Dick Morris: Thinks Tax Cut was brilliant; Clinton wants Bush in 2004

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Let me apologize in advance for not providing a link. I'm summarizing some of his points over the past week from TV and radio appearances.



I've been listening to him more in the last week. Whatever you think of him, this man is essentially responsible for Clinton's reelection. He is a very bright man, IMHO.



Morris firmly believes that Clinton wants Bush to win in 2004, so that Hillary can run against a new candidate in 2008. If a Democrat beats Bush, she'd have to run against an incumbent for the nomination. He argues she won't do that, and would have to wait until 2012...which puts her at twelve years from the time she left thr White House. Morris states that it was Clinton's plan to be President, be reelected, then have Hillary be President [after Gore, presumably...he didn't make that clear though]. (I'll leave out Clinton calling for a repeal of the 22nd ammendment )



Here is what surprised me: Morris consider's Bush's Tax Cut to be, and I quote, "the single most brilliant poltical move he has seen in his career". What?



He backs that up with this: Bush realized that he wasn't going to get the whole $750B package through. Some lawmakers wanted to simply reduce the dollar amount over the total 10 year term. So, a tax rate that was supposed to go from 27 percent to 25 percent would go to 26 percent. This is generally how compromises are reached. But this is not really what happened. According to Morris, what Bush did was essentially say "give me the entire cut in rates over 5 years instead of 10" (the sunset provisions). This basically cut the package in half in terms of total dollars.



What Morris argues is that Bush can now pocket the short term political victory, and stimulate the economy all at the same time. He also gives himself an issue to run on ("I won't raise taxes by letting the provisions expire...I'll make them permament"). The Democrats won't be able to say that politically, given their opposition to the cuts in the first place. The Dem candidate also won't be able to come out for a tax increase (by letting the provisions expire) because this has proven to be a nightmare in Presidential elections. It's puts the Democratic nominee in a quagmire of sorts (my words, not his).



Morris went to to say that Bush is the smoothest political operator he has seen in is 30 year career. This is includes Clinton (who, despite my dislike of him...is one damn good politician) What do you think? Keep in mind these are not my arguments (though I agree with a lot of his conclusions). I know Morris pulled Clinton to the center, but I was still surprised to hear him say these things.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    enaena Posts: 667member
    I know the deal he made to get the "Ballpark in Arlington" for the Texas Rangers--here, I will allow you to give me a sweetheart deal.



    I think underestimating someone who has the political savvy to handle Texas politics would be poor judgement.
  • Reply 2 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,014member
    Well, his oppenents have underestimated him from day one. I've always contended that he is not in any way stupid.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Texas, at the time of the election of Bush to governor had only had one other Republican elected to governor since Reconstruction. Bush beat Ann Richards who was about as folksy, popular and Blue Dog Democratic as you can be.



    Bush has got mad skillz.



    Nick
  • Reply 4 of 22
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Hmm. One man's "smooth political operator" is another man's "damn cheatin' liar". I don't suppose it's at all dishonest to sell a "compromise" tax cut that you have no intention of letting expire? Especially when the man runs on an "honesty in politics" platform. Damn 'em all. We need a third party, and it's color ain't green.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    thttht Posts: 5,394member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I've been listening to him more in the last week. Whatever you think of him, this man is essentially responsible for Clinton's reelection. He is a very bright man, IMHO.



    There is always a confluence of events that work together to get a national politician elected. My guess is Dick Morris' contribution is somewhere outside of the top five.



    We note that some political operatives are smart. The mechanics of a political campaign seem fairly straightforward. However, political pundits are idiots, and are idiots on purpose. This is a guy that said Gore would beat GWB because GWB was not his father. He was right, but GWB is turning out to be Reagan instead, a much more favorable person to emulate than GHWB. The object of punditry is to entertain, not give reasonable political commentary.



