Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
415892720
label
[Snow-Memoranda, 2/92-1/93]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
415892720
contentType
document
title
[Snow-Memoranda, 2/92-1/93]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13899-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Tony Snow Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
415892720
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
52e47ca046f5a1f2
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Tony, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1993
OA/ID Number:
13899
Folder ID Number:
13899-005
Folder Title:
[Snow-Memoranda, 2/92-1/93]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
2
7
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Doc. No. / Type
Subject/Title
Date
Restriction
Classification
01. Memo
Tony Snow to David Demarest, Re: Campaign Issues.
03/02/92
PRM
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (4 pp.)
02. Memo
From Tony Snow, Re: Problems, Opportunities for 1992. (9 pp.)
03/05/92
P5
03. Memo
From Tony Snow, Re: Problems, Opportunities for 1992. (11 pp.)
03/05/92
P-5
04. Memo
Tony Snow to Bob Teeter, Re: Presidential Initiatives. (4 pp.)
03/12/92
05. Memo
Tony Snow to Phil Brady, Re: Announcement of Appointment.
03/16/92
(6 pp.)
06. Memo
Tony Snow to Clayton Yeutter, et al., Re: Taxes. (2 pp.)
03/17/92
07. Memo
Tony Snow to Anna Perez, Re: Cabal.
03/17/92
PRM
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (3 pp.)
08. Memo
[Tony Snow] to Dorrance Smith, et al., Re: Reform Speech. (2
03/25/92
P-5
pp.)
09. Memo
Tony Snow to Samuel K. Skinner, et al., Re: Friday's Speech. (4
04/01/92
pp.)
10. Memo
Tony Snow to Samuel K. Skinner, et al., Re: L. A. Trip. (8 pp.)
04/05/92
P.5
Page 1 of 4
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Snow Memoranda 2/92 - 1/93]
Pinksheet Number:
RML1862
OA/ID Number:
13899-005
Date Closed:
12/28/2004
FOIA/Sys Case #:
S
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Doc. No. / Type
Subject/Title
Date
Restriction
Classification
11. Memo
Tony Snow to Samuel Skinner, et al., Re: Making the Most of Our
04/06/92
Opportunities. (3 pp.)
12. Memo
Tony Snow and Maria Sheehan to Samuel Skinner, et al., Re:
04/06/92
P5
Making the Most of Our Opportunities. (3 pp.)
13. Memo
Tony Snow to Henson Moore and Dorrance Smith, Re: Op-Eds
04/13/92
and Other Communcations Topics. (3 pp.)
14. Memo
Tony Snow to Samuel K. Skinner, Re: Reactions to L. A. Events.
04/30/92
P-5
(2 pp.)
15. Memo
[Tony Snow] to Al, Re: A few general notes on the San Francisco
n.d.
-P-5
draft. (2 pp.)
16. Memo
Tony Snow to Samuel K. Skinner, et al., Re: Op-Eds. (3 pp.)
05/19/92
17. Memo
Tony Snow to POTUS, Re: Los Angeles. (3 pp.)
06/01/92
18. Memo
Tony Snow to Cathy Goldberg, Re: NYT ["New York Times"]
06/09/92
P-5
Op-Ed. (1 pp.)
19. Memo
Tony Snow to Gail Wilensky, Re: Op-Ed. (3 pp.)
07/02/92
20. Memo
[Tony Snow] to Bob Teeter, Re: POTUS speech in Faith, North
n.d.
(b)(6)
Carolina. (1 pp.)
Page 2 of 4
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Snow Memoranda 2/92 - 1/93]
Pinksheet Number:
RML1862
OA/ID Number:
13899-005
Date Closed:
12/28/2004
FOIA/Sys Case #:
S
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Doc. No. / Type
Subject/Title
Date
Restriction
Classification
21. Memo
Re: Campaign speech themes/ subjects.
n.d.
PRM
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (2 pp.)
22. Memo
Tony Snow to Bob Teeter, Re: Campaign Themes.
07/16/92
PRM
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (27 pp.)
23. Memo
Tony Snow to Samuel K. Skinner, et al., Re: Op-Eds. (3 pp.)
07/21/92
P-5
24. Memo
Tony Snow to Bob Teeter, et al., Re: Defining the Democrats.
08/03/92
PRM
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (8 pp.)
25. Memo
Tony Snow to Ray Price, Re: Convention Speech. (4 pp.)
08/12/92
26. Memo
Tony Snow to Bob Zoellick, et al., Re: Campaign Themes,
08/26/92
PRM
Strategies.
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (10 pp.)
27. Memo
Tony Snow to Robert Zoellick, et al., Re: Campaign Themes,
08/27/92
PRM
Strategies.
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (7 pp.)
28. Memo
Tony Snow to Robert Zoellick, et al., Re: Campaign Themes,
08/28/92
PRM
Strategies.
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (8 pp.)
29. Memo
Tony Snow to Robert Zoellick, et al., Re: 10 Percent Check-Off.
08/31/92
PRM
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (1 pp.)
Page 3 of 4
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Snow Memoranda 2/92 - 1/93]
Pinksheet Number:
RML1862
OA/ID Number:
13899-005
Date Closed:
12/28/2004
FOIA/Sys Case #:
S
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Doc. No. / Type
Subject/Title
Date
Restriction
Classification
30. Memo
Tony Snow to Bob Zoellick, et al., Re: The Clinton Tax Increases.
09/01/92
PRM-
[Open Upon Deed of Gift - March 16, 2015] (1 pp.)
31. Memo
[Tony Snow] to Dr. Louis Sullivan, Judith Smith, Interested
n.d.
P5
Parties, Re: Presidential Address on Race Relations. (2 pp.)
Page 4 of 4
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Snow Memoranda 2/92 - 1/93]
Pinksheet Number:
RML1862
OA/ID Number:
13899-005
Date Closed:
12/28/2004
FOIA/Sys Case #:
S
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
01/13/93 14:05
Directory C: \WORK\WP50\*.*
Free: 52553728
<CURRENT>
<DIR>
: .
<PARENT>
<DIR>
MACROS
<DIR>
04/17/92
11:25
0910
845* 09/10/92 10:51
CAMPMEM1.
9804* 03/02/92 14:19
DICT
8001* 07/26/92 17:01
JOBMEM
1881* 03/16/92 15:09
KAUFTP
10345*
04/14/92
18:58
KAUFTP2
13482* 05/11/92 13:39
LET0320
1923* 03/20/92 09:56
LET0403
1663* 04/03/92 12:22
MEM0304
23179* 03/04/92 17:58
MEM0305
28368* 03/12/92 14:16
MEM0312
10352* 03/12/92 11:34
MEM0317
5718* 03/17/92 15:17
MEM0317A.
7860* 03/17/92 16:37
MEM0325
4298* 03/25/92 16:18
MEM0330A.
673* 03/30/92 14:42
MEM0330C.
1555* 03/30/92 17:21
MEM0331A.
12352* 04/01/92 13:27
MEM0331B.
3856* 03/31/92 19:48
MEM0403
2618* 04/03/92 09:53
MEM0406
6319* 04/06/92 17:45
MEM0409
7530* 04/07/92 13:28
MEM0413
8684* 04/13/92 11:06
MEM0415
1897* 04/15/92 16:46
MEM0422
6615* 04/22/92 14:51
MEM0422A.
1551* 04/22/92 13:00
MEM0422B.
1784* 04/22/92 15:00
MEM0422C.
2303* 04/22/92 17:58
MEM0429
4795* 05/01/92 08:07
MEM0505
20863* 05/05/92 11:26
MEM0512
4636* 05/12/92 17:03
MEM0515
5747* 05/15/92 13:50
MEM0519
2749* 05/19/92 09:20
MEM0520
2212* 05/20/92 09:24
MEM0526
7607* 05/26/92 16:26
MEM0526B.
3151* 05/27/92 08:56
MEM0527
1943* 05/27/92 09:12
MEM0527B.
20192* 05/27/92 10:14
MEM0528
3904* 05/28/92 11:54
MEM0528B.
1495* 05/28/92 17:38
MEM0601
7240* 06/01/92 14:11
MEM0601B.
2472* 06/01/92 09:39
MEM0605
1285* 06/08/92 14:37
MEM0609
2422* 06/09/92 10:31
MEM0629
1155* 06/29/92 17:24
MEM0701B.
77943* 08/03/92 11:36
MEM0702
6108* 07/09/92 12:48
MEM0703
1439* 07/04/92 07:10
MEM0706
9200* 07/20/92 19:40
MEM0709
3980* 07/09/92 12:33
MEM0721
8564* 07/21/92 11:18
MEM0721B.
18490* 08/03/92 11:37
MEM0721C.
5678* 07/21/92 16:02
MEM0722
4782* 07/22/92 07:26
MEM0727
1588* 07/28/92 08:51
MEM0727B.
6413* 07/27/92 17:04
MEM0730
1463* 07/30/92 14:30
MEM0812
8712* 08/10/92 15:19
MEM0825
25137* 08/26/92 09:30
MEM0825A.
20204* 08/27/92 12:50
MEM0825B.
20374* 08/28/92 10:05
MEM0828
3212* 08/28/92 10:02
MEM0831
2498* 08/31/92 17:19
MEM0901
2432* 09/01/92 15:05
MEM0903
1993* 09/03/92 12:36
MEM0904
16676* 09/04/92 17:34
MEM0916
1069* 09/16/92 10:43
MEM0924
5288* 09/24/92 10:01
MEM0924B.
1375* 09/24/92 11:04
MEM1001
1823* 10/01/92 13:10
MEM1005
3190* 10/04/92 14:09
MEM1005A.
752* 10/05/92 14:05
MEM1006
1408* 10/06/92 20:26
REFA
1057* 03/26/92 12:07
RESIGN
.
899* 01/13/93 13:55
WP{WP}
.BK1
469
01/13/93
13:01
WP{WP}
.BK2
5338
12/31/92
14:44
WP}WP{
.BV1
0
09/23/89 17:52
WP}WP{
.CHK
0
09/23/89
17:52
WP}WP{ .SPC
4096
09/23/89
17:52
WP}WP{ .TV1
0
09/23/89 17:52
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 12, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT ANTHONY SNOW
DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND DIRECTOR
OF SPEECHWRITING
FROM:
NIKKI RICHNOW m
DIRECTOR OF WHITE HOUSE GIFTS
SUBJECT:
Return to Sender Staff Gift
The completed Staff Gift Record Form, which you submitted to our
office for a ruling, is being forwarded to you with this memo.
The General Counsel's Office has determined that you may not
retain the gift and that it is being returned to the sender. The
return has been facilitated by the White House Gifts office,
attached is a copy of the letter we sent to the donor. If you
have any questions, please contact me on Ext. 7133.
Enclosure
WHITE HOUSE
STAFF GIFT RECORD
Send completed Form and Gift to Gift Unit, ext. 7133
[DO NOT DETACH COPIES]
To be Completed by Staff Member
STAFF MEMBER
DONOR
NAME (First, Middle, Last):
Tony Snow
(RAS)
NAME (First, Middle, Last):
Felix Gutierrez
TITLE:
TITLE:
Director of Speechwriting
Vice President
GIFT INTENDED FOR (mark
X
in appropriate box):
ADDRESS (Street, City, State, Zip & Country):
White House Staff Member (W)
Other (O) (e.g., family)
The Freedom Forum
RECEIVED BY (mark
X
in appropriate box):
1101 Wilson Boulevard
Mail Room (M)
Presented Personally (P)
Staff (S)
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Other (O) (Specify)
DATE ACCEPTED AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENTATION:
ORGANIZATION/BUSINESS OF DONOR (Specify):
Received 12.9.91 through the mail
The Freedom Forum
room.
REASON FOR NOT RETURNING TO DONOR:
DONOR CATEGORY (mark
X
in appropriate box):
Personal Friend (F)
X
General Public (P)
Foreign Official (H)
VIP (V)
DESCRIPTION OF GIFT:
One (1) Waterman Ballpoint pen with two cartridges.
Framed "First Day of Issue" commemorative envelope and stamp.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DATE:
ROOM NO.:
EXT.:
QaayyWheeker
12.17.91
122
2930
To be Completed by Gift Unit and Counsel
ID:
DATE:
GSA #:
DISPOSITION (mark
X
9136424
in appropriate box):
1-3-92
Presidential Staff-Personal (PP)
Archives (AS)
CATEGORY CODE:
APPRAISED VALUE:
ARCHIVE BOX #:
9999
$ 105
X
Returned to Sender, Commercial (RA)
Destroyed (DS)
COUNSEL'S OFFICE DECISION:
APPROVE
X
DISAPPROVE
Returned to Sender, Other (RC)
Other (OH)
Returned to Sender, Over Minimal Value (RB)
SIGNATURE:
GSA Surplus, Turn Over to Government (GS)
m Shansm 1/15/92
Presidential Staff-for official display/use (PS)
COMMENTS:
* Pen is $60; refills are $4 each; Framèig is$35/per Frank the
per Fahrney's.
Framer
*stamps are $2.00 per Karl Keldenich at Woodies, stamp dept.
Based upon information provided to Counsel's office, this is not a
promotional item of nominal value, and is from a prohibited source under
White House gift policy. COPY B - STAFF MEMBER
Jun. 85
THE WHITE HOUSE
waSHINGTON
February 7, 1992
Dear Mr. Gutierrez:
Thank you for your kindness in sending the pen and commemorative
memorabilia for Tony Snow. He appreciated your gift and
transmitted it to our office for an official ruling on whether he
was permitted to keep it.
The Standards of Conduct applicable to White House employees
prohibit receipt of gifts, although there are exceptions for
promotional items of nominal value and for personal gifts from
friends and relatives. My office has consulted with the Office
of the Counsel to the President, which has determined that under
the current standards, the enclosed gift may not be retained.
Please be assured that your thoughtfulness is appreciated and
that this decision in no way reflects on your kind intentions.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Mikai Richnow
Nikki Richnow
Director of White House Gifts
Mr. Felix Gutierrez
Vice President
The Freedom Forum
1101 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Enclosure
CC: Tony Snow
MARCH 2, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO DAVID DEMAREST
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
CAMPAIGN ISSUES
As we enter the busy part of the primary season, we should
think about issues and themes that will affect us not only
between now and March 20, but also will affect us throughout the
coming campaign -- and the next presidential term.
First, a general observation: Before we can hit any home
runs, we must regain the confidence and trust of our voters.
Right now, we must deal with a generalized sense of unease -- the
fear that the President doesn't believe in anything and that he
will abandon promises for the sake of cutting deals.
These anxieties express themselves most vigorously when
people think of taxes and civil rights. We can calm our own
voters and build new supporters only if we address these issues
credibly.
I) Taxes: We must deal with the Budget Agreement. I know we
have tinkered with the idea of apologizing for it, but frankly,
that won't work. It will sound like a campaign conversion, and
it won't mollify supporters who complain that the President
betrayed their trust.
Peggy suggested (and I tried) to put some hedging language
in the President's campaign announcement speech. POTUS killed
that language, and we haven't really focused on the issue since.
Yet we won't begin connecting to our core audience until we raise
and answer this vexing question.
Here's the line to take: 1) The President entered the
budget deal for the right reasons: He wanted to cut spending and
trim the deficit.
2) Democrats feigned goodwill at first -- then made it clear
that they would demand even greater tax hikes. The President got
the best deal available, and it pays dividends today in the form
of spending caps that have kicked in. Democrats now want out
precisely because the caps restrain spending.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
3) still, if he had it to do over again, he wouldn't. He
has learned his lesson: Cut spending and taxes, period. Focus on
programs that work. Don't cut deals with Congressional Democrats
who believe more in partisanship than progress. The President
should VOW never to cut such deals again, and he should promise
to veto anything that smacks of tax-and-spend politics.
4) We should understand that a confession alone won't do the
trick. Starting March 20, the President should embark upon a
series of unilateral actions to demonstrate his seriousness.
Begin with the regulatory indexation of capital gains; then go
for a line-item veto; then slash away some especially egregious
regulations. Perhaps we could make each Thursday a bombshell
day: a time to take unilateral action as Congress prepares to
flee for the weekend, and as talk shows ready themselves for
Friday tapings.
Such a strategy enables the President to take charge and to
rebuff critics who question his courage and his conservatism. It
also would weaken charges -- from Buchanan now, from Democrats
during the campaign -- that he doesn't want to take action on
domestic issues.
II) Civil rights. Buchanan has decided to hammer us over
quotas, and we have let him do it. We shouldn't, and here's why:
The Civil Rights Bill is not a quota bill. Just look at its
applications, and you'll discover that the measure actively
discourages quotas. The President should argue that he hates
quotas because 1) they're unfair and 2) because they set people
at odds, rather than inviting them to join in a common campaign
for the future.
Buchanan doesn't understand the law. He has taken the word
of Democrats, who tried to spin their own defeat in the Civil
Rights negotiations. The President should defend his bill, and
use his record to appeal quietly to New South Democrats. These
voters have supported Republicans in the past. They oppose
quotas but they also oppose the divisive politics of Buchanan
(whom they associate with David Duke).
The President also would appeal to Middle Class Blacks, who
have lost patience with the Civil Rights establishment (cf. last
week's Detroit News/Gannett poll; the piece in last week's Wall
Street Journal, and a feature in the March 1 Washington Post).
Middle class Blacks also dislike quotas for a series of reasons,
from their innate unfairness to the fact that they cast doubts on
the real qualifications of Blacks who have succeeded on their
own.
3
But the Civil Rights Act should not serve as the beginning
and end of our civil rights policy. We should follow strength
with strength by appealing to conservative values.
We should think about doing a welfare reform appearance in a
Black church in the South, for instance. There may be no more
conservative institution in America than the Black church, and
the responsibility theme would strike a chord. The President
could offer a wonderful alternative to the typical liberal
sermon, which treats Black Americans as if they cannot survive
without the patronizing "help" of liberal pols.
Blacks wanted to be treated like human beings, and not
merely as tax consumers. The President already enjoys some
goodwill among Blacks. Why not build on that strength?
In so doing, the President could put Democrats on the
defensive with regard to welfare reform -- and could give us a
chance to bring black voters back into the Republican fold.
If we can demonstrate toughness without pandering to cross
burners, and if we show concern without adopting the big
government approach to government issues, we win an important
values battle.
Now, I know the traditional wisdom argues against appearing
in any black forum, for fear of embarrassing the President and
inciting criticism from the usual suspects. But the traditional
wisdom is wrong. George Bush believes deeply in promoting racial
harmony, and he deserves a chance to show himself at his very
best. of all the strengths he brings to the office, none shines
more brightly than his personal decency and example.
Furthermore, I think most Americans -- of all colors and
backgrounds -- want someone to step above the fray and rekindle
our national idealism. For many, the persistence of bigotry
represents a great national failure and embarrassment. George
Bush can lead America to new harmony in a way that no other
current political figure can, and he can do it with a personal
joy and passion that would appeal to most Americans.
Think of it this way: When people take Al Sharpton and David
Duke seriously, we're in trouble. Decent people have no use for
these people, but they also haven't seen anyone screw up the
courage to take them on directly. The President could
demonstrate real leadership and real courage by delivering such
an address. And a speech of this sort could mark a true defining
moment in the public life of George Bush.
As for the argument that Republican Presidents shouldn't
risk this sort of exposure, I can just say: Remember. We are the
party of Lincoln.
4
III) Values
We should think long and hard about giving greater
prominence to values in this year's campaign. Republican base
voters consider values absolutely critical -- as do many
Democrats who wish they had some alternative other than their
party. No candidate in American politics today can match George
Bush when it comes to personal integrity. We should use this
strength to build the larger case that leadership ultimately
boils down to experience and values. When unexpected crises
confront the nation, you want someone who will do the right thing
without flinching, and that man is George Bush.
We should promote values that work: God, country, hard work,
family. That means talking about school prayer. It means
pushing again for a flag amendment. It means taking on the
special interests that believe more in bureaucracy than family.
And it means casting everything in very specific, personal terms.
Educational reform helps our children. Welfare reform restores
dignity to our poor. Capital gains cuts offer hope to workers
and innovators and they especially help the elderly, who hold
most of the assets subject to capital gains taxation.
The general point: We shouldn't be so bashful about our
strengths. We should market our virtues in ways that put our
foes on the defensive, and that answer lingering criticisms about
"the vision thing."
A corollary of this point: We should go on the offensive
wherever possible. As things stand, we spend far too much time
on the defensive. A few bold strokes -- such as the above-
mentioned visit to a black church, and the Thursday bombshell
strategy -- would electrify the press and shock the opposition.
They would enable us to lead from a position of political and
moral superiority.
Although critics keep slamming away at us, let's remember
our chief assets: We have the best candidate and the best
policies. That combination always wins.
Enclosures: Simon memo
speech
newspaper articles
March 5, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES FOR 1992
The Buchanan challenge and the furious Democratic assaults
on the President often cause us to focus on short-term problems,
rather than longer-term opportunities. Although the bad guys
will hammer us regularly, and even gleefully, we should keep in
mind that George Bush occupies the Oval Office, and that the
changes that have taken place during his presidency offer some
extraordinary opportunities for action.
Before we can act, however, we must address several very
serious problems:
PROBLEMS
PROBLEM #1) TRUST:
The American people want to trust George Bush, but they
don't. They think him a decent man, but they worry about his
depth and strength of character. The two most prominent
questions: Does he believe in anything? and Can we trust him not
to cut a deal with Congress?
These doubts exploded with special force after the 1990
budget agreement. Everyone here understands why. But we should
not underestimate the price we will have to pay for this
uncertainty.
If George Bush's greatest strength is his character, his
greatest problem is a budget agreement that has enabled foes to
call his character into question. We have diddled and dawdled
over this matter for too long, and this week's attempted answers
haven't gotten us out of the fix. The President must explain
himself in a manner that is both principled and persuasive.
A proper answer would go something like this:
1) The President entered the budget deal for the right
reasons: He wanted to cut spending and trim the deficit.
2) Democrats feigned goodwill at first -- then made it clear
that they would demand even greater tax hikes. The President got
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
the best deal available, but he had to pay two prices: higher
taxes and two years of extremely high spending. We must admit
both portions of the deal if we hope to remain credible.
The good news is: the spending caps finally have kicked in.
Naturally, Democrats want to break the agreement rather than
saying no to spending proposals. The President remains true to
his original aims, and he won't relent on the agreement now.
3) still, if he had it to do over again, he wouldn't. He
has learned his lesson: Cut spending and taxes, period. In
mulling over the agreement the President could note that Congress
has changed dramatically since he left it. Today, a stubborn and
vicious partisanship dominates everything. The President has
tried kindness, and it didn't work. Now, he he will veto any
program that costs too much or doesn't work. And he will take
his stand against tax-and-spend politics.
4) We should understand that a confession alone won't soothe
our critics. Starting March 20, the President should embark upon
a series of unilateral actions to demonstrate his seriousness.
Begin with the regulatory indexation of capital gains; then go
for a line-item veto; then slash away some especially egregious
regulations. Perhaps we could make each Thursday, or every other
Thursday a bombshell day: a time to take unilateral action as
Congress prepares to flee for the weekend, and as talk shows
ready themselves for Friday tapings.
Such a strategy enables the President to take charge and to
rebuff critics who question his courage and his conservatism. It
also would weaken charges -- from Buchanan now, from Democrats
during the campaign -- that he doesn't want to take action on
domestic issues.
We must understand that words alone won't get us out of the
jam. We've got to take action, and we can't hide behind the
excuse that Congress wouldn't let us do it. That argument just
makes the President look whiny and weak. We can't really run
against Congress until we outline an action agenda for the
future. Otherwise, his talk will come across as nothing more
than election year blabbing.
PROBLEM #2) "KINDER, GENTLER"
We have let Democrats rewrite history for three years over
Willie Horton. In so doing, we've also let them claim that the
President doesn't believe in kindness and gentleness at all: He's
just a fatherly Machiavelli who will stop at nothing to win an
election. That's outrageous, but we can't destroy the slander
until we confront it.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
I repeatedly have advocated taking on the Willie Horton
charge, only to have people argue that we shouldn't "bring it
up." Well, Democrats have brought it up. Editorial pages have
brought it up. Columnists have brought it up. And we seem to
have acquiesced in their conclusion that the President slipped
into a vicious cynicism in 1988.
We shouldn't apologize for the Horton issue. Willie Horton
was a sadistic racist, and we opposed the policy of setting him
free upon an innocent public. We supported the old-fashioned
belief that you punish crime -- and you reserve your most severe
punishments for the most severe crimes. That's the key. Since
black Americans suffer most from violent crime, they benefit the
most from tough policies to fight crime and rebuild
neighborhoods.
We also should stress the President's lifelong commitment to
improving race relations. He should be proud of his actions and
his instincts, and we should build a campaign around the theme of
unity. That strategy will work in the South.
Stealing the march on my next section (opportunities), I
will explain: The South has changed since the days of Bull
Connor. The Bubba vote wants candidates who believe in
something, who will speak the truth, and who stand for
conservative values.
Coincidentally, that's exactly the same thing Black voters
want. They're tired of patronizing liberal politicians. The
only kind of person more loathed than David Duke in many Black
Communities is the typical white liberal. Black voters want to
be treated like human beings, not like mendicants. They want
honesty and action and commitment.
This year, we have an historic opportunity to expand our
Black base without shrinking our white base. The key issues
resonate with all voters. These issues include strong families,
effective schools, good government, a growing economy, safe
streets and a society opposed to quotas but devoted to civil
rights.
These issues also appeals to New South Democrats, most of
whom opposed the Old Left politics of the Democratic Party, but
fear that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Jim Crow. We
should fight to expand our base now -- but we can't do it until
we take on the issues of Willie Horton and quotas.
PROBLEM #3) A PRESIDENT OUT OF TOUCH
We all know that huge chunks of the electorate still view
the President as a man out of touch with the people who elected
him. Frankly, the speed campaigning won't solve that problem.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
It makes him look frantic, and it denies him the opportunity to
connect with the public, enjoy himself -- and think.
It also does not help matters when we refer to outside-the-
Beltway America as "out there," and speak of Buchanan's
challenge as coming from the Right. (We're the right. Right?)
We have enough trouble with people's perceiving POTUS as a man in
a bubble. We shouldn't reaffirm it with off-the-cuff comments.
We all understand the problems created by these little
things -- his penchant for the Beltway acronym, etc. -- but a
larger problem plagues us. We talk too much of the small things,
the technical things -- deadlines, committee hearings, etc. --
and not enough time speaking from the heart about the big things,
the important things. In short, the "out of touch" accusation
arises out of the Vision problem.
As for the Vision problem, let me offer an hypothesis. Our
problem isn't that he lacks vision, but that he's uneasy talking
about it. The President's reticence about his own heart and mind
illustrate his endearing humility, but they also make him a
Mystery Man to many Americans. If we can persuade the President
to give a thoughtful talk about his greatest passions and
concerns -- no hype, no bull, no strained efforts to portray him
as someone he is not -- many people will understand that this man
follows values, not fads. From that, we can point out that a
Congress equally committed to the same values can help him
accomplish some striking and extraordinary things. And with
that, I'll turn to opportunities.
OPPORTUNITIES
We have an extraordinary opportunity to turn the electorate
upside down and build a campaign that appeals to people's
restlessness and their desire to feel good about themselves. No
matter how much we may malign Desert Storm right now, its
legacies remain. Desert Storm proved that Americans can do
things and can feel good about themselves in the process. And
although the public may not react wildly to comments about Desert
Storm, you can find real nostalgia for the post-war euphoria.
Americans know that they can do great things: They just need a
chance to dispell all doubts.
If we give voters a reason to strike back against malaise,
and to join an idealistic crusade of sorts -- they will respond.
This can help us more than any number of great ads. In political
terms, we can restore our historic base; we can appeal to our
future base (young voters) ; and we can steal votes from people
tired of a Democratic Party that has become hopelessly mired in
the politics of the Left.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
Before we think about these opportunities, we should
acknowledge a few facts. First, the Reagan Revolution is over.
That revolution, spawned by Jimmy Carter's failures abroad (the
spread of communism) and at home (unprecedented misery index
numbers), achieved its aims. It stood up to communism, and it
slowed down the tax-and-spend movement in Washington.
Now, we face a different world. Yes, we must decide just
what we want government to do, and how far we want to go in
cutting taxes and regulations. But we also have some other
business at hand: Getting schools truly prepared for the future
(we've got a great plan, and we ought to promote it). People
developed great expectations during the 1980s, and we should help
them find ways of achieving them.
Second, the Age of Innovation dawns, and we cannot really
build the consensus we need simply by listing all the great
things we tried, and failed, to do.
Third, if George Bush is to demonstrate his true greatness
and skill, he will need a Congress that supports him. We won't
get that Congress unless we build a campaign that can generate
real enthusiasm, and can give people a reason to vote along party
lines. In other words, we must define what it means to be a
Republican, and the definition had better be awesomely good.
Finally, here's a suggestion for an overall strategy: We
should argue that the end of the Cold War brought us to the brink
of an entirely new world, at home and abroad. We need to gird
ourselves for competition in this new world, and that will
require some sweeping and important reforms. The age of
bureaucracy is over. We can't afford flabby bureaucracies
anywhere, and especially not in our key institutions --
government, school, big business. Look around an you'll notice
that smaller, leaner, more flexible businesses rule the roost,
and the giant has-beens (GM, IBM) have fallen on hard times.
With that in mind, consider a few opportunities:
OPPORTUNITY #1) VALUES
You don't have to go far to understand that Americans think
the nation has gone crazy, and that a little old fashioned value-
based sanity could make a huge difference. This is the central
tenet of the much beloved Grand Canyon Kasdan masterpiece du
l'annee.
We've used the riff before: When a kid can get a condom at
school, but cannot lead a prayer, something's wrong. When a Good
Samaritan gets sued for doing good deeds, while serial murderers
collect millions in book royalties for detailing their
atrocities, something's wrong. When the three r's at an urban
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
high school are rifles, revolvers and razors, something's wrong.
When a demagogue can preach racial violence in the name of
justice, something's wrong
What's wrong is that we haven't said: This is wrong. It
must change. Now.
Hardy Republican issues will work here: School prayer, law
and order, etc. The President should take the offensive, and
portray him as the man determined to put an end to the insanity.
That will do more to calm fears of his detatchment than just
about anything, because it will show that he understands all the
petty outrages that offend law-abiding citizens. It also would
enable him to highlight his strength of character.
We also should use values as our jumping-off point for such
things as welfare reform, pro-family legislation, anti-crime
efforts, etc. We don't propose those changes because they will
save us a little money. We propose them because they strengthen
our foundations -- home, church, family, school, community,
country. Toqueville observed that this nation's greatness comes
from the goodness of its people -- and that's still true. If we
believe that sleazeballs and maniacs can rule our cities and our
lives, we're in deep trouble.
A final note: There's nothing wrong with having the
President lose his temper over a values issue. When someone
calls him a racist, he ought to blow his top -- in a controlled
manner, of course. When someone accuses him of dealing in bad
faith with the public, he should blow his top -- and redirect the
fire at Congress. If the President continues to absorb ugly
personal attacks with equanimity -- his lumps, as he calls them -
- he will look like the crook who shows no emotion as the jury
delivers its sentence. When someone questions his very
integrity, he should fight back.
Remember: George Bush's values and character define him as a
man and a President. Values ought to stand at the center of our
campaign, and all our initiative should have roots in the
President's beliefs and in his experience. For example:
OPPORTUNITY #2) THE UNITY CANDIDATE
If you look at the President's challengers, you find that
they share in common a desire to divide and conquer. One
problem: When we divide, we lose.
Democrats and Buchanan have their own race cards --
Democrats appeal to Blacks' fears; Buchanan appeals to whites'
suspicions. Some of the same characters also have tried to play
a kind of global race card -- through protectionism, isolationism
and Japan bashing.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
Both sorts of division will lead to ruin -- moral, spritual,
economic, political. As we look toward a new Century, everybody
understands that we're in for a tough fight on trade and economic
growth, and we've got to go into the game united and tough.
I described the historic opening to Blacks in the "problems"
section. I don't have survey data to bolster my case, but I
believe we have a chance to plant the seeds for a voter
revolution, one that will persuade increasing numbers of Blacks
to switch parties in years to come. This revolution depends on
our remaining faithful to our first principles. We can build a
larger base if we use conservative principles to appeal to the
natural conservatism of black voters.
The President can fight against the global race-baiting by
talking about the real benefits of security and trade. We
shouldn't back away from our greatest triumph, the Cold War
victory. But we must give our celebrations greater oomph. We
shouldn't just proclaim victory before bored crowds. Let's show
our victory in action. Let's find businesses made rich by
foreign trade, and speak to them. I suspect we can find some
companies near the Mexican border that also employ people of all
ages, races, creeds and colors. It might make a nice event.
My point is simple: Americans have had it with David Duke
and Al Sharpton. Many have had it with Pat Buchanan. We should
make the case for unity vigorously and without apology. In so
doing, we capture the high ground, we isolate Buchanan and the
Democrats -- and we put ourselves in a position to make the case
that Democrats, not the President, has lost touch with the
American public on this important matter of the heart.
Americans love an idealistic leader. John F. Kennedy has
gotten more historic mileage out of things he didn't do (such as
the Civil Rights Act of 1964) than from things he did do. Why?
He offered an idealistic vision of America, and he invited
Americans to join him. (Ask not....) Now it's our turn.
OPPORTUNITY #3) BURY THE WELFARE STATE
We should declare the Sixties over and gone. In the process
we should acknowledge that the Welfare State, a product of good
intention but lousy theories, has run its course. It's important
to praise the civil rights pioneers in order to prove that we're
not mean-spirited, racist Republicans. But having acknowledged
the wonderful motives of those who drafted the laws, we should
show compassion for the Great Society's victims. That will prove
that we live in the real world.
The Welfare State has done to some poor Black Americans what
sharecropping could not: It has robbed them of their will to seek
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
their fortunes in the larger world. This is obscene, and we
should say so.
We have talked about welfare reform, now we need to put our
money where our mouth is. We should get someone to look at our
own statutes, and we should get rid of any that encourage single-
parent households; that reward people for not working; and, where
possible, that do not make recipients responsible for getting off
welfare. We should emphasize the dignity of work -- and we
should follow by promoting other reforms that give people a real
stake in the future. The HOPE program leads the list because it
gives poor people an asset base that someday may help them build
a foundation of real wealth.
Nobody loves the Welfare State anymore, not even the social
workers. So let's do what everybody knows is inevitable -- Let's
replace it with something that works, and let's define success in
terms of the number of people liberated permanently from
dependency.
OPPORTUNITY #4) THE ECONOMY
We entered office as the true heirs to the Reagan
Revolution, and we should make good on that inheritance. How?
Several ways: First, the President must come clean on the budget
deal -- with its taxing and spending provisions. Second, through
the sorts of actions detailed above -- taking unilateral steps to
demonstrate seriousness, set the agenda, and put Congressional
Democrats on the defensive. Third, we might want to think about
putting together a 1994 budget before the campaign, and describe
exactly what we want to do for the future -- or at least lay out
some very clear criteria for future budgets. We need to make
good on our repeated observation that government is too big and
spends too much.
We should recast the fairness debate, and point out that
fairness means: If you work hard and do your job, you shouldn't
have to worry about losing it. If you work hard and develop job
skills, you shouldn't have to worry about getting a job. If you
have an idea, you should be able to get it to market. And you
shouldn't be punished for working hard, saving, and succeeding.
Democrats really do fit the Mencken caricature: They fear that
someone, somewhere may be having a good time. An economy grows
only when you get a chance to show what you can do.
OPPORTUNITY #5) DEFENSE AND SECURITY
Anybody who gets CNN understands that the world remains a
volatile and potentially dangerous place. We really should give
the often promised defense speech, which would enable us to draw
clear distinctions between us and the Democrats, who seem more
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
9
interested in cutting defense spending than in building real
security for the future.
OPPORTUNITY #6) REFORM
Jim Pinkerton has put together a list of reforms: welfare
reform, legal reform, education reform, health care reform; and a
"citizens charter," which offers a way of stressing the
centrality of personal responsibility. He's right: The President
can't run as an outsider, because he isn't. Therefore, he should
run as a Washington reformer, who never has lost touch with the
values and ideals he first brought to this town.
I don't know if we want to turn the President into an
explicit reform candidate, but we certainly should stress reform
and innovation wherever we can. That not only appeals to
people's basic distrust of Capitol Hill, it also contains at
least a subliminal reference to innovation and Yankee ingenuity.
OPPORTUNITY #7) DEFINE THE FUTURE
Democrats can tell you whom they dislike. They can't tell
you where they want to go as a nation. Well, we do. We want to
build the Good Society we described at the University of
Michigan. We believe in limited government. We believe in
responsible government (revisit the Congress-bashing speech). We
believe in the people. We believe in low taxes and growing
paychecks. We believe in family, good schools, safe streets --
and we believe in the programs necessary to make it all happen.
In short, we believe that we really have reached a defining
point in history -- and unlike the other guys, we understand what
it means, and what it promises. If we combine traditional values
with an emphasis on innovation and reform, we can capture
people's imaginations and offer them a chance to enlist in our
crusade for a promised future.
CONCLUSION:
We really do have some incredible opportunities this year,
and most of them play into George Bush's personal strengths. We
should spend some time trying to think seriously about what we
want the world to look like, and we should get the President to
deliver some major talks on such topics as welfare reform, the
educational revolution, jobs, race relations, competitiveness,
Congress, and the powers of the Presidency.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
March 5, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR JIM CICCONI
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
PROBLEMS, OPPORTUNITIES FOR 1992
The Buchanan challenge and the furious Democratic assaults
on the President often cause us to focus on short-term problems,
rather than longer-term opportunities. Although the bad guys
will hammer us regularly, and even gleefully, we should keep in
mind that George Bush occupies the Oval Office, and that the
changes that have taken place during his presidency offer some
extraordinary opportunities for action.
Before we can act, however, we must address several very
serious problems:
PROBLEMS
PROBLEM #1) TRUST:
The American people want to trust George Bush, but they just
aren't sure. They admire his decency, but they worry about his
depth and strength of character. They ask: Does he believe in
anything? and Can we trust him not to cut a deal with Congress?
These doubts exploded with special force after the 1990
budget agreement. Since then, we have failed to provide a full
and persuasive explanation of the agreement, or of what we want
in the future.
If George Bush's greatest strength is his character, his
greatest problem is a budget agreement that has raised questions
about his character. We've run out of time: The President must
explain himself in a manner that is principled, persuasive and
final.
A proper answer would go something like this:
1) The President entered the budget deal for the right
reasons. We were in the midst of the longest economic expansion
in our nation's history. We saw an unprecedented opportunity to
trim the deficit by cutting spending -- and not raising taxes.
An agreement to cut the deficit while holding the line on taxes
and spending would provide a capstone to the Reagan Revolution.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
It also would have changed forever the way in which Washington
does business.
2) Democrats feigned goodwill as before the talks, but that
soon changed. They made it clear that they would demand tax
hikes, and they would use their sizeable majorities in both
houses to make things miserable for us. We tend to forget that
the famous statement of June 26, 1990 was deliberately vague, and
could have been construed as argument for reducing the capital
gains rate. Democrats beat us to the punch, however. They
quickly defined the "revenue raising" mention in the statement as
a tax hike -- and we let them do it.
In this awful situation, the President got the best deal
available. still, he had to pay two prices: higher taxes and two
years of extremely high spending. We have owned up to the tax
part, but we also should note that Democrats insisted on
unprecedented spending increases before spending caps would kick
in. Otherwise, it makes it look as if we had no principled
problem with runaway spending.
The good news is: the spending caps finally have kicked in.
Naturally, Democrats want to break the agreement rather than
saying no to spending proposals. The President remains true to
his original aims, and he won't relent on the agreement now.
3) Still, if he had to convene a summit again and repeat the
process, he wouldn't. Congress has changed dramatically since he
left it. In the old days, you could get a bipartisan consensus
on important things. Today, a stubborn and vicious partisanship
dominates everything -- from the budget to the Gulf War. The
President has tried kindness again and again and again, and it
hasn't worked. But now, he has learned his lesson: No tax hikes,
no spending explosions, and no doubt-raising compromises. He
should VOW to veto any program that costs too much or doesn't
work. He can't just speak out against tax-and-spend politics.
He must do something.
4) We should understand that a confession alone won't soothe
our critics. Starting March 20, the President should embark upon
a series of unilateral actions to demonstrate his seriousness.
Begin with the regulatory indexation of capital gains; then go
for a line-item veto; slash away some especially egregious
regulations; implement the Beck decision by executive order; sign
an executive order prohibiting racial quotas in the federal
government. Perhaps we could make each Thursday, or every other
Thursday a bombshell day: a time to take unilateral action as
Congress prepares to flee for the weekend, and as talk shows
ready themselves for Friday tapings.
Such a strategy enables the President to rebuff critics who
question his courage and conservatism. It also would weaken
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
charges -- from Buchanan now; from Democrats during the general
election campaign -- that he doesn't want to take action on
domestic issues.
Words alone won't get us out of our jam. We've got to take
action. We should make Congress look like stubborn, backward
opponents of necessary change, because that's what they are. We
should rebuff their intransigence by taking action -- over and
over and over. Unilateral action also destroys charges that the
President is too weak or too indecisive to lead effectively.
The President should run against the Democrat-dominated
Congress this year. He can't do that credibly unless he acts
now, and begins shoving a credible action agenda down Congress'
throat. If just talk and complain about Congressional inaction,
the President will look like another electioneering pol. We can
keep him above the fray by turning him into a commander again.
PROBLEM #2) "KINDER, GENTLER"
We have let Democrats rewrite history for three years over
Willie Horton. That has let them argue that the President
doesn't believe in kindness and gentleness at all: He's just a
fatherly Machiavelli who hell bent on winning an election. We
can't destroy that slander until we confront it.
I repeatedly have advocated taking on the Willie Horton
charge, only to have people argue that we shouldn't "bring it
up." Well, Democrats have brought it up. Editorial pages have
brought it up. Columnists have brought it up. And we seem to
have acquiesced in their conclusion that the President slipped
into a vicious cynicism in 1988.
We shouldn't apologize for the Horton issue. Willie Horton
was a sadistic racist. We opposed the policy of setting him free
upon an innocent public. We supported the old-fashioned belief
that you punish crime -- and you reserve your most severe
punishments for the most severe crimes. That's the key. Since
Black Americans suffer most from violent crime, they benefit the
most from tough policies to fight crime and rebuild
neighborhoods.
We also should stress the President's lifelong commitment to
improving race relations. He has acted when others didn't, and
he has put his time and money where his mouth was for years. He
should be proud of his actions and his instincts, and we should
build a campaign around the theme of unity.
That strategy will work in the South. Stealing the march on
my next section (opportunities), I will explain: The South has
changed since the days of Bull Connor. The Bubba vote doesn't
want a tough-talking bigot. It wants a candidate who has the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
courage to stand for something, who will speak the truth, and who
will stand unwaveringly for conservative values -- home,
community, church, country.
Contrary to popular wisdom, that's exactly the same thing
most Black voters want. They're tired of patronizing liberal
politicians. The only kind of person more loathed than David
Duke in many Black Communities is the typical white liberal.
Black voters want to be treated like human beings, not like
mendicants. They want honesty and action and commitment.
This year, we have an historic opportunity to expand our
Black base without shrinking our white base. The key issues
resonate with all voters. These issues include strong families,
effective schools, good government, a growing economy, safe
streets and a society opposed to quotas but devoted to civil
rights.
These issues also appeals to New South Democrats, most of
whom opposed the Old Left politics of the Democratic Party, but
fear that a vote for a Republican is a vote for Jim Crow. We
should fight to expand our base now -- but we can't do it until
we take on the issues of Willie Horton and quotas.
