Political Animal
Blog
In an interview with ABC News this morning, Grover Norquist, the President of Americans for Tax Reform went after former President George H.W. Bush.
“When George Herbert Walker Bush ran for president, he promised the American people he wouldn’t raise their taxes,” Norquist said this morning on “This Week.” “He lied to them. He broke his commitment to them and they threw him out of office four years later.”
Bush famously said “Read my lips: no new taxes” during his 1988 campaign, before going on to raise taxes during his only term as president.
Norquist, the man famous for convincing a huge swath of congressional Republicans to pledge to not raise taxes, was responding to a jab from the former President Bush last month in an interview with PARADE magazine.
“The rigidity of those pledges is something I don’t like,” Bush said in the interview. “The circumstances change and you can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist. It’s - who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?”
These comments mark the growing split within the GOP between more pragmatic conservatives and those entirely ideologically driven. This gap has been papered over with Barack Obama in the White House as Republicans have been able to submerge their differences in opposition to the President. The problem for the GOP is what happens if Mitt Romney wins in November. Romney will then have to govern and take actions that will inevitably alienate part of his party—-a task made more difficult by the fact that he is held in suspicion by members of each wing of the GOP. Eventually President Romney would have to align himself with either the Grover Norquists or the George H.W. Bushes of his party.
But a Romney administration is far from inevitable and in the meantime, Romney still has to navigate these pitfalls in order to even be elected. For all his avoidance of the press, one of those pitfalls will come soon when a reporter inevitably asks the former Massachusetts if he agrees with Norquist. It will be interesting to see how Romney answers that question.
Facebook
Twitter
Davis X. Machina on August 19, 2012 2:10 PM:
The "George H.W. Bush wing" of the GOP can meet in a phone booth and still have room for a DJ and a buffet.
Tax cuts in general, and cuts in the top marginal rates of income tax in particular, plus elimination of taxes on non-wage sources of income and on estates, is the Republican Party. There is no other there there.
sick -n-effin-tired on August 19, 2012 2:26 PM:
"It will be interesting to see how Romney answers that question."
It will be a pretzel logic non answer which will be followed by a "Thank You Governor " with no followup questions.
If you ever want to be in the pool and be called upon sonny , you better not ask any embarrassing questions . I know your boss.
He can't answer questions like that , he's running for president for Pete's sake .
I nearly shit myself this morning when a local newscast here in Florida actually explained what the Ryan Romney Medicare plan does and what the Obama plan does .
Actual facts instead of Republicans say ....talking point .....Democrats disagree .
I took the time to write the news director a thank you note for well er um reporting the news .
Sad commentary on the state of the MSM when you are amazed that the did what they are supposed to.
dricey on August 19, 2012 2:57 PM:
If Romney wins in November, the GOP controls the Senate and House, and the GOP retains control in the states where it currently has a lock on the governor's mansion and legislatures, the answer is simple. Congress repeals the Voting Rights Act, and the GOP-run states simply enact laws that reestablish property or income requirements for voting. Nothing would be able to stop them from doing so: the Constitution doesn't bar property and income restrictions, only sex, race, and age discrimination, and poll taxes. Income and property minima wouldn't fall into the category of a poll tax, and if anyone filed suit claiming that they do, the Scalia Court would uphold those requirements. By the time the 2014 elections came around, a lot of voters would find that they'd been disenfranchised, but what could they do about it?
I promise you: This is in the next chapter of the GOP Playbook.
c u n d gulag on August 19, 2012 3:02 PM:
Romney will answer that question in whatever way the powers-that-be at the moment want him to answer.
New p-t-b, new question, new answers.
Mitt has no convictions that cannot be bought.
dalloway on August 19, 2012 3:08 PM:
Mitt will do what his big money boyz, as Digby calls them, tell him to do. If Sheldon Adelson wants him to start a war with Iran, he will. If the Koch Brothers want him to abolish the EPA, he (and a Republican Congress) will. If Rupert Murdoch wants him to eliminate the estate tax, he will. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and watch capitalism in action.
c u n d gulag on August 19, 2012 3:12 PM:
Oh how I wish someone had asked Ol' Grover about his take on gay rights.
Whenever I see him, my Gaydar goes off and sounds like a radiation detector on top of an atomic bomb
What an asshole he is.
He always looks like he's miserable if he suspects anyone on the planet might be having a good time.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© on August 19, 2012 3:26 PM:
This gap has been papered over with Barack Obama in the White House as Republicans have been able to submerge their differences in opposition to the President.
=========================
Ironic, considering all that Obama has done for them. (For instance, adopting the Bush-Cheney tax cuts and USA Patriot Act, and not prosecuting any of the crimes committed by Rove and company.)
~
bleh on August 19, 2012 3:31 PM:
Eventually President Romney would have to align himself with either the Grover Norquists or the George H.W. Bushes of his party.
I don't think so. I think dalloway has a better take on it. Romney would do whatever he needed to do -- toss the Norquist wing a judge here, the H.W. wing a deregulation there -- in order to make himself and people like him even richer than they are, full stop. That the judge might eviscerate Constitutional protections, or the deregulation cause an environmental catastrophe, wouldn't matter a bit. He doesn't care, and neither do the guys funding him.