    Quote:

    Morris firmly believes that Clinton wants Bush to win in 2004, so that Hillary can run against a new candidate in 2008. If a Democrat beats Bush, she'd have to run against an incumbent for the nomination.



    Simple electoral politics, presuming that HRC runs for POTUS.



    Quote:

    Here is what surprised me: Morris consider's Bush's Tax Cut to be, and I quote, "the single most brilliant poltical move he has seen in his career".

    ...

    What Morris argues is that Bush can now pocket the short term political victory, and stimulate the economy all at the same time.




    Morris has his pundit hat on here, meaning anything that he says is meant to entertain, not to give insight. The number one and only insight for Election 2004 is that it is in 2004 and not in 2003. Nothing can really be predicted that far ahead of time.



    It may even be that the economy will be a plus for Bush in 2004, but foreign policy will be a negative. All it takes for foreign policy to be a negative are no biochem weapons found in Iraq, 1000+ casualties during 18 months of occupation, foreign powers aligning themselves against the USA, any number of things.



    Quote:

    Morris went to to say that Bush is the smoothest political operator he has seen in is 30 year career. This is includes Clinton (who, despite my dislike of him...is one damn good politician) What do you think?



    GWB's political machine is better than Clinton's, especially in the politics of his administration. In electoral politics, there's no way to tell since the two never ran against each other.



    Quote:

    Keep in mind these are not my arguments (though I agree with a lot of his conclusions). I know Morris pulled Clinton to the center, but I was still surprised to hear him say these things.



    Morris's pundit hat has been fairly conservative. He understands very well that for him to be a political pundit in today's media world, he has to skew conservative. As far as liberals supporting him, it pretty much stopped when he stopped working for the Clinton Whitehouse.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,014member
    THT:



    Quote:

    There is always a confluence of events that work together to get a national politician elected. My guess is Dick Morris' contribution is somewhere outside of the top five.





    The first sentence I agree with. The second I do not. Morris is widely credited for bringing Clinton to the center and helping him win the election.





    Quote:

    It may even be that the economy will be a plus for Bush in 2004, but foreign policy will be a negative. All it takes for foreign policy to be a negative are no biochem weapons found in Iraq, 1000+ casualties during 18 months of occupation, foreign powers aligning themselves against the USA, any number of things.





    I don't think that's accurate or even reasonable. It may be possible...that's about all. Bush's foreign policy is popular for the moment. You may not agree with it, but many others seem to. In a prior statement you said othing could be predicted "that far" in advance. Now, you are talking about the possibility of the above doomsaday scenario? I don't think those events are likely. Bush is also getting much more active in the Middle East. This could be a big positive for him.







    Quote:

    GWB's political machine is better than Clinton's, especially in the politics of his administration. In electoral politics, there's no way to tell since the two never ran against each other.





    It would seem it is better. I agree. Morris was simply talking about raw political smarts, I believe.







    Quote:

    Morris's pundit hat has been fairly conservative. He understands very well that for him to be a political pundit in today's media world, he has to skew conservative. As far as liberals supporting him, it pretty much stopped when he stopped working for the Clinton Whitehouse.



    Thats true. I'm not sure what it means, but it's true that he leans conservative.
  • Reply 7 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,014member
    Towel:



    Quote:

    Hmm. One man's "smooth political operator" is another man's "damn cheatin' liar". I don't suppose it's at all dishonest to sell a "compromise" tax cut that you have no intention of letting expire? Especially when the man runs on an "honesty in politics" platform. Damn 'em all. We need a third party, and it's color ain't green.





    Gee, I wonder where you stand.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    thttht Posts: 5,394member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    The first sentence I agree with. The second I do not. Morris is widely credited for bringing Clinton to the center and helping him win the election.



    I know Morris is credited as the architect of Clinton's 96 campaign. But I'm not sure how much political genius is required to get Clinton to beat Bobe Dole and a 3rd party that sapped Republican strength. Ie, Clinton without Morris could have been just as easy.