PROBLEM #3) A PRESIDENT OUT OF TOUCH
We all know that huge chunks of the electorate still view
the President as a man out of touch with the people who elected
him. Frankly, speed campaigning won't solve that problem. It
makes him look frantic, and it denies him the opportunity to
connect with the public, enjoy himself -- and think.
It also does not help matters when we refer to outside-the-
Beltway America as "out there," and speak of Buchanan's
challenge as coming from the Right. (We're the right. Right?)
We have enough trouble with people's perceiving POTUS as a man in
a bubble. We shouldn't reaffirm it with off-the-cuff comments.
We all understand the problems created by these little
things -- his penchant for the Beltway acronym, etc. -- but a
larger problem plagues us. We talk too much of the small things,
the technical things -- deadlines, committee hearings, etc. --
and not enough time speaking from the heart about the big things,
the important things. In short, the "out of touch" accusation
arises out of the Vision problem.
As for the Vision problem, let me offer an hypothesis. Our
problem isn't that he lacks vision. It's that he's often uneasy
talking about it. The President's reticence about his heart and
mind illustrate his endearing humility, but they make him a
Mystery Man to many Americans. If we can persuade the President
to give a thoughtful talk about his greatest passions and
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
concerns -- no hype, no bull, no strained efforts to be something
other than himself --- many people will understand that this man
follows values, not fads. He'd hit a grand slam. After all, no
one else is likely to commit honesty this year.
Once he has established his value-based vision, the
President could argue credibly that a Congress committed to the
same values can help him accomplish some striking and
extraordinary things. That will provide the foundation for an
anti-Congress campaign that will strike a real chord in people's
hearts.
Now, I'll turn to opportunities.
OPPORTUNITIES
We have an extraordinary opportunity to turn the electorate
upside down. Americans want action and innovation. You can feel
their restlessness -- and their desire to feel good about
themselves. Desert Storm proved that Americans can do tough and
bold things -- and can feel good about themselves in the process.
The people may not react wildly to Desert Storm applause lines,
but they certainly remember the last spring's post-war euphoria -
- and they want it back.
Democrats have spent a whole year trying to crush that self-
confidence, but they can't succeed unless we let them. Americans
know they can do great things: They just need a chance to dispel
all doubts.
That's where we come in. If we give voters a reason to
rebuff malaise and join an idealistic crusade to a promised
America, they will respond. A focused conservative campaign can
help us restore our historic base; appeal to our future base
(young voters) i and steal votes from people tired of the nutty
politics of the Democrat left.
Before we think about these opportunities, we should
acknowledge a few facts. First, the Reagan Revolution is over.
That revolution, spawned by Jimmy Carter's failures abroad (the
spread of communism) and at home (unprecedented misery index
numbers), achieved its aims. It stood up to communism, and it
slowed down the tax-and-spend movement in Washington.
Now, we live in a different world. Although most Democrats
don't get it, most people want lower taxes, fewer regulations,
and smaller government. Now, they want to recover a sense of
themselves. They want us to move into an age of innovation
girded by old, bedrock values.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
Welfare reform, for instance, reflects the desire to assert
the dignity and necessity of hard work. Educational choice
appeals to people's desire for effective schools -- and schools
that teach traditional values. (Bilalian schools, for instance,
often resemble military academies in their insistence on
discipline and clean living.) We must show that we're ready to
let the people set off another economic boom. Americans
developed great expectations during the 1980s. That's a good
thing -- and we should help them find ways of achieving their
ambitions.
Second, the Age of Innovation dawns. We should unveil a
strategy to reform government, and drag it out of the age of
bureaucracy. We should repackage initiatives that haven't gone
anywhere, but should. We also should promote reforms we haven't
promoted publicly before, like Roth's accountability in
government proposals. (Call it the Truth in Government Act.)
Third, if George Bush is to demonstrate his true greatness
and skill, he will need a Congress that supports him. We won't
get that Congress unless we build a campaign that can generate
real enthusiasm, and can give people a reason to vote along party
lines. In other words, we must define what it means to be a
Republican, and the definition had better be awesomely good.
Finally, here's a suggestion for an overall strategy: We
should argue that the end of the Cold War brought us to the brink
of an entirely new world, at home and abroad. That world starts
right here -- and every American will play a role in shaping it.
We'll bring government up to date, through reforms anchored in
values and common sense. We'll put more power in the hands of
individuals, families, communities, businesses -- the leaders of
our little platoons. The bureaucrat no longer rules. The
individual does. And our policies will liberate individuals and
individual genius.
We should understand the risks of putting exclusive emphasis
on government reform, since many voters will write it off as
typical Inside-the-Beltway self-indulgence. We've got to reform
government, but for a reason -- to give it back to the people.
Furthermore, we must find ways to design programs and seek out
issues that get people actively involved. Involvement generates
enthusiasm, passion. It can turn bored voters into very active
Republicans. If we get too bogged down in technical stuff, we'll
look like strategy nerds retiring into the war room, rather than
commanders leading troops into battle.
As we said in the announcement speech, this is the year of
choices. We should come up with a tight list of crucial choices,
and hammer at them over and over and over.
With that in mind, consider a few opportunities:
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
OPPORTUNITY #1) VALUES
You don't have to go far to understand that Americans think
the nation has gone crazy, and that a little old fashioned value-
based sanity could make a huge difference. This is the central
tenet of the much beloved Kasdan masterpiece du l'anee, Grand
Canyon.
We've used the riff before: When a kid can get a condom at
school, but cannot lead a prayer, something's wrong. When a Good
Samaritan gets sued for doing good deeds, while serial murderers
collect millions in book royalties for detailing their
atrocities, something's wrong. When the three r's at an urban
high school are rifles, revolvers and razors, something's wrong.
When a demagogue can preach racial violence in the name of
justice, something's wrong. And when kids feel no remorse at
committing hate crimes, something's very wrong.
What's wrong is that we haven't said: This is wrong. This
must change. Now.
Hardy Republican issues will work here: School prayer, law
and order, etc. The President should take the offensive, and
portray himself as the man determined to put an end to the
insanity. That will do more to calm fears of his detachment than
just about anything. It will show that he understands all the
petty outrages that offend law-abiding citizens. It also would
enable him to highlight his strength of character.
We also should use values as our jumping-off point for such
things as welfare reform, pro-family legislation, anti-crime
efforts, etc. We don't propose those changes because they will
save us a little money. We propose them because they strengthen
our foundations -- home, church, family, school, community,
country. Toqueville observed that this nation's greatness comes
from the goodness of its people -- and that's still true. If we
believe that sleazeballs and maniacs can rule our cities and our
lives, we're in deep trouble.
A final note: There's nothing wrong with having the
President lose his temper over a values issue. When someone
calls him a racist, he ought to blow his top -- in a controlled
manner, of course. When someone accuses him of dealing in bad
faith with the public, he should blow his top -- and redirect the
fire at Congress. If the President continues to absorb ugly
personal attacks -- his "lumps," as he calls them -- with
equanimity, he will look like the criminal who shows no remorse
as the jury delivers its guilty verdict. When someone questions
his integrity, he should fight back.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
Remember: George Bush's values and character define him as a
man and a President. Values ought to stand at the center of our
campaign, and all our initiative should have roots in the
President's beliefs and in his experience. For example:
OPPORTUNITY #2) THE UNITY CANDIDATE
If you look at the President's challengers, you find that
they share in common a desire to divide and conquer. They don't
understand that when we divide, we lose. America's future
depends on our being united as a people, and on our remaining on
good terms with our most important allies.
Democrats and Buchanan have their own race cards --
Democrats appeal to Blacks' fears; Buchanan appeals to whites'
suspicions. Some of the same characters also have tried to play
a kind of global race card -- through protectionism, isolationism
and Japan bashing.
Both sorts of division will lead to ruin -- moral,
spiritual, economic, political. As we look toward a new Century,
everybody understands that we're in for a tough fight on trade
and economic growth, and we've got to go into the game united and
tough.
I described the historic opening to Blacks in the "problems"
section. I don't have survey data to bolster my case, but I
believe we have a chance to plant the seeds for a voter
revolution, one that will persuade increasing numbers of Blacks
to switch parties in years to come. This revolution depends on
our remaining faithful to our first principles. We can build a
larger base if we use conservative principles to appeal to the
natural conservatism of black voters.
The President can fight against the global race-baiting by
talking about the real benefits of security and trade. We
shouldn't back away from our greatest triumph, the Cold War
victory. But we must give our celebrations greater oomph. We
shouldn't just proclaim victory before bored crowds. Let's show
our victory in action. Let's find businesses made rich by
foreign trade, and speak to them. I suspect we can find some
companies near the Mexican border that also employ people of all
ages, races, creeds and colors. It might make a nice event.
My point is simple: Americans have had it with David Duke
and Al Sharpton. Many have had it with Pat Buchanan. We should
make the case for unity with vigor and without apology. In so
doing, we capture the high ground, we isolate Buchanan and the
Democrats -- and we put ourselves in a position to make the case
that Democrats, not the President, has lost touch with the
American public on this important matter of the heart.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
9
Americans love an idealistic leader. John F. Kennedy got
more historic mileage out of things he didn't do (such as the
Civil Rights Act of 1964) than from things he did do. Why? He
offered an idealistic vision of America, and he invited Americans
to
join
him.
(Ask
not....)
Now it's our turn.
OPPORTUNITY #3) BURY THE WELFARE STATE
We should declare the Sixties over and gone. We should
acknowledge that the Welfare State, a product of good intention
but lousy theories, has run its course. It's important to praise
the civil rights pioneers in order to prove that we're not mean-
spirited, racist Republicans. But having acknowledged the
wonderful motives of those who drafted the laws, we should show
compassion for the Great Society's victims. That will prove that
we live in the real world.
The Welfare State has done to some poor Black Americans what
sharecropping could not: It has robbed them of their will to seek
their fortunes in the larger world. This is obscene, and we
should say so.
We have talked about welfare reform, now we need to put our
money where our mouth is. We should get someone to look at our
own laws. We should get rid of any regs that encourage single-
parent households; that reward people for not working; and that
do not make able-bodied recipients responsible for getting off
welfare. We should emphasize the dignity of work, and we should
promote reforms that give people a real stake in the future. The
HOPE program leads the list because it gives poor people an asset
base that someday may help them build a foundation of real
wealth.
Nobody loves the Welfare State anymore, not even the social
workers. So let's do what everybody knows is inevitable -- Let's
replace it with something that works, and let's define success in
terms of the number of people liberated permanently from
dependency.
OPPORTUNITY #4) THE ECONOMY
We entered office as the true heirs to the Reagan
Revolution, and we should make good on that inheritance. How?
Several ways: First, the President must come clean on the budget
deal -- with its taxing and spending provisions. Second, through
the sorts of actions detailed above -- taking unilateral steps to
demonstrate seriousness, set the agenda, and put Congressional
Democrats on the defensive. Third, we might want to think about
putting together a 1994 budget before the campaign, and describe
exactly what we want to do for the future -- or at least lay out
some very clear criteria for future budgets. We need to make
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
10
good on our repeated observation that government is too big and
spends too much.
We should recast the fairness debate, and point out that
fairness means: If you work hard and do your job, you shouldn't
have to worry about losing it. That's fair. If you work hard
and develop job skills, you should be able to get a job. That's
fair. If you have an idea, you should be able to get it to market
without having Congress skim off the profits. That's fair. And
you shouldn't be punished for working hard, saving, and
succeeding. That is fair.
Democrats really do fit the Mencken caricature: They fear
that someone, somewhere may be having a good time. We should
show that we appreciate the joy of creativity and the exuberance
of a growing, teeming economy. We should make no apologies for
success: We should demand it.
OPPORTUNITY #5) DEFENSE AND SECURITY
Anybody who gets CNN understands that the world remains a
volatile and potentially dangerous place. We really should give
the often promised defense speech, which would enable us to draw
clear distinctions between us and the Democrats, who seem more
interested in cutting defense spending than in building real
security for the future.
We also ought to talk about the Soviet Union and Central
Europe, places where our ideas triumphed, and where our expertise
can and will make a difference. Our line makes sense: We will do
everything we can to foster democratic capitalism (or "market
pluralism, as the NSC guys say), but we won't flood the place
with greenbacks. We have learned that incentives matter in any
welfare system -- including one designed to get Russia on its
feet.
OPPORTUNITY #6) REFORM
Jim Pinkerton has put together a list of reforms: welfare
reform, legal reform, education reform, health care reform; and a
"citizens charter," which would ensure responsible government.
We should push reform wherever possible. It's the right
thing to do, and it implicitly indicts Congress. The President
can't run as an outsider, because he isn't. Therefore, he should
run as a Washington reformer, who has retained the values and
ideals he first brought to this town.
We must decide just how hard we want to run against
Congress. Frankly, we should run as hard as possible. Consider
the recent House litany: cocaine in the Post Office, check
bouncing, scandals involving personal behavior, pay raises signed
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
11
in the dark of night (I know, we have promised not to criticize
the pay hike), a history of vehement inaction, and partisanship
the likes of which we haven't seen since Reconstruction.
Americans want to believe in government, and we ought to
answer their prayers. We can mount a campaign that is both
idealistic and properly outraged. The stakes and potential will
never be higher: By some accounts, 120 members of Congress will
retire or get reapportioned out of office this year. With the
right message, confidence and resolve, we can turn what now seems
a tight race into a shocking sweep.
OPPORTUNITY #7) DEFINE THE FUTURE
Democrats can tell you whom they dislike. They can't tell
you where they want to go as a nation. Well, we do. We want to
build the Good Society we described at the University of
Michigan. We believe in limited government. We believe in
responsible government (revisit the Congress-bashing speech). We
believe in the people. We believe in low taxes and growing
paychecks. We believe in family, good schools, safe streets --
and we believe in the programs necessary to make it all happen.
In short, we believe that we really have reached a defining
point in history -- and unlike the other guys, we understand what
it means, and what it promises. If we combine traditional values
with an emphasis on innovation and reform, we can capture
people's imaginations and offer them a chance to enlist in our
crusade for a promised future.
CONCLUSION:
We have some incredible opportunities this year, and they
play into George Bush's personal strengths. We should think
seriously about what we want the world to look like, and we
should get the President to deliver some major talks on such
topics as welfare reform, the educational revolution, jobs, race
relations, competitiveness, Congress, and the powers of the
Presidency.
At the heart of things, we can argue that this election
really represents a referendum on our national values and our
national direction. We can move forward with Republicans, or we
can revisit the failed past with Democrats. We're for progress.
They're for obsolescence. The choice should be easy, and we
should make it so.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
March 12, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB TEETER
FROM
TONY SNOW
REGARDING
PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVES
As we escape the gravitational pull of the Buchanan
challenge, we should turn our attention to the larger question of
how to establish Presidential leadership in the months ahead.
Democrats will subject us to a "Where's the Beef?" test,
arguing that we're all talk and no action. For three years the
President has said the right things about restraining government
spending, cutting the deficit, holding the line on taxes,
fighting crime, revolutionizing education, reforming health care,
and so on. And for three years a partisan Congress has said, "No
thanks."
Normally, you would expect a President to become very angry
about such treatment. But with the exception of an occasional
speech and occasional outburst, the President has treated
Congress with deference. As a result, he looks like a man
content to say the right things -- and let it stand at that.
(Remember last year's 100-day challenge?) Buchanan made hay with
our record, and revived the wimp argument in the bargain.
Democrats will do even worse.
If we wish to restore our historic Republican base, and if
we wish to generate excitement among crossover Democrats, we've
got to do more than talk the talk. We've got to demonstrate that
we can act. We've got to show that we mean business, and that we
have big things in mind for a second term. No one doubts the
President's heart, but many doubt his resolve.
Since we know that Congress won't give us a bit of help, the
President must exercise Presidential powers in a way that
dramatizes both his determination to lead and Congress'
determination to stand in his way. In other words, he must
settle on a menu of unilateral interventions.
March 20 offers a great opportunity for unveiling such a
strategy. If we do come out firing -- not just with eloquence
but with action -- we can shut off the "Where's the Beef?"
challenge and put ourselves in a position to define the terms of
the political debate. If we simply get up and offer a tone poem
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
about the glorious future, we'll play right in to the Democrat
strategy of portraying the President as a nice guy who doesn't
have a clue.
We hyped the State of the Union until people expected it to
have as much impact as "Let there be light.' We hyped March 20,
so people expect we will do something. We should sent out an APB
for suggestions, and decide that we will do something dramatic
that night, and use the action to kick off a different campaign -
- one that combines vision and action.
I will let you and others decide whether on March 20 the
President should give a speech on March 20, march down to Capitol
Hill or find some other way to create the appropriate drama. I
would like to put in my two cents' worth on the initiatives
discussed most often in the press and in conservative circles:
the exercise of an "implicit" line-item veto, and the regulatory
indexation of capital gains.
First, the line-item veto. As much as I like the idea, I
doubt it will pass constitutional muster. More important, most
of the eggheads in our Office of Legal Counsel oppose it
strenuously.
Frankly, I think there's a better way to go after pork and
put Democrat leaders on the defensive. The President should
signal soon and often his intention of vetoing appropriations
bills that contain pork. Congress will try to play chicken, of
course. It will warn of all the awful things that would happen
if the President were to "shut down" the government.
But we can steal the issue if we follow our warnings with a
veto, and we follow our veto with a press conference identifying
each and every offending scrap of pork. The President could say:
"Don't blame me. Blame the politicians who couldn't keep their
hands off your money. Blame the politicians who couldn't resist
the temptation to siphon money to their friends and contributors.
I know the items here don't amount to much compared to the
overall budget, but like viruses that can cause devastating
diseases, these pork barrel appropriations attack the entire
system. They weaken it in very real ways. I want Americans to
believe in government, and I want government to earn the public's
trust. So here's a challenge: Cut the pork and I'll sign the
bill." This kind of approach enables him to assert leadership,
draw a clear distinction between himself and a Democrat-
controlled Congress, and make the kind of good-government pitch
he has wanted to make before.
Second, the regulatory indexation of capital gains. I think
this one's a winner. Seventy percent of the nation's capital
stock is held by the elderly or in pension funds and other
instruments created for future retirees. Furthermore, most
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
senior income (70 percent) comes from investments. (see
attachment)
Today, workers don't have to worry about bracket creep
because we index earnings for inflation. Retirees get slammed by
bracket creep, however, because we don't index their chief income
sources -- investments and capital gains.
The AARP already is considering an endorsement of a capital
gains cut: Regulatory indexation almost certainly would get huge
support from AARP and other seniors groups.
Consider the political ramifications. Suppose for a moment
that the courts throw out any indexation-by-regulatory-
definition. We could follow by submitting legislation to index
cap gains immediately. That would put George Mitchell and Co. in
the position of having to take money away from senior citizens -
- not likely in any year, let alone a general election year.
In short, the cap gains move offers a freebie to the
President, and would answer all the supply-side critics who doubt
his commitment to cutting taxes and spending. It also would show
the right kind of defiance to Congress, helping set the stage for
a larger and more ambitious campaign of government reform.
Congressional Democrats are counting on the President's not
standing up to them this year. Clinton already has identified
his core complaints. He will argue that the President has
divided America along race and class lines; that the President
represents the "old" wisdom -- and that Clinton's tax-and-spend
policies will offer real help and hope to the poor; and that the
President neither understands nor cares about domestic issues.
If we combine bold conservative actions on taxes and
spending, with George Bush-like attempts to bridge the racial
chasm -- I'll describe some options in a separate memo -- Clinton
turns into a dust mote. Add to that the President's standing as
the most adroit and qualified leader on the world stage, and
Clinton vanishes.
But we don't touch Clinton unless we first show leadership.
Lots of people around here can offer great reasons not to do
something. But watch television. Talk to out-of-town friends.
Check out talk radio. It's obvious that we've got to do
something dramatic and we've got to do it now. We must show our
core voters that we can do something about taxes and spending and
values. We've got to demonstrate our reliability, not just
during an election campaign, but throughout a second term. And
we can't begin to do that until the President begins taking
decisive, unilateral action.
Some other suggestions for unilateral actions:
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
Use enhanced rescission authority -- perhaps on the
programs marked for extinction in the State of the Union
address;
Promote the Roth initiatives on measuring the effectiveness
of legislation -- a Truth in Government act; (In a similar
vein, we ought to have someone find out whether the scandal
involving the House Bank includes violations of the criminal
code. If so, the Justice Department has jurisdiction.)
Start taking on Congress directly: Kick off a term-limitation
campaign. Admit that the system's broke, and that well-
heeled lobbyists have much more clout than mere voters and
taxpayers.
Sign an executive order banning quotas in the federal
government, while increasing the number of civil rights
enforcement officers in the government. This would enable
him to demonstrate that he opposes quotas because they are
racially divisive, but supports civil rights because it's
the right thing to do;
Implement the Beck decision;
None of these are original or new, and I'm sure plenty of
others will surface. I have suggested in another memo that the
President think about a "Thursday surprise" strategy --
announcing such measures on Thursday afternoons, when Congress is
preparing to leave town and the talk shows are solidifying their
topics for the weekend. If we adopt this strategy, we will show
motion on domestic policy. We will energize our own supporters.
We will prompt the press to become positively Pavlovian in their
expectations for the latest bombshell. We will get activists in
our own administration thinking about innovative ways to push our
agenda forward. And we will drive the other side positively
nuts.
Properly designed, such a strategy could give real punch and
credibility to the President's message. We could announce each
initiative in a brief, tough speech -- and use each speech to
build a broader, subtler vision for the President. If we do so,
we also build the kind of ideological momentum necessary to
transform this presidential election into a referendum on which
political party should govern America for years to come.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
March 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR PHIL BRADY
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
Announcement of Appointment
How about this:
The President today announced the appointment of Robert
Anthony Snow as Deputy Assistant to the President for Media
Affairs.
Since 1991 Mr. Snow has served as Deputy Assistant to the
President for Communications and Director of Speechwriting.
Prior to joining the White House, he worked at five newspapers:
The Washington Times, The Detroit News, The Daily Press (Newport
News, Va.) i the Norfolk (Va.) Virginian-Pilot and the Greensboro
Record.
Mr. Snow graduated from Davidson College in Davidson, North
Carolina in 1977, receiving a bachelor of arts degree in
philosophy. He studied philosophy and economics at the
University of Chicago in 1978-79. Mr. Snow has taught in Kenya
and in public schools in Cincinnati, Ohio; he also worked as an
advocate for the Mentally Ill and Developmentally Disabled for
the State of North Carolina. Mr. Snow was born in Berea,
Kentucky. He and his wife, Jill Snow, live in Alexandria,
Virginia.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Notes on the Bush Record:
The greatest secret in American politics is that in three
years George Bush has put in place the foundations for the most
sweeping revolution in American politics since the Great Society.
One theme runs through all these reforms: We believe in
letting the people seize responsibility for their futures.
That's why we have tried to wrest power from special interests
and give it back to American citizens.
George Bush may not seem like a revolutionary because he
doesn't seem himself as one. But if you examine his policies,
you will find a consistent effort to replace the one-size-fits-
all; stand-in-line-and-fill-out-this-form government with
government that ensures the swift, effective provision of
services. We need a revolution to replace large, expensive
government with government that works -- and knows its limits.
Consider some of the reforms the President has proposed.
First, he has put in place mechanisms that harness the
genius of the free market. Too often in years past, the federal
government has regarded business as a sort of menace, not as the
driving force behind national progress. The government has
regulated business without concern for results. It has taxed
business without concern for results. And it has crippled
business only to be stunned by the results -- an economic
slowdown, and widespread business efforts to circumvent
burdensome federal regulations.
The President has tried to set this right by crafting
programs that harness the profit motive and the power of the
marketplace in service to important national goals. The Clean
Air Act, for instance, establishes a market incentive for
reducing pollution. That plan saw its first real action this
Tuesday (May 12) when the state of Wisconsin sold "pollution"
rights to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The President and Vice President also have tried to get rid
of regulations that make it difficult to do business, and that
don't produce any results in return. This administration wants
regulations to pass simple tests: Do their benefits outweigh
their costs, and do they promote goals we consider important? If
not, let's get rid of them.
Second, the President has made choice a centerpiece of his
social policy. He believes that when it comes to matters that
affect families and homes, parents know best.
We already have implemented choice in child care, and we
will do everything in our power to bring choice to our schools,
including religious schools. Our education system never will
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
scale the heights of greatness until we restore vigorous
competition. Americans hate to loose -- and when parents get the
right to choose, everybody wins.
Third, we believe in building social programs that work, not
just programs that spend money. Our housing program --
Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere, or "HOPE" -
- tries to turn public housing residents into homeowners. We all
know that ownership changes the way in which you view yourself
and your community. When you own your home, you own a stake in
your community's future. This approach to housing will help us
put an end to the age of public-housing blight, and it will give
public housing residents the dignity and independence we promised
them a quarter century ago.
The social policies of the past quarter century have done to
some of our poor what sharecropping did to blacks in the South.
They have trapped them in dependency. Consider the following
scenario: Most poor Americans now live in apartments subsidized
by the federal government. If they work hard and earn a salary
that places them above the poverty line, but not high enough to
achieve real independence, we cut their benefits. If they scrimp
and save and put away money to buy a home, we cut their benefits.
If they stay married, we hold the line on their benefits. If, on
the other hand, a welfare mother has a child out of wedlock, we
increase her benefits. And at some levels, we still tax those
who stay on welfare at lower rates than the working poor.
Everybody agrees that we shouldn't let this sort of
condition continue. Only George Bush has tried to do something
about it.
Fourth, we believe in giving power back to the states. The
President has asked Congress to stop imposing wasteful mandates
on the states, and he has promised to veto spending bills that
impose new and unfair obligations on the states. That's a start.
The President also understands that the states are what
Jefferson called "the laboratories of democracy." The states of
Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts and California
have begun exploring innovative ways to reform our welfare
system. Other states have pioneered innovations in other areas,
such as transportation (the Dulles Toll Road in Virginia) and
education (choice experiments in Wisconsin and other states).
Other Presidents have talked about federalism. George Bush
has practiced it.
Fifth, the President understands that the system in
Washington is broke. Congress has become more adept at bouncing
checks, raising its pay, passing pork-barrel appropriations, and
binding the administration in Congressional red tape than it is
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
in passing legislation on the issues people care about most:
taxes, federal spending, crime, education, health care, energy.
The whole world has changed with the end of the Cold War.
Now, the Democratic Party in America seems the only organization
that still believes in central planning and costly bureaucracy.
They believe that a bigger government will make things better.
No wonder voters no longer believe in Congress.
The President has proposed modest but significant reform for
Congress. He has asked Congress to obey the laws it imposes on
everybody else. He has asked Congress to pass its own special
counsel law, so independent investigators can ensure the
integrity of investigations into possible wrongdoing. He has
recommended a dramatic reduction in the size and number of
Congressional committees and staff. There are more committees
and subcommittees in Congress today than there were Congressional
staffers at the end of World War II. And yet people have less
faith in Congress now than ever in our history.
The President has suggested reform of the budget process, so
Congress can pass budgets that meet the needs of the people,
rather than special interests. He has suggested ways of getting
rid of the middlemen who stand between people and their elected
representatives: Campaign finance reform, expansion of the Hatch
Act, which prohibits political activity by federal employees, and
an executive order that implements part of the Supreme Court's
Beck decision all help eliminate the middlemen, and give Congress
a reason to spend more time thinking about its real constituents.
Dan Quayle likes to argue that our government has been seized by
an iron triangle of lobbyists, congressional staffers and special
interests. The President's reforms break that triangle and
restore the fundamental relationship between voters and their
elected representatives.
Sixth, the President has strived to restore the balance of
powers in Washington by proposing dramatic Congressional reform,
and by selecting judges who understand that they should interpret
our laws, rather than to act as unelected legislators.
Congress understands the importance of these changes.
Liberals tried to cripple the Clarence Thomas nomination because
they understood Justice Thomas's determination to oppose
legislation from the bench. This meant that liberals would have
to accept full responsibility for enacting unpopular liberal
programs, rather than having judges impose those programs upon an
unwilling public.
Seventh, this President has done more to create a basis for
world peace than any President in history, and he hasn't gotten
the credit he deserves because he has made it look so easy. The
Soviet Union is gone. Historic enemies have agreed to talk peace
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
in the Middle East. The entire world has moved toward a New
World Order marked by economic competition, rather than nuclear
confrontation.
Yet we still face more than our share of challenges. The
Middle East remains volatile. Former republics in the Soviet
Union and East bloc must deal with ethnic tensions that have been
bottled up for decades, and now threaten to explode. Terrorists
states like Libya and Iraq continue to threaten us.
Survey the candidates and ask yourself: Who best can promote
peace? George Bush, or someone who sounds like a pale and
inexperienced imitation of George Bush?
Eighth, this President also has promoted free trade more
vigorously than any President in recent memory. We stand on the
verge of signing an historic North American Free Trade Agreement
that would create the world's largest trading bloc. The promise
of NAFTA has spurred incredible economic and environmental reform
in Mexico, and transformed that nation from a tenuous democracy
into one of the fastest growing nations on earth. We've enjoyed
similar results with our Enterprise for the Americas initiative,
which creates special trade relationships with partners
throughout our hemisphere.
The President also wants an international trade agreement
that will create a foundation for worldwide prosperity. Although
other nations continue pressing for special and unfair
advantages, the President has hung tough -- and he'll win.
Before he leaves the White House, we will see freer and fairer
trade than the world has ever known. That's good for everybody.
Finally, George Bush has worked to create an atmosphere of
decency in government and throughout America. I'm sick of
hearing people complain that he's a racist or a divisive person.
Those insults come from desperate Democrats who can't cope with
reform. The President has talked this year of five fundamental
reforms: education, health care, government, legal reform, and
trade. That's not just a vision; it's a detailed, common sense
blueprint for the future.
Just look at the people who oppose the president, and you'll
see that he's hit the mark. Unions don't like him. Lawyers
don't like him. Special interests don't like him. And George
Mitchell doesn't like him. That's quite an honor roll. On the
other hand, the American people love him -- not for his glitz,
but for his character.
Many liberals claimed after the recent riots in Los Angeles
that the President didn't understand or didn't care. No one who
watched him choking back tears in Los Angeles can say he doesn't
care, and no one who has known him over the years and has seen
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
him work tirelessly and quietly for racial healing can doubt his
commitment to civil rights and to an end to racial divisions. In
this election year, people may try to smear the President, but it
won't work. George Bush, more than any recent President, has the
character and the power to heal racial divisions while leading us
toward a new era of progress and harmony.
More than a century ago, a French observer noted that
Americans always seem to have the morale of an army on the march.
The President isn't a cheerleader, but he is a leader, and this
year offers greater possibilities for reform than any year in
recent history. Americans will need to be all they can be if we
want to continue leading the world. We will need to reform our
government. We will need to turn our cities into islands of
prosperity rather than dungeons of despair. We will need the
best schools on earth and the most motivated workforce. In sum,
we will need the Revolution George Bush has outlined for three
years. And we will need one thing more: We will need a Congress
that will pass these reforms, and give power back to the people.
George Bush isn't a revolutionary by nature, and he'd get
nervous if you tried to describe him as a revolutionary. But
look at the subtle changes he's made, and you'll see the makings
of a revolution aimed at giving government back to the people,
and at unleashing America's genius for innovation, hard work, and
greatness. The next time someone complains that George Bush
lacks vision, just say: Have you got an hour? I'll just try to
outline a few things for you. Then let 'em have it.
George Bush believes in government of the people, by the
people and for the people. He has stood up to the politics of
tax, spend, and comfort special interests. He's our first
genuine patrician populist -- and he's the one man who can
reshape our government to meet the challenges of the next
century.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MARCH 17, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO CLAYTON YEUTTER
DORRANCE SMITH
BOB TEETER
JIM PINKERTON
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
TAXES
This seems to be the year that liberal Democrats take a
swipe at our major issues. While most of us spend our time
looking at Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown has caught fire with a
simple idea -- a 13 percent flat tax. Michael Weinstein at the
New York Times gave his imprimatur to the idea a couple of weeks
ago (his piece is attached), and audiences seem to respond more
to this idea than to any other in the campaign.
The flat tax neatly summarizes voter discontent with
Washington. Our tax system symbolizes everything that's wrong
with government today: It costs too much, it defies common sense,
it seems incredibly complex, and it seems utterly detached from
our everyday lives. People hate the tax code because it is the
instrument through which special interests wheedle special
benefits. When people scan their paychecks, they see that the
government has taken out a hefty chunk, which can be returned
only with the aid of a very good accountant or tax attorney. And
when they look at their lives, they find it difficult to see just
where the money went. Then they see Congress kiting checks,
ignoring cocaine scandals, feathering its own nest, etc. -- and
they get positively livid.
Brown wants to cut through all this: Trash all the
complicated taxes, impose a 13 percent flat-tax with only three
loopholes: home mortgage, rent, and charitable contributions.
Everything else goes. His message: Throw the accountants out of
work! Make the tax lawyers seek honest employment! Let the
lobbyists have it right between the eyes! Keep your hard-earned
money! This sounds like the kind of thing Republicans supported
before we became took pride in mastering the intricacies of
Washington life.
Democrats never will accept Brown's idea, because it takes
power out of Congress and gives it to ordinary citizens. Many
people in this administration will argue vehemently against it,
usually summarizing arguments offered up by silk-suit lobbyists.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
But if we really want to think about the future, we ought to
devote some thought to a taxpayer crusade aimed at purging the
tax code of its complexity and inefficiency, and finding
something simple and fair. After all, what's the purpose of a
tax code? Answer: to raise money without messing up people's
private lives. Unfortunately, we decided years ago to add little
incentives here and there -- for housing, health care,
investments, and so on -- and pretty soon a simple little tax
form became a hieroglyphic. Each change creates unwanted
consequences, which sets off a search for another adjustment,
which introduces its own unintended consequences, and so the
cycle goes. The more our tax code mangles things, the more we
resort to clever fixes: It's as if the patient entered the
hospital with a hangnail, and after repeated ministrations by the
medical staff, was confined for life in a body cast.
Nothing would better defuse the fairness argument than a
flat tax, and nothing would better please the public. I know we
have laughed off the issue for years, and we surely won't try to
embrace it fully this year. But Brown's on to something, and we
ought to make a decision to shape it into something dramatic for
the future.
As Republicans, we also believe in trying to reduce the tax
burden, and we should think about how to make voters feel the
pinch of taxes. I don't have any practical suggestions. We
could set off a bona fide taxpayer rebellion by repealing the
payroll deduction and making people pay their local, state and
federal income taxes four times a year, in advance. That
certainly would illustrate the high cost of government. No one
will buy that tantalizing little reform, so we should look for
other measures. The President often remarks that government is
too big and costs too much. We should build the case for cutting
its size and cost. A flat tax offers a starting point.
A final observation: As government becomes more complex, it
loses its touch with the people. Citizens become cynical, and
the government slowly gives away its moral authority and
political legitimacy. Communism fell because it destroyed the
bonds between government and the people: We should think of
communism's failure as a high-speed film of what happens when
government grows and grows and encroaches upon people's precious
liberties.
A flat tax makes government more comprehensible and user-
friendly -- as does any other reform that simplifies the way in
which we do business. We should think long and hard about how to
restore idealism, confidence, and enthusiasm to government and
for government. We have some obvious targets: the tax code, the
Imperial Democrat-run Congress, executive-branch agencies that
put decent people in regulatory fetters, programs that encourage
bad behavior and discourage good behavior, etc.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MARCH 17, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ANNA PEREZ
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
CABAL
I wish we had recorded our lunch conversation: It would be
so much easier to capture the excitement and nuance of what we
want to do. But in the absence of electronic snooping measures,
I'll have to reconstruct the moment.
First, we want to assemble a group that understands the
incredible opportunities this election offers; can design a
policy package that captures those opportunities and silences
technocrats who will want to know what we plan to do with program
X, Y and z; can create real excitement and optimism within the
administration, especially among the lumpen-appointees; and that
will help the President build a compelling message of unity while
steering him free of embarrassments.
Obviously, we need to structure our deliberations, so here's
a rough and long-winded cut:
Part I: Define the opportunity.
The opportunity falls into two parts: 1) Americans'
understanding that things are screwed up; and 2) their disgust
with hatemongers.
Start with the screwed-up part: We know some of the
problems. Realtors, banks and others red-line cities -- for the
most part, unintentionally, I imagine, but who cares? Red-
lining is red-lining is red-lining. Schools provide subpar
service to poor city kids, who more often belong to racial and
ethnic minorities. Big government contracts tend to go to well-
heeled white guys. And so on. We must identify the problems
honestly and candidly.
Americans also have had it with lawyers who want to courts
to impose a New American Order upon everybody. We want some role
in the healing, and some credit when it gets done. We don't want
to act nice just because the alternative might be a long stretch
in the slammer.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Quotas don't work: They divide us by race. They're unfair.
They imply that people of color can't cut it. Not even Bull
Connor went that far.
Americans have had it with politicians who skirt the issue,
and refuse to discuss racial problems honestly. When politicians
run from the challenge, demagogues fill the void. When bad
people gain a foothold in communities, good people who hold their
silence drift into irrelevance.
We need a healer. And George Bush, more than any other
candidate in the field, can heal. He should get out and talk to
audiences about the importance of building a unity movement -- of
rekindling the spirit that enabled Civil Rights pioneers to
accomplish miracles, and to build a coalition that enlisted
people of all races, ages and classes. He also should take on
the libels most commonly used against him: Willie Horton and the
civil rights bill, and explain why they fit into his kinder,
gentler approach to things.
Then he should invite everyone to join a common sense
movement to bring government back to the people: America 2000,
including school choice; welfare reform; tough anti-crime
programs; lower levels of spending and taxation; more vigorous
enforcement of anti-discrimination laws -- basic conservative
stuff, with an accent on traditional values.
And he should take on discrimination -- perhaps by visiting
Harlem and trying to figure out why banks will take people's
money, but won't offer any loans. That would be a whole lot more
edifying than yet another trip to the South Bronx.
Part II: Define the obstacles.
We face the daunting task of dismantling government programs
that have encouraged voluntary segregation, dependency, poverty
and all the wrong stuff. We must decide what to do with 8-A set-
asides, and various other programs (and we should list what
programs fit under that descriptions). We must propose
alternatives. And we must develop a strategy to inoculate
ourselves and the President from the ugly recriminations that
surely will follow from the usual suspects. This includes many
old "friends" who trashed POTUS mercilessly during last year's
debate about the Civil Rights Act.
Although rhetoric matters more in matters of race than in
any other domestic arena, policy also matters. We've got to
prove that we can deliver, and we should do everything in our
power to put together a package that answers critics without
surrendering principles.
Part III: Develop a strategy.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
I believe we can win middle-class Black votes and white
Southern Bubba votes the same way: Appeal to traditional values
and common sense. We must persuade the President that he can do
so without going down into history as the Simon Legree of the
20th Century.
Frankly, he won't accept counsel from white folks. We need
to find a group of black professionals who can speak from the
heart about these issues, and can persuade him that his instincts
really can deliver America into a new age of unity and
brotherhood.
We should pitch the opportunity in apocalyptic terms because
we really do have a chance to move mountains. The right audience
could whet his appetite for moving boldly, and follow his own
instincts and ambitions.
We also ought to think up speech opportunities in which the
President can break news, speak to an adoring and revved up
audience, and shock normally cynical newsies. If he delivers a
dud speech to a hostile audience, we're dead. He needs to see
people cheering for him and his vision, and he needs to see
administration types suddenly throwing themselves into a grand
idealistic effort to remove that great blemish, racism. We could
start by giving a no-federal-quotas, enhanced-civil-rights-
enforcement speech to Justice Department types, and then build a
broader message in churches, schools, workplaces -- everywhere
but large institutional conventions.
Once we have established a safe beachhead, we can move on to
more controversial topics, such as multiculturalism, race-based
scholarships, etc. But we must begin with step one, which is to
articulate his own vision of a united America.
A side note: somewhere along the line, someone he trusts
must explain that dinosaurs are extinct, and we should not
develop tomorrow's racial policies under the guidance of
yesterday's leaders -- Art Fletcher, Bill Coleman, Ben Hooks,
John Jacob, etc.
A final note: Race will become an issue in this year's
campaign, whether we like it or not. Clinton already has seen
and seized the opportunity, and he has receive praise from people
who might otherwise be inclined to listen to us (see WJ Wilson
piece, attached). I know Republicans generally avoid discussions
of race, but we can't -- and shouldn't this time around. The
only question is who will define the terms of the discussion --
us or the Democrats?
Cheers.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
March 20, 1992
Editor
The Washington Times
3600 New York Ave, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Editor:
The March 20 Washington Times carried a short item about my
shift at the White House from the Office of Communications to the
Office of Media Affairs. While I appreciate being noticed by old
friends, the piece did a disservice to me and the President. It
took a year-old quote to another publication about last year's
Louisiana gubernatorial primary, described it as "recent," gave
the impression that I take seriously what you called David Duke's
"insurgency," and implied that this represented administration
policy.
This is truly bizarre. I don't think I've ever seen a piece
crowd so many crazy insinuations and distortions into such a
small space. For the record: I have no use for David Duke.
Voters all across America agree. After seeing and hearing him,
they have consigned him to his rightful place -- political
oblivion.
Your Bewildered ex-colleague,
Tony Snow
Deputy Assistant to the President
for Media Affairs
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MARCH 25, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO DORRANCE SMITH
DAVID DEMAREST
BOB TEETER
JIM PINKERTON
SUBJECT
REFORM SPEECH
Next week's speech in Philadelphia gives the President an
opportunity to cast his reform message in larger-than-life,
historic terms. We should make full use of the venue to place
the President above today's political fray and place him firmly
in league with our Founders.
Philadelphia enables the President to give an historical
cast to his remarks, and rise above the fray, while hitting
Congress where it hurts most -- the truth.
Today's Congress shows what happens when our system of
checks and balances breaks down, and one branch manages to rise
above and dominate the others. The President thus comes not to
bash Congress, but to save the Constitution. He alone has the
Constitutional obligation to "preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution," and he may want to make some reference to the
fact.
As we criticize Congress for its perks, etc., we also should
come prepared to mend our ways. The President may want to
announce some change in perks or internal ethics standards or
something -- I don't have any good ideas, but I'm sure somebody
does.
The nice thing about the speech is that it offers endless
opportunities for displaying the President's command of his
office, and for highlighting his commitment to tradition, values,
decency -- and a government of the people.
That last phrase is key: We should draw at least an implicit
distinction between the President and the elitist Congress.
The present complicated system of committees, subcommittees,
caucuses just ensures that the power lies not with the people,
but with experts who know how to manipulate the Rube Goldberg
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
system. Our assaults on lawyers and on regulations win applause
because people hate the idea that experts enjoy special benefits.
Our system supposedly makes all people equal before the law.
But lawyers, accountants, lobbyists and others have become more
equal than the average American citizen. If the President can
restore people's ties with their own government, he becomes their
advocate and their hope -- he becomes the man who breaks the
special interests' stranglehold on our republican democracy.
The President's experience and temperament enable him to
serve as the reformer-in-chief, and to promote the kind of
internal revolution the system needs. A good, firm, principled
speech, with the right balance of contemporary politics and
timeless philosophy, can go a long way toward answering questions
about "the Vision Thing," and can give us a springboard for any
number of initiatives for this campaign and a second term. It
also can provide a haven for Americans who don't want to spend
their time grumbling, but want to feel good about themselves,
their government and their country.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MARCH 30, 1992
MEMORANDUM TO DORRANCE SMITH
CLAYTON YEUTTER
DICK DARMAN
SUBJECT
"THURSDAY SURPRISE" STRATEGY
The President's budget rescissions offer a powerful tool for
illustrating the ways in which Congressional spending XXXXX
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MARCH 30, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SHIRLEY M. GREEN
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
PRESIDENTIAL LETTER TO DR. GLENN CAMPBELL
I mentioned earlier today that the Hoover Institution at
Stanford University has requested a Presidential letter to Dr.