If the public elects him, they're gonna get what they asked for, as Mencken said, good and hard.
Zorro on August 19, 2012 3:59 PM:
For all his avoidance of the press, one of those pitfalls will come soon when a reporter inevitably asks the former Massachusetts if he agrees with Norquist. It will be interesting to see how Romney avoids that question.
Fixed that for ya,
-Z
Kathryn on August 19, 2012 4:14 PM:
Who the hell is Grover Norquist, I agree with Poppie Bush and while Bush 41 is indeed a man without a party, Norquist's influence with elected Republicans still outrages a lot of people. If my apolitical spouse is at all typical, the tax pledge by the elected to one of the unelected party leaders (along with Rush) is disloyal and unAmerican.
If I was in charge of messaging for the democrats, I'd hammer Republicans on their
stated plan to cut taxes further for the über rich, even the dumbest voter knows tax cuts for the 1% hasn't worked and polling has shown that consistently. I'd make the whiny Norquist and his digit statement the face of the Republican party. They can weasel their way around Medicare but cutting taxes for the "job creators" is their holy grail. In fact a rogue's gallery of Norquist, Adelson, Koch Brothers and Limbaugh should be the face of the GOP.
IMO, Grover doesn't fit in either the straight or gay camps, he's a whole different category, and his category is driven by greed and nothing more, he's a financial eunuch.
c u n d gulag on August 19, 2012 4:53 PM:
Kathryn,
Greed-driven Grover may be.
Asexual, or non-sexual, Grover may be.
But I think it's indisputable that financially - he's a whore.
And never has a whore who only does one trick for over 30 years, earned this much fame and money.
c u n d gulag on August 19, 2012 4:56 PM:
Oh, and I think "Norquist," translated into American, is "Quisling."
Discouraged South Carolinian on August 19, 2012 5:01 PM:
Several comments have mentioned Sheldon Adelson and Rupert Murdoch.
None noted the very personal reason that inspires them to suck up to a GOP presidential candidate for...both are likely to face Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charges within the next year.
c u n d gulag on August 19, 2012 6:16 PM:
Ben,
Thanks for a nice job this weekend!
I look forward to your next hostage tap... er... uhm... guest appearance! :-)
navamske on August 19, 2012 7:02 PM:
I don't blame Old Bush for raising taxes. I blame him for making that stupid pledge in the first place.
Anonymous on August 19, 2012 7:20 PM:
The interview writer/reporter accepts the premise that Bush was questioning: is Grover Norquist some kind of hypnotist who has "convinced" all those lawmakers to pledge not to raise taxes, or do they do it at the bidding of their big-money supporters? The opposition to taxes on rich people) is not "ideological" and Norquist is neither a hypotist nor an ideological leader; he is just the front man for plutocrats.
Anonymous on August 19, 2012 8:42 PM:
lulz
Steve on August 20, 2012 8:18 AM:
Has rMoney signed the "no tax increases" pledge?
If not, will Norquist press him to do so? Or, will Norquist refrain from insisting rMoney sign it, to avoid hurting the ticket's chances?
Or, does Norquist not care, knowing rMoney is an empty suit, possessing enough fingers to grip the pen rAyn hands to him?
ottercliff on August 20, 2012 10:04 AM:
Looking back, there are only two possible Romney responses to incredibly asinine comments uttered by his fellow Republicans:
1. I disagree
2. I would not have put it that way
We can look forward to one or the other brave & courageous stands in this case, I'm sure.
He's too timid to stand up to a tin pot fools like Grover Norquist or Sheldon Adelson but let's trust him to stand up to the numerous bad guys on the world stage today.
Anonymous on August 20, 2012 11:45 AM:
ABC "this week" had a decent discussion panel.
But it is getting clearer that Republicans want federal austerity approach to growth.
Democrats want public investment approach to growth.
Who is right? well, i think both are. We need some austerity and some investments.
the question is timing as much as the details.
Should we invest and run on deficits for now while in the sluggish recovery or we should start cutting federal debts right now?
Well, here comes the euro situations.
Germany and Northern creditors countries wanted debtor southern countries to have austerity right away in exchange for their bailouts. English conservatives also wanted austerity first. Well, now Euro and English are back in recession as a result.
There are many other variables to the European region so it's not perfect analogy
but almost all economists (including conservatives) agree that we need job growth first. In order to do so, we need to invest now and run on deficits. then when in recovery, we need to raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich, while putting entitlements in a sustainable path for a longer term.
The most important thing is that America stay competitive in the global economy.
What kind of role do Americans want to play in the world politics?
Both parties say that American should stay the leading economy with partnerships with the emerging rest. well, if so, shouldn't we look around and see what parts of economy America is behind?
America is ranked No 1 for business friendliness among a big developed countries. China is not even ranked top 10.
America taxed only 18% while most competitive advanced economies like Germany and Sweden taxes 30% or more.
However, America is getting less immigrant friendly compared to Europe, Australia and Canada, losing our potentials.
America ranked No2 in infrastructure in 2001, now we ranked bottom in the advanced economies.
American education ragged behind all the advanced economies with smaller GDPs.
America rank the top on health care spending but deliver the worst result.
To me, overall, Romney makes some good points but Obama is more on the right direction for global competitiveness.