    I would say the big factors in getting Clinton reelected was Clinton himself, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, and nothing untoward happening as the result of Clinton being president.



    [edit: It's also curious that Morris resigned as Clinton's campaign strategist on August 29, 1996. Now I actually remember the event and the speculation that it spelled trouble for Clinton.]



    Quote:

    I don't think that's accurate or even reasonable. It may be possible...that's about all.



    That's all that I meant to say. 2004 is not 2003, especially April 2003. There are many things that can happen to yield a Democratic POTUS 18 months from now. Negative foreign policy was just an example of a factor that could give Bush trouble, even though it's a positive now. It may even be possible that the Democrats get their act together and excite there base, and win by 1 electoral vote and lose the popular vote in 2004.



    If Morris is as smart as people say he is, he would know that the real campaigning doesn't start until after the conventions next year, especially when the country is split 50/50.. The pundits statement he makes are all assumptions: that the economy will pick up, that HRC will actually run, etc.



    Quote:

    It would seem it is better. I agree. Morris was simply talking about raw political smarts, I believe.



    On second thought, consider Clinton's situation. Republican controlled Senate and House for 6 years. Scandals all the time. Investigations all the time.
  • Reply 9 of 22
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Isn't Dick Morris a Republican? I'm pretty sure he is. At least, that he *was* when he was hired by the Clinton team.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    Bush is an idiot, Clinton was cool.



    When people look back in history Bush will be remembered for being a war-mongering wanker.



    At the very least Clinton will be remember for getting it on the White House!!



    Now, where did I put that Cohiba?
  • Reply 11 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,014member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jwri004

    Bush is an idiot, Clinton was cool.



    When people look back in history Bush will be remembered for being a war-mongering wanker.



    At the very least Clinton will be remember for getting it on the White House!!



    Now, where did I put that Cohiba?








    I completely and totally disagree. Clinton, who was so obsessed with his place in history, will go down as a self-obsessed mediocre President who had a good economy under his watch. He'll be remembered for his impeachment. He'll be remembered for scandal.



    Bush, who never, ever (to my knowledge) talks about his legacy, will go down as a man who fought international terrorism, liberated Iraq, and (I predict) stimulated the economy through dramatic tax cuts. He may also succeed in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by creating a Palestinian state. He'll go down as the heroic leader of the post 9/11 era.



    You may not agree with what he's done and what he gets credit for, but that won't change hpw history sees him.



    tonton:



    Quote:

    From your original post, it appears Morris and you respect Bush because he's a good liar and manipulator.





    You are funny. Of course you would paint it that way. That wasn't the intent of the post at all. It's called politics. What Morris is saying is that even Clinton didn't have the poltical savvy of George W Bush. That's what I was surprised to hear. Bush has gotten most of his agenda through and still given himself something to run on next time. that's not being dishinest...it's being smart (and apparently, one hell of a lot smarter than liberals like you give him credit for).
  • Reply 12 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,014member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Isn't Dick Morris a Republican? I'm pretty sure he is. At least, that he *was* when he was hired by the Clinton team.





    I think so. I'm not sure. I don't see how that disqualifies his statements if that's what you mean. He's been pretty practical/pragmatic when I've seen him. He hasn't been falling all over Bush...
  • Reply 13 of 22
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001





    Bush, who never, ever (to my knowledge) talks about his legacy, will go down as a man who fought international terrorism, liberated Iraq, and (I predict) stimulated the economy through dramatic tax cuts. He may also succeed in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by creating a Palestinian state. He'll go down as the heroic leader of the post 9/11 era.



    You may not agree with what he's done and what he gets credit for, but that won't change hpw history sees him.







    I had to see where you came from, I thought it must be Texas. Bush is nothing short of an imbecile. Clinton was at least respected world wide for his intellect, I have met pet rocks with more charisma than that idiot Bush.