Glenn Campbell, the retiring director of the Hoover Institution.
The President wrote a note congratulating Dr. Campbell on his
25th anniversary at Hoover. That was in 1984.
They would like a comparable note now, to congratulate
Campbell on his long career, his contribution to scholarship,
etc. Hoover then would exerpt part of the letter for use in a
tribute to Dr. Campbell, and possibly in promotional materials.
I have attached the original request, along with an exerpt
of the 1984 letter. I'm afraid we haven't been able to find the
original letter from 1984.
If you need further information, please contact Cathi Smith.
Her phone number is 415/725-6714. Thanks.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MARCH 31, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ADM. JONATHAN T. HOWE
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
POSSIBLE AIPAC SPEECH
As promised, here's a quick pitch for the President's
speaking to AIPAC. This pitch rests on two assumptions: 1) that
the President wants to speak publicly about our Middle East
policy right away; and 2) we can produce the appropriate speech
within a week. If these two conditions don't hold, we can
postpone the speech until whenever.
At any rate, a speech before AIPAC at once could demonstrate
the President's friendship with Israel; his determination to help
build a lasting peace; the confidence necessary to speak before
an ostensibly hostile audience; and the courage not to back away
from positions that have brought the states of the region to the
table, and have provided greater security for Israel than the
nation has seen at any point in its history.
A speech like this enables the President to show off his
best traits: his mastery of foreign policy, his toughness, his
commitment to principle, and his vision -- a world tied by
interest, not by the fear of nuclear war. He can offer a
persuasive argument about the benefits of peace to the peoples of
the Middle East, to the people of the United States, and to the
nations of the world.
Finally, the address would enable the President to increase
the stature gap between him and the other candidates. Democrats
generally come to pander before such audiences. The President
would come to lead.
I know the negatives:
1) The crowd might boo.
Answer: So what? That just makes the audience look like a
bunch of jerks, and the President like a man delivering
unpleasant truths. AIPAC surely suspects that it will have to
deal with George Bush for four more years, and it will take steps
not to embarrass itself.
Besides, Howard Kohr, AIPAC's political director, is a
Republican -- and was one of Dan McGroarty's college buddies. If
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
we were to decide on such a speech, we could work with Howard to
ensure at least a respectful reception. We should not expect the
audience to leap to its feet and begin dancing gleefully in the
aisles, however.
2) It's awfully late to put on such a speech.
Answer: Nobody refuses a President of the United States. If
the Vice President would agree to step aside, that might be nice.
On the other hand, two speeches might prove even more impressive
to the doubters than one.
3) We won't win any votes here.
Answer: Maybe, maybe not. We'll certainly get some
favorable press, if only for the kind of fortitude required to
take on such a challenge.
4) I'm out of negatives.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 1, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
HENSON MOORE
CLAYTON YEUTTER
DORRANCE SMITH
DAVID DEMAREST
BOYDEN GRAY
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
FRIDAY'S SPEECH
Tom Foley and Co. have decided to take the offensive on the
reform issue by raving about executive branch perks. They have
enjoyed mild success so far: The press really ripped into Judy
Smith yesterday about perks, and we didn't have good answers
prepared in response.
We shouldn't take the bait. Perks aren't the problem in
Washington. The problem is that we're not doing the people's
business, and we seem to be wrecking our system of government in
the process. Americans want action, not finger-pointing.
This memo covers two topics: I) a recommendation that we add
performance standards to our policy mix for the speech; and 2) a
brief discussion of the special possibilities Philadelphia offers
as a speech site.
I) A POLICY RECOMMENDATION: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
Friday's speech gives us an opportunity to lift the reform
discussion to a higher plane. If we simply try to exploit the
Democrats' problems on the Hill, we'll prove that we, like the
Democrats, don't understand life outside the Beltway.
Americans don't think that their government works, and it's
hard to blame them. Taxes and spending continue to rise. Key
problems -- lackluster schools, streets increasingly torn by
crime, a sluggish economy, feelings of competitive inferiority,
etc. -- go unaddressed. We don't pass important legislation; we
just set deadlines and argue.
Congress suffers historically low approval ratings (18
percent, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC survey)
because of scandals, perks, and performance: It never seems to
pass really important legislation, but it always manages to find
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
time to finance pork-barrel projects. Many people believe that
government works for the special interests, not for them. Jerry
Brown, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan all have feasted upon this
combination of voter discontent and suspicion of powerlessness.
This year's battle cry: When in doubt, throw all the bums out.
If we want to distinguish ourselves from the bums, we must
prove that we understand the problem. Here's the problem: The
people feel that they've been excluded, and that they're getting
ripped off. Jim Payne recently analyzed budget hearings on the
Hill and discovered that 82 percent of the people giving
testimony either worked for government, or have government
backgrounds. A significant portion of the remaining 18 percent
work for interest groups that receive federal funds. In short,
the budget process -- and hence, the government -- caters to a
small, elitist corps of lobbyists and government lifers -- not
for the working stiffs who pay most of the taxes.
As I understand it, we're now prepared 1) to submit
legislation applying to Congress the same laws it applies to the
executive branch, 2) to take another whack at campaign finance
reform; and perhaps to promote term limits, through a
constitutional amendment or other vehicle.
These items turn up the heat on Congress, but they don't
address the fear that government has become a private preserve
for the high, mighty and well-connected.
We can answer this fear adding one other reform to our list,
performance standards. The President should recommend submitting
all laws to a simple test: If programs work, we support them
(Head Start, for instance). If not, we eliminate them (as we
have with some Defense programs). We might even wish to consider
adding sunset provisions to laws, along with designated criteria
for success or failure. An attached excerpt from a Peter Drucker
book lays out the case for such legislation.
The pitch is simple: We don't want to waste people's hard-
earned money. We will measure programs by their results: Do they
work? Not: Do they cost really impressive sums of money?
In this way we protect the wage earner from the predations of the
special interests.
Performance standards also lay a foundation for more
ambitious reform proposals. If we decide at some later date to
take on bureaucracy or talk in more sweeping terms of government
reforms, we can rely on the only measure that counts: Does it
work? We could call it the "Truth in Legislation Act." At any
rate, this reform embraces common sense and appeals to George
Bush's appreciation of basic honesty.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
A final benefit: Bill Roth already has submitted legislation
advocating performance standards, and our administration has
signed off on it -- at least in theory. We could endorse the
bill if we have no problems with it. At the very least, we could
work with Roth to draft a bill that makes all of us happy.
By adding performance standards to the mix, we take the
debate away from the Hill and back to Main Street. We
acknowledge people's basic suspicion that they're getting ripped
off, and that their government has been seized by staffers and
lobbyists. To those people we say: We will give government back
to you. Such a statement alone would be powerful, since a simple
admission of truth would shock most voters. But we also must be
serious. We can't use performance standards as a toss-off line.
We should be prepared to offer them up as parts of our standard
presentation of legislation.
As a general proposition, we come not to destroy Congress,
but to save it. After all, our system depends on three healthy
branches of government, each balancing the others. A weakened
Congress hurts us all. We should note that we do not regard
reform as a stalking horse for Republican candidates. We want
reform because it's the right thing to do.
PAC reform, Congressional reform, term limitations, and the
other measures send a powerful message -- but they have far more
resonance in Washington than elsewhere. We need one element to
fulfill the "Damn right!" test. If we say: "The government too
often pours your money into programs that don't work, and it's
time we put an end to it," half the viewers will slap themselves
on the forehead and say, "Damn right!"
Furthermore, performance standards would make government
submit to the same scrutiny workers endure when they get their
annual performance reviews. By making government accountable,
and setting deadlines for results, we tear government from its
lofty perch, and return it to the world in which most of our
voters work and struggle to build good lives.
Voters and C-SPAN junkies will watch the House
investigations of executive-branch perks with interest, and they
may conclude that everyone in Washington is on the take. In the
end, however, voters don't care much about the your-perks-are-
bigger-than-mine debate. They think of a more basic question:
What have we (in government) done for them lately? Wouldn't it
be nice to demonstrate that we hear their message -- and we have
something to offer?
II) PHILADELPHIA POSSIBILITIES
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
This section may be completely gratuitous, and the
suggestions may already be incorporated into the draft.
Nonetheless, here goes:
Philadelphia offers spectacular possibilities for the
speech. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence here.
The founders hammered out the Constitution in the City of
Brotherly Love. And in every generation, Americans return in
their hearts to Philadelphia by asking: What does the
Constitution mean? What kind of government do we want? We have
reached such a point again. The entire world has changed in
three years, and most nations now look back out our Founders with
awe. They want to capture the spirit of Philadelphia -- and so
do we.
The speech basically argues for the restoration of checks
and balances -- an energetic executive branch; a Congress that
represents the will of the people, and an independent judiciary.
It would make sense to mention in passing the President's
commitment to a judiciary that interprets laws, rather than makes
them. That's standard Federalist Society stuff -- and all four
founders of the Federalist Society have worked for this
administration, We also should mention Clarence Thomas, who is
much beloved by the Federalist Society. Clarence is a guaranteed
applause line, and adds another nuance to the address.
If we incorporate a philosophical element -- a return to
Philadelphia, checks and balances, a government of, by and for
the people, etc. -- we can impart a sense of history and weight.
That's important. Never underestimate the idealism of the
American people, especially when it comes to our Constitution.
During last year's Desert Storm euphoria many people believed
that America had finally lifted itself from the doldrums, and had
restored its higher sense of itself. Americans believe deeply in
the goodness and destiny of our country, and much of today's
discontent arises from the fact that we seem to have violated
that precious heritage.
George Bush travels to Philadelphia to save that system of
government, to reclaim the founders' legacy -- and to restore
people's rightful claim to power. The President's populism would
stand in dramatic contrast to the elitism of the House, and of
the Democratic party. It also would provide grist for columnists
-- Broder and will, particularly -- who yearn for such stuff.
If we combine real news -- Congressional reform to restore
our system of checks and balances, and performance standards to
demonstrate that we understand the source of public discontent -
- with the loftier ideals of a government of, by and for the
people, we can hit a home run, and establish a basic theme for
this election year.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 3, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SHIRLEY M. GREEN
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
PRESIDENTIAL LETTER
First, thanks for reviewing the request from the Hoover
Institution. I agree with your decision: The President shouldn't
be shilling for anybody.
Now, another request. I received a letter today from the
wife of Thom Gephardt, the editorial page editor of the
Cincinnati Enquirer. (The letter is attached to this memo.) She
has requested a special letter from the President for Thom's
retirement.
The Enquirer has resisted the trends of the age, and has
endorsed Republicans in every presidential election since Thom's
arrival 32 years ago. Having grown up in Cincinnati and having
read the Enquirer for many years, I know. At any rate, I don't
know how we handle these things, but it would be a nice gesture
toward someone who has supported the President and the Republican
Party.
If we can do something, I'd like to get it specially framed
(at my expense), and I'll forward it.
Thanks for your consideration.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 3, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES KOLB
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
FOOD
Well, not quite: Pinkerton, Cicconi and I met this morning
for breakfast. Over hot coffee and stale pastries we came up
with an idea that sounded good at the time: Why not convene an
informal group of world-shaker wannabes to discuss broad themes
and strategies for the campaign and, by implication, the second
Bush term? Obviously, we can't do such a thing at the White
House or the campaign headquarters -- so the next best idea was
to meet on Saturdays at some place or other for breakfast.
I think it's a good idea, but only if we try to organize
ourselves in advance -- picking out some topic of the day or
week. If we don't establish an agenda, the confabs likely will
degenerate into philosophical musings, Darman bashings, or
seances. These activities might soothe the battered White House
souls, but they won't help add shape or strategy to the campaign.
So, two questions: First, how do you like the idea?
Second: Whom should we invite? We really should keep the
group small, so that we might accomplish something. I think the
core group should consist of Pink, Cicconi, you, me, one or two
others from the White House, and a couple of other mavens like
Spence Abraham. We also should make full use of such wise men as
Ed Rollins, soliciting their attendance and attention from time
to time, but not regularly. Ed, after all, now works in the
private sector, makes real money, and has better things to do on
Saturday mornings. At any rate, we should think of one or two
senior-ish White House types to join in.
If this interests you, let me know by Monday, and I'll pass
word on to Cicconi. We'll try to start our get-togethers on
April 11.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 5, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
CLAYTON YEUTTER
MARLIN FITZWATER
DAVID DEMAREST
DORRANCE SMITH
BOB TEETER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
L.A. TRIP
The President's trip to California this week provides an
unprecedented opportunity to show George Bush at his best and to
let the President seize the initiative on some of our most
important and troubling social issues. This memo will suggest an
overall framework for dealing with the trip; then will discuss some
of the major issues.
I) FRAMEWORK
This trip should be as dramatic and panoramic as any in this
Presidency. George Bush should stake his claim to the future, by
demonstrating his grasp of the large problems we face, and the
actions we can adopt to address those problems.
We can dramatize the sweep of the L.A. tragedy by visiting
people who played different roles in the drama (or trauma). He
should visit shelled out neighborhoods, such as Compton or Watts.
He should meet with church groups. He should meet with volunteers,
like Sweet Alice Harris in Watts, one of our Points of Light. He
should meet with cops and firefighters. And he should meet with
the families of victims. The more we control events, the shallower
and less satisfying the trip will seem. If the President faces
angry questioners, or has someone reduce him to tears, he shows
real understanding and empathy. He crushes the bad guys, and
places himself in a position to lead more knowledgeably. We must
engage his passions, and we can't do that in carefully controlled
events.
We must show that we remain firm in our commitment to fighting
crime and preserving the integrity of the judicial system; that we
understand the problems of race; that we intend to revive American
cities and sweep away the debris of the Great Society; and that we
will mount a revolution designed to implement programs that
actually produce results -- a revolution to give government back
to the people, to give people real power to shape their own
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
futures. This is quite a juggling act, involving everything from
deeply personal talk about race relations and prejudice to harder,
more concrete discussions of crime, job creation, education and so
on. Nevertheless, we can do it.
Here's the key: We must get the President to talk from the
heart. We must draw links between the policies and the things
George Bush loves most: family, friends and country. So far, we
have put him before audiences and asked him to read lists: Five
Fundamentals; Six National Educational Goals; Seven Basic Reforms
in the State of the Union; Four Tracks of America 2000 -- and so
on. We sound like a bunch of Gringo Maoists. Worse, we have
precious little to show for these things. Most of our State of the
Union initiatives remain moribund. We haven't followed up on our
March 20 rescissions. We look like people searching for phrases,
and not for solutions -- and that won't do.
If we don't put the President's heart and soul into these
things, he will look like a bemused marionette. And if we fail to
seize the initiative on key domestic matters, we run the risk of
having this campaign degenerate into an examination of character -
- Bill Clinton versus the Bush children -- Neal, then Jeb, then
anyone else the media chooses to hound. It doesn't matter that the
Bush children will escape in the end: A grinding, personal campaign
could demoralize the President and his family. Unless we begin
putting together a real series of themes, with real meat and real
connections to the heart and soul of the candidate, we run the risk
of turning the leader of the Free World into a moving target for
Democrat marksmen.
In crass political terms, we must understand that we will
squander a great opportunity if we confine our comments to law and
order or to safe, traditional Republican issues. The American
people don't trust Bill Clinton and they want George Bush to lead.
He should do so by relying on his incredible personal decency and
his fierce commitment to doing what is right. His personal virtues
should serve as the springboard for what should amount to a
revolution in domestic politics.
II) Issues
The events in Los Angeles helped illustrate the interplay
between several social trends: 1) the increasing cynicism among
minorities about the criminal justice system; 2) race relations;
3) public rage about gangs, wanton crime, and lawlessness; 4) the
role of the media.
The events also place us right between the cross-hairs on the
issue of leadership. We have hidden from race issues for three
years, fearing that the other side would call us bad names if we
decided to take the lead. Now, they're calling us bad names,
anyway. We've got to seize the initiative.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
We must put the Los Angeles events into a larger context.
Marlin began the task yesterday by talking about the failures of
the Great Society. We should not shrink from pushing that
argument. Indeed, we should flesh it out.
Some remnants of the Great Society have created a generation
of what I call urban sharecroppers -- people frozen in dependency
by a system that denies them the means to escape, and that
encourages them to engage in behavior that will keep them down.
Consider this scenario: If you're poor and you want to get
out, the government reduces your benefits if you make too much, but
not enough to escape. The government reduces your benefits if you
scrimp and save and try to put together enough money to purchase
a modest place to live. The government punishes you if you stay
married. It does reward those who have illegitimate children, and
it rewards with lower effective tax rates some of those who don't
work or attend school.
Some neighborhoods in the Los Angeles area house second-and-
third generation poor. In these places, a permanent underclass has
begun to form. These places offer horrifying testimony to the
shortcomings of the Great Society.
As we talk about the Great Society, we should take care not
to blame anybody for the programs. Treat them as a fact of life,
and obstruction to remove. If Democrats want to take reform as a
personal insult, let them do SO. We should argue that we don't
want to revive old arguments. We want to produce results.
When we propose social programs, we should use common sense,
and ask this question: What basics ensure human dignity? Answer:
a fair chance at a decent education, a home you can own, a safe
neighborhood, and assurances that if you work hard, you will be
rewarded fairly for your labors. You also want assurances that the
government will not treat you like a child. It will not patronize
you or prevent you from doing the important things all people want
to do: make important decisions about child care, schools, health
care; where you want to work, etc.
We can show we care in one way only: by giving people the
power to control their own lives. The keys to power: education,
property and protection from discrimination. When people own homes
and have faith in the future, they have a real stake in America and
they behave differently. They keep the neighborhood clean. They
participate in school events. They encourage good behavior. You
know how it works: Just consider your own neighborhoods and social
circles.
We can package all our domestic initiatives around the themes
of independence and dignity. It's a common-sense way to get at the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
heart of things and to appeal personally to our people.
Now, to the analysis:
A) Social trends revealed by Los Angeles:
1) Cynicism about the justice system
This week's snap polls on the Simi Valley verdict showed that
four of five black Americans believes that the criminal justice
system discriminates against blacks. Roughly half of white
respondents feel that blacks can't get justice.
We should begin by noting this cynicism. That would score
brownie points immediately. Our national debate about race too
often is couched in euphemism. People love candor, and they always
seem shocked when someone commits it. They expect politicians to
deny reality and to propose programs that help cronies and friends.
Why not show some refreshing honesty?
Indeed, we must. The cynicism about the courts hurts our
justice system. Judge Reggie Walton notes that juries in the
District often acquit obviously guilty black defendants, often as
a way of protesting the system's seeming injustice. Conversely,
some other communities have incredibly high conviction rates for
blacks, perhaps because people consider blacks highly likely to
commit crimes. In short, we've got a mess on our hands.
We should provide some sort of initiatives to deal with the
problem, such as beefing up Justice Department efforts to study
police brutality, as well as federal efforts to help out cops in
big cities, since those cops put their lives on the line all the
time, without the support they deserve and need.
We also should propose tough penalties for punks who commit
the sort of crimes we saw in L.A. I doubt we could federalize it,
but we certainly should make the point that this sort of "protest"
has no place in American life, and we intend to punish it as
severely as we punish other forms of terrorism.
I'm sure the AG has other suggestions: We ought to break out
as many as we can.
2) Race relations:
Race relations in America stink, even though we've made
incredible progress in knocking down barriers to opportunity and
success. Democrats have fomented a good deal of this by blaming
their failures on "racism" (shades of the Kerner Commission!), and
preaching this gospel in every urban area in the country. We've
kept quiet, letting this slander harden into an accepted fact.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
Democrats place incredible weight on their black support.
They know their programs don't work, that they got it all wrong
during the Cold War, and that their Congress has grown complacent
and corrupt. They cling to the sense of moral superiority that the
black vote conveys for them. If we make inroads into the black
vote by capturing the hearts and idealism of black voters --
especially the black middle class -- we drive a stake through their
hearts.
That shouldn't be difficult. Many blacks have become sick of
liberals who try to buy votes with programs that lure the poor into
dependency. They want programs that treat them with the dignity
they're due, and that offer some real hope of producing good
results.
And there's more! A properly conciliatory/realistic approach
would appeal to the vast majority of middle-class whites, most of
whom now at least have black colleagues, if not neighbors, and who
want very much to put all the talk of racism behind them. A
quarter century's worth of race baiting has left people in a state
of exhaustion and anger. We should note that and understand it.
We also should demand that we move ahead.
To do so, we must confront the constant Democrat claim that
conservatism equals racism. Remember when the President proposed
welfare waivers for Wisconsin? Moynihan quickly accused the
President of resorting to "code words." That was typical:
Democrats use the charge of racism as a censorship tool. They want
to prevent our talking about much needed reforms, so that they may
cling to their own programs.
We have an easy response. We care about what works, and not
about bureaucrats. We want poor Americans to join the American
mainstream, and we want everybody to have a fair chance to live an
independent and dignified life.
If we talk about groups and classes, we're dead. We must talk
about individuals, and we must appeal to people's own common sense
notions of what counts: education, family, home, community, job,
etc.
Finally, on this topic: If we wish to establish real
credibility on race issues, the President sooner or later must
address two issues: Willie Horton and quotas. He should argue that
Democrats turned Willie Horton into a racial issue in order to
frighten black voters. We just wanted to talk about the
viciousness of releasing sadistic rapists. As to quotas, the
President opposes them because they're divisive. The quota is
father to the glass ceiling. Today, many minorities have corner
offices and high salaries, but many of them live almost like ZOO
animals: there for display, not for real work. This is disgusting
and unfair, and we say so. The President wants to get rid of
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
quotas because they heighten racial tensions, but he also wants to
increase efforts to enforce civil rights laws. Hence, the civil
rights act of last year.
3) Public rage
We should not for a moment pretend to "understand" the animals
who roamed around, beating and killing innocents last week. We
should show special sympathy for the victims -- and appreciation
for the brave people who waded through the mobs to drag innocent
people to safety. We should demand real justice for the mobs. I
wouldn't suggest federalizing the crimes they committed, but we
should use the bully pulpit to demand harsh and fair punishment for
these creeps.
I don't know that any of us have seen anything more
frightening than the mob beatings last week, as gangs pulled people
from their cars -- or in one instance, a couple of guys from a
motorcycle -- intent merely on murder. There is nothing noble or
understandable about this anger. We must stick with our values.
4) The role of the Press
Although members of the press talk piously about
"objectivity," the press virtually lit the fires that consumed
property and lives. The Los Angeles television stations all
carried nightly updates of the police trial, and the Fox station
carried the trial live. The media turned the entire thing into a
spectacle, which would lead to a predictable result -- a cathartic
conviction. When expectations went awry, the place went nuts.
Meanwhile, the national press left huge holes in its coverage,
thereby inspiring the entire world to misinterpret the events in
L.A. Even today, most people don't know that King led the cops
through residential areas on a high-speed chase, and that he had
two companions, both of whom surrendered with minimal struggle.
Nor has the public ever seen the entire video tape.
Instant analyses further muddle things. The stock wisdom now
is that L.A. burned because George Bush and Ronald Reagan didn't
spend enough on social programs. That's factually wrong -- OMB
should be able to supply the budget figures -- and it's morally
craven. We should take on directly the charge that conservatism
translates into racism (as I noted above), and we should argue that
we care about what works. We want to wipe away a lot of failed
programs because they cheat needy Americans of the chance to make
it in life. We should show that we don't care about bureaucrats
who earn their keep by running failed federal programs. We care
about people. The President ought to be mad as hell about the way
we short-change our poor, and he should challenge the media on
insinuations that he's a racist. In this case, righteous anger is
good.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
There's a subtler point: In the age of instant communication,
the public gets vivid views of isolated incidents, and broadcasters
imply that these small events constitute the whole of reality. In
fact, instant communication almost always means instant distortion
-- and journalists must find some way of bringing these things into
balance. Television cameras helped capture the King beating, but
they also helped encourage people to draw facile conclusions, and
to go out on the streets and raise gleeful hell.
III) The Big Picture
We should propose two R's: reconciliation and reform.
For starters, we should hammer at our proposals and our
record, and explain each one in terms of what they do for all
Americans. So: choice in education, child care, health care;
America 2000; HOPE and other housing initiatives; welfare reform;
job creation -- capital gains tax cuts, enterprize zones, job
training 2000, etc. We should push these as key elements in a very
subtle American revolution designed to give government back to the
American people.
The President should argue that we accomplish nothing by
pointing fingers and assessing blame. Those who raged through the
streets of Los Angeles deserve the blame for their deeds. The
President ought to ask all Americans, regardless of racecreed-
nationaloriginoranyotherdamnedthing to join in a great common
purpose, for building a greater America.
We also must understand that racial tensions involve more than
blacks and whites. When liberals divided America into an amalgam
of groups with separate rights and claims, they made inevitable the
war of each against all. Hence, we see tensions between all
"groups" -- whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc. We can
overcome only by repudiating the notion of group rights and focus
on individual people.
The President has delivered many fine speeches during his
presidency. Now we must produce results. We can't do that all by
ourselves. We must encourage all Americans to join a movement
toward a better future, and think of ways in which we can ensure
greater self-reliance and greater levels of participation in such
things as school groups, community organizations, etc.
We must instill in every American a sense of answering to a
higher calling, and a sense that we all must create a new movement
that relies on little platoons, and not on megabureaucracies.
Greatness lies in that cause, and in that cause lies our own chance
to push American politics into a new era of progress, optimism and
hope.
rec'd TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
We must speak in crisp, vivid and clear language. If we
resort to fuzzy euphemism or cliche, people will say to themselves:
"There they go again, trying to con us." If we wish to
communicate, the President must speak with conviction and passion.
A) A final note: The importance of symbolism.
Symbolism is immensely important in racial politics. I will
explain why by means of analogy.
If you ever have had something stolen, you know that it fills
you with a sense of wild rage: You have been victimized, by some
invisible foe, for no good reason, and you want to know why.
Now, imagine being a black American who has worked hard to get
a good job. You dress well, obey the law, and raise your kids to
honor traditional American values. Still, clerks look at you funny
when you enter stores. Cabs whiz past you at night. Colleagues
assess you regularly, asking: Did he (or she) get the job because
of race or qualification? These and thousands of other
humiliations follow black Americans every day. But prejudice works
like an invisible thief. No one knows where it lurks, or how it
might show itself, only that it's there -- always.
In such circumstances, nothing is more powerful than having
the leader of the free world say: I understand this. I think it's
outrageous and wrong. Together, we will fight to eliminate it.
That shows a depth of understanding and empathy that no politician
can match, and it cuts through all the patronizing BS that
Democrats might want foist upon us. If we can combine powerful
measures of symbolism, tough action, personal involvement, and
imaginative policy suggestions, the President will ascend to
heights none of us would have dreamed possible. This is the
greatest opportunity in this administration to seize control of the
domestic agenda and to lead. Let's make the most of it.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 6, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL SKINNER
HENSON MOORE
DORRANCE SMITH
SCOTT COLLINS
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
MAKING THE MOST OF OUR OPPORTUNITIES
In a meeting this morning with Scott Collins, Maria Sheehan
and I offered several suggestions for making the most of the
talent available within our communications departments. This
memo offers a few sketchy proposals along those lines: We will
return with what we hope will be more thoughtful, detailed
comments later this week.
Problem: The communications departments have been battered
and demoralized by constant public talk of "communications
problems." Policymakers meanwhile have become touchy over
countercharges that our policy lacks oomph.
Suggestion: Understand that we don't have a "policy" problem
or a "communications" problem. We have a coordination problem.
We have severed policy and communications. If we bring the two
into closer contact, we can do a better job of anticipating press
reactions, taking public sensitivities into account, explaining
policy nuances carefully -- and making everyone here happy.
Related Problem: Too often, the people responsible for
crafting and distributing the message get left out of the policy
loop until the last minute. They must rush to produce scripts or
talking points or op-eds or speeches -- and can only guess at the
philosophical, technical and political factors that went into
crafting the policy. When they fail to read the policy experts'
minds, accusations fly.
Suggestion: Keep the message-makers informed about what's
going on in policy. Let the Speechwriting Department and
Department of Media Affairs know about upcoming initiatives, etc.
(The speechwriters' meeting with Clayton Yeutter offers a good
start.) Get all fact sheets to both departments, and put Media
Affairs people (Maria and me) on the distribution list for
speeches. We can't resonate a message if we haven't seen it.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Furthermore, we must settle on a procedure for unveiling
important or sensitive news, such as last week's Soviet aid
announcement. NSC effectively assumed control of the event, and
produced a leaden speech for an historic moment. That doesn't
serve anybody well. Similarly, OMB effectively controlled the
March 20 speech. Everybody else had to labor in relative
darkness, waiting for the shadowy draft to emerge. Not good. We
now talk about five pillars, but no one has answered the obvious
question: What do these pillars uphold? Although the observation
may seem trivial, it isn't: Metaphors matter, and murky metaphors
usually raise suspicions that we're trying to hide something or
dress something up.
Problem: Too often, major Presidential speeches or
initiatives, like pebbles dropped into a pond, set off tiny
ripples for a couple of minutes, then vanish forever. This
phenomenon, perhaps more than any other, contributes to the
impression that the President lacks vision. Scattered shell-
burst announcements make the President look like a man groping
for a policy, and they fuel "disarray" rumors.
Suggestion: Give your communications professionals a chance.
Distribute in advance long-range "message" schedules -- the sort
of block schedules that the Deputy Chief of Staff has created.
Message schedules give us a tool for coordinating our efforts.
They also give us a chance to suggest activities that might
underscore the message. Our staffers know and understand
communications, and they can offer suggestions that will serve
the President well.
I understand the fear that such schedules, once given
broader circulation, might end up in newspapers or on television.
Frankly, we're not part of the leak problem -- and if anyone
leaks, they don't deserve to be here. As we approach the
election, we must ask whether we will base our decisions on the
fear of leaks, or the determination to drive the debate. My
prejudice: We should go on the offensive against our foes, rather
than on the defensive against ourselves.
Also, use these message schedules as the template for long-
range scheduling meetings. Find events that fit the message,
rather than trying to twist events to meet the political demands
of the day.
When we coordinate activities, we give new weight to
speeches, press conferences, announcements, and initiatives. We
inspire a feeling of teamwork and achievement. The more we
reduce turf wars, the more effectively we will serve the
President.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
Note that all these suggestions involve improving the
information flow. If we give everybody enough time to do some
thinking, research and checking with colleagues, we can give the
President the support he deserves and needs -- and we can boost
sagging morale. Then, everybody will race to accept credit,
rather than to apportion blame.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 6, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL SKINNER
HENSON MOORE
DORRANCE SMITH
SCOTT COLLINS
FROM
TONY SNOW
MARIA SHEEHAN
SUBJECT
MAKING THE MOST OF OUR OPPORTUNITIES
Prompted by a meeting earlier this week with Scott Collins,
Maria Sheehan and I have developed a memo outlining some of the
strengths and weaknesses of our present communications operation,
along with suggestions for ways to make the most of the talent
available in the communications offices at the White House.
[summary of the memo:
I) Communications Problem
A) structural
1) policy/communications gulf
a) turf battles, especially two agencies
b) no offical vehicle for prying information free
c) uncertainty about larger message
d) disconnects with campaign
2) advance/communications gulf
a) failure to learn about audiences, sites
b) failure to make the most of audiences, sites
c) failure to make the most of the special talents
and backgrounds of our own people
3) scheduling/communications gulf
a) lack of lead time
b) lack of structure
c) lack of communications strategy
4) leadership/communications gulf
a) lack of support
b) lack of leadership
c) lack of themes, etc.
II) Morale problems
A) Turf battles, etc.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
1) Problem: The communications departments have been battered and
demoralized by constant public talk of "communications problems."
Policymakers meanwhile have become touchy over countercharges
that our policy lacks oomph.
Suggestion: Understand that we don't have a "policy" problem
or a "communications" problem. We have a coordination problem.
We have severed policy and communications. If we bring the two
into closer contact, we can do a better job of anticipating press
reactions, taking public sensitivities into account, explaining
policy nuances carefully -- and making everyone here happy.
Related Problem: Too often, the people responsible for
crafting and distributing the message get left out of the policy
loop until the last minute. They must rush to produce scripts or
talking points or op-eds or speeches -- and can only guess at the
philosophical, technical and political factors that went into
crafting the policy. When they fail to read the policy experts'
minds, accusations fly.
Suggestion: Keep the message-makers informed about what's
going on in policy. Let the Speechwriting Department and
Department of Media Affairs know about upcoming initiatives, etc.
(The speechwriters' meeting with Clayton Yeutter offers a good
start.) Get all fact sheets to both departments, and put Media
Affairs people (Maria and me) on the distribution list for
speeches. We can't resonate a message if we haven't seen it.
Furthermore, we must settle on a procedure for unveiling
important or sensitive news, such as last week's Soviet aid
announcement. NSC effectively assumed control of the event, and
produced a leaden speech for an historic moment. That doesn't
serve anybody well. Similarly, OMB effectively controlled the
March 20 speech. Everybody else had to labor in relative
darkness, waiting for the shadowy draft to emerge. Not good. We
now talk about five pillars, but no one has answered the obvious
question: What do these pillars uphold? Although the observation
may seem trivial, it isn't: Metaphors matter, and murky metaphors
usually raise suspicions that we're trying to hide something or
dress something up.
Problem: Too often, major Presidential speeches or
initiatives, like pebbles dropped into a pond, set off tiny
ripples for a couple of minutes, then vanish forever. This
phenomenon, perhaps more than any other, contributes to the
impression that the President lacks vision. Scattered shell-
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
burst announcements make the President look like a man groping
for a policy, and they fuel "disarray" rumors.
Suggestion: Give your communications professionals a chance.
Distribute in advance long-range "message" schedules -- the sort
of block schedules that the Deputy Chief of Staff has created.
Message schedules give us a tool for coordinating our efforts.
They also give us a chance to suggest activities that might
underscore the message. Our staffers know and understand
communications, and they can offer suggestions that will serve
the President well.
I understand the fear that such schedules, once given
broader circulation, might end up in newspapers or on television.
Frankly, we're not part of the leak problem -- and if anyone
leaks, they don't deserve to be here. As we approach the
election, we must ask whether we will base our decisions on the
fear of leaks, or the determination to drive the debate. My
prejudice: We should go on the offensive against our foes, rather
than on the defensive against ourselves.
Also, use these message schedules as the template for long-
range scheduling meetings. Find events that fit the message,
rather than trying to twist events to meet the political demands
of the day.
When we coordinate activities, we give new weight to
speeches, press conferences, announcements, and initiatives. We
inspire a feeling of teamwork and achievement. The more we
reduce turf wars, the more effectively we will serve the
President.
Note that all these suggestions involve improving the
information flow. If we give everybody enough time to do some
thinking, research and checking with colleagues, we can give the
President the support he deserves and needs -- and we can boost
sagging morale. Then, everybody will race to accept credit,
rather than to apportion blame.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Talking points (4/13; for Ron Kaufman) :
I know that some of you worry that the President lacks
vision going into this campaign. But let me tell you, the
greatest secret in American politics is that in three years
George Bush has put in place the foundations for the most
sweeping revolution in American politics since the Great Society.
One theme runs through all these reforms: We believe in
letting the people seize responsibility for their futures, and we
believe in wresting power from the special interests and giving
it back to voters.
Let me just outline a few examples;
First, we have put in place mechanisms that harness the
genius of the free market, rather than destroying the market for
the sake of some planner's vanity:
The Clean Air Act establishes a market incentive for
reducing pollution. We understand that you're much more likely
to get results by rewarding people for good behavior than by
threatening them with regulations and lawsuits that will only
encourage them to develop ingenious ways to exploit loopholes in
the law. When you impose burdensome regulations on businesses,
they naturally spend a great deal of time and energy trying to
foil those regulations. We prefer to let businesses figure out
the best way to clean up the environment -- and to create the
technologies that will give us a cleaner and more prosperous
future.
The President and Vice President also have tried to get rid
of regulations that make it difficult to do business, and that
don't produce any results in return. This administration wants
regulations to pass simple tests: Do their benefits outweigh
their costs, and do they promote goals we consider important? If
not, let's get rid of them.
Second, we have made choice a centerpiece of our social
programs, knowing that no one is more qualified to judge the
quality of a social program than families and parents.
We already have implemented choice in child care, and we
will do everything in our power to bring choice to our schools,
including religious schools. Our education system never will
scale the heights of greatness until we restore vigorous
competition. Americans hate to loose -- and when parents get the
right to choose, everybody wins.
Third, we believe in building social programs that work, not
just programs that spend money. Our housing program -- Home
Ownership for People Everywhere, or "HOPE" tries to turn
public housing residents into homeowners. We all know that
ownership changes the way in which you view yourself and your
rec'd TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
community. When you own your home, you own a stake in your
community's future. This approach to housing will help us put an
end to the age of public-housing blight, and it will give public
housing residents the dignity and independence we promised them a
quarter century ago.
Fourth, we believe in giving power back to the states. The
President has asked Congress to stop imposing wasteful mandates
on the states, and he has promised to veto spending bills that
impose new and unfair obligations on the states. That's a start.
The President also understands that the states are what
Jefferson called "the laboratories of democracy." Look at
Massachusetts. The government reforms here ought to serve as
shining examples for the government in Washington. If we get a
Republican Congress this year, the Bill Weld Massachusetts
Miracle will pave the way for better government in Washington.
The states have pioneered education reform, welfare reform,
privatization reform -- you name it. George Bush understands
this, and he has done everything he can to encourage change,
including granting waivers to states that offer promising ways to
reform welfare, and build a system that rewards responsibility,
enterprise and independence.
Fifth, we understand that the system in Washington is broke.
Congress has become more adept at bouncing checks, raising its
pay, passing pork-barrel appropriations, and binding the
administration in Congressional red tape than it is in passing
legislation on the issues people care about most: taxes, federal
spending, crime, education, health care, energy. With two
dramatic exceptions, the whole world has changed with the end of
the Cold War. Those exceptions: The British Labor Party and the
American Democratic Party. Democrats still believe that we can
spend our way out of our problems. That is, they believe that a
bigger government will make things better. No wonder voters no
longer believe in Congress.
The President has proposed modest but significant reform for
Congress. He has asked Congress to obey the laws it imposes on
everybody else. He has asked Congress to pass its own special
counsel law, so independent investigators can ensure the
integrity of investigations into possible wrongdoing. He has
recommended a dramatic reduction in the size and number of
Congressional committees and staff. There are more committees
and subcommittees in Congress today than there were Congressional
staffers at the end of World War II. Is that crazy, or what?
He has suggested reform of the budget process, so Congress
can pass budgets that meet the needs of the people, and not just
the special interests. He has suggested ways of getting rid of
the middlemen who stand between people and their elected
representatives: Campaign finance reform, expansion of the Hatch
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
Act, which prohibits political activity by federal employees, and
an executive order that implements part of the Supreme Court's
Beck decision all help eliminate the middlemen, and give Congress
a reason to spend more time thinking about its real constituents.
Dan Quayle likes to argue that our government has been seized by
an iron triangle of lobbyists, congressional staffers and special
interests. These reforms weaken that iron triangle.
Sixth, the President has strived to restore the balance of
powers in Washington by proposing dramatic Congressional reform,
and by selecting judges who understand that they should interpret
our laws, rather than to act as unelected legislators.
Seventh, this President has done more to create a basis for
world peace than any President in history, and he hasn't gotten
the credit he deserves because he has made it look so easy. But
consider the progress: The Soviet Union is gone. Historic
enemies have agreed to talk peace in the Middle East. The entire
world has moved toward a New World Order marked by economic
competition, rather than nuclear confrontation.
Yet we still face more than our share of challenges. The
Middle East remains volatile. Former republics in the Soviet
Union and East bloc must deal with ethnic tensions that have been
bottled up for decades, and now threaten to explode. Terrorists
states like Libya and Iraq continue to threaten us.
Survey the candidates and ask yourself: Who best can promote
peace? George Bush, or someone who sounds like a pale and
inexperienced imitation of George Bush?
Eighth, this President also has promoted free trade more
vigorously than any President in recent memory. George Bush has
proposed a North American Free Trade Agreement that would create
the world's largest trading bloc. The very promise of NAFTA, as
we call it in Washington, has spurred incredible reform in
Mexico, and transformed that nation from a tenuous democracy into
one of the fastest growing nations on earth. We've enjoyed
similar results with our Enterprise for the Americas initiative,
which creates special trade relationships with partners
throughout our hemisphere.
The President also wants an international trade agreement
that will create a foundation for worldwide prosperity. Although
other nations continue pressing for special and unfair
advantages, the President has hung tough -- and he'll win.
Before he leaves the White House, we will see freer and fairer
trade than the world has ever known. That's good for everybody.
Finally, George Bush has worked to create an atmosphere of
decency in government and throughout America. I'm sick of
hearing people complain that he's a racist or a divisive person.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
Those insults come from desperate Democrats who can't cope with
reform. The President has talked this year of five fundamental
reforms: education, health care, government, legal reform, and
trade. That's not just a vision; it's a detailed, common sense
blueprint for the future.
Just look at the people who oppose the president, and you'll
see that he's hit the mark. Unions don't like him. Lawyers
don't like him. Special interests don't like him. And George
Mitchell doesn't like him. That's quite an honor roll. On the
other hand, the American people love him.
George Bush isn't a revolutionary by nature, and he'd get
nervous if you tried to describe him as a revolutionary. But
look at the subtle changes he's made, and you'll see the makings
of a revolution aimed at giving government back to the people,
and at unleashing America's genius for innovation, hard work, and
greatness. The next time someone complains that George Bush
lacks vision, just say: Have you got an hour? I'll just try to
outline a few things for you. Then let 'em have it.
George Bush believes in government of the people, by the
people and for the people, and he has taken lots of steps to put
an end to the politics of tax, spend, and schmooze the special
interests. He's our first genuine patrician populist -- and he's
the one man who can reshape our government to meet the challenges
of the next century.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 13, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR HENSON MOORE
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-EDS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS TOPICS
This memo will discuss several communications topics: 1) the
op-ed operation; 2) making better use of the long-term
communications block schedule; and 3) a suggestion for an event
this week.
I) The op-ed operation
After several weeks of working in the op-ed vineyards, I've
relearned several important facts of journalistic life.
o Op-ed editors get paid to provoke controversy, and therefore
look for pieces that generate controversy or break fresh news.
If we want our op-eds to make a splash, they must achieve one of
these two goals. Editors don't want something that rehashes an
administration position; they want something that will call real
attention to their pages.
o We need to decide just what we want to achieve with these
pieces. I see three uses: We can use op-eds to break news; we
can use them to spin breaking news; and we can use them to define
the terms of the debate. I would strongly encourage us to think
of op-eds as an offensive weapon: We should use these pieces to
define the debate and put the other guys on the defensive.
o We should choose our pieces and our authors with some care,
and we ought to ask ourselves the obvious questions: What news do
we want to generate? What response can we expect from our
opponents? How can we use reprints of these pieces to help the
President? And: When and how should we write under the
President's signature?
We cannot do these things in a vacuum: When we write an op-
ed we should be sure that it doesn't compete with anything else.
