "the rich" to ensure that "everyone pays their fair share" - the "rich", to Democrats, being anyone who makes a double-digit hourly wage. A de facto open-borders immigration policy. No, folks - I'll have to keep dancing with the one I brung, and hope like hell he's going to use his 2nd term to do what's right.

Posted by: Jeff at January 31, 2004 09:18 PM

I sense a lot of Bush's base getting ready to hold their nose. And indeed, he does a lot of things I don't like. However, some of his actions are less nasty than at first glance.

Medications are an increasingly expensive part of medical care, and are also increasingly important in maintaining health. Medicare without Prescription Drug benefits is a joke. And since the political will doesn't exist to kill Medicare, the drug benefit was inevitable. At least with Bush, we get some market oriented reform thrown in (espeically the HSA's which are going to dramatically impact Health Care economics).

Living in Arizona, I daily see the immigration problem. It is clear to me that we cannot stop this immigration short of building an iron curtain and shooting lots of folks. That radical a measure, in addition to be very costly, would fail (the terrorists, at least, would just come through the Canadian border), and would not be politically sustainable as we killed these people. Internationally, it would also be a big problem. In addition to getting this one just right, conservatives need to make sure there are strong measure to ensure genuine assimilation. I see too many pickup trucks with Arizona rear plates and the Mexican flag as the front tag. If they are going to be here, we must make these immigrants into real Americans, not the isolated unassimilated groups that the multiculturalists favor.

I think trying to legalize a lot of these people makes a lot of sense. I don't know if the current proposal is the best way (if it has amnesty, it will lead to real problems), but there should be a way to deal with this.

A lot of the other spending, in the big picture, really isn't that much money. Add up all of the "earmarks" (pork) and it comes out to less than 1% of the total budget. If giving away that pork results in votes that aid in the war on terror, then do it! If it keeps Democrats from taking over and losing the war on terror, then, sigh, do it.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at January 31, 2004 09:45 PM

On a slightly different subject, but related to the election...

I see an interesting anti-Kerry dynamic. The democrats are choosing Kerry, I think, largely to defuse the idea that Democrats are bad on security. Who can be better than a Kennedy-esque war hero. But a better comparison than Kennedy may be Benedict Arnold.

Kerry has real vulnerabilities here.

I discovered a Vietnam Veterans against Kerry site and put up a post of my own discussing the issue and pointing to the other site (I'm also a Vietnam Vet). I have never, ever gotten as many comments on a single article, and they are almost all from veterans who despise Kerry for his anti-war antics. Kerry was Jane Fonda's toy after he returned form Vietnam (where some of his medals, the purple hearts, we awarded inappropriately), and most vets would like to see her tried for treason. As more Vietnam era veterans find out about this tie-in, they get very angry. I am seeing this on my blog and other fora.

Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at January 31, 2004 09:47 PM

He's pissed off the people at National Review (the NEA seems to have been the last straw), he's pissed off Andrew Sullivan, and I think the best sign, he's pissed off my father. My father is pretty much a life long Republican, who was largely turned off by the first Bush, and voted for Perot.

He'd never vote for Kerry, but he might simply not vote. And he almost certainly would vote for Lieberman (who will be lucky to finish ahead of Kucinich, at this rate)

Posted by: Jeremy at January 31, 2004 11:52 PM

What bumptious nonsense.

You'd think that some of these Bush devotees would, if only in respect to the law of averages, have a little sophistication.

They present themselves instead as babes in the wood, know nothings who are in over their heads and can't even see how shallow it all is.

Posted by: Harry Lime at February 1, 2004 02:54 PM

Since 1980 I have voted for only one major-party presidential candidate: George W. Bush. While I've been happy with his prosecution of the war on terrorism; the temporary tax cuts; and even the federal education initiatives, I am increasingly disturbed by his penchant for government intrusion into the lives of private citizens, his fiscal irresponsibility, and his pandering to targeted groups who aren't going to vote for him despite his having forsaken principle for political gamesmanship.

Fortunately, the choice isn't either...or. Nor will I stay home on election day.

I will vote for a third-party, perhaps libertarian, candidate for president, as I have done five other times. I don't see it as throwing my vote away. (That would be voting for Bush just because he's the less dangerous of two little men.)

Posted by: Danny at February 1, 2004 09:09 PM