    I remember the interview he had with Letterman (I saw it after the Florida debacle) and I thought "this man is dangerous" A leader of a supposed great nation is not one that exerts its authority over people, but one that works with them in friendship for the furtherance of mankind. Bush is nothing short of a petulant child who reminds me of a dog that has been bred too much.



    Ever listen to the late great Bill Hicks who attacks his father? 10 years and nothing has changed. The "republican elephant" rampages on to America's detriment... Dubbya is just carrying on the war his father could never complete.



    It would not surprise me that you go to war again "for peace" in the not to distant future. What are you achieving? Face it, Islam hates you, and in all liklihood want to see you dead.



    Where are those weapons of mass destruction? "45 minutes and Saddam can have them heading our way". 45 days and no weapons. Face it YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU AND FEEDS YOU SHIT TO KEEP YOU STUPID. This is the biggest lie since they told you they landed on the moon!



    Rant over
  • Reply 14 of 22
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Let me apologize in advance for not providing a link. I'm summarizing some of his points over the past week from TV and radio appearances.



    I've been listening to him more in the last week. Whatever you think of him, this man is essentially responsible for Clinton's reelection. He is a very bright man, IMHO.



    Morris firmly believes that Clinton wants Bush to win in 2004, so that Hillary can run against a new candidate in 2008. If a Democrat beats Bush, she'd have to run against an incumbent for the nomination. He argues she won't do that, and would have to wait until 2012...which puts her at twelve years from the time she left thr White House. Morris states that it was Clinton's plan to be President, be reelected, then have Hillary be President [after Gore, presumably...he didn't make that clear though]. (I'll leave out Clinton calling for a repeal of the 22nd ammendment )



    Here is what surprised me: Morris consider's Bush's Tax Cut to be, and I quote, "the single most brilliant poltical move he has seen in his career". What?



    He backs that up with this: Bush realized that he wasn't going to get the whole $750B package through. Some lawmakers wanted to simply reduce the dollar amount over the total 10 year term. So, a tax rate that was supposed to go from 27 percent to 25 percent would go to 26 percent. This is generally how compromises are reached. But this is not really what happened. According to Morris, what Bush did was essentially say "give me the entire cut in rates over 5 years instead of 10" (the sunset provisions). This basically cut the package in half in terms of total dollars.



    What Morris argues is that Bush can now pocket the short term political victory, and stimulate the economy all at the same time. He also gives himself an issue to run on ("I won't raise taxes by letting the provisions expire...I'll make them permament"). The Democrats won't be able to say that politically, given their opposition to the cuts in the first place. The Dem candidate also won't be able to come out for a tax increase (by letting the provisions expire) because this has proven to be a nightmare in Presidential elections. It's puts the Democratic nominee in a quagmire of sorts (my words, not his).



    Morris went to to say that Bush is the smoothest political operator he has seen in is 30 year career. This is includes Clinton (who, despite my dislike of him...is one damn good politician) What do you think? Keep in mind these are not my arguments (though I agree with a lot of his conclusions). I know Morris pulled Clinton to the center, but I was still surprised to hear him say these things.




    Come back to reality SDW! Sheeeesh!



    Still ( what a crock ) in check.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Come back to reality SDW! Sheeeesh!



    Still ( what a crock ) in check.




    Do you want to be my friend? Nice to know someone else out there thinks Bush is a moron.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,014member
    jwri004:







    Quote:

    I had to see where you came from, I thought it must be Texas. Bush is nothing short of an imbecile. Clinton was at least respected world wide for his intellect, I have met pet rocks with more charisma than that idiot Bush.





    You perceive Bush to be stupid. He's obviously a lot smarter than many of his poltical opponents. It's the whole point of the thread.



    Quote:

    I remember the interview he had with Letterman (I saw it after the Florida debacle) and I thought "this man is dangerous" A leader of a supposed great nation is not one that exerts its authority over people, but one that works with them in friendship for the furtherance of mankind. Bush is nothing short of a petulant child who reminds me of a dog that has been bred too much.