Here's an example: I offered a rather mild op-ed to the Wall
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Street Journal on grounds that it would in effect announce the
administration's Beck action. As it turns out, someone in
Cabinet Affairs had leaked the whole thing to Robert Pear of the
New York Times, who wrote a story about it yesterday. The
Journal's features editor was so angry that she was tempted to
drop our op-ed altogether. I held her hand, and talked with her
yesterday. She decided reluctantly to use it. Nevertheless, a
leak almost screwed up the whole thing, and it strained our
relations with what should be the friendliest and most
influential op-ed page in the United States.
We don't need problems like that. If we want to leak
something, fine. But let me know. I don't want to waste my
time writing and pitching a piece that could get nuked because
somebody in our administration decided to free-lance.
II) The communications block schedule
Too often, major Presidential speeches or initiatives, like
pebbles dropped into a pond, set off tiny ripples for a couple of
minutes, then vanish forever. This phenomenon, perhaps more than
any other, contributes to the impression that the President lacks
vision. Scattered shell-burst announcements make the President
look like a man groping for a policy, and they fuel "disarray"
rumors.
We can eradicate this problem by giving everybody access to
the long-term communications block schedule, and keeping the
various communications departments -- media affairs, public
liaison and speechwriting -- informed of new or breaking policy
developments. I know there's some fear that somebody might leak
details of the schedule, but you needn't fear us: We gain nothing
from leaks, and everything to lose. Most folks know who the
leakers are in this administration, and you won't find them in
Media Affairs.
So my advice: Give your communications professionals a
chance. Distribute in advance long-range "message" schedules --
the sort of block schedules that the Deputy Chief of Staff has
created. Message schedules give us a tool for coordinating our
efforts. They also give us a chance to suggest activities that
might underscore the message. Our staffers know and understand
communications, and they can offer suggestions that will serve
the President well.
I know that we've begun to use these message schedules as
the template for long-range scheduling meetings, and that's
great. I hope we can develop a series of criteria for approving
or rejecting scheduling proposals -- for instance, does it fit
our communications strategy? Will it shape the day's news? Does
it push our message forward? Are we doing it just because we did
it last year? If so, will it do any good? In short, we should
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
find events that fit the message, rather than trying to twist
events to meet the political demands of the day.
This sort of openness will create occasional friction. For
instance, the NSC delights in circumventing the various
communications departments. But few in the NSC can write even a
press release, let alone an op-ed or a speech, and we need to
impose some discipline on them. Similarly, we still need to keep
communications departments informed when we contract events to
"outsiders. Everybody had trouble amplifying the March 20
speech because Bob Grady clung to it as if it were a state
secret. That kind of control was good for Bob, bad for the
President.
When we coordinate activities, we give new weight to
speeches, press conferences, announcements, and initiatives. We
inspire a feeling of teamwork and achievement. The more we
reduce turf wars, the more effectively we can serve the
President.
Furthermore, if we give everybody enough time to do some
thinking, research and checking with colleagues, we can give the
President the support he deserves and needs -- and we can boost
morale. Then, everybody will race to accept credit, rather than
to apportion blame.
III) An event suggestion:
I'd like to cast my lot with those who believe that we
should make some hay on Tax Day (Wednesday) by casting a
spotlight on pork-barrel expenditures. I hear that OMB has more
than 1,000 rescission proposals sitting on the desk. We review
the proposed rescissions and see if we can bundle them into
packages that illustrate different aspects of the spending
problems. Wednesday's event could fit into that strategy, and
remind taxpayers that government has a duty to spend their money
wisely -- not freely. We also could reiterate our commitment to
restoring the bond between people and government, and making
government answer to the real needs of working American men and
women.
We could develop follow-up events that would highlight our
strategy for creating more effective and responsive government.
In any event, we should keep up pressure by unveiling rescissions
regularly, and reporting the progress of the rescission efforts
to the American people. If Congress continues to dawdle, we
should turn up the heat.
The rescissions are the most visible part of the March 20
speech. If we fail to follow up on our own initiatives, we'll
give the impression that they were just a gimmick, rather than an
integral part of a larger, long-term reform strategy.
rec'd TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 15, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ROSE ZAMARIA
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
TV GUIDE COVER
TV Guide has requested a one-sentence "farewell" statement
from the President regarding Johnny Carson's departure from the
Tonight Show.
According to the fellow at TV Guide, the magazine submitted
some sort of request of the President, which Dorrance approved.
They need the magical sentence today, if at all possible, along
with a Presidential signature. We would fax out the letter, and
send the original out by the mails.
The cover would feature a picture of Carson on the left hand
side, and seven figures saying farewell on the right: The
President, President and Mrs. Reagan, Elizabeth Taylor, George
Burns, Bob Hope and Roseanne Arnold.
The editor working on the piece, Greg Fagan, has read the
other cover comments to me. Most simply offer fond wishes;
George Burns and Bob Hope make jokes that say, in effect:
"Retirement? What's that?" I don't see any possibility of the
President's getting embarrassed by other comments. Roseanne
Arnold merely thanks Carson for giving her a start in show
business.
The cover would appear on the May 9 issue, which would
arrive on Newsstands May 4. TV guide sells 16 millions copies
each week.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
APRIL 30, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
REACTIONS TO L.A. EVENTS
The tragedies in Los Angeles this week pose one of the great
domestic challenges -- and opportunities -- of this Presidency.
The President can show the American people just how great he is
by demonstrating real and forceful leadership in the days ahead.
He faces real perils: Some conservatives, outraged at
looting and murders in Los Angeles, want him to support the jury
verdict. He can't possibly do that. Some liberals, outraged at
the verdict, want the President to announce summary justice on
the cops. He can't possibly do that, either. Most Americans,
sickened by the whole mess, want the President to provide
leadership out of the morass, and to demonstrate that he has the
strength, the decency and the leadership to do the job.
In many ways, symbol will prove more important than
substance in the next 72 hours. The President's personal concern
and integrity can reassure the public and can establish a
foundation for national healing.
I would recommend at least three events to promote this end.
Two enjoy significant support around the White House; one may
seem a little too controversial, but I think it could prove
historic.
I) National television address:
I would recommend a brief (10-12 minute) national television
address, in which the President would act as a leader and healer.
I have attached to this memo a very rough suggested draft. He
would deliver this Friday evening (or Monday), and could take
into account the day's events. I'm attaching a rough draft of
such an address.
II) Weekly radio address:
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
The President should deliver this speech live from Camp
David, rather than on tape. By going live, we could ensure that
virtually every station in the country would carry it, and they
would have to run the entire speech, rather than selected
snippets, as they usually do. We could use the talk to advance
our arguments and assert control over the debate.
III) "Ask George Bush" event in California:
Here's my high-stakes recommendation, and frankly, most
people think it's crazy. At any rate, I would hold the event in
one of the neighborhoods racked this week by violence. Let the
President field questions from an audience sure to be hostile and
angry, and let him make his pitch for national moral leadership.
The President would need extensive pre-briefings to prepare
for some tough and sometimes profane questioning. But personal
integrity sets George Bush apart from the pack, and no one in
American political life today can handle tough situations better
than the President. Frankly, such a forum might force him to
loosen up a bit and speak from the heart -- share some of his own
experiences and feelings with the audience. If so, he would be a
sensation.
An event of this sort would dispel questions about the
President's aversion to risk. I've heard lots of our friends
complain about "timidity" on the President, and I'm sure you
have, too. The claims are unfair, and this offers a chance to
rebut them forever.
In some ways, an event of this sort could elevate the
President's national stature, while enabling him to do what the
people elected him to do -- to create a "kinder, gentler"
America.
The President also is scheduled for a "video tour" on
Monday. We may want to use that opportunity to talk to some of
the cities engulfed by the violence. I suspect that by Monday,
everyone will need a breather, especially you and the President.
But that's one more possibility, for what it's worth.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
April 22, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR LEW CRAMPTON
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
NAFTA OP-ED
Great work! I learned a lot from the piece. As you'll
notice, I did some extensive rewriting and shifting, although
I've tried to keep the guts of your piece. This little memo is
designed to outline the method behind my editorial madness.
First, I wanted to sharpen the focus on the
growth/environment linkage. That's sort of the theme of the week
here (even though as a point of fact, the theme of the week
really is that we have a theme of the week).
Second, I pared some of the particulars regarding Mexico's
environmental efforts because they didn't fit into the main part
of the argument. Hang on to them, though. I'm sure we'll visit
the issue of Mexico's environmental record sometime soon.
Third, I had to cut two pages.
I'm sure to hacked away some important nuances, so feel free
to work with me on restoring them. I want to pack this piece
with as much good stuff as possible.
Thanks again for getting back so swiftly. I'm sorry I took
so long to respond, but I'm excited about this piece. It should
be very good.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Al:
A few general notes on the San Francisco draft:
This is the Veep's chance to make coherent not just our
urban policy, but our policy, period. This draft contains most
of the basic themes, but I'd suggest that you build it around a
central theme -- American values.
Values have broken down throughout our society, from Wall
Street to South Central Los Angeles. The Bush administration
understands that we can't move ahead as a nation until we
rededicate ourselves to the fundamentals: respect for oneself,
respect for others, hard work, fidelity, faith, etc. And that's
what we're doing.
Our strategy for the cities begins by restoring a modicum of
order. You can't build a new city on a battlefield. Once we
have restored some order, we must begin to look at our policies.
Some of our policies assail the poor with perverse incentives --
incentives for unwed mothers to have children out of wedlock,
for young fathers to abandon their families, for workers not to
work too hard or save too much. We want to liberate our poor
from these legal fetters.
But we want more: We want to treat our poor like human
beings by giving them responsibility for their lives and futures
-- choice in schools, child care, health care.
We want the help the poor acquire the tools required to
achieve self-sufficiency: a good education, job training, and
property. In short, our policy aims at helping the poor move,
step-by-step, from permanent dependency to dignified
independence.
In general, the draft seems a bit pedantic. The Veep should
speak conversationally, using personal examples wherever
possible. Our entire administration stands accused of living in
a bubble of privilege: Dan Quayle should prove that he's one rich
kid who wants to learn and who isn't afraid to test his
principles in the streets.
Second, I would suggest that the Veep hit law and order --
and then develop the Great Society critique in a way that enables
him to stand as a defender of the poor. Ronald Reagan blew it
when he talked incessantly about the Welfare Queen because he
came off looking like a guy who hated black people.
Dan Quayle can make a quite different case: The Great
Society in effect subjected our poor to a triple whammy: 1) the
policies promised the impossible, creating high expectations --
and profound disappointments; 2) the policies encourage
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
dependency; 3) the benefits flow not to the poor, but to
bureaucrats who earn their keep by administering these programs.
The Great Society transferred wealth from the middle class
to the upper middle class -- from workers to bureaucrats -- and
left the poor in even worse shape than before. It also created
its share of welfare millionaires (or in the case of Ross Perot,
a welfare billionaire). We want to try something radical. We
want to cast our lot with programs that cut out the middlemen and
actually help the poor. We want to silence those who tempt the
poor to remain poor. We want to set the poor free, in part by
treating them like responsible human beings. In short, we
replace a rhetoric that talks about humanity and compassion, by
programs that really do offer a better future to our poor -- and
in the process give everybody a chance to participate in making
America greater.
Third, note the link between urban policy and the New World
Order (or whatever the hell we wish to call the world beyond our
borders). We have no choice but to conquer these problems. If
we want to compete in the New World we created, we will have to
encourage every American citizen to accomplish as much as they
can -- and to do so, we must cut away the dead weights that hold
us down. Our urban policy, like tort reform and regulatory
reform, just tries to set people free.
In many ways, this speech can lay the groundwork for
defining what we mean by fairness, compassion and What Works. We
also can make it clear that administration policy springs from
some central principles: We believe in the power and dignity of
the people. (The Great Society, in contrast, treats the poor as
a bunch of ravenous, hedonistic morons.) We insist on defending
basic rights, but not on expanding government authority to places
where it doesn't belong. We want to give government back to the
people by cutting out the sticky-fingered intermediaries, and
weakening the iron triangle of special interests, congressional
staff, and media. There's all sorts of populist potential here.
A final note: We should be careful not to equate
"minorities" and "blacks," especially in California, where Asian
and Hispanic populations grow larger and more vocal every day.
Indeed, the Veep may want to note that the rhetoric of group
rights and group entitlements merely encourages racial conflict,
which we don't need. George Bush and Dan Quayle want to create
new unity among all Americans by giving everybody a stake in our
future. A real Opportunity Society clears away unfair privilege,
and lets everyone compete on their merits. What can be more
fair? In the end, the Veep should come off as authoritative,
determined, tough -- and positive. We should lead by enlisting
people's support -- and not just begging for more tax money.
I'm sorry this is so late and so long. I hope it helps.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
April 22, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR HENSON MOORE
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-EDS
Help! At a time when the President wants timely op-eds, I'm
having incredible difficulty getting senior officials'
cooperation. I don't attribute this to malice; people are just
very, very busy.
still, we must find a way of getting pieces through the
system and to newspapers quickly. Today offers a perfect
example. The campaign press people are swamped with requests to
respond to Clinton's environmental speech. I had produced an op-
ed that could have gone on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page
this morning, effectively pre-empting Clinton and forcing him to
respond to us. Unfortunately, we couldn't get Clayton Yeutter's
approval in time -- and as I write, at 6:30 the following
evening, I still haven't gotten a green light. At times like
this our caution kills us. If we dawdle any longer, the piece
will die -- and that's inexcusable.
We have two other pieces hanging fire: an Israel piece
requested by the President, and a long piece on congressional
reform, which also responds to concerns expressed in a recent
note from the President. These pieces have been mouldering for
ten days or more.
Fortunately, the agencies and the RNC seem far eager to get
things done and into print. Bill Reilly's assistant, Lew
Crampton, got me a NAFTA piece very quickly; Bob Bork Jr. did the
same for Carla Hills. I've reworked both, and the Reilly piece
seems just about ready to go. (I'm attaching it to this memo.)
I'm loving my new job, but I need your help in ensuring that
it meets the President's desires and expectations. The present
situation just doesn't cut it.
I'll be away tomorrow, but I will try by Friday to sketch
out some sort of system for getting op-eds done and into
newspapers. If you have any ideas, I'm not merely open to
suggestions: I'm desperate.
Thanks.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MAY 19, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
HENSON MOORE
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-EDS
Our op-ed operation has bogged down. I'd like your help in
getting it up to speed.
As I've noted before, most papers want at least one of two
things from op-ed pieces: sharp political commentary or news. In
many cases, our authors simply want to repeat administration
policy. While that works for speeches, it just won't do for an
op-ed piece. That's why I need your help in persuading senior
staffers and other top officials to assist in drafting pieces in
a timely manner.
We already have lost a series of good opportunities: We
could have gotten POTUS into the Los Angeles Times at least twice
in the past week, but we still don't know exactly what he wants
to say or do. We lost a chance to get great placement in the
Wall Street Journal regarding the Rio conference because we
couldn't get the domestic policy shop to sign off on a series of
pieces.
I'm enclosing five op-eds, each of which has been completed
for some time, but have not seen the light of day. I should have
at least two more completed before the day's end: 1) a Boyden
Gray piece describing and promoting the President's forestry
convention; 2) a Tommy Thompson piece on welfare reform. I'm
also grinding away on yet another piece taking on the Sylvia
Nasar/Paul Krugman "fairness" arguments, and one that outlines
the President's positions on abortion and family planning (per
his request).
As we look at the week ahead, here are several suggestions:
1) Environment -- Why our detractors have it all wrong: The case
for growth
2) AFDC/Great Society reforms -- George Bush as the man who wants
to craft programs that create independence, not dependency
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
3) Fighting words -- an analysis of how Democrats use the charge
of "racism" as a way of defeating important reforms
4) Balanced budget -- do we want to promote our version of the
amendment?
5) Values -- This election should serve as a referendum on
values. Whose values best reflect voter sentiment and ambitions?
6) Others: do we wish to revive rescissions? Congressional
reform? The President's growth package? The six reforms for
cities? Weed and seed? Law and order?
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Willie Horton:
1) not racial: Issue was do we let sadistic rapists out on the
streets? of course not. Crime indiscriminately afflicts African
Americans, and we should fight it as hard as we can. When
children worry more about survival in inner city schools than
they do about tests and grades, something's wrong. We must put
an end to the reign of terror that destroys so many lives and
crushes so many dreams. Note that crime destroyed the American
dream for many African Americans during the L.A. riots.
Great Society:
There's nothing to be gained from pointing fingers, but
let's face it: The system hasn't put an end to poverty and
despair. Right now, some programs encourage people to stay poor
and punish them if they do the right things. If you make too
much money, but not enough to get out of poverty, the government
cuts your benefits. If you save pennies for the future and
develop a nest-egg -- the government punishes you. If you stay
married and the husband holds more than a part time job, you get
your benefits cut. This is sick: The only sure ways out of
poverty are hard work, thrift, and intact families and AFDC
regulations discourage each of these building blocks to a better
future. Meanwhile, we reward single mothers who have children,
and we actually encourage some people to stay on welfare by
subjecting welfare benefits to lower tax rates than hard-earned
wages.
The system has the effect of keeping good people down. We
want to eliminate these burdens and set them free. We also want
to take care of other basics: We want the poor to have access to
the same schools that rich children attend. That's why we
promote school choice. We want the poor to have access to health
care -- that's the guiding principle behind our health care
reforms. We want safe streets. That's why we want tough
punishment against drug kingpins. etc.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
MAY 12, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
NEW REPUBLIC ARTICLE
This week's New Republic contains a Fred Barnes piece,
"Stunned," which tries to portray the events leading up to the
President's Oval Office Address on May 1. Although the piece
generally blasts the President for what Barnes sees as a failure
to adopt Kempian urban policies, it also contains a section about
me, and I want to discuss that section in this memo.
I should start with most important stuff for me: I'm not the
primary source for this piece, or any of the pieces that have
appeared about the "dueling drafts." I don't know who leaked the
tale, but it has hurt us all.
The portion about me contains lots of inaccuracies, none of
which particularly serve my interests. For instance, it has me
directing a non-existent department of Media Relations. It has
my mother serving as a nurse in an all-black community. I can't
tell you how much I wish that were true. My mother died 20 years
ago. It says my father taught in a black high school. Close: He
was a counselor in a predominantly black junior high.
My guess is that Fred got these "facts" from a lunch we
shared a couple of months ago. We talked about race and other
issues, and he culled the personal data from his notes.
There's more. The piece implies that I discourage
Presidential discussion of "empowerment" and "school choice" in
black neighborhoods. Not quite: We should promote those themes,
but we also should do what we've been doing, talking about all
our strengths. This, too must have come from the lunch.
It also alleges that I "presented" a draft speech to the
communications group. Wrong. I presented that draft to you,
Henson, David, Marlin and the others on the circulation list,
precisely because I did not wish to act as or be viewed as an
independent agent trying to subvert the process. As an ex-
speechwriter, I understand the difficulties and strains that
accompany speechwriting, and I don't want to contribute to them.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Finally, and most deliciously, Fred has me working through
the night of May 1 on a draft. I may be dumb, but not that dumb:
The President delivered the speech on May 1.
I did talk to Fred briefly about this piece. I argued that
the "dueling draft" story had been overplayed dramatically. I
noted that the President and the chief speechwriter had been in
Ohio on Thursday and that I had put together a potential draft
and memo as an aid to road-weary people preparing for a tough
task. I told him that my draft was resurrected briefly on
Friday, but only briefly, and that the speechwriting team, which
properly had the action on the speech, completed the job.
I did not try to pit me against anybody. I had no interest
in turf battles or personal disputes; I never do. And I
certainly didn't try to feed the criticism of the President and
his policies. We're doing the right things.
I know that my history as an ex-journalist renders me
suspect in some eyes, that some of our colleagues believe that I
leak to the press, and that the Barnes piece (as well as other
press accounts) might be seen as evidence of my having a personal
agenda.
Well: I cannot undo my past, and I hope it proves an asset
to us. I do not leak; I despise leakers and leaking. I have
only one personal agenda. I want to work as hard as I can and do
as much as I can for George Bush. I'm not interested in any
greater glory than enjoying the confidence of you and the
President.
I've gone through this long, detailed explanation for a
simple reason. The White House is a funny place, and slanders
sometimes can take on the aura of fact. You understand that: You
have felt this unfairness as much as anybody around here, and
David Demarest has taken as many unfair shots as any member of
senior staff. At any rate, I want to make clear what I have
tried to make clear before: I am a team player, and want to be
included on the team as you see fit, working as hard and well as
I can to help the President.
CC: Henson Moore
Marlin Fitzwater
David Demarest
Dan McGroarty
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
June 1, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM
TONY SNOW
THROUGH
SAMUEL K. SKINNER
SUBJECT
LOS ANGELES
Following our conversation Thursday, I have decided to pass
on some comments and notes I received talking to some policemen
and some "average" Angelenos Saturday in Los Angeles.
The cops are hopping mad at you, although for reasons that
have more to do with their treatment by L.A. politicians and
media than by anything we have done. They took our original
comments about the King verdict personally, and read a snub into
the Challenger Boys and Girls Club event (police and military
forces) during the first trip, when they thought you deliberately
refused to shake the hand of a police representative. When
pressed, they admit that they don't really believe that you would
snub them, even for a minute. They just feel that they have been
hung out to dry and they're quick to find insults in any small
gesture, oversight or piece of false gossip.
L.A. cops have fastened upon two analogies to describe their
anger/disappointment. These seem pretty widespread: I heard
different cops in different precincts using the same analogies,
which leads me to believe that they've been widely circulated and
repeated by members of the police force.
Variant Number One: "I feel the same way I felt in Vietnam.
We go out and do our jobs, and everybody takes shots at us --
literally. The first ten minutes of the local news every night
just pound us to pieces.
"I fought in Nam, and it was just the same. They
[commanders] wouldn't let us do our jobs. Told us to hold back,
hold our fire, and then we take the heat when things got out of
control. If they'd just let us do our jobs that night [the night
of the King verdict], we would have taken care of the problem
before it blew up.
"The guys in Kuwait, they got to do their jobs, and look
what happened. They showed what we can do. We've got a clean,
professional force, and we've got one of the smallest forces
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
around [for a city this size, geographically, and in terms of
population]. We deserve better."
This is the clean version of version Number One. Sometimes,
passions lead the cops to use more colorful language.
Variant Number Two: "I feel like a son who got abandoned by
his father when times got tough. I just don't understand it."
Generally, the cops support you. I don't think I've ever
heard so many policemen express political affiliations, and
especially affiliation with the Republican party. They still
believe in you. They do not believe in Tom Bradley, whom they
believe betrayed them from the get-go.
They allege, for instance, that Bradley urged people to take
peacefully to the streets after the riot, thereby creating
conditions for a riot. I've looked through clips for evidence or
reports of this, and I haven't found any. I don't know if it's
true, but the cops take it as true.
The cops also offered some important insights. I'll mention
three here.
o Use of Force: One man, who had run the department that
trains officers how and when to use force, noted that the police
in the King beating had followed the book: When faced with a
violent criminal, "swarm" the suspect (form a circle) then use
electric tazers to subdue; and if that fails, use billy clubs.
The force several years ago abandoned the use of choke holds that
put pressure on the carotid artery and put the suspect to sleep
(the old sleeper hold that some big-time wrestlers like).
Several suspects, especially people on PCP, got violent during
the hold, and suffocated after getting crushed larynxes. It
seems pretty clear that the cops that night got out of control,
but in most respects, they did follow the book.
o Opposition to Federal Spending: The other surprise is that
the cops I met all vehemently oppose the extra federal spending
on L.A. They regard it first as a reward to looters and second,
as wasted money. "I'm a taxpayer," one said, "and I know that
money's just doing down the rat-hole. They 11 send all that
money here, and the same people (bureaucrats and city
contractors) will walk off with it, and the place won't look any
different. Another was more blunt: "You know what they should
do? They should just put an iron fence around the whole place
[South Central]. With taxes and everything, most good people are
leaving L.A., anyway. They pay all this money for a house and
for taxes, and what do they get? Gangs and corrupt politicians."
o Pride in LAPD Record: LAPD police take pride in the fact
that their department is not like "those East Coast police
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
forces." They have a good record for resisting and flushing out
corruption, and they value their independence from political
control. Proposition F, on tomorrow's ballot, would remove this
independence and, according to many cops, invite the kind of
corruption that has weakened police forces in New York,
Washington, Detroit and other cities.
They also note that they have an incredibly small force for
the area they cover, and the population they serve. The 6,500-
member force covers a large and diverse region, ranging from
prosperous neighborhoods in Pacific Palisades to the tough
streets in South, East and South Central L.A. "People don't
understand that people in places like Palisades and Simi Valley
don't have experience with gangs and tough guys. They're like an
entirely different police force," said one officer. Furthermore,
at any given time, only about 400 officers have regular street
patrols ----- in a city that covers more than 450 square miles. The
other 1,250 or so on any given shift work in special units --
homicide, narcotics, etc., or in administrative jobs. The police
take enormous pride in their success in covering a city with such
a lean force. As one cop pointed out, "Willie Wilson had just
1,000 fewer cops in Philadelphia than we have, but we have a city
4 times as large and with a hell of a lot more people than Wilson
had. He can't do things here they way he did there. It just
won't work."
So much for the preliminaries. I think the cops' laments
help illustrate some of the problems we've been talking about for
a long time, and also offer a way to recapture the hearts of some
Republicans who have been calling you bad names for some time.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
JUNE 9, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR CATHY GOLDBERG
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
NYT OP-ED
Cathy:
I'm faxing you two copies of the op-ed -- a "clean" version,
and an annotated version that underlines each and every change.
The second version presumably will make it easier for typists to
clean everything up.
As you can tell, I've included a section that takes on the
argument that Republican Presidents bear responsibility for the
deficit. Feel free to turn it into English.
President Reagan also may want to consider a second
addition, a brief section taking on the argument, advanced by a
throng of liberal economists, that a balanced budget amendment
would destroy our economy in all sorts of insidious ways. I'm
attaching an ad that describes their hysteria in detail.
I don't think the President needs to take on each and every
gloomy prediction advanced by these folks. He might just want to
note that this same batch of eggheads once predicted that the
Reagan tax cuts would produce rampant inflation, depression-
level unemployment rates, and other horrors too awful to mention.
Instead, it merely proved that these economists don't understand
an economy that relies on human beings, and not computer models.
The President might even want to introduce or wrap up his
response with a version of his opening line: "There they go
again."
My guess is that the Times' other pieces will blast
Presidents Reagan and Bush for a) failing to submit balanced
budgets; b) letting "other" expenditures, such as the S&L
bailout, run out of control; and c) proposing an balanced budget
amendment, which would either destroy the economy or hurt all our
poor or both.
I'm betting that at least one critic tries to mention Willie
Horton, although I don't know that Times editors would accept
that. At any rate, critics will fall back on the old strategies:
calumny and doomsaying. The more we can deflate their assaults
with President Reagan's jaunty humor and wisdom, the better.
Cheers.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
May 26, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR DAVID BECKWITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
POSSIBLE OP-ED BY MRS. QUAYLE
In this memo I'll pitch a couple of op-eds, one by the Vice
President, one by Mrs. Quayle, both on the subject of families
and values. I don't want to get too deep into details because
the most powerful pieces would draw upon the writers' personal
experiences. Nevertheless, here are a few sketchy ideas:
Mrs. Quayle:
I think it might make sense to ask Mrs. Quayle to do a
follow up on the Murphy Brown flap. The idea is simple: Talk
about parenthood from the point of view of a mother who also has
considerable policy expertise.
The arguments seem pretty simple: We oppose single-parent
families not because we hate single mothers, but because we
understand their plight. It's tough enough raising kids these
days in intact households. Single mothers face almost impossible
odds, especially if they make less money than Murphy Brown. It
might make sense to include tales of friends who divorced, and
the problems they faced as their children grew up.
She can talk about her own natural concerns for her kids:
Will they resist the lure of drugs? How can they escape the
funnel of violence that claims so many lives from all sorts of
backgrounds? She could recite the evidence about children from
single parent homes: They have more trouble in school. They get
involved in violent mischief far more often than kids from intact
households. Poor kids from two-parent households generally
outperform rich kids from single-parent backgrounds. She could
touch upon the notion of fathers serving as role models for sons,
and also speak from experience about the ways in which parents
must work as a team to raise and love their children.
The point is not that we hate single mothers: We understand
their plight and we think that kids these days need every chance
they can get to make their way through a rapidly changing,
confusing and sometimes dangerous world. Every parent in America
worries about what will happen with their kids, and the Quayles
are no exception, I'm sure.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Other points:
1) Kids and values:
As kids enter this parlous world, they deserve the very best
armor they can get, and that armor is values. If a kid can say
no to drugs and yes to hard work; no to premarital sex and yes to
the corny old virtue of deferred gratification; no to goofing off
and yes to hard work; no to contempt for parents and yes to
respect for elders -- if a kid can do these things, that kid not
only can survive. He or she can thrive in a world that still
rewards people who work hard and do good things, and know how to
draw satisfaction from doing the right things.
2) The virtue of shame:
Society has discouraged the notion of shame, which may be
the most powerful possible deterrent to bad behavior. If we
impose a social sanction against teenage pregnancy or drug use or
violence, we reduce the lure of these activities. We stand a
chance of strengthening the family again.
3) Our perverse welfare rules
Our welfare laws (and AFDC in particular) encourage people
to do all the wrong things and punish good behavior. If you work
hard and save up money, you lose your benefits. 20-year old
Sandra Rosado worked hard, scrimped and set aside $4,900 for her
own education. Federal welfare officials responded by ordering
her mother to pay the government $9,342. Here's a young woman
who lived the American dream -- who worked hard, who saved every
penny, who tried to pull herself out of poverty so she could pull
her family out of poverty. She should get a medal. Instead, she
and her family get slammed with a fine they can't possibly pay.
But that's not all. If you earn more money than the law
permits, the system cuts you off -- and throws you right back
into the maw of dependency. If a mother and father live together
and the father holds more than a part time job, the system cuts
off their benefits. If a person works at a low-paying job, that
person may pay higher tax rates than someone who "makes" the same
amount of money from welfare.
If on the other hand a young woman has a child out of
wedlock, she gets a reward in the form of higher benefits. And
if parents split up, they also get rewards, in the form of higher
benefits. This sick system encourages poor families to become
poorer and to surrender the work ethic, the family commitment and
the personal pride necessary to pull themselves out of poverty.
4) The lifestyle question
The notion of single parenthood as a "lifestyle" change
deserves more criticism. Georgie Anne Geyer wrote a column today
excoriating the movement toward what she called "trophy babies" -
- babies born to single mothers who see the children as trophies
of the mothers' spectacular abilities. I suspect many mothers of
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
trophy babies quickly abandon the notion and devote themselves as
most mothers do -- loving the child and wishing another parent
could help her give the child a more well-rounded life. At any
rate, it never hurts to whack away at yuppie vanity.
I hope these suggestions at least can provoke some
discussion. I don't know which (if any) capture Mrs. Quayle's
feelings on the subject. Nevertheless, I think a heartfelt piece
about the absolute importance of intact families and solid
traditional values could be a winner.
The Vice President:
I'd also suggest that the Vice President follow his recent
values speeches by talking in greater detail about the values he
considers important. This would serve as a natural follow to his
remarks in San Francisco and at the Air Force Academy, and as a
set up for the commencements and other speeches he intends to
give next month.
We should drive home the point that in a world convulsed
with change, we can be certain about only one thing: our
fundamental values. The Veep could use a series of addresses to
outline how these values affect the home, the workplace, the
government, etc. A serious op-ed could lay the foundations for
such a series by getting more specific about the particular
values he considers most important. I won't attempt a roster
here: That's the sort of thing best done by talking with him and
provoking him to give better and more specific answers.
At any rate, I hope these jottings make some sense. Let me
know what I can do in the way of drafting pieces or helping you
guys as you hit upon what I consider the crucial issue of this
Presidential campaign -- and of American politics in the years
ahead. If we can make it clear what values we favor, why, and if
we can explain what they mean in terms of people's daily lives,
we will have established the foundations for a real Republican
revolution.
cc: Bill Kristol
Al Hubbard
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
May 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
W. HENSON MOORE
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
PERSONNEL
Following our discussions in recent weeks, I would like to
seek formal approval for two new positions in the Office of Media
Affairs, a research assistant for John Undeland and me, and a
secretary for Maria Sheehan and me. These two additions could
increase our productivity immensely and help get more op-eds
placed in newspapers around the country.
John Undeland works primarily on talking points, but could
provide some much-needed help in producing op-ed pieces,
especially for regional newspapers. We need a research assistant
who can help track down important information, get raw data from
the various departments and agencies involved in particular op-
ed pieces, and to do fact-checking on our pieces before they go
out for publication. Op-ed writing works much like
speechwriting, and requires the same sort of research assistance.
A single researcher could save a lot of time and footwork for the
writers and could enable us to get pieces into circulation much
more swiftly.
Similarly, Maria and I could use the assistance of a
secretary who would provide administrative support -- answer
phones, type correspondence, fill out office paperwork, and help
ensure the smooth operation of our offices. Joyce Campbell now
serves as a staff assistant for me, Maria and everybody else on
the staff, and serves as the back-up for Dorrance's assistant.
She's completely overloaded and deserves some relief so she
perform her primary duties as a staff assistant.
A secretary would provide necessary support for Maria and me
-- keeping track of writing projects, following up on contacts
with newspapers, helping keep our files current and organized,
assisting Maria in keeping office functions running smoothly --
and freeing me up to focus more on writing, editing and placement
of op-eds.
Right now, I'm serving as a writer, researcher, editor,
typist, proofreaders, salesman, and editor. I spend much of my
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
time performing duties that prevent me from producing as many
pieces as the President wants. I guarantee we would make good
use of a researcher and a secretary, and that the new people
would increase office efficiency enormously.
If everybody agrees to these additions, I will prepare a
memo for Tim McBride outlining all the details.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
May 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
W. HENSON MOORE
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-ED UPDATE
Following up on last Friday's discussions, let me note that
we're still having a tough time getting cabinet members to focus
on the op-ed operation.
Last week we asked Justice to produce something on Weed-
and-Seed. They promised a draft yesterday; as of noon today, we
have nothing.
We also asked Cabinet Affairs to help us put together a
piece detailing the ways in which AFDC rules hamstring poor
people who want to work, remain married, save and do all the
things we normally associate with achieving the American Dream.
Various bureaucrats disagree with the idea of criticizing the
program's weaknesses, and we still have no data on this crucial
topic.
Finally, we're racing against time to produce an op-ed on
Haiti for USA Today. NSC doesn't want to do the piece; State
wants us to shunt it off to Justice or Defense. We can't find an
author, although a few helpful folks at state at least have
produce talking points.
Notice that nobody seems willing to sign on to a
controversial policy, with the result that cautious bureaucrats
have left the President dangling. We're not here to torture the
President, we're here to serve him. Later today I will draft a
memo to cabinet members underscoring the need for prompt
cooperation. If it does the trick, I will turn it over to
Secretary Skinner for his signature and distribution.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
May 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR CLAYTON YEUTTER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
TALKING POINTS ON THE BUSH RECORD
First, an apology: I'm sorry I've taken so long to get these
to you. I'm afraid I haven't added much to them in the past
month or so. These points remain somewhat sketchy and thin, and
I hope to add more muscle to them when time permits. At any
rate, I hope they're useful. The text follows:
The Bush Revolution
The greatest secret in American politics is that in three
years George Bush has put in place the foundations for the most
sweeping revolution in American politics since the Great Society.
This revolution draws upon America's greatest strengths: its
values and its people. It reverses a nearly 30-year trend of
creating vast bureaucracies that lord over our citizens and it
seeks to build a "user friendly government" that addresses
people's actual needs.
George Bush may not seem like a revolutionary because he
doesn't see himself as one. But if you examine his policies, you
will find a consistent effort to replace the one-size-fits-all-
stand-in-line-and-fill-out-this-form government with government
that provides services swiftly, effectively, and unobtrusively.
He has initiated a revolution to create programs that work, and
government that knows its limits.
This revolution also respects traditional American values.
George Bush is a family man, a public servant and a patriot. You
know when he speaks that he speaks from the heart, and that he
loves and honors the solid values of hard work, thrift, faith,
fidelity, patriotism, friendship, service and loyalty.
All of us know that gradually, by degrees, things have
gotten out of whack in America. Values have broken down.
Anarchy has replaced order. Violence has become a nagging threat
for everyone. Government has become too big, too powerful and
too expensive. Programs that promised much have produced little.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
We need some common-sense change. Our future relies on our
recognizing fundamental American values, and letting them guide
us to a New America in the 21st Century.
Consider reforms that combine a respect for the American
people with a determination to honor traditional American values:
o Market reforms: Too often in years past, the federal
government has regarded business as a sort of menace, rather than
as the driving force behind national progress. Washington has
regulated business without concern for results. It has taxed
business without concern for results. And it has crippled
business only to be stunned by the results -- an economic
slowdown, and widespread business efforts to circumvent
burdensome federal regulations.
The President has tried to set this right by crafting
programs that harness the profit motive and the power of the
marketplace in the service of important national goals. This
way, businesses use their ingenuity and resources to achieve
those goals rather than to skirt cumbersome rules.
Some examples: The Clean Air Act establishes a market
incentive for reducing pollution. That plan saw its first real
action on May 12 when the state of Wisconsin sold "pollution"
rights to the Tennessee Valley Authority. It works, and it may
be the most revolutionary environmental policy by any President
in any country to date. It doesn't order everybody to re-order
their lives. It encourages them to do the right things.
Market-based programs have enabled us to reduce CFCs more
swiftly than any nation on earth, and to achieve unparalleled
reductions in airborne lead.
The President and Vice President also have tried to get rid
of regulations that make it difficult to do business, and that
don't produce any results in return. This administration wants
regulations to pass simple tests: Do their benefits outweigh
their costs, and do they promote goals we consider important? If
not, let's get rid of them. The Competitiveness Council, chaired
by the Vice President, has taken the lead in regulatory reform,
continuing a tradition started by George Bush, when he served as
Vice President.
O Pro-growth policies: The President has promoted economic
policies that encourage growth and create a foundation for a more
prosperous America. He repeatedly has tried to get Congress to
cut the tax on capital gains -- the tax on the American Dream.
He has pushed for incentives that would strengthen the
construction and real estate industries, industries that
traditionally lead us out of recessions. He has introduced
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
enterprize zone legislation repeatedly -- and without help from
Congress. He has taken unilateral action where he could,
trimming regulations and trying to streamline government
services. These measures would continue the pro-growth policies
initiated during the Reagan-Bush administration, and propel the
United States to new heights of opportunity and prosperity.
o Environment: George Bush has become the environmental
President, even if he hasn't become the environmentalists'
President. He has harnessed market reforms in the service of a
cleaner environment -- and the United States as a result has
achieved unprecedented reductions in CFCs, sulfur dioxide and
airborne lead. He understands that economic growth fosters
environmental protection by enabling Americans to develop new and
better ways to clean the environment and to produce goods in a
"clean" manner. He also has worked to craft international
agreements grounded in good science, good economics and an
appreciation of the importance of protecting national
sovereignty. Today, America's air and water are cleaner than
they have been in decades and America leads the way in combining
environmental protection and economic opportunity.
o Reform of social programs: George Bush has proposed social
programs that deal with real problems in the real world. The
President's housing program -- Homeownership and Opportunity for
People Everywhere, or "HOPE" -- incorporates some simple common
sense: People who own homes behave differently than those
condemned to spend their lives as mere renters. Ownership
changes the way in which you view yourself and your community.
When you own your home, you own a stake in your community's
future. This approach to housing will help us put an end to the
age of public-housing blight, and it will give public housing
residents the dignity and independence we promised them a quarter
century ago.
We understand that the keys to independence and success are
sound families, thrift and hard work. Yet many of our welfare
programs punish these virtues.
Consider the following scenario: Most poor Americans now
live in apartments subsidized by the federal government. If they
work hard and earn a salary that places them above the poverty
line, but not high enough to achieve real independence, we cut
their benefits. If they scrimp and save and put away money to
buy a home, we cut their benefits. If they stay married, we hold
the line on their benefits. If, on the other hand, a welfare
mother has a child out of wedlock, we increase her benefits. And
at some levels, we still tax those who stay on welfare at lower
rates than the working poor. This does to poor Americans what
sharecropping tried to do to poor African Americans in the South.
It punishes good behavior and rewards bad. It encourages
dependency and discourages dignified independence.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
Everybody agrees that we shouldn't let this sort of outrage
continue. Only George Bush has tried to do something about it.
He has proposed changes that would let people save more money to
escape poverty. Today's AFDC savings limit is $1,000. The
President wants to increase that limit to $10,000.
He wants to put an end to laws that punish poor men and
women who stay married. He wants to clear away the perverse
incentives that plague the present system. And he has encouraged
innovations that offer real hope to our poor, and that send them
a powerful message: We believe in you. You can do it.
Our social programs have succeeded in creating a prosperous
class of caseworkers, clerks, bureaucrats and other middlemen,
all of whom benefit handsomely from increased funding of social
programs. The poor meanwhile get left out. Our programs
discourage the very virtues necessary to break out of dependency,
and they lavish most of their money not on the poor, but on those
who administer federal programs.
O Choice: The President has made choice a centerpiece of his
social policy. He believes that when it comes to matters that
affect families and homes, parents know best.
We already have implemented choice in child care, and we
will do everything in our power to bring choice to our schools,
including religious schools. Our education system never will
scale the heights of greatness until we restore vigorous
competition. Americans hate to loose at anything. When parents
get the right to choose, they fight to get access to the best.
This creates real pressure for quality -- and everybody wins.
o Civil rights: The President understands that
discrimination still hurts many Americans, and he wants to put an
end to that. At the same time, he wants to create an atmosphere
in which all Americans join in common cause to wipe away bigotry
and discrimination.
He opposes quotas because they divide people by race, and
because they lead to subtler forms of discrimination, such as
glass ceilings. His administration has replaced the arbitrary
"justice by numbers" approach with one that takes dead aim at
actual discrimination. [[get number of cr prosecutions, etc.
In addition, the President pushed through the sweeping Americans
with Disabilities Act, which made it easier for 43 million
Americans with disabilities to prosper in our legal and economic
mainstream.
o Federalism: The President believe in giving power back to
the states. The President has asked Congress to stop imposing
wasteful mandates on the states, and he has promised to veto
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
spending bills that impose new and unfair obligations on the
states. That's a start.
The President also understands that the states are what
Jefferson called "the laboratories of democracy." The states of
Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts and California
have begun exploring innovative ways to reform our welfare
system. Other states have pioneered innovations in other areas,
such as transportation (the Dulles Toll Road in Virginia) and
education (choice experiments in Wisconsin and other states).
At the same time the President has fought the Congressional
practice of imposing mandates upon states without providing the
money to pay for those mandates. He does not want Washington to
dump burdens on states. We wants Washington to liberate states,
so local officials can do their jobs more effectively. For
George Bush, "federalism" does not mean skipping out on
responsibilities and letting states pay the price. The President
honors the original meaning of the term, the notion of increasing
the freedom of states to do what they consider right and best.
No President this century has done more for federalism that
George Bush.
o Government Reform: The President understands that the
system in Washington is broke. Congress has become more adept at
bouncing checks, raising its pay, passing pork-barrel
appropriations, and binding the administration in Congressional
red tape than it is in passing legislation on the issues people
care about most: taxes, federal spending, crime, education,
health care, energy.
The whole world has changed with the end of the Cold War.
Now, the Democratic Party in America seems the only organization
that still believes in central planning and costly bureaucracy.
They believe that a bigger government will make things better.
No wonder voters no longer believe in Congress.
The President has proposed modest but significant reform for
Congress. He has asked Congress to obey the laws it imposes on
everybody else. He has asked Congress to pass its own special
counsel law, so independent investigators can ensure the
integrity of investigations into possible wrongdoing. He has
recommended a dramatic reduction in the size and number of
Congressional committees and staff. There are more committees
and subcommittees in Congress today than there were Congressional
staffers at the end of World War II. And yet people have less
faith in Congress now than ever in our history.
The President has suggested reform of the budget process, so
Congress can pass budgets that meet the needs of the people,
rather than special interests. He has suggested ways of getting
rid of the middlemen who stand between people and their elected
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
representatives: Campaign finance reform, expansion of the Hatch
Act, which prohibits political activity by federal employees, and
an executive order that implements part of the Supreme Court's
Beck decision all help eliminate the middlemen, and give Congress
a reason to spend more time thinking about its real constituents.
Dan Quayle likes to argue that our government has been seized by
an iron triangle of lobbyists, congressional staffers and special
interests. The President's reforms break that triangle and
restore the fundamental relationship between voters and their
elected representatives.
o Balance of powers: The President has begun restoring the
balance of powers in Washington by proposing dramatic
Congressional reform, and by selecting judges who understand that
they should interpret our laws, rather than to act as unelected
legislators.
Congress understands the importance of these changes.
Liberals tried to cripple the Clarence Thomas nomination because
they understood Justice Thomas's determination to oppose
legislation from the bench. This meant that liberals would have
to accept full responsibility for enacting unpopular liberal
programs, rather than having judges impose those programs upon an
unwilling public.
o World Peace: This President has done more to create a
basis for world peace than any President in history, and he
hasn't gotten the credit he deserves because he has made it look
so easy. The Soviet Union is gone. Historic enemies have agreed
to talk peace in the Middle East. The entire world has moved
toward a New World Order marked by economic competition, rather
than nuclear confrontation.
Yet we still face more than our share of challenges. The
Middle East remains volatile. Former republics in the Soviet
Union and East bloc must deal with ethnic tensions that have been
bottled up for decades, and now threaten to explode. Terrorists
states like Libya and Iraq continue to threaten us.
Survey the candidates and ask yourself: Who best can promote
peace? George Bush, or someone who sounds like a pale and
inexperienced imitation of George Bush?
o The international economy: This President also has
promoted free trade more vigorously than any President in recent
memory. We stand on the verge of signing an historic North
American Free Trade Agreement that would create the world's
largest trading bloc. The promise of NAFTA has spurred
incredible economic and environmental reform in Mexico, and
transformed that nation from a tenuous democracy into one of the
fastest growing nations on earth. We've enjoyed similar results
with our Enterprise for the Americas initiative, which creates
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
special trade relationships with partners throughout our
hemisphere.
The President also wants an international trade agreement
that will create a foundation for worldwide prosperity. Although
other nations continue pressing for special and unfair
advantages, the President has hung tough -- and he'll win.
Before he leaves the White House, we will see freer and fairer
trade than the world has ever known. That's good for everybody.
o Values: George Bush has worked to create an atmosphere of
decency in government and throughout America. He is not a racist
and he does not incite division. He is a healer, but he has come
under assault because he has dared take on the Great Society
orthodoxy in search for government that works. The President has
talked this year of five fundamental reforms: education, health
care, government, legal reform, and trade. That's not just a
vision; it's a detailed, common-sense blueprint for the future.
Just look at the people who oppose the president, and you'll
see that he's hit the mark. Unions don't like him. Lawyers
don't like him. Special interests don't like him. And George
Mitchell doesn't like him. That's quite an honor roll. On the
other hand, the American people love him -- not for his glitz,
but for his character.
Many liberals claimed after the recent riots in Los Angeles
that the President didn't understand or didn't care. No one who
watched him choking back tears in Los Angeles can say he doesn't
care, and no one who has known him over the years and has seen
him work tirelessly and quietly for racial healing can doubt his
commitment to civil rights and to an end to racial divisions. In
this election year, people may try to smear the President, but it
won't work. George Bush, more than any recent President, has the
character and the power to heal racial divisions while leading us
toward a new era of progress and harmony.
More than a century ago, a French observer noted that
Americans always seem to have the morale of an army on the march.
The President isn't a cheerleader, but he is a leader, and this
year offers greater possibilities for reform than any year in
recent history.
Americans will need to be all they can be if we want to
continue leading the world. We will need to reform our
government. We will need to turn our cities into islands of
prosperity rather than dungeons of despair. We will need the
best schools on earth and the most motivated workforce. In sum,
we will need the Revolution George Bush has outlined for three
years. And we will need one thing more: We will need a Congress
that will pass these reforms, and give power back to the people.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
George Bush isn't a revolutionary by nature, and he'd get
nervous if you tried to describe him as a revolutionary. But
look at the subtle changes he's made, and you'll see the makings
of a revolution aimed at giving government back to the people,
and at unleashing America's genius for innovation, hard work, and
greatness. The next time someone complains that George Bush
lacks vision, just say: Have you got an hour? I'll just try to
outline a few things for you. Then let 'em have it.
George Bush believes in government of the people, by the
people and for the people. He has stood up to the politics of
tax, spend, and comfort special interests. He's our first
genuine patrician populist -- and he's the one man who can
reshape our government to meet the challenges of the next
century.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
May 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
DRAFT COS MEMO ON OP-EDS
Here's a draft memo on the op-ed operation. Please feel
free to comment, and we'll prepare a version for circulation
today.
The President is very eager to produce op-ed pieces for
major and regional newspapers. He has asked me to secure the
cooperation of all senior White House officials, cabinet members
and agency heads. The White House op-ed operation is in the
office of Media Affairs, headed by Dorrance Smith. Tony Snow,
the deputy assistant for Media Affairs, serves as chief writer
and editor for the op-eds.
With a few notable exceptions, we have had problems getting
senior administration officials to cooperate in producing op-
eds. We must do better. When we call with a request for
assistance, please respond immediately. If necessary, assign a
contact person who can help provide information or drafts, can
assist in the clearance process and can ensure that the work gets
done on time.
Find a working relationship that suits you best. If you
want to work with our writer, set up an appointment. If you want
your office to produce drafts, which Dorrance or Tony will edit,
make that clear. If you want us to produce drafts and proceed
from there, let us know. But set the ground rules right away:
This will save time, calm nerves, and keep egos in check.
Also remember that most op-eds have short shelf lives. If
we don't complete the work within one or two business days, we
lose our chance to serve the President. The President
understands this. He repeatedly has expressed his desire for
swift responses to many opinion pieces. He also wants us to
drive the debate by offering sharp, focused pieces about
administration policy. He is unhappy with the sluggish response
we have received so far. So, to repeat: We must do better.
Many requests from Dorrance and Tony come in response to
memos by the President, and all of them have my personal
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STATT
2
approval. Dorrance and Tony are media professionals. Work with
them, and accept their help in producing the best pieces
possible. They have the President's full backing. If you have
special problems of concerns, feel free to call me. But do not
stonewall them: They have a job to do, and they need your help.
Here's an update on op-eds that should be completed and placed by
COB today:
1) Rio:
op-eds by Boyden Gray, Clayton Yeutter [attached to this
memo]
2) NAFTA:
op-ed by Bill Reilly; San Diego Union [attached]
3) Haiti:
op-ed by ??? -- Miami Herald [attached]
4) Clean Air Act:
op-ed by Vice President Quayle; ???
(I may need to finish this one on the road)
Other projects for the next week:
1) Rio: Op-ed by the President -- Wednesday, Wall Street Journal
2) Los Angeles: Op-ed by the President; Sunday, June 7; LA Times
3) Family Values: Op-ed by Marilyn Quayle; Washington Post?
4) Welfare reform: Op-ed by ???
5) Weed and Seed: op-ed by Bill Barr (so far, no draft from his
office) ; Philadelphia Inquirer
6) Balanced budget amendment: do we want a piece? If so, by
whom?
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
May 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR MY COLLEAGUES
FROM
TONY SNOW
RE
ALL THESE DAMNED OP-EDS
This diskette contains the most recent versions of an op-ed
by a writer to be named later on Haiti (slugged HAITI7), for the
Miami Herald; Bill Reilly on NAFTA (slugged, MEXICO6), for the
San Diego Union; Clayton Yeutter on Rio (slugged RI017), possibly
for the Orange County Register; and Boyden Gray on Rio (slugged
TREES6), for the Washington Post.
Please note that Boyden's piece can run no sooner than next
Tuesday. (The others may go ASAP.) The Reilly piece is done,
kaput, finished. The others undoubtedly will require further
editing and negotiations.
If you have questions, please feel free to reach me at the
hotel in L.A., but please beep me because I, like a total fool,
left my beeper at home this morning.
Go, fight, win.
And thanks for all your help.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
JULY 2, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR GAIL WILENSKY
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-ED
Gail:
I like the op-ed very much. It hits the points we need to
make and puts the onus on Democrats to get moving. Nevertheless,
I'd suggest several sorts of changes. Rather than doing them and
resubmitting a piece to you, I thought it might make sense to put
the general suggestions on paper. If they make sense to you, we
can proceed.
1) Opening:
I think it might make sense to slap readers with the choice
right away. Everybody in America wants affordable, reliable,
first-rate health care -- now. The good news for those Americans
is that we could start making their lives tomorrow. The bad news
is that we must rely on Democrats, who see more eager to dangle the
issue invitingly a hungry public's eyes than in treating it as a
priority.
I'm sure there's a snappier way to set it up, but you get the
idea: Note a) the universal desire to fix the system and b) the
possibility of immediate Congressional action. After that, we can
describing the ways in which we improve our present system, and
prevent a Canada-style, go-to-America-if-you're-really-sick system.
We must create the proper political drama here, and give
people a sense of the real struggle behind the scenes: Will we
saddle innocent Americans with a system that has proved a failure
elsewhere, or will we improve the world's best system and offer its
riches to everyone in the United States?
2) Pay or play: You may need to be a little more explicit on
price-setting, and explain that some Democrats want to do for
health care what Richard Nixon did for inflation. I'd also suggest
a personal anecdote from your HCFA days. It makes the bizarre
challenge of price-setting seem comprehensible -- and crazy.
3) Examples: Use examples to explain just what Action Now
would achieve.
For instance, Job lock: People sometimes must make an awful
choice between remaining healthy and getting a better job. Suppose
you have a heart condition, and some company makes you an offer you
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
can't refuse. If that new company offers its employees health
benefits, they must cover you, too. They can't "lock" you out
because of a pre-existing health condition. If you're good enough
to hire, you're good enough to cover. Your job should not be a
life or death situation. (I know, pretty lousy: But you get the
idea.)
4) Explain some technical terms: "swipable' cards," "MediSave
accounts," the importance of "Action Now.'
5) Look for fun facts: As I read the piece, I wondered about
a few fun facts. For instance,
Cost controls and medical costs: Is there any literature on
what cost controls have done to medical costs? Can we argue that
some of our noble efforts have inflated costs instead of
controlling them? What, if anything, would this plan cost
taxpayers and consumers? What, if anything, would it save?
Paperwork costs and savings: How much money do American
companies now spend on health-care paperwork? (a good factoid for
use in the swipable cards passage). How many tons of paper does
this consume? Just how much would this reduce paperwork? Would
it cut down on the number of bewildering forms people now must fill
out if they wish to purchase a simple vial of prescription
medicine? Would it eliminate those intolerable insurance lounges
in hospitals, where the weary and sick await their turns to fill
out forms?
Liability costs: How much of the average medical bill goes to
pay liability insurance and wicked, greedy, awful, offal trial
lawyers? It might be nice to note that it costs $xxxx on average
to bring a baby into the world, $yyyy of which goes directly to the
local lawyer.
Total costs: If we wanted to get insanely adventurous, we
might even devise a pie chart that shows just where the average
medical dollar goes -- the insurance company, the lawyer, the
accountant, the federal government. of each penny, how much
actually goes for treatment and medication? Such a visual also
could help us make the case that coverage would get cheaper right
away if we cut out the overhead and got right to the patient.
Health information: How would we make health insurance
information available? How would we make it comprehensible? Right
now, HMOs and PPOs and even some insurance firms advertise -- about
deductibles, co-pays, choice in selecting physicians, etc. What's
new about our idea?
Costs of inaction: Finally, what will Americans forfeit this
year if we don't act. Debaters often employ the crass and
effective device of arguing that a foe's policy (or lack thereof)
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
will cause innocent babes to die and blood to flow through the
streets. Without being unduly hysterical or inaccurate, what price
can we attach to Democrats' inaction?
6) Include the unkindest fact of all: We're only trying to
give the American public access to the sort of health care system
that Congress has designed for itself.
I know this long roster of comments looks daunting. It's not
meant to be. Indeed, with the proper factoids, we can get this
thing ready to go in a couple of hours. I'd suggest trying the
Washington Post this weekend (i.e., Sunday). It should be a good
one for them.
Sorry I've run on so long. I hope this makes sense.
Cheers.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
June 1, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR CABINET MEMBERS
AGENCY HEADS
SENIOR WHITE HOUSE STAFF
FROM
SAMUEL K. SKINNER
SUBJECT
OP-ED PIECES
The President is very eager to produce op-ed pieces for
major and regional newspapers. He would like to enlist all
senior White House officials, cabinet members and agency heads in
the effort. The White House op-ed operation is in the office of
Media Affairs, headed by Dorrance Smith. Tony Snow, the deputy
assistant for Media Affairs, serves as chief writer and editor
for the op-eds.
You will be receiving requests to cooperate in producing
these op-eds. When you receive a request for assistance, the
President would appreciate your responding immediately. It may
be necessary to assign a contact person who can help provide
information or drafts, can assist in the clearance process and
can ensure that the work gets done on time.
If you want to work with our writer, please feel free to do
so. If you want your office to produce drafts, which Dorrance or
Tony will edit, that's fine too. If you want us to produce
drafts and proceed from there, let us know.
Most op-eds have short shelf lives. If we don't complete
the work within one or two business days, we lose our chance to
serve the President. The President understands this. He
repeatedly has expressed his desire for swift responses to many
opinion pieces. He also wants us to drive the debate by offering
sharp, focused pieces about administration policy.
Many requests from Dorrance and Tony come in response to
memos by the President. Dorrance and Tony have been asked to
help produce the best pieces possible. They have the President's
full backing. If you have special problems of concerns, feel
free to call me.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
JUNE 8, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-ED FOR THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
Attached is a draft op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times.
The piece, which has been fully staffed and reconciled, would
appear under your signature. It discusses your recent trips to
the city, describing the steps you have taken to reform urban
policy, and explaining what these measures mean to citizens in
Los Angeles.
We would try to get this piece published in weekend editions
of the paper if possible, and expect that it also would get
distributed nationwide, through the Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
20. Memo
[Tony Snow] to Bob Teeter, Re: POTUS speech in Faith,
n.d.
(b)(6)
North Carolina. (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Snow Memoranda 2/92 - 1/93]
Date Closed:
12/28/2004
OA/ID Number:
13899-005
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency I(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
JUNE 29, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR CATHY GOLDBERG
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
FODDER FOR SPEECHES
Cathy: Rather than subjecting you to cruel and unusual
punishment in the form of many long memos, I've decided to send
which lays out in a preliminary way some essentials of the Bush
just two things today: 1) a month-old memo to Clayton Yeutter,
vision and 2) some speech language, which you guys can translate
into English.
I hope these are helpful. As I mentioned earlier, we'll
start sending you propaganda every day, and I'll try to give you
guys calls whenever other stuff comes up. I'll also forward a
few other memos later this week.
I'm serious about my offer to help in any way I can. Feel
free to call whenever I can do something for you.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
O Bill Clinton's economic proposals fail two crucial tests.
First, they fail the math test. His numbers don't add up. His
deficit reduction package falls back on the Democratic orthodoxy:
He wants to tax and spend --- and pray that nothing bad will
happen. At best, his plan will nibble away at the deficit. But
you have to worry when even his calculations are off by tens of
billions of dollars. [See Darman attachment]
Second, his policies will make things even worse. Candidate
Clinton has offered the United States a polished up version of
Carternomics, complete with taxes, regulation and industrial
policy. Americans suffered enough the first time.
o On the few occasions where Bill Clinton has dared break the
liberal mold of the Democratic party, he has just offered pale
imitations of Bush administration policy. His tax cuts don't do
the real job of gunning our economy into high gear.
His proposals for research and development credits don't do
enough to push the leading edge of technology.
And his uncertain stance on trade shows that he still
doesn't understand the new world we face: Open markets and fair
competition will characterize our future. Those who want to hide
behind protectionist walls want to do for our economy what
Herbert Hoover did for the economy in 1928.
O I remember when Bill Clinton was a moderate. Unfortunately, he
belongs to a party that just can't help advocating a little bit
of everything for everyone. A President must make choices, hard
choices, like George Bush did in the Gulf War, and like George
Bush did when he resisted irresponsible environmentalists in Rio
de Janeiro. Notice what Bill Clinton did in both cases: nothing.
President Bush stood up to the media in Rio. He stood up to
Al Gore. And he promoted an environmentalism that will clean the
environment while helping create good jobs in the United States
and around the world. That -- and not Albert Gore's
environmental pandering -- is leadership.
BUSH ACCOMPLISHMENTS, LINES
O George Bush's problem isn't that he has done too little as
President, but that he has tried too much. He has proposed the
most sweeping overhaul in American politics in years.
o George Bush's proposals -- choice in health care, child care
and schools; his assault on federal mandates to states; his push
to let poor people own their homes and apartments; his
willingness to liberate our poor from the perverse incentives of
a welfare system that punishes those who work hard, save money,
stay married and attempt to build a future; his free-market
approaches to cleaning the environment -- all of these rest on a
simple and powerful political principle: Trust the people.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Example: In education, he says: We want the best schools in
the world, and we want parents to help run them.
Example: In Clean Air, he says to business: We'll set the
goals, you figure out how best to meet them. This promotes
innovation and compliance.
The President trusts you. Bill Clinton and the Democrats
trust elitists and have fought tooth and nail to stop every
initiative that takes power from Washington and gives it back to
working Americans.
O George Bush has the experience, toughness, and character to
lead America through uncertain and exciting times. He
understands world politics. He understands business. And he
understands the importance of putting duty before vanity. No
figure in American politics today can better lead America into
the international arena that George Bush. And none but George
Bush has earned the respect of our allies and competitors.
JULY 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB TEETER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
CAMPAIGN THEMES
This memo belatedly answers a request to suggest ways of
framing the issues in this year's campaign and providing some zip
for our message. I break it up into three parts: Our assets, our
liabilities. liabilities, a strategy for maximizing assets and minimizing
I) Assets: Our Winning Hand
1) SETTING THE SCENE
Never in recent years has history dealt a greater winning hand
to the Republican party. We have reached the point in history that
our political forebears have dreamed about for years: The Age of
Peace; the Triumph of Freedom.
At home and abroad, our old enemies have collapsed or withered
away, and the principles we have promoted for years have won. The
electorate wants vigorous, fresh leadership -- which helps explain
why nearly 100 members of Congress have decided to seek other
employment next year, and why Ross Perot thinks he has a chance of
leapfrogging his way to the White House. If ever the time were
ripe for a Republican sweep, it is now. But as ripe as the time
may be, we're not even close to the promised land.
One key characteristic of this year is uncertainty. Nobody,
from the political maven to the street cleaner, has a clear fix on
the future. We just know that life will be different. Not just
Future Shock different, but post-Cold War Information Revolution
different; order-your-groceries-by-phone different; 3-D M-TV
different Bradbury. -- the sort of stuff that would astonish even Ray
The old reliable pillars of the political world -- the
communist threat abroad, the Great Society and its heirs and
assigns here at home -- have fallen away. Once stable
institutions, including the family, home, church and school, have
fallen into disarray.
With such confusion and change comes a related phenomenon:
Nostalgia for values. Americans want something familiar to sustain
us in this unfamiliar world. We want a revival of the old American
values of decency, goodness, honor, hard work. Many of us want a
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
better, more upright America than this nation has ever seen. Our
founding fathers could never pass an FBI background check these
days, and they'd all be hauled before the public dock on charges
of swiving, scheming, backstabbing, and general orneriness.
Characteristic #3 of this era: impatience. The American
people want the world to make sense NOW; they want the ability to
plan for the future NOW; they want good jobs, effective schools,
safe streets and domestic harmony NOW.
They want a leader to define the future not in abstract or
campy terms, but in ways that have weight and heft to them. They
want a future they can almost feel and touch, and they want a
leader who will give them a role in building that future.
It may seem like a bit of hype, but it's not: We should make
this an election about history -- about who understood the past,
and who can guide this nation forward to a greater future. The
higher the stakes, the greater our advantage.
2) WE MADE THIS REVOLUTION
George Bush has played a role in each of the great movements
that made the recent Freedom Revolution possible -- World War II,
the rise of entrepreneurial capitalism, our outreach to the former
communist world; the information revolution; America's serving as
the bulwark of liberty through the Cold War to the present post-
Cold War world. He got his ticket stamped the old-fashioned way,
through hard work, risk and sacrifice.
He understands what the Freedom Revolution wrought -- a new
world built on the triumph of old principles. This is a crucial
notion. The great difference between the French Revolution
(bloody, violent, inconclusive) and the American Revolution (vastly
more idealistic and successful) was that the French tried to remake
society -- to make people conform to the blueprints drafted by
"experts" -- while the American Revolution simply pushed forward
the proud ideals and traditions of a people.
Every great revolution poses this choice: Do we invent a new
man and a new society, or should we use our past as the foundation
for the future? Democrats have chosen the former path: They still
believe that centralized power and control will produce good
results if you teach the despots table manners and give them
soothing sound bites. We believe in building on past strength
because that very strength made this moment in history possible.
Lorean Snow, my 82-year-old grandmother born on the Fourth of
July, gets a message that eludes Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Robert
Reich and Co. She knows that the very best governments rely on a
single, simple principle: Trust the people. Faithless ones lean
on a more exploitative notion: Tax the people; let smart people
figure out the right configurations of wealth and industry -- and
let the little people toil and pay.
American liberalism has degenerated into a series of
photogenic gestures pasted around an empty shell, sort of a
talking, moving papier mache model of JFK, with a little Elvis
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
mixed in (or, in the case of Gore, Mr. Rogers). That came through
most stunningly in this week's video at the Democratic convention.
For the first time, a film invoking the Kennedys did little to
rubbing the dust and mold off the old albums, taking a little peek
inspire tears: It was more like rummaging through a musty attic,
-- and realizing that those days are gone forever.
Even the most warm-hearted liberal understands that Americans
know that the great roster of liberal, reinvent the world
now programs, from the New Deal to the Great Society, didn't finish the
to detest their saviors because they know that in the end, big
job. The supposed beneficiaries of these programs also have come
government programs, no matter how noble the aims, will degenerate
into highly developed forms of patronage and favor-swapping. For
many of our urban poor, the Great Society was a great sick joke
that helped pals of Marion Barry and Coleman Young and Ed Koch and
every other strong mayor in the country.
The Clinton economic proposals carry the heavy, mildewy scent
of Failed Programs Past. They betray no understanding the changes
in the world, or the changing challenges that the American people
face in an international economy, although they give plenty of
lipservice to noticing the changes. Their programs will help
Harvard faculty members obtain a heady rush of moral superiority,
but they won't help a poor woman gain a degree, purchase a home,
send her kids to private schools, and elect Republicans. They will
do for America what Clintonomics has done for Arkansas: Nothing.
On fundamentals, then: Game and Set to Republicans.
3) BEYOND FUNDAMENTALS: REACHING THE PEOPLE
Politics does not follow the law of the excluded middle. The
simple fact that our ideological foes have fallen does not mean
that voters will sidle up to us: They also can vote for none of the
above. That was the entire impetus behind the Perot campaign, and
it still could inspire many people to spend election day at work
or home in 1992.
Our challenge is not merely to claim the victory our
principles have won. The campaign must be the first step toward
the next era of American greatness.
Consider a few themes for this election year.
a) TRUST THE PEOPLE:
George Bush's domestic policy relies on the simple article of
faith I mentioned earlier: Trust the people.
In 3-1/2 years the President has proposed a sweeping
revolution in domestic policy that 1) takes power out of the hands
of bureaucrats and puts it back into the hands of families; and 2)
focuses on results and not rhetoric -- what works, versus what
sounds good.
Start with the basics: Family and home. He has made it
possible for parents to choose the best child care for their
children; now he wants them free to choose the best schools.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
Educrats hate this. They want to make the crucial parental
choices.
On the home front, he wants to take housing ownership away
from government and transfer it to people. When you own the home,
you gaze at the world through new eyes. You want to protect the
present, and build for the future. You look out for yourself and
your neighbors. You grow up and become responsible. Ownership may
do more to create urban calm than a zillion more cops and community
development bloc grants. It lets poor people obtain work without
a laying-on of hands by Bill Clinton.
The President wants welfare policies that reward people who
work hard, save money, get better jobs and stay married. He wants
to let states and cities decide upon the best way to spend federal
dollars. We should judge social programs on their results, and not
on whether people have stood in line and filled out forms. (This
cut-the-BS approach also undergirds our emergency package to LA.)
Move on to safe streets: He has pushed hard for a crime
package that would enable people to sleep easier knowing that we'll
catch and punish criminals, we'll look after victims, and we'll try
to put an end to the crummy litigiousness that has turned forced
Little League baseball teams to take out liability insurance.
Again, trust the people -- and kill most of the lawyers.
At work: the President has assailed discrimination -- and
rejected the use of devices, especially quotas, that incite racial
division. When on the job, people should be free to labor and
create, and not have to spend their time worrying about inscrutable
regulations and unnecessary government burdens.
Put it all together, and here's the picture: George Bush wants
government off people's backs -- and back in their hands.
b) VOTE FOR ACTION. VOTE REPUBLICAN
If you asked most Americans whether they wanted this kind of
government -- one that met its obligations while getting off
people's backs -- they'd say yes. But this approach New Class
Bureaucrat-bosses to the core. And everytime you shake the
establishment, it lashes vengefully back.
We've got a Congress that has a hard time coming to grips with
the fact that the Sixties are over, and that only one Democrat has
won the White House since Nixon resigned. The world has swept past
the Democrats.
The media haven't accepted the march of time much better.
Elitists in the news and entertainment businesses (I use the term
"elitists" advisedly: See Jeff Bell's book, "Populism and Elitism")
have tried to batter our values through derision.
But the people who watch "Evening Shade" have one advantage
over the people who create and produce it. The American people
still understand that Norman Rockwell has more to say about
America's future than does Norman Lear.
People want to be liberated from the crushing oppression of
dead ideas. No one who understands the prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment would willingly submit innocents to four
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
years of sappy preachments by Jimmy Carter, let alone four years
of homilies from the far more tortured Bill Clinton. They want a
chance to make a difference, all by themselves, without prompting,
through the eager goodness of their souls.
They also want a government at least as flexible, innovative,
and consumer friendly as the average, two-bit computer game
company. They don't want no government; they want good government.
Only one person has proposed the changes that make innovation
possible: George Bush.
As I will note in section III, we must do more than say the
right things about Congress. We must make our fight for the common
man more palpable, tangible, and effective.
c) VALUES
T-H-E key.
Americans watch television, read the papers, and worry that
the nation has gone insane. When Sister Souljah, Ice T, and Linda
Bloodworth-Thomason serve as the nation's conscience, people ask:
Have we gone crazy? What ever happened to folks who weren't afraid
to distinguish right from wrong? who weren't afraid to take a
stand? who didn't flinch from demanding good schools, safe
streets, and public officials whom you could trust with your money
-- or your daughter?
Dan Quayle may have gotten hammered by Jay Leno for his
"Murphy Brown" comments, but they have struck a chord elsewhere.
People understand that a kind of glib corruption runs through
Hollywood, and that the entertainment industry seems almost like
a small child -- eager to push the limits, equally eager to get
caught and disciplined. That's where we come in.
As I noted at the outset, the world we all have known for so
long, the world of Communism vs. Capitalism; of wet-socialist
Democrats versus balanced-budget Republicans has come to an end.
As I pointed out above, we won the key ideological and historical
battles. We won them for a single, crucially important reason: Our
values won.
When you get down to it, Americans want someone to assure them
that their core values still make sense -- that they won't have to
reinvent themselves and suddenly begin doing odd and strange
things, such as engaging in pseudo-Mayan sun rites to demonstrate
their oneness with the earth.
The President can do that without a briefing from us. For
him, these values arise as naturally as the need to breathe.
That's one key reason that people, when faced with the hard choice
of which candidate to elect, will see a lineup with George Bush and
Bill Clinton. If you imagine the two side-by-side, you can
envision a statesman standing next to a student council president:
No comparison. Indeed, on foreign policy, Clinton wants to be like
George Bush -- but he can't quite master the intricacies of the
art.
Clinton's liabilities are obvious, and in many ways similar
to Gore's. You have young guys touting old ideas. It doesn't
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
matter that they attach that appelation "new" to their proposals.
For them, "new" is a marketing word. Their approach is a half
century old, a sort of wet New Deal. They don't get it: Their
approach failed, but they still want to try it one last nostalgic
time.
Sometimes, people in our party act as if we must decide
between a jobs-and-peace approach to politics and a values
approach. That's a false choice: Values make prosperity possible.
This insight is as old as Max Weber's analysis of the Protestant
work ethic. Here's the point: We cannot win jobs and peace unless
we feel some sense of coherence and mission as a people. We can't
lead the world unless we carry forward the values we (Republicans)
have advocated for decades.
America can't lead that world if it crawls behind a
protectionist wall, refuses to challenge our kids and our
businesses to do their best, or surrenders to the fates a
generation of urban young. We can't lead that world if the
government second-guesses each and everything that people and
businesses do. We can lead that world only by doing what Americans
do best -- test, innovate, explore, pioneer, and win.
Again, only one person understands that our strength at home
will determine our strength abroad. That's George Bush. If you
want an economy that grows and creates jobs, and if you want a
country that will remain the world's envy and dream, you need a
President who understands the one principle that distinguishes us
from the semi-socialist European countries and the strong-armed
Perotocracies in the developing world: Trust the people.
d) OUR MAN
Ultimately, people choose Presidents more on the basis of
personal qualification than on white papers. Here, we win big.
Bill Clinton cannot compare in terms of stature, class, decency,
experience -- you name it. He has a batty enough past that it will
be fairly easy to drive his negatives into the upper stratosphere.
The real key for us, however, will be to accentuate the President's
virtues, so that we also establish positive reasons to return
George Bush for four more years.
If we use a negative approach, Clinton will howl: "He's the
man who said he'd do anything to get elected, and here he goes
again." It matters little that we've sent Floyd Brown packing.
The public will buy it -- and an excessive burst of negatives on
our part could explode in our faces.
4) VENI, VIDI, VICI
To conclude this first section: Every large issue goes our
way. Every historical current pushes in our direction. We should
paint a Republican portrait of the future -- an America safe, at
ease with itself, blessed with good schools and whole families,
eager to accept the challenge of competition at home and abroad,
and united around the principle: Trust the people. This is the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
America people want. Then we should point out that only one thing
stands between us and this future. Old-style politicians want to
protect old style government and prevent us from carrying forward
the Freedom Revolution. We should brush them away, and complete
the Freedom Revolution.
This moment in history virtually screams: Carpe diem, you
idiots! Or, as an old editor of mine used to say: Let's kick ass
and take names. This cheery note prepares the way for a less cheery
set of observations:
II) Liabilities
A) The President's problems
Overview: The President often seems shocked or faintly angry
that his leadership has come under fire. He knows something we
know -- and should talk about much more in the future: George
Bush's problem is not that he has done too little; it is that he
has attempted too much.
This whir of activity has created another fundamental problem:
Americans don't think they know George Bush. He remains a genial
enigma, and many people believe that his evil twin Skippy emerges
during elections to smear people with such ugly issues as prison
furloughs and past political records.
Our first challenge should not be to cover the landscape with
watertight policies, it should be to present the man to the public.
Ecce Homo!
As we prepare to do that, we should confront the fact that the
President has a lousy public image right now. A few of our worst
problems include:
1) People don't trust the President. The key is the budget
deal. When a President breaks the most important promise of his
political career, and doesn't seem to have lost a lot of sleep over
the betrayal, he has problems. HUMONGOUS problems.
Suppose we put together a killer domestic package, the kind
that the vast bulk of the American public would endorse with great
enthusiasm. We still would have problems because voters would say:
"Sure, but 'Read my lips. No new taxes' sounded great, too.' The
fact is, a Perot could steal our entire agenda and argue: He said
it, but I will do it.
We must explain the budget agreement -- why we did it -- and
we must explain next what we learned from it. We can't afford to
get cute on this one. Let's tell the truth, with no attempts to
engage in weird or untenable spin. If the President cannot
demonstrate that he has been chastened by the event, and that it
has changed the way he conducts himself in office, we're toast.
2) People don't respect the President. With the signal
exception of the Persian Gulf, the President has been a doormat for
Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
We have made ourselves look either spineless or inept by
setting deadlines for hopelessly dreary proposals -- and then
watching silently as Congress ignores the programs, the deadlines,
the whole shebang. This series of batterings and retreats makes
the President look like the grade school weakling who continues
scratching lines in the dirt, shouting "double dare," and shrinking
in utter terror as the larger bullies advance with huge grins on
their faces.
It also creates the impression that the President really
doesn't care about much, including his personal integrity -- that
he's a man of expedients, not principles.
When a President fights hard over something, you know he
cares. When a President takes on Congress, even though he's likely
to lose, you know he cares. When a President shows real passion
on issues that matter to the public -- and Saddam Hussein is not
one of them -- you know he cares. George Bush has played it safe
and deliberately avoided fights that might break the all-important
veto streak. That's one big reason people don't think he cares.
Conservatives especially would feel better if he slammed Congress
with a hard veto -- and lost.
3) People don't expect anything of the President.
We have broken the modern record for empty promises and goofy
futile gestures. A partial listing: the 100-day plan after Desert
Storm; our push for Congressional reform after the Thomas
nomination; our you're-not-going-to-believe-how-good-this-is
exercise in expectation-building before the State of the Union; the
two plans in SOU; the March 20 speech, with rescissions; the post-
Los Angeles urban aid package; the Balanced Budget Amendment
"push.' Note that we have presented most of this stuff in the past
six months.
Nobody expects results anymore when this President unveils a
new program. They expect a nice event, a Democratic response, a
very intricate strategy of compromise and capitulation on our part,
some goofy rhetoric at a press conference, and some titillating
stories about the what the White House and the campaign are saying
about each other.
Today, most journalists spend their time vying for discovery
of the Bushism of the week. Most regard our good initiatives and
ideas as a bunch of uninspired crap. No wonder: We treat our own
programs like uninspired crap, tossing them out like confetti,
letting them flutter to the earth by the handful. We then seem
shocked when nobody seems to have pieced the confetti together to
discover a proposal of genius.
This is not good.
Even worse, we have created our own expectation that the
President is a man of serene inaction. When somebody proposes any
kind of innovation, or any act of Presidential aggression, the idea
dies: "It's not George Bush." This sometimes comes as news to
George Bush, who upon occasion has said spontaneously what
activists staffers had suggested unsuccessfully. I remember one
instance during my too-brief tenure as speechwriting honcho when
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
9
I actually received a call from an enraged senior staffer, who
accused me of slipping words into a text. Not true: That sin was
committed by George Bush.
The President is not a magical icon. He will not change
people's lives simply by standing placidly amid the noise and the
haste. He must act. He must show signs of continued vigor,
ambition and life. And we who serve him must not write off
suggestions of tough action as beneath the dignity of the leader
of the free world. He should not become a statue until after he
has left office.
4) The President is running like a vice president who has been
saddled with a faintly disreputable record. Everything has a ring
of defensiveness about it, an almost desperate cry that "they would
change their minds if only they knew what we've tried to do!!!"
The people care less about what we've tried than what we will
accomplish. They want a world they can reach out and touch, and
they want a President who can make things happen.
Right now, we're talking an entirely different language than
the American people, and that language underscores the impression
that we're part of the Permanent Washington Establishment problem,
and not part of the Trust the People solution.
The President continues mumbling in Washingtonese about ADA,
the Clean Air Act, the G-7 plus One; GATT; CSCE. People don't want
their President to sound like a turbo-nerd sophomore at the Kennedy
school. They want him to talk about issues important to everybody:
taxes, spending, regulation, education, safety, crime, quotas, race
relations, health care, the environment. He mentions them, but
only as parts of a long and awesomely dull laundry list.
George Bush does not seem like his own man. When we propose
domestic initiatives, we do almost as a peace offering to George
Mitchell, rather than as an aggressive step to serve the American
public. We do not establish our own priorities or sense of
command. We do not engender enthusiasm or earn praise. We react -
- and that gives the other guys the ability to set the agenda.
Even though I get paid for reacting to the media, we spend too
damn much time worrying about what the papers and the networks say.
5) The President seems out to lunch. When the President says,
as he has for most of the past 13 months, that we're out of
recession, working people shake their heads and say: "He doesn't
get it.' The President must demonstrate leadership by showing real
command of the situation, and building the kind of drama we need
to sustain our own political case.
The economy is not peachy: It can rise or fall, depending upon
whether Congress moves ahead to cut taxes, pare regulations and set
the American imagination free. If not, things will get worse, Bill
Clinton will offer bewildering homilies about industrial policy,
and nobody will much care whether George Bush has anything to say.
Today, people fear losing their jobs, and even though that
fear often arises less out of a real threat than out of their
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
10
uncertainty about what the post Cold War world portends. If you're
an auto worker, you worry about import competition. If you're a
computer company employee, you worry about imported clones. When
the President says there's nothing to fear, he insults those who
do little but fret about what might happen next week or next month.
People cannot visualize the economy of the future. They can see
only the past clearly and, given the general lack of optimism
today, they want the past back. Clinton and Gore boldly beckon the
people to look backward.
Mike Boskin argues persuasively that the economy follows the
dramatic shifts in the world, and that we have spent the past three
years preparing for the future. In many ways, we're far better off
now than we were four years ago -- I won't go into the details
now, but we hope to have an op-ed on the topic next week -- but we
won't really see the results for a couple more years.
6) The President seems content to act as a broker, not a
leader. Our two mottos seem to be: "We want a bill we can sign,"
and "Follow the process.' These are both insider aims, and they
have absolutely no appeal to the people. They do not call upon
one's ambitions, abilities, courage or imagination. They simply
call for tax money.
We too often act as the people's emissaries to Congress,
instead of letting the people serve as our emissaries to Congress.
Our approach offers no drama or motion: It's like watching a clock
operate. It moves slowly, regularly, predictably: Big deal.
Today, Americans want an adventure. They want someone who
will give them the sense that they really are reshaping the world,
that the little things they do when they leave home each morning
will, in some small but seemingly tangible way, alter the course
of human history and give them a chance to say to their
grandchildren ages and ages hence: "I'll never forget the great
movement that got started in 1992.'
Our insistence on the inside game makes us part and parcel of
the Washington Problem, not part of the solution. We should stop
acting as brokers and leverage the President's experience as part
of a crusade to reform the system. That would get people's juices
flowing, and transform the President from a hapless negotiator to
the guy who can accomplish the kind of sweeping change Ross Perot
can envision only in his little dreams.
6) The President has not defined himself, his first term of
office, and his mission for the future. Or: To quote one of my
colleagues here at the White House, "The American people don't know
what he stands for." "
The President doesn't seem able to answer the question, "Why
should we elect you again?" without falling back on the old laundry
list of unpassed programs and failed initiatives.
"Ask George Bush" sessions banish fears that he cannot
complete sentences or that his physical ailments might render him
unsuited for re-election. They do not enable him to show what he
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
11
wants. A President much preach and teach in such a way that
discloses his soul. People feel for him when he talks passionately
about his kids, but that won't help them discover whether he will
go to war with Congress over important conservative principles or
what he plans to do about the education revolution.
7) We have locked ourselves into utterly traditional thinking
during this least traditional political year in decades.
We want to consolidate a base that in many respects does not
exist. During the past decade, America has become shockingly more
suburban and urbane. Neighborhoods have become integrated, and
workplaces all have become far more mixed. Gas station attendants
no longer take the family out for a night at McDonald's. They
order out Chinese.
Our political parties have not kept up. We still behave as
if it were 1970. The good news is that Democrats think it's 1964.
Power, as the usually incorrect Bill Schneider has observed,
has flowed out of city centers -- Washington or Detroit -- and into
places like Fairfax and Montgomery Counties and Oakland County.
City life, with a few exception, no longer confers special or
exclusive benefits: Everybody shares in a growing and vital common
culture, and the information revolution has made it virtually
impossible for small elites to monopolize any sort of fad or frill.
Rednecks now have carphones and cable television. Rap singers
conduct satellite teleconferences and raise money for causes or
political parties. The nation has become more entrepreneurial and
tolerant at the same time that most of us have developed a ravenous
appetite for a diet of traditional values and individual power (or
in Pinkertonese, empowerment).
Our traditional base will respect us only if we take stands
and demonstrate a little moxie. And the same thing that will
impress the traditional base should broaden the universe of those
who consider themselves Republicans or potential Republicans.
We should preach traditional values in inner cities -- in
order to build support among suburban blacks. This vote enables
Democrats to maintain something they consider more precious even
than the White House, their sense of moral superiority. Chip away
at the black vote, and they go bonkers. That's why they've devoted
so much time and energy into rewriting the Willie Horton story.
A good firm talk in a black church about values -- and against such
divisive matters as quotas -- still could provide some drama and
moral leadership.
Go for Yuppie voters by stressing international issues, and
linking them to the economy at home. Anybody with kids and bills
will vote Republican if we give them a reason. And we should give
them abundant reason. Rush Limbaugh has demonstrated that an
unapologetic, engaged, passionate, thinking conservative can
develop one hell of an audience.
I'm not suggesting the president puff up to 300 pounds and
start singing, "Born Free," but he certainly should stand a little
taller and firmer.
Too many of us seem determined to turn 1992 into a replay of
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
12
1988 -- same faces, same target groups, same tactics, same drubbing
at the polls in the early summer. Well, we can't. It's not 1988.
1988 was a Cold War ago, and in 1992 we face two ravenously
ambitious politicians who won't slink off into the sunset whenever
somebody exposes their flaws.
But 1988 does offer one very significant lesson. We cannot
present ourselves as a sheaf of white papers or laundry list of
accomplishments. We must demonstrate that everything that has
happened in this presidency happened for a reason, and the reasons
tell you something about the heart and soul of George Bush -- and
also something about the long history and deep soul of the
Republican party. We must demonstrate again that George Bush
didn't sleepwalk through the 1980s. He played leading roles in
holding back communism, trimming away regulation, and building a
foundation for winning the Cold War.
The other lesson is that we should not hesitate to use the R
words: Ronald and Reagan.
8) The President is not a party leader. The Republican party,
like the White House and campaign look to George Bush for a signal,
a sign, a cry of "Charge!" Instead, we get a vacuum, filled by
Newt Gingrich or Phyllis Schlafly or Eugene Delgaudio or any number
of other leadership wannabes. Their unedifying struggles for
control of the party and its ideology do little to push the party
forward. For the most part, they merely rehash boorish feuds that
have festered for years. This vacuum maximizes the influence of
those who occupy the party fringes. In this day and age, the Right
especially seems addicted to histrionic confrontation. The
President has an obligation to impose order on the GOP. He must
find ways of saying: This is what it means to be a Republican
today, and articulate core principles firm enough to give the party
real shape, and broad enough to enable us to pursue the important
goal of the Big Tent.