    He's dangerous? Really? And your boy Clinton wasn't? Clinton sold nuclear technology to North Korea. Clinton refused an offer from Sundan to extradite Usama bin Laden. He allowed nuclear secrets and missle technology to be sold to China. He cut the military budget. He emasculated the CIA. Bush is dangerous? Hmmm.





    Quote:

    Ever listen to the late great Bill Hicks who attacks his father? 10 years and nothing has changed. The "republican elephant" rampages on to America's detriment... Dubbya is just carrying on the war his father could never complete.





    Yes, right...Bush launched a war with 300,000 troops over settling a personal score. Right. He did it all for oil and politcal gain.





    Quote:

    t would not surprise me that you go to war again "for peace" in the not to distant future. What are you achieving? Face it, Islam hates you, and in all liklihood want to see you dead.



    1. Peace is not defined as the absence of conflict. Lasting peace must be attained through stability and Demcracy. Both of these will come to Iraq in time, as the will come to Afghanistan.



    2. Islam doesn't hate us. Certain extremists hate not just us, but Western Civilization. They hate Jews. They hate the fact that women can show their face and speak in public in the western world. That's what they hate.







    Quote:

    Where are those weapons of mass destruction? "45 minutes and Saddam can have them heading our way". 45 days and no weapons. Face it YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU AND FEEDS YOU SHIT TO KEEP YOU STUPID. This is the biggest lie since they told you they landed on the moon!



    Rant over



    Where are the weapons? Where are the weapons? Where are the weapons?



    Really, it's getting old. I suppose you'll take this all back the day we find 10,000 liters of anthrax? Oh, and BTW: WE HAVE FOUND banned weapons. The UN found banned missiles before the war. We found mass graves and children's prisons. We have stopped the rape and toruture of thousands. We've found WMD elements in the euphrates. We found bioweapons trailers. That's been confirmed, by the way.



    As far as me being stupid, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. Oh, and we went to moon



    Troll





  • Reply 17 of 22
    omegaomega Posts: 427member
    funny what you come across when you are looking for really old posts....



    IBL



    +1



  • Reply 18 of 22
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    [B]I completely and totally disagree. Clinton, who was so obsessed with his place in history, will go down as a self-obsessed mediocre President who had a good economy under his watch. He'll be remembered for his impeachment. He'll be remembered for scandal.



    Bush, who never, ever (to my knowledge) talks about his legacy, will go down as a man who fought international terrorism, liberated Iraq, and (I predict) stimulated the economy through dramatic tax cuts. He may also succeed in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by creating a Palestinian state. He'll go down as the heroic leader of the post 9/11 era.



    I still agree with this, just because Bush is a little down in the polls right now does not mean that he won't be victorious in the end.



    I like both Clinton and GWB, I think that they would be fun at a BBQ, but I think that Bush was a better president, so far at least.



    [I'm a libertarian, not a republican, just a reminder...]
  • Reply 19 of 22
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    I still agree with this, just because Bush is a little down in the polls right now does not mean that he won't be victorious in the end.



    I like both Clinton and GWB, I think that they would be fun at a BBQ, but I think that Bush was a better president, so far at least.



    [I'm a libertarian, not a republican, just a reminder...]




    I'm a LBT too, I tend to refrain from saying any of these idiots are better than the other.. it just furthers the BS "lesser of two evils" mentality.



    If you vote for the lesser of two evils, the parties will get progressively more evil, I don't think anyone can say the "evil" trend is reversing thanks to people voting like this
  • Reply 20 of 22
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    So libertarians, what do you think of the PATRIOT Act? Eminent domain? Ashcroft and Gonzales? DRM and the RIAA/MPAA authoring legislation? I think this administration has reached far past Clinton's in terms of infringing on our civil rights.
Sign In or Register to comment.