Right now, Congressional Republicans ask themselves: What will
four years of George Bush do for me? Right now, the answer is:
Make it tougher to get re-elected. This is embarrassing -- and it
is our fault.
Many Republicans took umbrage with our handling of the 1990
election cycle -- never deciding whether to run against Congress
or with it; whether to embrace the budget agreement or explain it;
and finally, blasting Ed Rollins for suggesting that people whose
elections might hinge on repudiating the agreement should do just
that: repudiate it. A good number of Republicans thought the White
House had placed its own interests before the interest of party,
and had condemned a number of good candidates to defeat in the
elections. It also led to some incredible embarrassments, such as
the memorable moment when a Republican candidate (later defeated)
actually skipped to avoid sharing a stage with the leader of the
world's only remaining superpower.
In short, we need better party outreach, and we need it
yesterday. This includes outreach to Pat Buchanan: It's cheap,
it's easy and it's smart politics. Buchanan will continue
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
13
appealing to the dark side of Right Wingers. We can't stop it.
But if we give him a few minutes to blow off steam and rev up his
troops, we can certainly prevent an insurrection we don't need.
9) Many conservatives hate the President. I wish I were
engaging in poetic license here, but I'm not. It's simply a fact
that many died-in-the-wool Republicans would vote for Karl Marx
before they vote for George Bush. It may be tempting to dismiss
our opponents as Movement Conservative Blowhards who have mailing
lists, but do not have constituents, but that's not the case.
Sure, the usual suspects (Howie Phillips, Burt Pines, Richard
Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, et al) have started grandstanding. But you
and I know that these folks eventually will pull the Republican
lever. When I talk about "conservatives," I'm talking about parts
of our base whose defections may not show up in our polls --
retired military officers, self-made business tycoons, etc. These
folks have a visceral hatred for the President, whom they write off
as a gutless preppie. It's frightening that the President, one of
the nicest and most decent (and toughest) men on earth, has
inspired hot passion in but one group so far -- the people who
despise him.
We still have a chance to regain their ardor, but words and
gestures won't do it. The President must regain their faith
through credible and sustained action.
This leads us to part B:
B) Party Problems
1) The Amazing Shrinking Base.
In truth, we have no base. I know this is heresy. I know it
does not conform to our polls. I believe it is true.
I also believe in a second heresy: In this day and age, the
notion of a demographic base is inherently limiting. Our
increasing national homogeneity makes it virtually impossible to
make tidy cuts between groups or to design wedge issues that will
produce predictable voting results. The Perot phenomenon proves
that. Even with Perot's departure, we face the challenge of
beckoning former Bush backers into the fold. This won't be easy.
After all, it takes a certain kind of leap to defect in the first
place: To return involves all sorts of admissions of error and
fallibility -- something not terribly common in any political
circle, among any person involved in politics. We enter this
business because we believe we are RIGHT.
We should court those who have supported us, but we also
should begin crafting a message that will help us define a new and
broader base. Ideas, not Kiwanis Clubs, form the backbone of the
Republican base.
An Idea Base enables us to forge a larger and hardier
coalition than we have yet assembled.
This idea base is crucial for Congressional elections, and
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
14
Congressional elections hold the key to the success of a second
Bush term.
In general elections, ideology provides coattails. If we
offer no ideological difference between us and them, we give people
no reason to vote a party ticket, and we deny the President the
sort of support he will need to make the most of his historical
opportunities during the second term.
Instead, the President will spend four years watching
Congressional committees strip the hide off family and friends, and
paralyzing the Presidency by means of trumped-up "scandals" and
fights.
We cannot build our idea base until we clarify our ideas, and
we cannot consolidate our traditional base until we do the same.
Consider our problems:
o The business community thinks we've sold out to the greens.
o The anti-tax folks don't trust us farther than they can
throw us.
o The social issues folks consider the President a squish on
questions they consider important.
O The anti-communists love to pick away at what they consider
our transgressions: failing to bump off Saddam, waiting too long
to recognize the Baltics, dragging our feet on Yugoslavia, and
anything else they can think up.
O Movement conservatives mostly want to be loved and invited
to the White House from time to time. They're the easiest
constituency in the world to stroke, other than opinion
journalists, and we haven't done a thing to keep them happy or at
least quiet. The same goes, by the way, for conservative pundits.
o We've got to rebuild our base the old-fashioned way. We've
got to earn it. We must build political drama. Start with
dramatic ways of framing a dramatic message. I outlined the
elements in that drama above: Identify a dream; point out the
villains who stand in the way; portray the election as an attempt
to sweep away the bad guys who want to kill our dream.
But we also have to answer skeptics within our own ranks.
Here are a few key challenges:
How do we explain the Budget Agreement?
What will we say about taxes?
How will we curb regulation?
Will we wage war on Congress?
Will we defend our honor by taking the offensive on such
matters as taxes, environment, values and regulation?
How will we prove that we mean any of the above?
There has been a tendency in the White House to wish that such
sticky problems as the Budget Agreement would just go away. They
will not. For most Americans, the Budget Agreement, and its
violation of the no-tax pledge, define the domestic portion of the
Bush Presidency, and his unfortunate "I will do whatever it takes
to get re-elected" quip to David Frost defines him as a candidate.
The other questions listed above raise issues first brought to the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
15
surface in the budget deal: the President's commitment to free-
market economics and the supply-side dogma; his determination to
complete missions, even in the face of opposition from a partisan
Congress; his reliability the red-meat Republican economic trinity:
tax cuts, spending restraint and deregulation. We need not address
these matters defensively. But we must address them.
2) The lack of enthusiasm among loyalists.
This flows out of the previous section. I continue to be
stunned by the total lack of fervor on the part of anybody who
doesn't have a White House parking space, and even among some of
those folks. George Bush's personality and loyalty always have
proved his greatest strength, but in election years like this,
politicians also draw strength from the passions they ignite in
others. Right now, we have people in White House halls saying the
unmentionable: "Whatever is wrong, it's not Sam Skinner's fault;
it's not Bob Teeter's fault; it's George Bush's fault."
An amazing number of people have succumbed to a variety of
dread bordering on resignation. Several months ago, one of the
brightest of the Bush loyalists sighed in a hallway and said, "I
never thought it before, but I know it now: We're going to lose."
Increasingly, people give voice to such taboo sentiments,
without seeming to consider the consequences. We have a whole
bunch of administration appointees hedging their bets and trying
to figure out how to make a buck either before or right after
November 3. In short, they have developed losing attitudes. When
that afflicts those closest to the President, it cannot help but
spill over to others.
It does. Outside the White House, we have become a vast yawn.
We don't have cadres of screaming, committed college kids. We get
rich white kids with monogrammed shirts and Louis Vuitton purses.
We don't have housewives calling in, asking how they can
contribute. Businessmen have left open spaces in their checkbooks
for Perot.
We seem to have forgotten the possible joy in politics,
largely because we have driven the fun out of it. We don't have
people assailing the dunderhead Congress. We don't have devotees
who will breathe life into the Gospel according to Bush. Mostly
we get a bunch of people scratching their heads and saying, "Jeez,
it's never been like this before!"
Remember: Most Americans want Presidential elections to
combine equal measures of sporting-event entertainment, cloak-and-
dagger intrigue; tent-revival moral passion; and a little old bare-
knuckled political warfare. At the risk of committing another
heresy, we must find ways to take some of the science out of our
proceedings and put a little more of the blood and guts and folksy
tales back in.
This is not just an aesthetic point: No candidate since
Vietnam has won without the support and enthusiasm of a large group
of people who did not get mixed up in politics before. Carter got
Southerners to troop around; Reagan excited the kids and changed
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
16
the demographics of the parties; the President did the same thing
in 1988. In contrast, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis all ran
defensive campaigns -- which is exactly what we're doing today.
3) Congressional Republicans
I touched upon most of the relevant points above in the
section about the President and the Republican party. Our
relations with Republicans in Congress remind me of the old saying:
With friends like you, who needs enemies? Needless to say, they
say the same things about us. This complicates the task of
building a credible assault on Congress, and a credible argument
that we can make things happen with a Republican Congress.
Ironically, the key splitting point seems to be our lack of
willingness to take on the Democratic leadership. Young Turks in
the House and Senate want some partisan warfare, and so do many
not-so-young Turks. We must develop a strategy for waging that
war, but in terms of our values and approaches: the growth package,
educational reform, etc. After all, the President's right: we
don't want to polarize the parties so dramatically that nothing
gets done. We need action, and we need to force some votes so
Democrats will define themselves by their stands.
4) The Generation straddle
The problems that beset the administration and the party
reflect a generational difference between members of the party.
On the one hand you have those described pejoratively as "Country
Club Republicans" -- moderates descended from earlier generations
of Republican leaders. These Republicans believe in the importance
of traditional values, stability, and firm, competent leadership.
On the other hand, you have activists, many of whom consider
themselves Reagan Republicans, who believe in the great oxymoron:
activism in the service of smaller government. These Republicans
focus on wedge issues: taxes, regulations, social issues, etc.
One White House official recently put the distinction tartly:
"The President believes the Republican Party is still the party of
Prescott Bush. It hasn't been that way for years. There's another
party, one pioneered as much by George Bush as by Ronald Reagan.
We need to recognize that party: it's the party of the future."
President Reagan managed to persuade both groups to maintain
an easy truce, and President Bush did the same from his nomination
through the budget deal. Our challenge now is to unite the sides
again. If the President appears to choose one generation over
another, he loses support he cannot afford to give up. Right now,
we have a secure hold over neither.
The fact is, the Republican party is a party in the midst of
a dramatic transformation, a transformation from minority party to
majority party. George Bush needs to assert leadership to help
lead that movement forward -- and avoid the possibility of the
party's splintering into Hatfield-and-McCoy clans who place
personal animosities before party loyalty.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
17
Ironically, Democrats want to portray themselves as the Party
of Youth. As I noted before, they're not: They're the party of
kids who have gobbled up the old dogmas of their fathers, without
mastering any of the great changes in the world. They're the party
of anachronistic, humorless, earnest kids who want to impress their
elders by mimicking their behavior.
5) The Reagan Factor
Many Reagan loyalists believe that we have given the back of
our hand to them, and to Ronald Reagan. Let's be honest: We have.
That should not continue. Ronald Reagan will prove one of our most
valuable assets this year -- but only if we treat him like a
cherished part of the team, rather than as an nice guy who will cut
a few ads on our behalf.
It strikes me as outrageous that Jimmy Carter gave a warmer
speech at the Reagan Library than did George Bush, and that the
Reagan office has been receiving material from the White House only
because I have done so on my own. Reagan can help us restore our
links to the Reagan Democrats and would-be Perot voters. He's not
a hot dog. He won't overshadow the President. He can be a
valuable and important tool.
As we think of building bridges to the Reagan people, we
should try to figure out how the rifts developed -- and address
that problem. When Ronald Reagan seized the nomination in 1980
(from George Bush, among others), many long-time Republicans
treated him like the guy who shows up late to the dance and leaves
with the pretty girl. Some of President Reagan's loyalists made
things worse by acting as if they had just swept away forever the
final remnants of moderate Republicanism. Moderate Republicans,
many of whom had slaved for years in the vineyards and who had
withstood the brutal assaults of Democrat-controlled Congresses,
resented this.
These tensions grew even worse as the party itself grew
younger, and the generational divide mentioned earlier grew larger
and more obvious. As a result, the President's victory led to some
recriminations that put former Reaganistas "in their place." While
George Bush and Ronald Reagan always managed to remain above this
fray and struggled to put an end to the squabbling, the bad
feelings festered. As a result, we have intraparty messes that we
don't need.
We all should remember: Without Ronald Reagan there would be
no Bush Presidency, and without George Bush there would be no
credible way to sustain and build upon the Reagan legacy. We need
to mend fences with the Reagan camp, and we should do everything
we can to get his competitive fires raging for his last campaign.
We need to remind voters, as we did in the announcement
speech, that the Bush record flows from the Reagan record, and that
George Bush, man of missions, still must complete the revolution
that so far has 1) changed the way people view government; 2)
toppled communism; 3) restored people's faith in themselves; and
4) created expectations for a New American Century.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
18
For ourselves, we must understand that George Bush can
complete the Revolution he helped build by serving as the great
American unifier, the man who can transcend old party differences
and forge a coalition devoted to conservative principles in a new
world.
III) STRATEGY/TACTICS
A) FIRST THINGS FIRST:
We begin with two crucial challenges: Transform the President
into a three-dimensional man, and to decide whether we wish to
control the debate this year, or whether we will let outside forces
determine our fate.
A) Defining George Bush
I) Drive up the Positives:
A) Action
We'd better put together a vision this year -- and that vision
had better come through action. Actions really will speak louder
than words. We've used many of the right words, but we've achieved
very few of the critical actions.
We must define a vision of America that appeals to everyone's
ideals, impatience and ambition -- and that banishes uncertainty
about the future by supplying a clear goal, which voters can
visualize. We should argue: This grand world will be yours the
moment you sweep away that awful bridge-blocking troll known as the
Democratic Congress.
Earlier, I mentioned key rhetorical elements in the action
agenda:
Vote for Action. Vote Republican.
We trust the people: choice, deregulation, innovation, market
incentives.
Less government, more family responsibility.
Leadership for the future -- demonstrate the President's
unique ability to deal with a frighteningly volatile world.
Leadership you can trust.
Government in your hands -- and off your back.
When all is said and done, we must make George Bush
predictable, reliable and stable. We have made him look like a
wind-up President in recent months, as the theme of the week
becomes the 30 themes of the week, as we respond in frantic ways
to the news of the day and the newspapers of the day. When we put
the White House in Brownian motion this way, we appear either to
have taken far too many drugs, or to have fallen prey to manic
panic.
It does not serve the President to look as if he had fallen
prey to a bad Halcion flashback. It does not serve him well to
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
19
switch statements several times within a day, as we did with Los
Angeles, and almost did with regard to abortion. Let's keep it
simple. Let's identify our principles. And let's make him
predictable, so a man on the street, confronted with a new issue,
will be able to say: This is where George Bush will stand on the
issue.
Consider a few varieties of Action:
1) War on Congress
We must find credible ways of explaining why we have not
finished our domestic mission. There is only one way: We must draw
distinctions between ourselves and an inert Congress. We do not
need to stomp and whine, but we do need to make the confrontation
credible, and we do that only by forcing the action.
a) The growth package: I am told that Darman has suggested
attaching our growth package to the Urban Aid package. Boyden Gray
has played with a slightly more dramatic idea: Have the President
refuse to sign the Legislative Branch Appropriation until Congress
passes certain key elements of his growth package.
As I mentioned in a memo last week, the best strategy would
mix initiatives in such a way as to preserve our spending caps and
keep the budget agreement intact. That way, we keep the debate
simple, and we debate it on our terms. If we turn it over to
Democrats, and enable them to play around with it through
shenanigans in the rules committee or on the Senate floor, we're
dead.
b) Rescissions: I know we've got problems with some Hill
Republicans on this, but we should mount a crusade against pork
spending, send up rescissions on a regular basis, and use the rules
in the Budget Enforcement Act in order to force debate on the
rescissions. We should think about doing it over and over and
over: Make Quayle the point man, if you want, but get someone out
in front on the issue of spending. Remember the line we used
earlier this year: Our government is too big and it spends too
much. Rescissions make it clear that we want to do something about
it -- and Congress doesn't.
If we pursue rescissions, of course, we must not harness
ourselves to rules that forestall debate for 25 working days or
whatever. We must leap into action, and let our friends on the
Hill call the Democrats' bluff.
c) Implicit line-item veto: The Office of Legal Counsel argues
that the Constitution grants no such power, and I'm inclined to
agree. But from the viewpoint of crass politics, what harm would
it do to try it out and float it before the circuit court?
d) Dramatic gestures in support of our programs: We may want
to gin up some dramatic overture or gesture -- like flying to Los
Angeles and blasting Congress for its refusal to help out the
people of South Central, and then a tour in which we take some sort
of steps on our own -- to address the problems, show up Congress
and establish real leadership. (If we do some L.A. stuff, we also
should mend fences with cops out there. They're furious with the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
20
President for what they see as non-support of a hard-working and
non-corrupt department.) For a really wild time, challenge Maxine
Waters to join you.
2) Unilateral action
a) Executive orders: Even if we don't choose the economy as
a battleground, we must find ways to accentuate the differences
between us and Congress, and to create an air of impatience with
its dithering. Executive orders might have some promise. I have
asked some lawyers in the administration -- in and out of the
Office of Legal Counsel -- to compile a list of options. These
will appear in another memo, which I promise will be much pithier
than this.
b) New Initiatives: I know that Jim Pinkerton and Jim Cicconi
have been pushing for the President to propose a Bushian CCC.
Although I don't much cotton to the idea, Bob Dole does, and so do
lots of Democrats. If we're for it, let's do it -- and grab credit
while the grabbing's good. At this point, many of us would be
happy to see anything get done.
c) Reprogram funds: Find some clever way to reprogram funds
in such a way as to get pilot initiatives underway -- and to
demonstrate that our push for innovation can pay off in tangible
ways. We also could zero out programs by rescissions that would
take effect for 45 days at a time. The Office of Legal Counsel
also says we can do it: Why not try?
d) Recess appointments: The Senate Judiciary Committee
continues to hold judges hostage to the whims of Joe Biden. If
they dawdle, we should think about wholesale recess appointments,
made with great fanfare. When Biden reacts, we can use it as yet
another chance to talk about Congress' preference for political
posturing in lieu of action.
We should fill other vacancies this way as well, making the
point that the President has a country to run, election or not.
e) Anything: As a retired army Colonel who lives in Washington
and works closely with many of our top people recently told me: Do
something, dammit.
We need to turn George Bush back into the man of missions.
Right now, he's the man of moribund seven-point plans with baffling
cacophonic acronyms.
Our biggest problem in this election is not that we don't use
the right words; it's not that we don't have good policies; it's
that people don't think we care enough or have enough muscle to do
anything. Perot draws all his support from people who want to see
things get done.
We MUST MUST MUST MUST establish some credibility in terms of
domestic accomplishments. The Clean Air Act, ADA, child care and
other stuff sound nice, but they tend to do much more for policy
mavens than for average voters. And a good number of Perot
supporters have abandoned us precisely because of our stands on
Clean Air, ADA, etc. We should not run as wet liberals this year.
We must run as Republicans with excited about the rough and tumble
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
21
future. Let Clinton pose as the library rat: We should run as
well-educated frontiersmen (and women).
2) Accomplishments
Begin with the theme: His problem isn't that he's done too
little, but he's attempted too much. We must surprise people with
all the great stuff we've tried to do and get them mad at a
Congress that hasn't played a long. When they ask why we didn't
push harder, we respond: What more could we do? Further polarize
relations with Congress and ensure that NOTHING gets done??!
We cannot possibly convey our full range of policies through
a tidy little ad or a series of speeches. That leads to the mind-
numbing laundry list. Instead, we should break out parts of the
record -- what's he's achieved (ADA, Clean Air, etc.) -- and the
revolution he has tried to put in place (see my memo of May 27).
For the "attempted" stuff, I'd suggest an ad campaign in which
we do man on the street type interviews asking people what they
want most, explaining that the President has proposed that,
eliciting an "I didn't know that."
The "I didn't know that" approach enables us to chip away at
a series of crucial issues, and subtly make the point that George
Bush has slaved away for the things the American people want, only
to have a stubborn Congress and cynical press cover up the story.
It also gives us a chance to link important themes. When we
talk about environment, for instance, we can broaden the issue's
appeal by describing the President's efforts to clean the
environment while creating jobs --- and tout his leadership in Rio,
where he stood up to pressure from Al Gore, the sandal-and-bead
crowd, some aging hippies, and third-world countries that wanted
to steal technology and cripple our biotech industry.
Ditto on trade: We push for trade because the President wants
to lead us toward a future filled with good new jobs for Americans,
and we want to create opportunities for future commerce and
expansion.
Foreign policies: Leadership: jobs, toughness, security, the
end of nuclear threats, the opening of another frontier (the
international marketplace). Note that during each Presidency,
someone, somewhere tries to test the mettle of American presidents
by manufacturing foreign policy crises. Sometimes, the entire
nation's morale and prestige hinge upon a President's performance.
Jimmy Carter demoralize America; George Bush showed it the
greatness of its heart and soul.
Education: Leadership: Innovation, common sense, trust the
people, rebuild America neighborhood by neighborhood; sweep away
a smokestack-era education system and create one tailored to meet
the demands of the information age, etc.
You get the idea: If we wish to promote jobs, family and
peace, we can do so through each and every issue -- but we also
should personalize the salient parts of the President's leadership:
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
22
constancy, innovation, common sense, faith in the people, a
determination to complete the freedom revolution.
I have played Subliminal Man in this section, accenting
LEADERSHIP again and again. Jobs, family and peace are good
themes, but they're nothing unless people accept the President as
a good domestic leader.
Although we want to promote themes that make sense, we should
remember something else: THIS SHOULD BE AN ELECTION ABOUT HISTORY,
AND WE SHOULD RAISE THE DRAMA TO A LEVEL AT WHICH NO ONE ELSE CAN
DARE COMPETE WITH THE PRESIDENT. We don't need to take a high
road: We must find a stratospheric road for our key issues. If we
make this an election about shaping history, Bill Clinton dissolves
-- an earnest schoolboy; Ross Perot self-destructs, because he has
absolutely none of the prerequisites for international leadership;
and George Bush stands tall and alone, the undisputed king of the
future. If we get mired in little stuff -- we play on other
people's playgrounds and we flirt with defeat.
3) Character
This obviously will be a key, and a source of incredible
strength for us. George Bush wins the character wars big. Here
are a few gruesomely obvious highlights:
a) Courage
Like it or not, the wimp accusation has returned -- not using
the "w" word, but using insinuations that make the same point. A
few biographical ads and testimonials can knock that one out of the
park and turn the tables on the bad guys.
Crucial point: George Bush has never played it safe. He
volunteered for Naval duty right out of high school. He became the
youngest pilot in World War II. After college, he refused easy
jobs on the east coast and took up the challenge of the oil
business. Within a couple of years he risked virtually every penny
his strikes. company owned on a patch of land that produced 27 straight
In Congress, he risked offending constituents by supporting
the Fair Housing Act. As Vice President, he took on regulations
that choke off American jobs. As President, he has stood up to
those who promote unwise choices -- such as the zealots at Rio.
He also has been true to his word, unleashing an education
Revolution that says: We want the best schools on earth, and we
want parents to run them. He has done more for environmental
protection than any President, and has crafted policies that
actually help create jobs. And of course he ignored the polls and
committed troops to the Gulf. When history called, he answered.
Testimonials and ads could prove powerful in drawing
distinctions between the President and his would-be successors.
Perot in particular seems addicted to fabrications. He wants to
be Jack Armstrong -- but he comes across as a billionaire Rogue
Weasel with a mean streak that would cause even Hulk Hogan to say:
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
23
Hey buddy, lighten up.
b) Determination:
Nothing we say will mean a thing unless we act. The rap
against the President is that he talks a good game (sometimes), but
lacks either the conviction or confidence to lead. We cannot win
the sort of victory we need unless the President takes command and
pushes things forward during the next few months.
Otherwise, the man of missions stuff becomes joke fodder for
the late-night quartet (Leno, Miller, Letterman and Hall.)
c) Decency and values: A zillion pictures with Barbara Bush
and the kids, and the right sort of moral outrage when democrats
get nasty.
d) Passion: The President needs to understand the difference
between anger, high blood pressure and passion. He shows passion
when he talks about kids and country. He tends to show off anger
and high blood pressure when he screams about Democrats. America
wants a President motivated not just by good policies, but by a
strong inner voice that commands him to do great things in the name
of great principles. Passion flows from values, and Americans do
want a President to have a special contact with the Ages. We can
build passion not just through the issues he describes, but by
linking them to the things he cares about most: Family, friends,
country, the majestic office of the Presidency.
B) Distinguishing our guy from the Bad Guys:
I will leave this to more distinguished masters of the arts.
This part should be easy.
II) SEIZE THE INITIATIVE:
I touched upon much of the initiative-setting stuff above, so
this section will talk a bit about the media. We should let the
media help us accomplish some of our key aims in restoring luster
to the Bush campaign and presidency. We should understand first
that Clinton's present burst of glowing publicity will wither after
our convention, provided we assemble enough interesting
constituencies to demonstrate that he is an avatar of the outdated,
and not the young man carrying the idealistic torch of youth.
Reporters want nothing more than to be hip. Clinton's star will
fade if we demonstrate that he's just a dinosaur yearning for lost
youth.
At the same time, we must change expectations for the
President, so that it becomes worthwhile for reporters to cover
Bush events. We should go beyond the normal strategies of
doctoring spin and try to make the points we want to make by
designing events that drive and shape coverage. In other words,
we should do the unexpected from time to time, in ways calculated
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
24
to underscore the President's leadership, courage, determination
and values.
1) Newspapers:
We remain hostage to the cruel fates of the news desks, but
for a couple of areas, the op-ed and letters pages, and the places
where conservative writers practice their craft. We should figure
out a couple of dramatic ways of using op-eds to drive the news,
and push the debate our way. This most often will involve pieces
by the President himself, or by very prominent administration
figures.
For instance, we might want the President to write a piece
titled, "What I learned from the Budget Agreement," and place it
in the Wall Street Journal. Failing that, we could encourage such
a piece from Dick Darman.
In the same vein, I have proposed a sweeping Congressional
reform piece under Quayle's byline, to appear in Roll Call. The
placement itself will generate some news, and the substance can
spawn other pieces on various parts of the original message.
We should take our case into the Lion's den whenever possible,
and make cases that will persuade skeptics while reassuring our own
people. We should adopt similar tactics for opinion magazines.
At the same time, the campaign should develop a strategy for
writing letters to editors of local papers, and blasting them when
they misread the Bush record. We should give activists tips on Dos
and Don'ts (I have prepared one) so they might enjoy reasonable
success in getting into the local press.
As for conservative writers, we should mount an aggressive
schmooze campaign. I have been working for several months to
develop lists that group conservative journalists by interests and
specialties, and I hope to have those various groupings put
together soon. We should invite them in, give them briefings that
will teach them something, find ways of meeting and greeting
worthies in the administration (including, in some cases, POTUS
himself), and follow up with letters or other inquiries to find out
how we can help the invitees. That will create a vast reservoir
of goodwill. I'm preparing a memo to Dave Demarest that will
outline such a schmooze strategy. The journalist on this list come
mostly from the print world, but we have managed to dig up a few
conservative radio and television folks.
2) Radio:
I mentioned earlier a campaign to call in to talk radio
stations and present a good case for George Bush and a Republican
Congress. The campaign is working on general points; we also
should develop a strategy for getting out talking points on
breaking events, so we can track the news as closely as possible.
3) Television: We should send our radio talk-show package out
for use by C-SPAN and CNN junkies as well. Such assaults could
make a difference. I have some other ideas for television as well,
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
25
but I want to test them with Dorrance first.
4) 123s of communicating the message
a) Don't do too much.
Too often we try to explain this Presidency in cosmic terms,
jamming every initiative and accomplishment in each and every
speech. This is boring to write, boring to deliver, boring to
report and boring to read. At one point earlier this year we had
in circulation a two-part plan, three fundamentals, four tracks,
five pillars, six education goals and six points in an urban plan,
a seven-point short-term economic package and God knows what else.
Political numerology sometimes gives us the comfortable feeling of
substance and weight, but it strikes most folks as an attempt to
put fancy clothes on a homely policy. We can do much, much better
-- and we need to start with the fundamentals.
b) Talk in plain terms.
George Bush hates being cast in the role of Yankee seer or
Connecticut Churchill. We need short sentences, active verbs, and
enough real-life examples to show that he has a real feel for life
outside the secret-service bubble.
c) Use humor, stories, examples. This seems to be Steve
Provost's forte, so let's use it, and use it well. If anything
defines our competitors, it's their earnest lack of humor. When
Ross Perot smiles, it's like watching a ferret prepare to attack.
When Bill Clinton smiles, you feel Jimmy Carter's self-
righteousness and Elvis' utter lack of self-discipline. Too often,
when George Bush smiles, we see Bambi in the headlights. The
President has a great sense of humor and a soul large enough to
pull off humor. Encourage him to share more of his experiences
with audiences -- and with speechwriters.
d) Give fewer speeches, and prepare carefully for them. The
frantic pace of Presidential activity wears down the President and
the press, and it forces him to drag his way through speeches that
he would rather not give. I suggest we make the case two ways:
First, note that practice really does make perfect, and can produce
good results. Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio took more batting
practice than their colleagues. So do Cal Ripken and Wade Boggs.
You've got to practice to become good -- it's not enough just to
get slapped around by Roger Ailes at somewhat sporadic intervals.
From now on, every speech is the Big Game.
Second, in each and every audience, the President will find
someone who has never seen or heard a President before and never
will see or hear a President again. We owe it to those people to
give them something worth passing, something about which they can
say: "I heard George Bush talk one day. I'll never forget it.
Here's what he said
" Most of us even laugh at that thought
-
- that's how jaded we've gotten. But if the President starts
thinking about kids who someday will have grandkids, he might just
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
26
perk up a little bit during the staffing of speeches, during
preparation, and even during delivery.
e) Be direct.
The cuter we get in explaining ourselves, the more people will
believe that we're trying to pull a fast one. The President needs
to be direct about a lot of things, and especially about himself.
Americans don't know the man who has served as Vice President
or President for the past dozen years. To many, he seems an
amiable chap who goes ballistic during election campaigns. We
should paint a whole portrait, in glowing colors. We should give
it zip and snap by stressing the historic nature of this election.
In 1992, we will lay the foundation for a new century and a new
world -- and only one candidate has what it takes to do that job
properly. Just because George Bush doesn't like to boast doesn't
mean that we shouldn't.
5) Communicate with the communicators
a) Diversify the surrogate operation:
This is self serving, and I'll admit it: I think we need to
get fresh faces out making speeches, doing television interviews
and making the case for George Bush. (It's self serving because
I want to help do some of these things.)
We must show that the President understands the establishment
well enough to seek real reform -- and we must make clear his
commitment to change by pushing forward a generation of advocates
who haven't been before the national press for the past 15-20
years. Let these folks pioneer new trails and supplement the hard
work that veterans will do on the campaign trail: New blood, new
life. Let enthusiastic young-uns build enthusiasm for the man and
the message.
b) Communicate with the communicators
For those of us laboring in the vineyards, crucial matters of
strategy, tactics and policy remain a bit of a mystery. For all
I know, vast portions of this memo either are irrelevant, have
already been incorporated into the campaign, or fall into some
nether land beyond my knowing.
We need to ensure that everyone charged with the message has
at least a rudimentary understanding of where we want to go and how
we wish to get there. I also would hope that we could establish
some channels by which people with ideas may set them sailing
toward higher levels in the White House and campaign. Right now,
people with ideas simply give up because they don't know whom to
contact, how, or what results they may obtain. This creates the
worst possible atmosphere: stifling oppression mingled with fear.
As I have noted many times in this memo, this should be a year for
celebration and fervor.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
27
Which leads me to my very, very last two points:
c) Kick ass and take names.
If we have fun and show boistrous confidence, so will our
supporters. We still have potential for the kind of victory we
envisioned a year ago. The job's tougher, but the foundation
remains strong (Sorry, I sound like Chance the Gardner when I write
like that). Amid all the chaos and panic, we should remember: We
have the only candidate truly suited to the Presidency, and our guy
can do great things in a second term -- if we give him the Congress
and the support he needs.
d) Understand: We control our fate.
Not even Democrats fully believe in Bill Clinton, and most are
waiting for him to collapse. We should hasten that collapse by
showing the one emotion that frightens Democrats most: self-
confidence. If we push our strengths boldly, our man will soar -
- and Clinton will look like a cheap posturer.
#
#
#
#
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
JULY 21, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR SAMUEL K. SKINNER
W. HENSON MOORE
DORRANCE SMITH
MARLIN FITZWATER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-EDS
With the assistance of Diana Furchtgott-Roth and some
interested cabinet members and policy wonks, I have assembled a
very ambitious op-ed schedule. Before describing them, let me
note that Diana has been a dynamo, and I really appreciate
Clayton Yeutter's letting her assist in the op-ed operation on a
half-time basis.
With that as introduction, here's an update of topics and
status:
1) Trade: We should be ready soon with proposals for NAFTA
pieces, along with general pieces on the trade situation.
Barbara Franklin's ready to go; Carla Hills and Clayton Yeutter
also will help. We'll coordinate the op-ed effort with Nick
Calio's NAFTA working group.
2) Women: We should have a draft ready by next week on George
Bush's record on women's issues. I've got lots of good stuff; I
just need the time to organize it and write it up. Connie Horner
will serve as author.
3) Winning Hand: A description of Republicans' winning hand this
year -- Rich Bond. This one I'll do on my own time at home.
4) Environmentalism: We need a blitz against Gore. Reilly is
working up a piece. I hope to persuade Deland to help out as
well.
5) Deregulation: Diana F-R has drafted a dereg piece; I should
have it edited and ready to sell to a prospective author no later
than tomorrow
6) Health Care: Gail Wilensky has produced a decent piece on our
health care initiatives. We should have it ready for
distribution later this week.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7) Education: I've been working as an editor on several pieces by
Lamar Alexander. The first should go out to newspapers this
week.
8) Congressional Reform: A long piece awaits the Vice President's
attention and signature. Later on in the campaign, I'll seek out
pieces from retirees, including Vin Weber, in order to make the
case that people who want action should vote for a Republican
Congress.
9) Economy -- Michael Boskin is working on a couple of explainer
pieces: one, to discuss the state of the economy; a second to
note that the American economy has restructured itself to compete
in a new international environment, and that the changes will
make possible a boom in the years ahead.
Boskin also has volunteered to do some pieces on
Clintonomics. I'd also like to recommend that we get Darman to
do one, based on his press briefing several weeks ago.
Diana is making inquiries of Pat Saiki, to see if
Administrator Saiki would be willing to do something about the
impact of Clintonomics on small business.
Diana and Boskin also plan to do pieces on the Democrats'
declinist myths.
10) Executive orders -- We should get Boyden or someone to
produce a piece describing all the ways in which the President
has used executive orders to accomplish important business that
the people wanted done, but that Congress refused to undertake.
I've got researchers working on a list of such orders.
11) Welfare reform -- Gail Wilensky also has volunteered to do a
welfare reform piece. I'd also like to solicit something from
Louis Sullivan, but to be honest, his office goes its own way and
tends not to want our help.
12) Defense restructuring: We're working on turning a speech by
Chris Jehn of DoD into an op-ed about the virtues of our
restructuring efforts -- and the craziness of Clinton's.
13) Scandal -- Democrats want to demonize our every attempt to
discuss the Clinton and Gore records. This strategy of pre-
emptive name calling is for the birds. I've proposed writing a
piece calling their bluff for Teeter's signature. I'll start
working on it once I've talked to him.
14) Iraqgate -- We have placed one piece, and have two others in
the process. I've written one that puts pressure on Jack Brooks
and Henry Gonzales. Henry Hyde, despite his tragic personal
problems, has agreed to take the point. Steve Rademaker of the
counsel's office/NSC also has drafted a good piece, and we'll
seek an author for that. I've also asked through channels to see
whether Lawrence Eagleburger would agree to a piece setting the
record straight.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
15) Change: A piece drawing contrasts between us and them: We are
the change. We should get a highly visible administration
official to do this. SOON!
Summary:
Completed Drafts:
Environment
1
Reilly
Deregulation
1
Furchtgott-Roth (signatory TBD)
Health care
1
Wilensky
Education
1
Alexander
Cong. reform
1
Snow (Quayle)
Defense reform
1
Jehn/Furchtgott-Roth (signatory TBD)
Iraqgate
2
Snow (Henry Hyde) i Rademaker (TBD)
Drafts due by end of week:
Scandal
1
Snow (Teeter)
Winning hand
1
Snow (Bond)
Clintonomics
2
Boskin; Furchtgott-Roth/Snow (Saiki)
Due next week
Women's issues
1
Snow (Horner)
Welfare reform
1
Wilensky
Education
1-2
Alexander
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
August 3, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB TEETER
SAMUEL K. SKINNER
DORRANCE SMITH
MARLIN FITZWATER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
DEFINING THE DEMOCRATS
Bill Clinton and Al Gore have been on a bit of a roll lately,
at least judging from the papers and t.v., but they haven't
provided any surprises. Their campaign so far seems designed to
do four things: 1) mislead the American people about their basic
philosophy and ideology, using Madison Avenue tactics to describe
something ancient and moldy as new and improved; 2) to vilify us
at every turn, even when we haven't said a thing; 3) to rebuild
their political party and make use of the organizational,
political, spiritual and emotional weapons that remain locked in
the arsenals of local Democratic party offices; and 4) go on the
offensive so we will remain on the defensive.
This memo will suggest ways of defining Clinton and Gore in
such a way that we seize control of the debate. We must define
them; we must define ourselves; we must draw sharp distinctions
between the good guys and the bad guys, and we must make the
message stick.
I) Uncloaking Clinton and Gore.
I skip over one obvious area because we have it covered: the
personal and legislative records of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
Instead, I'll focus on tactics they have used to disguise their
political ambitions and lineage.
Every key Democratic speech and position paper teems with
cozy, gauzy codewords: white-noise words that comfort listeners
without saying a thing. Clinton and Gore understand that they're
at odds with most Americans, which is why they adopt the old
strategy of trying to sound normal, while promoting radical
policies. The two remain the ultimate apple-polisher students -
- young men lugging around very old ideas, trying to impress the
professor.
If we really want to strike terror into the hearts of Bill
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Clinton and Al Gore, we should do two things: 1) Make people laugh
at them; and 2) Expose their inexperience and immaturity. In
short, we must drive a stake through their vanity, for the
Clinton/Gore ticket is nothing if not a tribute to the power of
political vanity.
A) Democratic Newspeak:
We can define Democrats effectively by mocking their
deliberately vague use of language. But we must do one thing more:
We must answer the question: Just what do these guys mean, and how
will their policies affect people where it counts: at home, with
their kids, at work, in the pocketbook?
Haul them all before the dock of our three major themes:
family, jobs, and peace. I have attached as an appendix a Devil's
Dictionary for Democratic terms. National Review has accepted it
for publication in the issue that will appear around Labor Day.
I may see if I can find an interested buyer in some other national
publication before then.
We also should point out that many of their policies rely on
the lie that everything has gotten worse. The line that "men and
women work harder for less pay" just ain't true. We should take
on their declinism, and blast them for their love of gloom. The
Democrats' reliance of distortions and outright lies deserves
special treatment -- but I won't go into detail here.
As prelude to the dictionary, consider a few major themes:
1) The Economy:
A) Their Side:
The Clinton-Gore plan means more people will lose jobs or
worry about their futures. It throws on the largest tax hike in
history, along with the biggest spending increase. It will hurl
new burdens upon states, forcing them to raise taxes and spending.
After four years of Clinton-Gore, American workers will give more
than half their earnings to the government (federal, state and
local). In short, if you liked the recession, you'll love a
Clinton Presidency.
B) Our Side (Actions, Deeds, Vision) :
We must define ourselves by way of stark (and credible)
contrast. We want smaller, better government. [[We could make this
point with rescissions or line-item vetoes.
We want lower taxes [[and here we MUST discuss the budget
agreement, if only to mollify our own people]].
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
We want fewer regulations and only regulations compatible with
a growing, enterprising economy. [[Here, we fight for the
Competitiveness Council, and announce some of its decision with
more-than-appropriate fanfare.]
We want to lead the world internationally, rather than to
retreat into defeatist protectionism. [NAFTA, GATT]]
Note that I've recommended an action to go with each theme.
If we just blab, no one will care. Action alone can establish the
two things we sorely lack: continuity and credibility.
In addition, we must explain our vision for the future as
vividly as possible.
Identify concrete goals for four years hence, such as: In four
years, we want to push tax freedom day back into the previous
month. We'll do it by cutting taxes by XX dollars.
We want our export business to grow 20 percent. We'll fight
for free trade and assist businesses that need help in getting fair
access to markets abroad.
We want patents to surge 15 percent. We'll support R&D, but
we'll also give investors a reason to risk money on good, untried
ideas. We'll cut the capital gains tax. We'll strengthen the
investment tax credit. Etc.
We want the average family to be able to afford a home, a car,
and college educations for the kids. We'll continue fighting
inflation. We'll build a strong economy for the future, etc.
We want Americans to feel that they control their government,
and that they control their individual destinies. We'll strip away
the power of the special interests and honor the power of the
people.
You get the idea.
2) Bill Clinton, GB Wannabe
There's a second trend in the Clinton plan: It adopts (usually
in tamer form) good ideas long ago proposed by George Bush.
Clayton Yeutter has circulated a pretty good list of Clinton's
attempts to steal our proposals. I've attached that as well.
We must force Bill Clinton to decide publicly whether he wants
to copy George McGovern or George Bush. If it's George Bush,
people would be better off sticking with the original. If it's
George McGovern, people still would be best off sticking with
George Bush.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
3) MACRO CONSIDERATIONS:
A) Democrats don't get it.
A growing economy needs people with three things: ideas,
freedom and capital. Democrats seem determined to deprive
Americans of all three. Democrats believe in an economy of
privilege -- one where planners, lobbyists and legislators make the
big decisions, and the little people pay for them. To put it
aphoristically: Democrats believe that a small business loan is a
grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.
B) The Great Pork Rush
It is as if they wanted to set off The Great Pork Rush. Their
platform proposes special programs for big businesses and farmers;
vast new spending programs for development banks, a civilian R&D
agency; mandates out the wazoo (family leave, worker education,
play or pay, etc.). [ I realize that we proposed some of these
things first. Even so, he proposes a large batch of "new" programs
that would add significantly to our debt and significantly impair
our international competitiveness. ]
C) The Party of Depression
At a time when the rest of the world races to embrace the
challenge of free enterprise and competition, Democrats espouse
higher taxes, more regulation, protectionism -- a combination of
defeatism and romance over programs that failed in the past.
The Democratic platform is remarkable for what it fails to
mention: innovations such as privatization, including in
transportation; tax cuts to encourage innovation; individual
enterprise. In other words, it doesn't endorse change; it only
talks about it.
II) THE MAJOR ISSUES:
A) Crime: An easy one. Clinton won't take on his do-nothing
party. He won't take on the trial lawyers. He won't take on any
of those who threaten to turn our system of justice into a
laughingstock. We're serious. He's not.
B) Environment: Democrats believe that we can best save
forests by hugging trees; Republicans believe in harvesting trees
and planting new ones --- this creates a job for the tree-cutter;
the shipper; the logger; the person who plants the seedling; the
person who watches over the growing forest. It also pumps more
carbon dioxide into the air (thus abating the greenhouse effect)
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
than does an old forest.
We don't believe you must kill a job to save a tree. We don't
believe that you must destroy working families to preserve the
environment. In this age of innovation, people find ways to clean
the water and air. In fact, our air and water are far cleaner than
they were two decades ago. We know what works, and we have had the
courage to put it into action. Democrats know what has failed -
- and they want to put it into action.
C) Government: The preamble to the Democratic platform
includes this extraordinarily revealing sentence: "Republican
mismanagement has disarmed government as an instrument to make our
economy work and to support the people's most basic values, needs
and hopes. (emphasis mine)
If this doesn't prove that they don't get it, nothing does.
The Clinton-drafted platform sees government as the central agent
for doing all the things people don't want government to do: muck
up the economy; meddle in their lives; tarnish their values;
frustrate their needs; dash their hopes. When most of us think
about our "most basic values, needs and hopes" we do not think
about government. We think about teachers, parents, friends,
spouses, lovers. We don't think of snarling bureaucrats.
We want to clean up government [the very first thing George
Bush did as President was to sign an executive order dealing with
government ethics] by making lawmakers obey the law. We want to
get government off people's backs, and put it back in their hands.
D) Race Relations: Clinton has played the demagogue
masterfully, with all his Willie Horton ranting, and we have let
him get away with it. At the very least, we should appeal to the
growing black middle class by expressing our opposition to quotas
(on the grounds that they divide us and raise unnecessary
suspicions in the workplace), our determination to enforce civil
rights laws with unprecedented vigor, and our commitment to the
basics: school choice, safe streets, lower taxes, greater
opportunity.
We should note that George Bush was practicing racial healing
before Bill Clinton was even born, and note that it takes an
incredible amount of gall for Clinton, who deliberately used Sister
Souljah as a way of driving a racial wedge between blacks and
whites, to cast George Bush as a bigot and divider.
This issue has tremendous resonance, not just among blacks,
but among whites who work with blacks. I'd recommend a quick look
at Joel Garreau's piece in Sunday's Post Outlook section. It makes
a point I've been arguing for months: Whites care about race
relations because most of us work in integrated offices.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
Furthermore, race relations remain a key moral issue for most
Americans. The issue defines who we are and where we will go as
a nation.
Clinton panders to black special interests, and in the process
he patronizes black voters. We should take our own message to
black neighborhoods and give voters a real choice. We might be
surprised.
E) THE NEW COVENANT
Put the issues mentioned above and others together (Clinton's
positions on family values, foreign policy, etc.) and you realize
this: The only thing new about the New Covenant is the math: You
add $220 billion in spending along with $150 billion in new taxes,
and somehow you get a surplus. Maybe Hillary balances the family
checkbook.
The New Covenant is not new and it is not a covenant. It
would stick workers with the most expensive and restrictive series
of government edicts in American history. It is the kind of thing
our founding fathers staged a revolution to escape.
Clinton promises everything, pays for nothing, and seeks
everybody's admiration. He's a bit like the insolvent cousin who
shows up, borrows money and declares: "I love you guys, and I'll
pay you back next paycheck. Honest. But the American people will
end up holding the bill if Clinton enters office, and in sums that
none of us dares imagine today.
Once we have attacked the overarching label, we ought to chip
away and away and away at the platform, forcing Democrats to define
and justify everything. If we can get Clinton and Gore involved
in the details (exactly which programs will you cut, and why? what
do you mean by "affirmative action," etc.), they're sunk.
Their platform, despite the fealty to new ideas and rhetoric
about smaller government, is a liberal tar baby: The more they
wrestle with it, the more tightly they will become stuck to their
party's past and to its present interest groups. It will destroy
any pretence of novelty or change, and expose clearly the fact that
Clinton and Gore are incredibly slick, ambitious, cynical kids who
have never held real non-political jobs in their lives, and
understand only how to make government grow larger, more expensive,
and less efficient.
III) KINDER, GENTLER NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING
Clinton and Gore have spent the past year cultivating a tactic
that, if unchecked, would enable them to inoculate themselves
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
against any and all criticism. They have taken to claiming that
any and all scrutiny of their record, criticism of their comments
or analysis of their positions represents more Republican dirty
tricks, scheming and conniving.
And why not? We have refused to defend our honor in recent
years, preferring to adopt a noble and stoic silence when George
Mitchell or Dick Gephardt or Al Gore of Bill Clinton talk trash
about us. (This was the point of Mary Matalin's famous Sunday
fax.) As a result, they will try to get away with as many vile
characterizations as possible so that anything we do or say will
smack of cynicism, calculation, or unadulterated evil.
A) Expose the Tactic
I'm attaching an op-ed sent last week to Bob Teeter, and now
in the hands of the Washington Post, under Rich Bond's signature.
It lays out the first line of counterattack -- exposing the tactic.
The Press is sick of Clinton's grotesque moralism already, and it's
just waiting for us to pounce on Clinton's whiny Blame Republican
First tactics. The New York Times seems especially interested in
an op-ed that would assail that tactic in particular. Their
caveat: They want someone with good conservative credentials, but
not officially affiliated with the White House or the campaign.
Any ideas for authors?
B) Get mad, and get even
After exposing their tactics, we should deploy à second round
of fire: Anger. We should be pissed that these jerks have spent
the past year trotting around the country and trying to sell the
notion that the President is a racist, opportunist bastard. The
Press has bought much of the Willie Horton crap, although we can
begin to reverse that tide if we only take it on. Mike Barone at
U.S. News and World Report understands the issue and chronology
perfectly, and I know I can egg him on to writing about it. Better
yet, the President should blow his stack in an eloquent and
calculated way.
C) Take the High Road:
Step three: Call for a clean debate and explain what it means
-- a ruthless examination of facts and records; a tough debate
about ideas and our future. You know the drill. Seize the high
road from Clinton, and never ever relinquish it. At the same time,
form some effective truth squads to chip away at the dramatic
Clinton-Gore weaknesses -- the craziness of their policies, the
transparency of their ambition, and their utter lack of
qualification to take on the big and important challenges of
shaping history in the aftermath of the Cold War.
The President promises to fight, and many of us are ready to
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
join the fray. If we want to succeed quickly and thoroughly, we
must transform Clinton and Gore back into glamorous lightweights,
and we must pound away with an attack featuring a confident,
visionary President -- and a band of ruthless surrogates who will
expose every little portion of the Clinton-Gore platform and
record.
And, as I noted at the end of my previous memo, we should
remember one other cardinal rule: We should have fun. This remains
our election to win.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
August 12, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR RAY PRICE
BOB TEETER
SAMUEL K. SKINNER
CLAYTON YEUTTER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
CONVENTION SPEECH
The President's acceptance speech, for good or ill, will set
the tone for this year's Republican Presidential Campaign. It
must be a winner, and should be. Ray Price knows the President,
knows politics, and has real and reliable political passions.
I know many others will contribute their thoughts on the
speech: For what they're worth, here are mine: This memo will
outline key goals of the speech, but it will not burden its
readers with suggested speech language. Part II will recommend
ways of following up the speech, so that it really does establish
momentum for the campaign, rather than providing the kind of
fizzle characterized the much-touted State of the Union Address.
PROLOGUE:
A good speech should do two things. It should tell a story
and it should make an argument. In this case, we should tell the
story of George Bush's life. The President, despite his long
tenure in the public eye, remains an enigma to most Americans.
We should strip away layers of mystery in ways that fit the man.
The argument we seek flows from the biography. Americans
should re-elect George Bush because he alone can lead America at
this historic juncture. He has the experience and character one
expects of a President. He also has tried to unleash American
greatness through a program of continued reform.
As the speech tells a story and makes an argument, it should
try to achieve several important goals: It must define the
President. It must define the opposition. It must draw clear
distinctions between the political parties. It must unite the
party and the country. And it must create the kind of enthusiasm
that will transform viewers into volunteers.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
This speech must make the American people active agents in
George Bush's agenda for the future. Many Republicans have
recommended that the President do so by sprinkling a few dramatic
announcements in the address. I agree, but subject to two
caveats: 1) the "dramatic" changes should arise naturally out of
the things we have tried to accomplish since 1989; and 2) they
should enable us to depict for the public the kind of America
they can expect if George Bush gets four more years in the White
House. In other words, the proposals should meet the tests of
continuity and credibility.
If they meet these conditions, they can lift the President
to a plane far above where Clinton could possibly stand. They
also will provide the Vision Thing by describing in clear and
concrete terms what four more years would provide: a more
vigorous economy, thriving in the new international marketplace
(Olympic analogies might work); an education system in which
parents can choose schools for their children, and in which the
school provide the best education in the world; safe streets and
neighborhoods where cops and citizens work together to take on
criminals, and especially drug kingpins; smaller government and
lower taxes, so you keep more of your hard-earned pay; and an
America brimming with confidence and ambition -- the America we
all know and love.
When the President steps off the stage in Houston, every
listener should be able to answer the question: If we re-elect
George Bush, what will our lives be like four years from now? If
they cannot answer that question, we're in deep trouble.
PART ONE: WHAT THE SPEECH SHOULD ACCOMPLISH
I) It should enable people to know the President
People don't know George Bush, and that bugs them. Frankly,
they have no desire to know the "inner" George Bush, and they
don't want the encounter-group goopiness we get from Al Gore and
to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton. They want a mensch, driven by
defining passions and principles; determined to achieve clear and
worthy goals. They also want someone who combines the humility
of Mother Teresa and the daring of Sergeant York. They want, in
other words, George Bush.
Without getting gushy, this speech should explain the
President, and do so fairly briefly. The President must tackle
the key personal claims against him: That he broke his word with
the budget agreement; that he lacks any real convictions; and
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
that he really wants to manage the status quo, rather than to
lead America toward a defined destiny.
A) He could take on the Budget Agreement by discussing the
importance of a man's word. He must demonstrate that the
agreement did not expose a character flaw or prove that he is
just another cynical pol who will promise anything on the stump.
He also must give an honest, full, no-B.S. explanation. My guess
is that he would say that he wanted to i) get a handle on the
budget deficit; ii) work with Congress; and iii) demonstrate the
kind of leadership necessary to kick the economy into a higher
gear. He should not apologize for wanting to do those things.
Nor should he argue that in retrospect he would behave
differently. He simply should explain that the agreement was a
moral, economic and political mistake, and that he never again
will place his reputation and the nation's economy at the tender
mercy of Democrats who put politics before country.
Having done that, he must make some credible commitments and
talk personally about honor and one's word.
B) He also could talk about the importance of one's deeds.
In the end, deeds matter more than words, and George Bush has
nothing to apologize for in terms of deeds. In foreign policy,
he has led the world through the collapse of communism without
hastening the end of the world. He took on Saddam, and as a
result now stands ready to help the nations of the Middle East
try to settle milennia of religious and ethnic hatred. He wants
to prod the nations of Europe into exercising moral leadership in
all the lands under assault from the Serbs. In short, he
understands the world, and he understands the ticklish and
crucial business of waging peace.
At home, he has proposed a breathtaking overhaul in American
government and politics, based upon the key concepts of choice,
limited government, and belief in the people. Now, he must let
the past serve as prologue, and demonstrate how he will make that
revolution happen. He must announce unilateral actions to get
things moving now -- and thus create some tension with Congress.
But as I noted above, he also must show in concrete terms what
another four years under George Bush will mean for American
workers and families.
II) The Speech Should Outline Clear Differences Between Us and
Them
Clinton and Gore have tried to fuzz up the differences
between the parties by resorting to gauzy rhetoric and comfy
phrases. The President should call their bluff. Most of the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
"new" stuff in the New Covenant has gathered dust on Capitol Hill
for nearly four years. Clinton and Gore want to claim credit for
endorsing watered-down versions of reforms George Bush proposed
long ago.
We should press the key Democratic weaknesses: They just
want to tax and spend. If that sounds like a broken record,
it seems like a recurring nightmare to the American worker. Bill
Clinton may mock the charge, but he richly deserves it.
Second, we should point out that the Presidency is the Big
Leagues. When it comes to tough decisions and choices, Clinton
and Gore still sound like candidates at Boys Nation, and not like
serious contenders for world leadership. In ways subtle and not,
we should point out that it takes more to govern that good press.
Third, we want people to control the nation's destiny. They
want bureaucrats to chart it.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
JULY 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR PAUL MCNEILL
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-ED TRACKING
Here's a quick summary of op-eds now in circulation, with
the general subject; authors in parenthesis; op-ed signatory; and
publication, if we have decided upon one:
1) Devil's Dictionary (Snow) -- Snow -- submitted to National
Review
2) Change (Roth/Snow) Clayton Yeutter
3) Declinism (Roth/Snow) Clayton Yeutter
4) Declinism/State of the Economy (Hill/Snow) Barbara Franklin
5) Rio/Environmentalism (Crampton/Snow) Bill Reilly
Pieces that should be ready for authors tomorrow:
1) Deregulation (Roth/Snow) author TBD
2) Congressional reform (Snow) Dan Quayle
3) Health Care reform (Wilensky/Snow) Gail Wilensky
4) Military reform (Jehn/Snow) Dick Cheney
5) NAFTA -- Martin
6) NAFTA -- Reilly
Pieces ready to go, waiting for the "right time"
1) Iraqgate (Snow) Henry Hyde -- Wall Street Journal
2) Iraqgate (Snow) McCollum
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
rec'd TOO LATE
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
New Programs
create a "future budget"
investment tax credit
capital gains for selected investments, and with a long holding
period
create a civilian research agency
Budget reform
everything on the table
eliminate nonproductive programs
achieve defense savings
reform entitlement programs to control soaring health care
costs
cut federal administrative costs by 3 percetnt annually for
four years
limit increases in the present budtget to the rate of growth
of the average americans paycheck
apply a pay/go rule to new non-investment spending
make the rich pay their fair share in taxes
Defense conversion
early notice of program changes to give communities planning
time
job retraining for departing military personnel
continuing education, placement and relocation assistance
early retirement benefits
incentives to enter teaching, law enforcement and "other
vital civilian fields.'
redirected national laboratories, working with the new
civilian research agency
technical assistance, transition grants, and loans to help
small businesses convert to civilian markets.
technical assistance, transition grants and loans to help
communities adapt to civilian-based economies
support civilian space program, esp. on environmental mis-
sions.
Cities:
summer jobs initiative and training program for inner city
youth
stronger community development and targeted fiscal
assistance to communities most in need.
national public works investment and infrastructure program
targeted enterprise zones
incentives for private and public pension funds to invest in
urban and rural projects.
a "revitalized" Community Reinvestment Act -- require banks
to fund entrepreneurial ventures in their business
area.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
national network of community development banks
microenterprise lending for poor people seeking self-
employment as an alternative to welfare
Agriculture:
public/private partnership to ensure farmers get a fair
return for their labor and investment
investments in basic research, education, rural business
development, market development and infrastructure
Workers' Rights:
reform job safety laws to "empower workers with greater
rights and to hold employers accountable for dangers
on the job.
expand earned income tax credit so no one who works and has
children at home will live in poverty
striker replacement legislation
Education:
invest in educational technology
adopt a national apprenticeship-style program for non-
college students
Domestic GI Bill
make college affordable to all qualified to attend by
offering loans repayable as a percentage of income
over time, or through "national service addressing
unmet community needs."
Health care:
controls on health costs
vague everythings
national crackdown on deadbeat parents
systematic effort to establish paternity for each child
family medical leave
"preventive services and foster care to families in crisis"
for seniors: hunger prevention, guaranteed income, transportation
access, abuse prevention.
Welfare reform
education and job training
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
child care and health care
community service alternatives
Environment
civilian conservation corps
reduce dependence on toxic chemicals
reduce solid waste by encouraging the use of recycled
materials; discouraging excess packaging.
Government:
same-day voter registration
D.C. statehood
Crime:
More cops
a Police Corps
transfer military personnel to police
expand drug counseling and treatment for those who need it
curb drug demand
waiting period for gun purchase
Sentencing reform
community service and boot camps for first-time offenders
victim impact statements and restitution
tougher penalties for rapists
safe schools, incl. alternative schools for disrupting
children.
"Empowering the poor"
slower phasing out of Medicaid and other benefits to
encourage work.
special savings account to help low-income families build
assets
fair lending
indexed minimum wage
expanded Job Corps
welfare reform
Housing:
affordable mortgage credit
renovate, preserve and expand affordable low-income housing
tenant management and ownership
National service:
unclear what it means
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Economy
"national plan for restoring our economy through a
partnership of government, labor and business.
International:
create a Democracy Corps
create a South African/American enterprise fund
International enviro:
CO2 stabbilization
biodiversity treaty
developing nation initiative
restrain population growth
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Op-ed strategy:
Target op-eds: hit important states, and discuss the issues
important to them.
California
agriculture, labor, environment
Los Angeles Times
Orange County Register
San Diego Union/Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle
authors: Hills, Martin, Reilly, Yeutter
Florida:
environment, agriculture, ties with Hispanic neighbors
Miami Herald
Orlando Sentinel
St. Petersburg Times
Tampa Tribune
Authors: Madigan, Hispanic writers, Franklin
Illinois:
labor, environment, Hispanic relations:
Chicago Tribune/Sun Times
Madigan, Martin, others.
New York:
agriculture, labor, environment
New York Times
New York Post
Newsday
Wall Street Journal
authors: all (Franklin, Hills, Madigan, Martin, Reilly, Yeutter)
Ohio:
labor, environment
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Cincinnati Enquirer
authors:
Franklin, Hills, Martin
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Pennsylvania:
environment, labor
Philadelphia Inquirer
authors: Reilly, Martin
Texas:
environment, labor, U.S.-Mexican relations
Dallas Morning News
Houston Post/Chronicle
San Antonio Express/Light
authors: Hills, Franklin, Mosbacher, Reilly, Yeutter
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
AUGUST 26, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB ZOELLICK
MARGARET TUTWILER
DENNIS ROSS
DORRANCE SMITH
BILL KRISTOL
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
CAMPAIGN THEMES, STRATEGIES
We have ridden the crest of our convention "bump": Now comes
time to give people a reason to vote Republican at all levels.
Strategically, this entails three goals:
First: Build on our themes: We have identified important
themes: 1) Get America moving again, with a President who guided
us through the most dramatic transition the modern world has
seen; 2) Elect a President you can trust with your future (and
who trusts you) i 3) elect a President who shares your values; 4)
Elect a Congress that wants to do the people's business; 5) Boot
out the old-thinking, tax-and-spend, bureaucratic, managerial
state Democrats and inaugurate a new era of innovation and
entrepreneurship. Bring out the best in America, so we can offer
hope to those in the worst straits.
These ideas place the President on a promontory inaccessible
to Clinton. That's crucial. We must make this an election about
History, knowing that only George Bush can answer history's call.
We must realize that we need to offer a sustained argument
to the American people, who still regard the President as an
enigma. Sound bites alone won't cut it. Neither will quick
reactions to snap polls. We must initiate a real, substantive
debate about what government should do in the post Cold-War, post
Great Society world -- where we should go in the future as a
nation, and what the President will do to guide us to the kind of
future we want and know we can achieve.
Second: Keep Clinton on the Defensive. The governor has
proved wonderfully inept in responding to hot fire since our
convention -- testy, sanctimonious, unfocused. We should keep
him off balance.
Third: Paint a picture of America four years from now.
Americans feel apprehensive about the future (it's a new, post-
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Cold War world out there, with none of the old certainties) ; they
want action; and they feel nostalgia for old American values.
They don't want to have to throw off their pasts in order to
build a better future. And they want to know who George Bush is
and what he believes.
This memo offers a strategy for achieving these objectives
without forcing George Bush to become an election-year Mr. Hyde.
I) BUILD ON OUR THEMES
A) Overview
Our rhetoric has become sharp -- and weightless. On the
economy, we have said that we will cut taxes -- without saying
which taxes, how much we'll and how it will effect the average
working American. On spending, the same -- we have not said what
programs, how much we'll cut, or what priorities we have set. We
have said: Wait until after the election. That means: Wait until
we can negotiate with Congress. And for many Americans that
means: Oh, no -- here comes the Budget Summit again.
We must flesh out our taxing and spending proposals. This
will inflame special interests and attract hostile political
fire, but so what? If we're serious about adopting a Trumanesque
defiance toward Congress and the special interests, we'll make
enemies. We just need to make the right ones.
B) Congress
If we want to deride the do-nothing Congress, we must do
several things.
First, we must assemble a comprehensive list of
administration initiatives that have gotten spiked on the Hill.
Darman knows more about this stuff than anybody else: He's the
guy to call for the facts and figures. Once we have assembled
the list, we should figure out some device for tallying the
opportunity costs. What, for instance, has Congress' inaction on
the State of the Union growth plan cost American workers in terms
of jobs, new homes, earnings, savings, etc.? When you throw
together nearly four years of inaction, you can roll up some
pretty awesome costs for Congress' behavior.
This should provide a litany that we would use in speeches,
ads, surrogate appearances, you name it. In the end, we should
be able to attach a dollar figure or a job figure to
Congressional inaction. We also must stand ready to defend our
calculations: No funny business.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
Second, we must stop sending conflicting signals. Our "wait
until next year" approach on taxes and spending boils down to a
"we'll work it out with Congress" pledge -- which utterly muddles
our Give 'em Hell rhetoric.
Third, we must take action. Consider some options:
* Veto the legislative branch appropriation and hold it
hostage for a growth package. We cannot afford to shoot for
anything small and technical in the bargain. We must insist on
something big, something that creates a who-blinks-first
challenge to Mitchell, Foley, Gephardt and Clinton-Gore. The
confrontation must crystallize the differences between a
conservative Republican president and a liberal Democratic party,
with such high drama that no one can muddle the lines. That kind
of stand off can galvanize our own constituents and persuade
Reagan Democrats that we're for real. If we settle for fine
points that will thrill techno-wonks at the GSA, we will forfeit
any chance of impressing the American public.
* Call a special session on the economy: Dicey, and truly
Trumanesque. This would serve the same purpose as the
legislative branch appropriation veto. Indeed, we could do the
two in tandem. The point: Make Democratic leadership squirm.
* Rescissions: Submit new packages of rescissions every
week, and take up House Republicans on their offer to demand a
vote for each and every one. Don't hesitate to take after
Republican pork: We should make it clear that when it comes to
pork, we'll serve as an equal opportunity butcher.
* Reprogram funds: Where possible, reprogram funds in order
to bolster pilot initiatives or help out programs that really can
produce results. I don't have any specific suggestions here, but
we should have enough latitude in reprogramming to dramatize our
commitment to action -- and Congress' determination to rest easy.
* Recess appointments: Congress continues holding good
people hostage. The President could unleash a raft of recess
appointments, and blast Congress for its refusal to fill crucial
government positions.
* New initiatives: The taxing and spending stuff clearly
would fall into this category. If we want to get truly radical,
the President could call for a flat tax, with only crucial
deductions (home mortgages, health care, pensions, vouchers,
etc.) remaining.
* Executive orders: The President could do all sorts of
stuff through executive order. We should identify priorities and
ask the Office of Legal Counsel to come up with alternatives.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
One official (not in OLC) has recommended, for example, that
we take Boyden Gray's proposal to eliminate quotas in the federal
government and twin that with an announcement that we plan to
double the budgets of EEO officers in our agencies, the better to
prosecute cases of discrimination.
Another example (again, highly controversial within the
administration) is the proposal to index capital gains taxes by
means of regulatory fiat.
The point is, executive orders provide a device for
creative, unilateral action on the part of the President. He
should make full use of that and other powers at his disposal.
* Veto strategy: If Congress decides to test the President's
promise to veto bills that exceed administration requests, we
should pounce -- not just with vetoes, but with events that
enable us to pummel the Congress at some length (and with some
thoughtfulness). We should use our Statements of Position to lay
the groundwork; write veto messages that make our points sharply
and forcefully; and let the press get a good look at them both.
*
Dramatic gestures: Put Congress on call by showing up
somewhere where inaction has exacted a toll -- Los Angeles, for
instance. Show Americans what Congressional inaction costs.
*
Congressional Reform: Run hard on the need for Congress to
reform itself -- obey the laws it imposes on everybody else;
eliminate PACS; slash staff; cut perks; clean up its own act;
etc. We have talked sporadically about this. We should push it
hard. The President, as a believer in good government, should
demand a Congress equally committed to government of, by and for
the people.
The President should link Rubber Stamp Clinton to the Rubber
Check Congress. A concerted effort to build a fire under
Congress also will build one under Clinton. We also must build a
sense of confidence, determination and motion on the part of the
President. By November, we should see a President moving rapidly
forward with the makings of a second-term agenda, while Clinton's
standing still, calling George Bush names.
C) The economy: The key here is not to get too cute or too
technical, but to engage in broad strokes that a) capture the
public imagination; b) put the Democrats on the defensive; c)
promise real results that people can understand; and d) shows a
real commitment to action.
It is not enough to cite the State of the Union short- and
long-term plans, or the March 20 challenge or any of the other
stuff. We must define our stand and fight hard for it. People
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
won't take us seriously until we define our principles and wage a
hard fight for them.
D) Foreign policy
This divides into two areas: the economy and security.
1) The economy
The President must continue making the case for NAFTA and
GATT, in terms people understand. We believe in free trade
because we believe in the power of imagination and the strength
of the American worker. We know we can outwork, outcompete and
outproduce anybody. In pushing for free trade, the President
wants to create good jobs for American workers (we can cite wage
differentials for export-based manufacturing, the growing power
of our export industries, and the fact that most of our export
"base" consists of high-tech industries with incredible
applications in the developing world) while also placing the best
the world has to offer at the fingertips of American consumers.
Trade, fair and free, enables us to make the most of ourselves,
and enjoy the benefits of trade with other nations.
*
Dramatize benefits: Visit some site that now offers good
jobs because of increased free trade with Mexico.
* Dramatize NAFTA innovations: Visit the Tijuana/San Diego
wastewater treatment facility that Congress won't fund, and point
out that this Congress won't help us address environmental issues
or promote international enviro cooperation.
*
Dramatize the Clinton Campaign's Imagination Deficit:
Clinton has adopted the cramped, fearful attitude of the
protectionist who cannot cope with change and does not understand
that we have entered the age of the microchip. This new world,
created by free trade and free markets, beckons with incredibly
rich opportunities. It will challenge our imaginations and
reward those who do and dream. Clinton meanwhile wants to climb
into a bunker with a batch of professors and chart the Best
Course for Americans to follow. Meanwhile, our entrepreneurs
will set off another revolution in business.
2) Security
George Bush understands the challenges of international
security. Bill Clinton does not. At best, Clinton acts like a
Bush wannabe when it comes to security policy. But in times of
crisis, who you gonna call?
* We may want to dramatize the President's achievements with
a simple act: Abolish peacetime draft registration. The Cold
War's over. I know DOD has put the kibosh on this suggestion,
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
but it has the right kind of drama and appeal. It enables the
President to take full credit for managing change in a
treacherous time. At the same time, he could stress the
importance of continuing preparedness by stressing the importance
of retaining a highly trained and qualified military.
E) Values: We should run this as much as a sub-theme as a
theme. For instance, our proposals all rely on several key
values:
1) We trust the people: We have asked the American
people which candidate they trust, but that's only half the
equation. We also should ask: Who trusts you? We must invite
citizens to play active roles in forging America's future.
Create a movement, full of idealism and excitement -- or at least
try to. When we say: Trust me, and let me manage this government
efficiently, they yawn and become cynical. We must renew
Americans' faith in themselves by putting the people at the
center of our campaign -- and letting the President ride the tide
of public idealism and enthusiasm.
2) We share your goals and values: We believe in
rewarding hard work and punishing bad behavior. We believe in
letting parents make the crucial decisions -- about schools,
child care, health care, etc. Our 10 percent check-off proposal
lets people raise their own voices in opposition to government
spending. We don't want more bureaucracy, we want less. We
believe in the institutions that foster and protect values:
family, home, community, church, school, country.
3) We speak your language: The Democrats, for all
their posturing, have engaged in Newspeak. For them, the family
ranges from the Cleaver family to any batch of people who share
the stage on the Donahue show. They use familiar words -- but in
weird and unfamiliar ways. We should point that out, repeatedly.
4) We want government off your backs -- and in your
hands. A folksy way of talking empowerment.
II) KEEP CLINTON ON THE DEFENSIVE:
A) Overview:
The Clinton/Gore ticket runs on high-octane vanity. Like
Jimmy Carter, Clinton sports a huge messianic streak, and he
cannot resist the temptation to engage in gratuitous moral
lectures. That's why he started ranting about his wife and God
after the Republican convention. A close study of his speeches
over the past year reveals a man who wants not only to be
President, but also sees himself as a kind of secular Boy Gandhi
-- jogger, intellectual raconteur, healer, sax man and world
leader.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
If we want to destroy Clinton, we should not attack him in
anger. We should patronize him as someone who vaguely
understands the changes in the world, but can't break away from
that old-time Democratic liberalism.
If we can make the American people laugh in a good-humored
sort of way at Clinton and Gore, the Democratic team will go
nuts. They will get whiny, nasty, moralistic and screechy. They
will self-destruct.
We should expose their faults patiently, ratcheting up the
pressure for them to define what their gauzy platform means.
Does Al Gore really believe all that woozy stuff in his book?
Does Bill Clinton really believe in a 40 mpg CAFE standard? Do
they really intend to tell Reagan Democrats that they will make
abortion a litmus-test issue for court candidates? Do they
seriously believe that anyone wants to pay another $150 billion
in taxes? And don't they understand that their "new" ideas were
moldy 20 years ago? We must develop a strategy for squeezing
them tighter and tighter -- until they race forth and destroy
themselves.
* As part of our surrogate operation, assemble a Republican
truth squad, and debunk Clinton at every stop. Rent a van to
follow him. Make sure we have the communications apparatus to
turn things around quickly. Do not be snotty, as we have been
wont to do. Be serious. Let our manner contrast with Clinton's
rather over-optimistic and overbearing hoards. If we play it
right, we can transform the glib and effective Carville (in the
minds of the public) into a puerile bore who can't look someone
straight in the eye.
* Work the press: Many in the press have a sinking feeling
that they've been taken in by the Clinton team. There's a great
willingness to entertain tough stories against Clinton, provided
we don't package them as rants. Mary Matalin has been right to
go after Clinton at every turn, but tone counts, and our tone has
made us sound bitchy and frightened, rather than confident and
determined to set things straight.
* Work the public by taking on the press deftly. The press
has truly served Clinton's cause. We should document the double
standards to the hilt, and then ask -- again, in tones of sweet
reason -- for some basic fairness. That will appeal to a public
that has no respect for the media. It also will gnaw at the
consciences of editors everywhere with the possible exception of
the Washington Post.
Whatever their faults, newspaper editors do try to be fair
and they take pride in holding no person sacred. Effective press
bashing works, mainly because most reporters and editors have
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
incredibly thin skins. We might want to draw on the stuff Brent
Bozell & Co. do. It's pretty accurate -- and increasing numbers
of reporters will admit it.
B) Issues:
1) The economy: Clinton promotes the kind of industrial
policy that wrecked Massachusetts in the Dukakis era, and has
hamstrung Japan more recently.
The New Covenant isn't new and it isn't a covenant. The
only thing new is the math. From a policy standpoint, it's the
same old tax-spend-and-issue-orders government. It's old whine,
repackaged: a monstrous tax increase; draconian regulations;
economic isolationism; declinism founded upon falsehood.
We should lay out the costs, flaws and intellectual
shabbiness of the enterprise, firmly and seriously. Let
surrogates to do the heavy mocking.
2) Values/Foreign policy
You know what to do with these.
3) Race
A surprise issue. Clinton wants to pose as the great
healer. He understands that this appeals to a great many
Americans of all backgrounds. But George Bush was working to
advance racial harmony before Bill Clinton was even born.
If we appeal to black voters, Clinton's Moral Superiority
alarms will begin to wail. He will rant about our divisiveness,
and he will talk sanctimoniously about his own contributions to
the cause of racial harmony. He will go too far, and we will be
able to win the issue through sweet reason and calm perseverance.
The President should appeal for black votes not by pandering, but
by talking about meat-and-potatoes Republican issues: school
choice, HOPE, tough anti-crime laws, enterprize zones,
deregulation, civil rights enforcement without quotas, etc. When
the Crips and Bloods go out and endorse school choice and welfare
reform, you know the tide has turned -- our way.
From a political point of view, this is crucial: Democrats
lean heavily upon the crutch of moral superiority. A good run
for the black vote will prompt crippling crises of the Democratic
Soul. It won't net us a vast amount of votes now, but it could
create the basis for great improvement in years to come -- and
greatly strengthen us in the Midwest and Northeast.
III) America in 1996
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
9
A) Overview
We must paint a detailed picture of the America George Bush
wants to deliver. This, more than anything else, will serve as
the Vision Thing. This picture should not focus on Washington,
with its bills and legislation and deals, but on families sitting
around the kitchen table.
The picture would look something like this: America in four
years will enjoy lower tax rates, and more robust economic
growth. People who want a good job will be able to find them,
and people who want to upgrade their skills will have a chance to
learn new trades.
Parents will have freedom to make all the important
decisions: schools, child care, health care, etc. -- without
having some bureaucrat bark out orders. The schools will offer
better educations, and our children will do at least as well as
the kids in other nations in all basic areas -- math, science,
humanities, language skills.
Our inner cities will come back to life, not because we have
flooded them with federal dollars, but because investors have
flooded them voluntarily with their own investments. Home
ownership can become an reality for every working American. Our
welfare system will help those who cannot help themselves, and it
no longer will punish poor people who work hard and save and try
to get ahead.
We will remain the world's leader in manufacturing, in
exporting, in innovation, and in economic growth.
We will remain the world's sole superpower, and we will lead
the Freedom Revolution forward, so that nations still
impoverished by tyranny and despotism will enjoy the chance to
thrive in an atmosphere of freedom.
We will heal the wounds in our own society, so Americans of
different colors and backgrounds no longer will look upon one
another with suspicion; cross the street to avoid one another, or
engage in games of taunting and baiting. Our children will look
upon each other as -- children, and not Black children and White
children and Asian children. As Teddy Roosevelt said: No more
hyphenated Americans!
The America four years from now will build upon the growth
of the 1980s and early 1990s, and push us forward to new
confidence, greatness, optimism and opportunity.
*
We should illustrate the future by visiting places that
have pioneered the innovations we support. We can make school
choice tangible by visiting choice schools and explaining the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
10
concept. We can give a hint of what HOPE might achieve by
visiting inner city sites where foundations have made it possible
for the poor to own apartments and homes. We can visit religious
child care centers that might not exist were it not for our child
care plans, etc. People must be able to envision George Bush's
America -- and they must be able to draw a contrast between that
bright and optimistic America and the oppressive, high-tax,
moralistic and malaise riddled America of Bill Clinton.
B) Concerns
We must be careful not to make the President the point man
on too many anti-Democrat assaults. God created surrogates for
that task. Our man must do everything he can to remain larger
than the opposition, and when possible to deflate them with the
most ruthless weapon of all, gentle humor. Let him kill them
with gentle kindness. When they become especially mendacious,
let him show the firm anger of an adult -- and not the sneering
retort of an enraged peer.
George Bush is a larger man than the sanctimonious Clinton
and the over-earnest Gore. Let the President separate himself
from the Pander Twins through his actions. He should show humor,
confidence, and a sense of ease in leadership -- not anger,
frenzy or desperation. He should lay off the "Elvis Economics"
stuff. It's tinny, and it isn't him. If we get personal, we
compromise his greatest strength, his character. We also
strengthen the public fear that George Bush becomes the evil twin
Skippy during campaigns.
Presidential elections almost invariably boil down to
referendums on a person -- on his character, experience, values
and views. George Bush remains an enigma to most Americans. We
need to make him larger than life, by having him lead a
determined movement to restore momentum and integrity to
government. He can do it, but only if he acts, and if his
actions fit a real pattern of personal commitment and leadership.
If he can do these things, and pass the twin tests of credibility
and consistency, he can win big -- and provide coattails for
Republican hopefuls ten weeks from now.
#
#
#
#
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
AUGUST 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT ZOELLICK
DORRANCE SMITH
MARLIN FITZWATER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
CAMPAIGN THEMES, STRATEGIES
We have ridden the crest of our convention "bump": Now comes
time to give people a reason to vote Republican at all levels.
Strategically, this entails three goals:
First: Build on our themes: We have identified important
themes: 1) Get America moving again, with a President who guided
us through the most dramatic transition the modern world has
seen; 2) Elect a President you can trust; 3) Boot out the old-
thinking, tax-and-spend, bureaucratic, managerial- state
Democrats and inaugurate an era of innovation with a Republican
Congress.
These themes place the President on a promontory
inaccessible to Clinton, and that's crucial. We must make this
an election about History, knowing that only George Bush can
answer history's call.
Second: Keep Clinton on the Defensive. The governor has
proved inept in responding to hot fire since our convention --
testy, sanctimonious, unfocused. We should keep him off balance.
Third: Paint a picture of America four years from now.
Americans feel apprehensive about the future; they want action;
and they feel nostalgia for old American values. They also want
to know who George Bush is and what he believes. They remain
inclined to trust and respect him more than they trust and
respect Clinton.
This memo offers a strategy for achieving these objectives
without forcing George Bush to become an election-year Mr. Hyde.
I) BUILD ON OUR THEMES
A) Overview
Our rhetoric has become sharp -- and weightless. On the
economy, we have said that we will cut taxes -- without saying
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
which taxes, how much we'll and how it will effect the average
working American. On spending, the same -- we have not said what
programs, how much we'll cut, or what priorities we have set. We
have said: Wait until after the election. That means: Wait until
we can negotiate with Congress. And for many Americans that
means: Oh, no -- here comes the Budget Summit again.
No amount of rhetoric will calm the widespread fear that we
don't believe in anything and don't really mean to do anything.
We must flesh out our basic proposals and act on them.
B) Congress
If we want to deride the do-nothing Congress, we must do
several things.
First, assemble a comprehensive list of administration
initiatives that have gotten spiked on the Hill. Darman knows
more about this stuff than anybody else: He has the facts and
figures. Once we have assembled the list, we should figure out a
way to tally the opportunity costs. What, for instance, has
Congress' inaction on the State of the Union growth plan cost
American workers in terms of jobs, new homes, earnings, savings,
etc.? Four years of inaction add up to an awesome sum. We
should be able to attach a dollar figure or a job figure to
Congressional inaction. We also must stand ready to defend our
calculations: No funny business. And we should use the tally
sheet as a hardy perennial in speeches, surrogate speeches, etc.
Second, stop sending conflicting signals. Our "wait until
next year" approach on taxes and spending boils down to a "we'll
work it out with Congress" pledge -- which utterly muddles our
Give 'em Hell rhetoric.
Third, take action. Consider some options:
* Veto the legislative branch appropriation and hold it
hostage for a growth package. We must insist on something big
and dramatic, something that creates a who-blinks-first challenge
to Mitchell, Foley, Gephardt and Clinton-Gore. The confrontation
must crystallize the differences between a conservative
Republican president and a liberal Democratic Congress, and do so
with such high drama that no one can muddle the lines. That kind
of stand-off can galvanize our constituents and persuade Reagan
Democrats that we're for real.
* Call a special session on the economy: Dicey, and truly
Trumanesque. This would serve the same purpose as the
legislative branch appropriation veto. Indeed, we could do the
two in tandem. The point: Make Democratic leadership squirm.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
*
Rescissions: Submit new packages of rescissions every
week, and take up House Republicans on their offer to demand a
vote for each and every one. Don't hesitate to take after
Republican pork: We should make it clear that when it comes to
pork, we'll serve as an equal opportunity butcher.
* Reprogram funds: Where possible, reprogram funds in order
to bolster pilot initiatives or help out programs that really can
produce results. I don't have any specific suggestions here, but
we should have enough latitude in reprogramming to dramatize our
commitment to action -- and Congress' determination to rest easy.
* Recess appointments: Congress continues holding good
people hostage. The President could unleash a raft of recess
appointments, and blast Congress for its refusal to fill crucial
government positions.
* New initiatives: The taxing and spending stuff clearly
would fall into this category. If we want to get truly radical,
the President could call for a flat tax, with only crucial
deductions (home mortgages, health care, pensions, vouchers,
etc.) remaining.
* Executive orders: The President could do all sorts of
stuff through executive order. We should identify priorities and
ask the Office of Legal Counsel to come up with alternatives.
One official (not in OLC) has recommended, for example, that
we take Boyden Gray's proposal to eliminate quotas in the federal
government and twin that with an announcement that we plan to
double the budgets of EEO officers in our agencies, the better to
prosecute cases of discrimination.
Executive orders provide a device for creative, unilateral
action on the part of the President. He should make full use of
that and other powers at his disposal.
* Veto strategy: If Congress decides to test the President's
promise to veto bills that exceed administration requests, we
should pounce -- not just with vetoes, but with events that
enable us to pummel the Congress at some length (and with some
thoughtfulness). We should use our Statements of Position to lay
the groundwork; write veto messages that make our points sharply
and forcefully; and let the press get a good look at them both.
* Dramatic gestures: Put Congress on call by showing up
somewhere where inaction has exacted a toll -- Los Angeles, for
instance. Show Americans what Congressional inaction costs.
* Congressional Reform: Run hard on the need for Congress to
reform itself -- obey the laws it imposes on everybody else;
eliminate PACS; slash staff; cut perks; clean up its own act;
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
etc. The President, as a believer in good government, should
demand a Congress committed to government of, by and for the
people.
The President should link Rubber Stamp Clinton to the Rubber
Check Congress. A concerted effort to build a fire under
Congress will heat up Clinton as well. By way of contrast, we
should build a sense of confidence, determination and motion on
the part of the President. By November, we should see George
Bush moving rapidly forward with the his second-term agenda,
leaving Clinton behind -- calling George Bush names.
C) The economy: The key here is not to get too cute or too
technical, but to engage in broad strokes that a) capture the
public imagination; b) put the Democrats on the defensive; c)
promise real results that people can understand; and d) show a
real commitment to action.
It is not enough to cite the State of the Union short- and
long-term plans, the March 20 challenge or any of the other
stuff. We must define our stand and fight hard for it. People
won't take us seriously until we define our principles and wage a
hard fight for them.
D) Foreign policy: I don't need to tell you about this. The
keys are to highlight Clinton's conviction gap on trade and his
imagination gap on security. At best, he's a George Bush
wannabe. At worst, he's a pawn for the trade unions and
Democratic interest lobbies.
The President should seek ways to call greater attention to
his own accomplishments.
*
We may want to dramatize the President's achievements with
a simple act: Abolish peacetime draft registration. The Cold
War's over. I know DoD has put the kibosh on this suggestion,
but it has the right kind of drama and appeal. It enables the
President to take full credit for managing change in a
treacherous time. At the same time, he could stress the
importance of continuing preparedness by stressing the importance
of retaining a highly trained and qualified military.
We may want to find some way to honor servicemen and women
who have been demobilized, and at the same time illustrate our
own commitment to retraining, etc. by opening up a new center for
job training. I'm a little uncomfortable about the idea: I'm
just searching for ways to dramatize our own achievements in
transforming the world -- and preparing for the new world that
has begun taking form.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
E) Values: We should run this as much as a sub-theme as a
theme. For instance, our proposals all rely on several key
values:
1) We trust the people: We have asked the American
people which candidate they trust, but that's only half the
equation. We also should ask: Who trusts you? That enables us
to create a movement, full of idealism and excitement. We talk
too much about ourselves and not enough about the people -- in
whose reflected glory we should bask.
When we promote choice, we say we believe in our people.
Our 10 percent check-off proposal does the same thing by letting
people cut government spending.
2) We share your values: We don't want more
bureaucracy, but less. We believe in the institutions that
foster values: family, home, community, church, school, country.
3) We speak your language: The Democrats, for all
their posturing, have engaged in Newspeak. For them, the family
ranges from the Cleaver family to any batch of people who share
the stage on the Donahue show. They use familiar words -- but in
weird and unfamiliar ways.
4) We want government off your backs -- and in your
hands. A folksy way of talking empowerment.
II) KEEP CLINTON ON THE DEFENSIVE:
A) Overview:
The Clinton/Gore ticket runs on high-octane vanity. Like
Jimmy Carter, Clinton sports a huge messianic streak, and he
cannot resist the temptation to engage in gratuitous moral
lectures. That's why he started ranting about his wife and God
after the Republican convention. A close study of his speeches
over the past year reveals a man who wants not only to be
President, but also sees himself as a kind of secular Boy Gandhi
-- jogger, intellectual raconteur, healer, sax man and world
leader.
If we want to destroy Clinton, we should not attack him in
anger. We should patronize him as someone who vaguely
understands the changes in the world, but can't break away from
that old-time Democratic liberalism.
If we can make the American people laugh in a good-humored
sort of way at Clinton and Gore, the Democratic team will go
nuts. They will get whiny, nasty, moralistic and screechy. They
will self-destruct.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
retains a good reputation, largely because he was working to
advance racial harmony before Bill Clinton was even born.
The President should appeal for black votes not by
pandering, but by talking about meat-and-potatoes Republican
issues: school choice, HOPE, tough anti-crime laws, enterprize
zones, deregulation, civil rights enforcement without quotas,
etc. When the Crips and Bloods go out and endorse school choice
and welfare reform, you know the tide has turned -- our way. If
we appeal to black voters, Clinton's Moral Superiority alarms
will begin to wail. He will rant about our divisiveness. He
will talk sanctimoniously about his own contributions to the
cause of racial harmony. He will go too far, and we will be able
to win the issue through sweet reason and calm perseverance.
A good run for the black vote won't net us a vast amount of
votes now, but it could create the basis for great improvement in
years to come -- and greatly strengthen us in the Midwest and
Northeast.
III) America in 1996
A) Overview
We must paint a detailed picture of the America George Bush
wants to deliver. This, more than anything else, will serve as
the Vision Thing.
The picture would look something like this: You will pay
less in federal, state and local taxes. We will push Tax Freedom
Day from May 5 to
People who want a good job will be able to find them, and
people who want to upgrade their skills will have a chance to
learn new trades.
Parents will have freedom to make all the important
decisions: schools, child care, health care, etc. -- without
having some bureaucrat bark out orders. The schools will offer
better educations, and our children will excel in math, science,
humanities, and language skills. We hope it will add to the
diversity of our educational system, too -- adding new and
innovative schools.
Our inner cities will come back to life, because investors
have flooded them voluntarily with investments. We want to
create XX million new jobs in our inner cities.
Home ownership can become an reality for every working
American. Our welfare system will help those who cannot help
themselves, and it no longer will punish poor people who work
hard and save and try to get ahead.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
We will remain the world's leader in manufacturing, in
exporting, innovation, and economic growth. We want our export
business to grow XX percent. We want patents to increase by XX
percent. We will cut the capital gains tax, and aim at an
explosion in new businesses -- come up with a good number. We
will push for new home construction, and put a home within the
reach of every working family -- get estimates on home
construction numbers from State of the Union proposals.
We will keep inflation low, and interest rates low.
We will heal the wounds in our own society, so Americans of
different colors and backgrounds no longer will look upon one
another with suspicion; cross the street to avoid one another, or
engage in games of taunting and baiting. Our children will look
upon each other as -- children, and not Black children and White
children and Asian children. As Teddy Roosevelt said: No more
hyphenated Americans!
* We should illustrate the future by visiting places that
have pioneered the innovations we support. Invite people to
compare and contrast to Clinton's plans for nationalizing
everything from economic planning to vocational high schools.
B) Concerns
We should not make the President the point man on too many
anti-Democrat assaults. God created surrogates for that task.
George Bush is a larger man than the sanctimonious Clinton
and the over-earnest Gore. He should show humor, confidence, and
a sense of ease in leadership -- not anger, frenzy or
desperation. He should lay off the "Elvis Economics" stuff.
It's tinny, and it isn't him. If we get personal, we compromise
his greatest strength, his character. We also strengthen the
public fear that George Bush becomes the evil twin Skippy during
campaigns.
George Bush remains an enigma to most Americans. We need to
make him larger than life by having him lead a determined
movement to restore momentum and integrity to government and
imparting direction to a nation unsure about where it's headed.
He can do it, but only if he acts, and if his actions fit a real
pattern of personal commitment and leadership. If he can do
these things, and pass the twin tests of credibility and
consistency, he can win big -- and provide coattails for
Republican hopefuls ten weeks from now.
#
#
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
AUGUST 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT ZOELLICK
MARGARET TUTWILER
DENNIS ROSS
DORRANCE SMITH
MARLIN FITZWATER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
CAMPAIGN THEMES, STRATEGIES
We have ridden the crest of our convention "bump": Now comes
time to give people a reason to vote Republican at all levels.
Strategically, this entails three goals:
First: Build on our themes: We have identified important
themes: 1) Get America moving again, with a President who guided
us through the most dramatic transition the modern world has
seen; 2) Elect a President you can trust; 3) Boot out the old-
thinking, tax-and-spend, bureaucratic, managerial- state
Democrats and inaugurate an era of innovation with a Republican
Congress.
These themes place the President on a promontory
inaccessible to Clinton, and that's crucial. If we can make this
an election about History, we win because only George Bush can
answer history's call.
Second: Keep Clinton on the Defensive. The governor has
proved inept in responding to hot fire since our convention --
testy, sanctimonious, unfocused. We should keep him off balance.
Third: Paint a picture of America four years from now.
Americans feel apprehensive about the future; they want action;
and they feel nostalgia for old American values. They also want
to know who George Bush is and what he believes. They remain
inclined to trust and respect him more than they trust and
respect Clinton.
This memo offers a strategy for achieving these objectives
without forcing George Bush to become an election-year Mr. Hyde.
I) BUILD ON OUR THEMES
A) Overview
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
Our rhetoric has become sharp -- and weightless. On the
economy, we have said that we will cut taxes -- without saying
which taxes, how much we'll and how it will effect the average
working American. On spending, the same -- we have not said what
programs, how much we'll cut, or what priorities we have set. We
have said: Wait until after the election. That means: Wait until
we can negotiate with Congress. And for many Americans that
means: Oh, no -- here comes the Budget Summit again.
This approach deprives us of a crucial line of attack
against Clinton -- his own vagueness about his cuts and taxes.
At any rate, no amount of rhetoric will calm the widespread fear
that we don't believe in anything and don't really mean to do
anything. We must flesh out our basic proposals and act on them.
B) Congress
If we want to deride the do-nothing Congress, we must do
several things.
First, assemble a comprehensive list of administration
initiatives that have gotten spiked on the Hill. Darman knows
more about this stuff than anybody else: He has the facts and
figures. Once we have assembled the list, we should figure out a
way to tally the opportunity costs. What, for instance, has
Congress' inaction on the State of the Union growth plan cost
American workers in terms of jobs, new homes, earnings, savings,
etc.? Four years of inaction add up to an awesome sum. We
should be able to attach a dollar figure or a job figure to
Congressional inaction. We also must stand ready to defend our
calculations: No funny business. And we should use the tally
sheet as a hardy perennial in speeches, surrogate speeches, etc.
Second, stop sending conflicting signals. Our "wait until
next year" approach on taxes and spending boils down to a "we'll
work it out with Congress" pledge -- which utterly muddles our
Give 'em Hell rhetoric.
Third, take action -- but do not do so abruptly. We should
set up actions through speeches and public appearances, so that
presidential initiatives meet the crucial tests of continuity and
credibility. Otherwise, it will look as if a desperate President
has resorted to election-year gimmicks.
Consider some options:
*
Veto the legislative branch appropriation and hold it
hostage for a growth package. We must insist on something big
and dramatic, something that creates a who-blinks-first challenge
to Mitchell, Foley, Gephardt and Clinton-Gore. The confrontation
must crystallize the differences between a conservative
Republican president and a liberal Democratic Congress, and do so
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
with such high drama that no one can muddle the lines. That kind
of stand-off can galvanize our constituents and persuade Reagan
Democrats that we're for real.
*
Call a special session on the economy: Dicey, and truly
Trumanesque. This would serve the same purpose as the
legislative branch appropriation veto. Indeed, we could do the
two in tandem. The point: Make Democratic leadership squirm.
*
Rescissions: Submit new packages of rescissions every
week, and take up House Republicans on their offer to demand a
vote for each and every one. Don't hesitate to take after
Republican pork: We should make it clear that when it comes to
pork, we'll serve as an equal opportunity butcher.
* Reprogram funds: Where possible, reprogram funds in order
to bolster pilot initiatives or help out programs that really can
produce results. I don't have any specific suggestions here, but
we should have enough latitude in reprogramming to dramatize our
commitment to action -- and Congress' determination to rest easy.
*
Recess appointments: Congress continues holding good
people hostage. The President could unleash a raft of recess
appointments, and blast Congress for its refusal to fill crucial
government positions.
*
New initiatives: The taxing and spending stuff clearly
would fall into this category. If we want to get truly radical,
the President could call for a flat tax, with only crucial
deductions (home mortgages, health care, pensions, vouchers,
etc.) remaining.
*
Executive orders: The President could do all sorts of
stuff through executive order. We should identify priorities and
ask the Office of Legal Counsel to come up with alternatives.
One official (not in OLC) has recommended, for example, that
we take Boyden Gray's proposal to eliminate quotas in the federal
government and twin that with an announcement that we plan to
double the budgets of EEO officers in our agencies, the better to
prosecute cases of discrimination.
Executive orders provide a device for creative, unilateral
action on the part of the President. He should make full use of
that and other powers at his disposal.
* Veto strategy: If Congress decides to test the President's
promise to veto bills that exceed administration requests, we
should pounce -- not just with vetoes, but with events that
enable us to pummel the Congress at some length (and with some
thoughtfulness). We should use our Statements of Position to lay
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
the groundwork; write veto messages that make our points sharply
and forcefully; and let the press get a good look at them both.
* Dramatic gestures: Put Congress on call by showing up
somewhere where inaction has exacted a toll -- Los Angeles, for
instance. Show Americans what Congressional inaction costs.
* Congressional Reform: Run hard on the need for Congress to
reform itself -- obey the laws it imposes on everybody else;
eliminate PACS; slash staff; cut perks; clean up its own act;
etc. The President, as a believer in good government, should
demand a Congress committed to government of, by and for the
people.
The President should link Rubber Stamp Clinton to the Rubber
Check Congress. A concerted effort to build a fire under
Congress will heat up Clinton as well. By November, we should
see George Bush moving rapidly forward with the his second-term
agenda, leaving Clinton behind -- calling George Bush names.
C) The economy: The key here is not to get too cute or too
technical, but to a) capture the public imagination; b) put the
Democrats on the defensive; c) promise real results that people
can understand; and d) show a real commitment to action.
It is not enough to cite the State of the Union short- and
long-term plans, the March 20 challenge or any of the other
stuff. We must define our stand, explain what it means for
working Americans, and fight hard for it.
D) Foreign policy: I don't need to tell you about this. The
keys are to highlight Clinton's conviction gap on trade and his
imagination gap on security. At best, he's a George Bush
wannabe. At worst, he's a pawn for the trade unions and
Democratic interest lobbies.
The President should seek ways to call greater attention to
his own accomplishments.
* We may want to dramatize the President's achievements with
a simple act: Abolish peacetime draft registration. The Cold
War's over. I know DoD has put the kibosh on this suggestion,
but it has the right kind of drama and appeal. It enables the
President to take full credit for managing change in a
treacherous time. At the same time, he could stress the
importance of continuing preparedness by stressing the importance
of retaining a highly trained and qualified military.
*
We may want to find some way to honor servicemen and women
who have been demobilized, and at the same time illustrate our
own commitment to retraining, etc. by opening up a new center for
job training. I'm a little uncomfortable about the idea: I'm
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
just searching for ways to dramatize our own achievements in
transforming the world -- and preparing for the new world that
has begun taking form.
E) Values: We should run this as much as a sub-theme as a
theme. For instance, our proposals all rely on several key
values:
1) We trust the people: We have asked the American
people which candidate they trust, but that's only half the
equation. We also should ask: Who trusts you? That enables us
to create a movement, full of idealism and excitement. We talk
too much about ourselves and not enough about the people -- in
whose reflected glory we should bask.
When we promote choice, we say we believe in our people.
Our 10 percent check-off proposal does the same thing by letting
people cut government spending.
2) We share your values: We don't want more
bureaucracy, but less. We believe in the institutions that
foster values: family, home, community, church, school, country.
3) We speak your language: The Democrats, for all
their posturing, have engaged in Newspeak. For them, the family
ranges from the Cleaver family to any batch of people who share
the stage on the Donahue show. They use familiar words -- but in
weird and unfamiliar ways.
4) We want government off your backs -- and in your
hands. A folksy way of talking empowerment. Here's a good way
to talk about family values without sounding preachy. Government
control strips the family of its dignity and authority. When
schools can dispense condoms against parents' wishes, something's
wrong. Initiatives on everything from choice to welfare reform
restore family authority, and enable families to function without
fear of interference or contradiction from the state.
II) KEEP CLINTON ON THE DEFENSIVE:
A) Overview:
The Clinton/Gore ticket runs on high-octane vanity. Like
Jimmy Carter, Clinton sports a huge messianic streak, and he
cannot resist the temptation to engage in gratuitous moral
lectures. A close study of his speeches over the past year
reveals a man who wants not only to be President, but also sees
himself as a kind of renaissance titan -- jogger, intellectual
raconteur, healer, sax man and world leader.
If we want to destroy Clinton, we should not attack him in
anger. We should patronize him as someone who vaguely
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
understands the changes in the world, but can't break away from
that old-time Democratic liberalism.
If we can make the American people chuckle about Clinton and
Gore, the Democratic team will go nuts. They will get whiny,
nasty, moralistic and screechy. They will self-destruct.
We should expose their faults patiently, ratcheting up the
pressure for them to define what their gauzy platform means.
Does Al Gore really believe all that woozy stuff in his book?
Does Bill Clinton really believe in a 40 mpg CAFE standard? Do
they really intend to tell Reagan Democrats that they will make
abortion a litmus-test issue for court candidates? Do they
seriously believe that anyone wants to pay another $150 billion
in taxes? And don't they understand that their "new" ideas were
moldy 20 years ago? We must develop a strategy for squeezing
them tighter and tighter -- until they race forth and destroy
themselves.
*
As part of our surrogate operation, assemble a Republican
truth squad, and debunk Clinton at every stop. Rent a van to
follow him. Make sure we have the communications apparatus to
turn things around quickly. Do not be snotty, as we have been
wont to do. Be serious. Let our manner contrast with Clinton's
rather over-optimistic and overbearing hoards. If we play it
right, we can transform the glib and effective Carville (in the
minds of the public) into a puerile bore who can't look someone
straight in the eye.
*
Work the press: Many in the press have a sinking feeling
that they've been taken in by the Clinton team. There's a great
willingness to entertain tough stories against Clinton, provided
we don't package them as rants. Mary Matalin has been right to
go after Clinton at every turn, but tone counts, and our tone has
made us sound bitchy and frightened, rather than confident and
determined to set things straight.
*
Work the public by taking on the press deftly. The press
has truly served Clinton's cause. We should document the double
standards to the hilt, and then ask -- again, in tones of sweet
reason -- for some basic fairness. That will appeal to a public
that has no respect for the media. It also will gnaw at the
consciences of editors everywhere with the possible exception of
the Washington Post.
Whatever their faults, newspaper editors do try to be fair
and they take pride in holding no person sacred. Effective press
bashing works, mainly because most reporters and editors have
incredibly thin skins. We might want to draw on the stuff Brent
Bozell & Co. do. It's pretty accurate -- and increasing numbers
of reporters will admit it.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
*
Look for surprise issues. I have a favorite -- race
relations. Clinton talks the talk, but blacks still fume over
his Sister Souljah hijinks. The President meanwhile retains a
good reputation, largely because he was working to advance racial
harmony before Bill Clinton was even born.
The President should appeal for black votes not by
pandering, but by talking about meat-and-potatoes Republican
issues: school choice, HOPE, tough anti-crime laws, enterprize
zones, deregulation, civil rights enforcement without quotas,
etc. When the Crips and Bloods go out and endorse school choice
and welfare reform, you know the tide has turned -- our way. If
we appeal to black voters, Clinton's Moral Superiority alarms
will begin to wail. He will rant about our divisiveness. He
will talk sanctimoniously about his own contributions to the
cause of racial harmony. He will go too far, and we will be able
to win the issue through sweet reason and calm perseverance.
A good run for the black vote won't net us a vast amount of
votes now, but it could create the basis for great improvement in
years to come -- and greatly strengthen us in the Midwest and
Northeast.
III) America in 1996
A) Overview
We must paint a detailed picture of the America George Bush
wants to deliver. This, more than anything else, will serve as
the Vision Thing.
The picture would look something like this: You will pay
less in federal, state and local taxes.
People who want a good job will be able to find them, and
people who want to upgrade their skills will have a chance to
learn new trades.
Parents will have freedom to make all the important
decisions: schools, child care, health care, etc. -- without
having some bureaucrat bark out orders. The schools will offer
better educations, and our children will excel in math, science,
humanities, and language skills. We hope it will add to the
diversity of our educational system, too -- adding new and
innovative schools.
Our inner cities will come back to life, because investors
have flooded them voluntarily with investments.
Home ownership can become an reality for every working
American. Our welfare system will help those who cannot help
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
themselves, and it no longer will punish poor people who work
hard and save and try to get ahead.
We will remain the world's leader in manufacturing, in
exporting, innovation, and economic growth. We want our export
business to grow XX percent. We want patents to increase by XX
percent. We will cut the capital gains tax, and aim at an
explosion in new businesses -- come up with a good number. We
will push for new home construction, and put a home within the
reach of every working family -- get estimates on home
construction numbers from State of the Union proposals.
We will keep inflation low, and interest rates low.
We will heal the wounds in our own society, so Americans of
different colors and backgrounds no longer will look upon one
another with suspicion; cross the street to avoid one another, or
engage in games of taunting and baiting. Our children will look
upon each other as -- children, and not Black children and White
children and Asian children. As Teddy Roosevelt said: No more
hyphenated Americans!
* We should illustrate the future by visiting places that
have pioneered the innovations we support. Invite people to
compare and contrast to Clinton's plans for nationalizing
everything from economic planning to vocational high schools.
B) Concerns
We should not make the President the point man on too many
anti-Democrat assaults. God created surrogates for that task.
George Bush is a larger man than Clinton or Gore. He should
show humor, confidence, and ease in leadership -- not anger,
frenzy or desperation. He should lay off the "Elvis Economics"
stuff. It's tinny. It isn't him. If we get too personal, we
compromise his greatest strength, his character. We also
strengthen the public fear that George Bush becomes the evil twin
Skippy during campaigns.
George Bush remains an enigma to most Americans. We need to
make him larger than life by having him lead a determined
movement to restore momentum and integrity to government and
imparting direction to a nation unsure about where it's headed.
He can do it, but only if he acts, and if his actions fit a real
pattern of personal commitment and leadership. If he can do
these things, and pass the twin tests of credibility and
consistency, he can win big -- and provide coattails for
Republican hopefuls ten weeks from now.
#
#
#
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
AUGUST 31, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT ZOELLICK
MARGARET TUTWILER
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
10 PERCENT CHECK-OFF
Voters have warmed to the President's proposal that we let
them check a box on their federal tax returns mandating a cut
equalling 10 percent of their taxes. This proposal gives us a
great chance to sharpen the differences between the President and
Clinton, while stealing Perot's most potent theme: Take your
government back.
The check-off proposal contains the seeds of two important
differences: 1) We trust the people to make important choices,
including the choice to slash spending. This idea gives
government back to the people, with no strings attached. It
offers a real covenant, in which taxpayers -- not members of
Congress -- dictate the terms; and 2) We believe in balancing a
budget by keeping taxes low and cutting spending, not through
real spending and tax hikes and bogus spending restraints.
This idea becomes even more powerful if we link it to our
proposals to limit Congressional terms and seek genuine
Congressional reform. Whatever further actions we take to
restrain spending, cut taxes or put heat on Congress -- such as
forcing Congress to vote on a line-item veto or finding a
regulatory way of indexing capital gains -- can give this theme
added credibility and generate enthusiasm in a restive public.
It will provide the kind of bold but responsible leadership
people expect to see from George Bush.
Someone should find some way to persuade independent
committees to spend time and money hyping the idea -- "You can
cut $140 billion in unsightly fat!" --- in order to push home the
"take your government back" theme. A campaign of that sort would
WOO former Perot voters back into the fold while putting Clinton
further on the defensive.
The 10-percent check-off can help galvanize Republicans,
generate new enthusiasm among undecideds, and highlight the real
differences between the candidates and parties. It gives us a
potent weapon. We should use it.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
SEPTEMBER 1, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB ZOELLICK
MARGARET TUTWILER
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
THE CLINTON TAX INCREASES
Yesterday's faxes from the campaign brought what looks to be
an op-ed about Michael Kinsley's mendacious assault on our tax-
and-fee list. (attached) I took the liberty of rewriting the
piece a bit in order to achieve two objectives: 1) sharpen the
case against Clinton (and weed out some technicalities, such as
bill numbers, that don't matter to readers) and 2) slam the media
for its duplicity in helping the Clinton campaign.
An attached Post story hints at one of the dirty little
secrets of this year's campaign: Many reporters are getting
sheepish over the press's treatment of Clinton. Some feel used
and have begun looking for ways to balance their coverage (i.e.,
for ways to hit Clinton with tough reporting). A piece that
catches a prominent columnist red-handed will have a ripple
effect within the press -- and it has the benefit of putting us
on the offensive. Kinsley, with his reputation as a clever
debunker, has fallen hook, line and sinker for a shabby analysis
passed on by the Clinton camp.
I'd suggest finding some top campaign official, such as
Teeter, to serve as the author. That would give our
counterattack the prominence it deserves.
One caveat: David Tell has begun working on a list to expand
(maybe even double) the count of Clinton tax hikes. If that's
the case, we might want to hold a response in lieu of a splashier
roll out of a more extensive list. Either way, we should respond
to Kinsley with appropriate fire, and soon. Otherwise, his
libels will harden into received wisdom, and we will have trouble
taking advantage of our own good research.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
AUGUST 28, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT ZOELLICK
MARGARET TUTWILER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-ED OPERATION
The White House op-ed operation consists of me, with an
occasional supporting cast of fellow Media Affairs employees,
interns, and a part-time assistant (Diana Furchtgott-Roth) from
the Domestic Policy shop. I produce op-eds for national and
regional newspapers, providing some counterweight to the
overwhelming anti-Bush sentiments expressed on the nation's
opinion pages.
So far, the shop has not functioned according to any
particular plan. Most of the op-eds have come on my own
initiative, and I have made it known that I will help
administration officials and cabinet members write, rewrite
and/or place op-eds in appropriate newspapers.
Right now, we have drafts of pieces on the following topics:
Health care reform -- Gail Wilensky
Welfare reform
-- Gail Wilensky, Tommy Thompson
Defense reform
-- author TBD (Cheney?)
Clinton tactics
-- Haley Barbour (will run in NYT next
week)
Congressional reform -Vice President Quayle, for Roll Call
We also have in progress pieces on:
Clinton
-- New York Times (author TBD)
Line-item veto
-- Boyden Gray (Washington Post)
Women's issues
-- Connie Horner
Hurricane Andrew
-- author, paper TBD
In this effort, we labor under several constraints: 1) Most
newspapers, and all newspapers of consequence, have rules that
prohibit the publication of pieces by active candidates for
office, at least on overtly political topics. As a rule of
thumb, most papers will not accept political pieces from White
House, campaign or RNC officials -- although they gladly accept
pieces from former employees of all the above. When we do such
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
pieces (and I have done them for Ronald Reagan, John Sununu, and
Haley Barbour in recent weeks), it's important not to do them on
company time: I do them at home. 2) Our own bureaucracy
sometimes moves at a glacial pace: It would be helpful to get
someone at the top pushing aggressively to secure the proper
sign-offs.
As we begin to sharpen our objectives and strategic aims in
the campaign, the op-ed operation can serve as an effective
skirmishing force, serving not merely to repeat what the
President says in speeches, but to advance lines of argument that
can prove useful in the weeks to come.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
SEPTEMBER 3, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-EDS
Attached you will find all the op-eds in the pipeline:
1) Haley Barbour on the Clinton tactics -- accepted by the
New York Times
2) A response to Michael Kinsley, for the Washington Post --
someone at the campaign must agree
3) A generic Clinton piece, sent to the campaign
4) Health care, by Gail Wilensky -- final edits and placement
to go with health-care rollout
5) Line-item veto piece for the Washington Post, by Boyden
6) USA WEEKEND questionnaire.
(I've dumped the Hurricane Andrew stuff: Neither Andy Card nor
our superiors acted with any dispatch. The issue has passed.)
I'm also working on several others, which I hope to have
drafted by COB Friday:
1) A pro-Bush piece for John Sununu's signature -- solicited by
the LA Times
2) An assault on Gore's environmentalism, Sununu's signature --
The Washington Times
3) Welfare reform, by Gail Wilensky -- everything TBD
4) A series of op-eds in support of Ed Carnes' judicial
nomination. We're targeting key states, and should have
authors lined up sometime today. The pieces must be ready
no later than the first thing Tuesday morning, and we should
pitch them in advance to the important papers by COB Friday.
We're targeting The New York Times, the Washington Post,
the Philadelphia Inquirer, Atlanta Constitution, Hartford
Courant, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Arkansas Democrat, and
either the Boston Globe or the Augusta, Maine paper.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
31. Memo
[Tony Snow] to Dr. Louis Sullivan, Judith Smith, Interested
n.d.
P-5
Parties, Re: Presidential Address on Race Relations. (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Robert Anthony (Tony)
Subseries:
Subject File
Open on Expiration of PRA
WHORM Cat.:
(Document Follows)
File Location:
[Snow Memoranda 2/92 - 1/93]
By CAP
(NLGB) on 4/5/05
Date Closed:
12/28/2004
OA/ID Number:
13899-005
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0485-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
MEMORANDUM FOR DR. LOUIS SULLIVAN
JUDY SMITH
INTERESTED PARTIES
SUBJECT
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS ON RACE RELATIONS
The election clock ticks, and we have one last chance to
persuade the President to deliver a heartfelt speech on the
deteriorating state of race relations in our nation.
We face many obstacles, including the fact that the people who
pull the campaign strings have absolutely no interest in broaching
the subject. We will never win their hearty assent. At best, we
may produce a draft that they will find palatable. If so, my guess
is that they would schedule a speech at a lousy time on a busy news
day, in hopes that the speech might find a warm reception in the
specialty press (i.e., BET and black newspapers), and remain
invisible elsewhere.
Naturally, we're far more likely to get coverage if we have
something to announce, so here are a few possibilities:
1) Dust off Boyden's executive order banning quotas in the
federal government; at the same time, issue a second order that
doubles the number of EEO enforcement officers in the federal
government; also, announce plans to unveil more comprehensive anti-
discrimination legislation with harsher punishments than present
law.
2) Figure out some way to revive the civil rights commission,
which has been paralyzed by political infighting for the past
decade. Perhaps commission some studies on important stuff --
mortality rates among young black men, etc.
3)
If we want to minimize opposition from the Baker Five, we
should think of utilizing some of the themes that underlie the
Agenda for American Renewal:
a) If we want to win the peace, we must field the best team
possible. That means eliminating inequalities that beset poor
blacks, hispanics and other minorities.
b) Racial harmony fits into our destiny as a nation united not
by its optimism and vigor, but also by its commitment to openness,
tolerance and decency. For Americans, freedom remains the ultimate
value. Prejudice remains the most formidable barrier to future
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
greatness.
c) Note that George Bush alone has the personal background and
character to serve as a healer and uniting force. He won't blow
his own horn, but we can make him do it implicitly.
Finally, we need to think carefully about what kind of
audience and venue we want. If we agree to proceed, we should find
some way of wiring the event before it even goes to long-term
scheduling. My suggestion is to have Secretary Sullivan sell it
personally to the President. At the same time, we should assemble
a few key folks to support it. We'll need to identify cabinet
members and senior staff.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
SEPTEMBER 4, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR RICHARD PORTER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
SAN DIEGO SPEECH
First, and apology: I have spent the entire morning in
meetings or on projects, so the comments here will be sketchy and
the language unfocused. Nevertheless, here's a hastily rewritten
redraft:
This year Americans will choose between presidential
candidates and parties. I can't think of any better way of
framing this historical choice than by challenging you to think
about how the candidates answer one simple, crucial question: How
do you create a job?
Before I lay out our answer to the question, let me set the
scene, for this year's election really is an election about
history. In three years, America's determination, ideals,
example and people finished off the Cold War -- and sent imperial
communism to its rightful place in the dustbin of history. Now,
the old military confrontation between superpowers has given way
to a much more diverse competition for economic supremacy.
With that change comes incredible uncertainty. You know
that all too well. The peace dividend has proved a bitter
blessing for many Californians who once enjoyed secure jobs in
the defense industry. Our administration has devoted nearly 20
billion dollars to defense conversion and worker adjustment, and
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
2
we'll do more. But we have kept the important things in focus:
We know we cannot afford to weaken our defenses, for weak
defenses invite aggression and humiliation.
The United States now spends 66 billion dollars less each
year on defense that it would if the Soviet Union had remained a
threat. Yet Bill Clinton, despite his promises to the contrary,
wants to create a hollow defense force. He wants to cut another
62 billion dollars from our defense budget. Now, he may tell
you that he will protect your jobs. He may tell workers in every
other state that he will protect their jobs. But when you
propose to cut out 62 billion dollars, you mean to eliminate tens
of thousands of jobs. And once he has finished promising, the
pink slips would begin to fly.
President Bush has managed our defense transition by cutting
defense without gutting it. At the same time, he has tried to
lay the foundations for a post-Cold War economic order that will
provide jobs and opportunities for all Americans.
And that gets us back to my main question: How do you create
jobs? I want to answer it with four Cs: Congressional reform,
capital, competition and choice.
Let's begin by thinking practically: When you set out to do
any chore, the first thing you do is clear away obstacles. The
biggest obstacle in our economy's way is a government that is too
big and spends too much.
The combination of high government spending and high
deficits steals money from our dreamers and doers. It robs the
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
3
small shopkeeper of the capital he or she needs to open a second
store. It prevents the investor from finding that extra bit of
money to support the can't-miss idea. It even makes it tough for
lots of people to keep current on mortgages or car payments.
Unfortunately, Washington doesn't get it. The Democratic
Congress demands more money every year. Each time the President
has tried to restrain spending, Congressional Democrats have
cried foul. Every time our administration tries to get things
under control, they declare a budget "Dead on Arrival." Their
so-called compassion bleeds the American economy dry and socks
the worker who just wants to get ahead.
When Congress can't even get rid of special-interest payoffs
for mink reproduction research, you know things have gotten bad.
A President needs two things to keep spending under control -- a
willing Congress, and a line-item veto. We don't have either.
This year, voters should demand both.
President Bush knows that a government of the people, by the
people and for the people should do what people want. It should
live within its means -- and your means. He has proposed one way
of giving government back to the people. He wants you to have
the freedom to check a box on your taxes that says: Cut spending
by 10 percent of my tax bill. If every American taxpayer were to
check such a box, we'd save $140 billion overnight.
But other obstacles clutter our way. Our bureaucracy
generates literally hundreds of billions of dollars in
regulations that do not pass a simple test: Do their benefits
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
4
outweigh their costs? Everywhere around the world, nations have
begun tearing away the red-tape that binds their workers. We
should do the same. I am proud that the competitiveness council,
which I chair, has helped save Americans more than $20 billion
this year. We don't want to eliminate regulation: We just want
regulation to make sense.
By the same token, I think it's time we took dead aim at
nuisance lawsuits. Today, it's hard to make any normal daily
decision without worrying about a lawyer. Should I coach Little
League? I may get sued. Should I help this person in need? I
may get sued? Should I talk to my colleagues? I may get sued.
Something's wrong with this country when doctors who want to
deliver a baby first must worry about a lawyer. The lawsuit has
become a sword that divides friend from friend, neighbor from
neighbor. It threatens to turn us into a nation of combattants,
rather than a community of neighbors and friends.
When I see Bill Clinton earning the warm approval of the
trial lawyers, I shudder. I know them. And any friend of the
trial-lawyer establishment is no friend of the average American.
We need to get government off people's backs and back in
their hands. We need Republicans in control of the White House -
- and Congress.
But that's just a start. We also need to let our economy
operate according to the laws of reason and common sense, and not
the whims of elites and special interests.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
5
When you start a business, you begin with an idea, but you
also need capital. You need someone who can invest in your idea,
who will show their faith in you the old-fashioned way -- by
putting their money where their mouth is.
Our system too often punishes people who believe in other
people. We operate under Depression-era banking laws that
prevent banks from offering inventive new financial products. We
impose high taxes on capital gains -- thus punishing everyone
from the retiree who wants to sell the family home to the
investor who wants to support a good idea. And we have a
Congress that places envy ahead of enterprise.
When Bill Clinton sneers about the rich, just who does he
mean? Well, if you look at his economic plan, he means 800,000
small businesses, and every middle-class couple in the nation.
And when he wages class warfare, who does he propose to punish?
He wants to punish those who invest, those who sweat and toil and
create successful businesses. He wants to punish the little
investor and the brave entrepreneur. He wants to punish those
who risked their own wellbeing because they believed in the
American dream.
Bill Clinton's economics is an economics of envy and
division. It will make us poorer and poorer in spirit.
We must stop discouraging those who supply capital to
businesses. We should thank every investor who shows faith in
this country by getting back into the marketplace.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
6
Our administration has tried to unleash capital. Give us a
Democratic Congress, and we'll let resources flow to where they
do the most good -- and not just where they will generate the
largest campaign contribution.
Once we have capital, we move on to the next "C,"
competition. We live in an age more competitive than any in our
history. If you really want to gauge changes in the world, look
at how businesses operate these days. In my home state of
Indiana, it used to be enough for a farmer to haul in a bigger
crop than his neighbor. Then, it used to be enough to grow the
largest crop in the county, or the state.
Tdoay, Hoosier farmers switch on their computers before the
sun rises. They check out the European commodities markets
before they head out into the fields. At lunch, they return to
their computers, and check out the action in New York or Chicago.
And before they go to bed, they consult the Tokyo exchange.
We're in an international marketplace, and no protectionist
can change that. The most important commodity in our economy
these days isn't a pork belly -- or a pork-barrel giveaway from
Washington. It's information. Good information and good ideas
have reshaped the world, and they will continue to.
Whoever tries to deny competition simply makes a decision to
give up and fall behind. Bill Clinton flirts with protectionism,
while Al Gore rants about the evils of the internal combustion
engine. These are voices of failure and self-doubt. They are
voices of a failed past.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
7
We're in for competitive fights from now on, and we should
welcome the challenge. But we also need to know that quality
demands moving forward at full speed all the time. No one will
be able to take leadership for granted. Every company in every
industry will have to acquire success the old fashioned way. It
will have to earn its reputation each and every day.
Consider the computer industry. The computer revolution
began in this state 15 years ago, and already we've had five
different industry leaders. That's our future -- and as tough as
it is for business, it's good for consumers. When you go to the
store today, you have more choices than anybody has ever enjoyed.
And it's amazing.
Competition creates the next "C," choice. We live in an age
of awesome and wonderful choices. I heard a story recently about
a young woman who emigrated to the United States from the Soviet
Union. A family decided to take her to a suburban grocery store.
The first thing she saw was a long aisle with dry dog and cat
food. She broke down crying -- because dogs and cats in America
had more food and more choices than people in her Republic.
We have choices -- and we will only have more in years to
come. And we will win so long as we maintain a real commitment
to quality. If we spread the best products and encourage the
best ideas, and insist on the very best in everything we do -- we
will win.
An economy needs clear sailing, capital, competition and
choice, but it also needs one other intangible ingredient. It
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
8
needs the one ingredient that alone makes nation great, and
inspires men and women to test the limits of their own powers.
That ingredient is confidence.
Democrats see everyone as part of a vast lump that must be
perfected by planners. You and I don't view life that way. When
we grow up, we don't dream of becoming small cogs in a vast
machine, or a small entries on and vast computer scroll. We
dream of doing great things. We dream of curing cancer, or
inventing the revolutionary computer. Some may dream of winning
the Triple Crown -- like Gary Sheffield -- or like me, playing
point guard for Bobby Knight. (By the way, I prefer playing
point for George Bush.)
What's important is that the dream belongs to you. You
choose your destiny. You set your sights on the future. You
have pride in your work because it is your work -- not an order
handed down by a pipe-and-tweed professor who believes he knows
what you should be doing with your life.
The greatest difference between Republicans and Democrats is
this: Democrats have white papers and plans, full of promises
and charts and rhetoric. But they don't have faith in you. They
believe in regulation, taxation, redistribution. They believe
that government should make the important choices -- and that you
should pay.
We look at the world the other way: We appreciate the genius
of the individual inventor and the hard work of the immigrant who
comes here, opens a small shop, works, saves and creates a
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
9
business. We believe that the American dream depends upon
American dreamers -- men and women set free from the narrow
blueprints drafted by a handful of planners in a small room.
Government doesn't create jobs. It creates laws. It
creates regulations. It creates obstacles. You create jobs --
if politicians and bureaucrats will just stay out of your way.
You just need room to dream, freedom to acquire capital, the
confidence to compete, and encouragement when you succeed.
A good economic plan should do more than impress journalists
and provide additional employment for Ivy League professors. A
truly good plan must appeal to the tiny voice that whispers in
the ear of anyone who runs a business. It must ring true. It
You should be able to understand it without having to consult an
outside expert, and know that it will make your life better. In
short, it should make sense.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore have proposed a 22-page economic
plan that will raise spending by $220 billion, raise taxes by
$140 billion, theoretically cut spending by $145 billion, and
will rely on the economy to grow at a 4.5 percent clip each year.
Their plan reminds me of the old joke about two economists
who, making their way across country, suddenly encounter a vast
gorge. "Now what do we do?" asks one. "Well," says the other,
"assume a bridge."
On the spending side, Gov. Clinton proposes only two cuts -
- the elimination of a $3 million honey bee subsidy that Albert
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
10
Gore has voted three times to retain (most recently, this
spring), and $4 billion in reduced Medicare premiums.
That leaves nearly $141 billion in cuts he assumes he will
make.
He also assumes that he'll get $220 billion in new taxes,
but there's a funny thing: He doesn't tell you what tax rates he
plans to charge. He just plans to take aim at "the rich," a
group that looks a whole lot like Working America.
He assumes the United States would reap $45 billion by
taxing investments by foreign owned companies and their
subsidiaries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that
this tax would generate at most $1 billion, while threatening
businesses -- including auto plants in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky,
Tennessee and South Carolina -- nationwide.
His tax projections ignore the costs of his play-or-pay
health-care plan, which by some estimates will cost $130 billion
or more; his mandate that employers devote 1.5 percent of their
pre-tax income to worker training; and other mandates that fall
within his National Economic Plan. It takes some fancy assuming
to believe that one will set the economy into a higher orbit
after fitting entrepreneurs for a fresh set of shackles.
Even using his numbers, along with estimates of the indirect
costs of health care and worker-training mandates, it seems
likely his taxes hikes will saddle American taxpayers with at
least $400 billion in new burdens over four years.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
11
Now, I don't know about you -- but that plan just doesn't
make sense. It's not new -- it's McGovernism taken out of the
deep freeze. It won't work -- Boris Yeltsin would get hooted out
of Moscow for proposing such a thing. And it in no way addresses
the fundamental issue of how you get government off people's
back. Gov. Clinton, who has raised 128 taxes and fees in his
home state -- and has raised taxes on 58 different occasions --
talks like a young guy, but his plans look like the moldy New
Deal.
Well, Americans should tell him: No Deal. We want someone
who can contend with the future -- not someone who wants to
defend the past.
#
#
#
#
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR MARGARET TUTWILER
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
ATTACHED OP-ED
This op-ed, drafted at the President's request, responds to
a piece that appeared on yesterday's Washington Post op-ed page.
The President has seen the piece, and approves. Ditto for Marlin
and Dorrance. Please give this a read, and send along any
comments, suggestions or recommendations. I'd like to fax it to
the Post by early afternoon.
Thanks.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
SEPTEMBER 24, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
ENCLOSED OP-EDS
Persistence pays: We're beginning to enjoy some success in
getting pieces placed in the major dailies on a regular basis.
The New York Times already has accepted a Haley Barbour piece
about Clinton tactics, the Los Angeles Times plans to run a major
piece by Gov. Sununu either this Sunday or next, and we hope the
Post will accept several pieces that we're shipping their way
within the week. As the election nears, we may find it easier
than before to get our point of view on op-ed pages.
Here's one good indicator why: At an op-ed editor's
convention this week in San Francisco, editors from around the
country admitted that they were not running enough pro-
administration pieces. According to a friend at the New York
Times, some even issued an open plea for good pro-George Bush
material. Naturally, we'll do our best to make them happy.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
OCTOBER 1, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-EDS
Here's the latest:
1) The New York Times has accepted a piece written in early July
under Haley Barbour's byline, and blasting Clinton's smear
campaign against the President. (Latest copy attached). The
Times will run it this Saturday (October 3).
2) The Washington Post is looking over Boyden's opus on Iran-
Contra. The President has asked Boyden to be the signatory.
Boyden, as the lawyers say, did not refuse. I suspect the Post
will accept it, but demand that we shorten it. This will require
protracted mud-wrestling with our lawyers, but we'll get it done.
This should be a big Sunday piece.
3) National Review will run a slim version of my Devil's
Dictionary, which you have seen. The magazine should hit the
stands by Monday.
4) I'm also working after hours with Sununu on a piece that
should run soon in the L.A. Times. It sets out the positive case
for George Bush, with a few swings at Bill Clinton. We have an
outside chance of getting it in this Sunday's paper.
Also in process:
1) Boyden has signed off on a line-item veto piece that I will
pitch first to the Wall Street Journal, and then to wherever it
can make a splash. I'll probably hold on to it for a week or so.
2) NAFTA: I'm trying to finish two pieces by COB tomorrow, and
I'll let legislative affairs find "authors."
I think that's all for now
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
OCTOBER 5, 1992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
THROUGH
DORRANCE SMITH
FROM
TONY SNOW
SUBJECT
OP-EDS
I suspect you have seen these, but in case you didn't, here
are the offerings from what turned out to be a pretty good
weekend, op-ed wise. We've got lots of other pieces in the
works, and I'll send along copies when they get published.
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
a. walinsky: defense-vol. stuff
212/841-6090
two issues: privilege, etc. -- hit hard, etc.
franks, etc.: structural reform
taxpayers pay for reelection: king caucus;
12,000:1;
obey study: obey study re: Congress.
easier on W rogers
obey commission
4:
electoral immunity
POTUS gotta earn re-election
caucus: beltway interests; want to know why congress out of touch
democracy to reign in; arrogance comes from invulnerability.
people prepared to give up on constitution; some talking about
parliamentary system
tenured congress. surrender party to extremists; all we need is
democracy
some turnover in senate: free television; too expensive to fight:
40 percent of staff back in districts.
gerrymander
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
January 13, 1993
Dear Mr. President,
I hereby submit my resignation as Deputy Assistant to the
President for Media Affairs, effective on noon, January 20, 1993.
The past 22 months have been the most extraordinary of my
life, and I have you to thank. I will draft a more personal note
later, but for now I would like to thank you for the
extraordinary privilege of being able to serve you.
Very Truly Yours,
Tony Snow
Deputy Assistant to the President for Media Affairs
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF
TONY SNOW:
Career objectives:
I want the same job that everybody else in Washington wants,
jobs: and only George Will seems to have. It really combines four
Establish an opinion column at a major newspaper
Build a television career
Write books
Public speaking.
Although this sounds like routine pundit stuff, it's not.
Today's pundits do too little reporting, and therefore sound too
often like pompous windbags. I would like to spend more time out
on the road
REC'D TOO LATE TO FILE-
FILED BY BUSH LIBRARY STAFF