FROM: CitizenLink [citizenlink@family.org] DATE: Tuesday 11/14/2006 SUBJECT: Daily Update - Nov. 14: "Clearly, We Have to Work With the Democrats" Clearly, We Have to Work With the Democrats" by Gary Schneeberger, editor A special assistant to the president says George W. Bush will stick to his socially conservative guns -- even when it comes to additional nominees to the Supreme Court -- despite the GOP's loss of congressional power. A "thumpin'." That's how President Bush characterized the losses suffered by the GOP last Tuesday, when control of the House and the Senate slipped into Democratic hands for the first time in more than a decade. But it could also describe the treatment the pro-family legislative agenda has received over the past several years -- even with social conservatives in power. That's certainly the way Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson feels, saying last week that "very little that values voters care about" was accomplished in the 109th Congress. And, he added, now that liberals control every congressional committee and therefore the fate of every piece of federal legislation, the next two years may see even less in the way of policies that benefit the family. Is that a fair assessment? CitizenLink posed that question and others to Tim Goeglein, special assistant to President Bush and deputy director of the White House Office of Public Liaison, to gauge just what level of optimism is appropriate for family advocates between now and 2008. Q. You probably have seen Dr. Dobson's comments about the election. His view is that there wasn't as much done as values voters would have liked over the last couple of years -- and that was with a GOP House and Senate. What would you say to folks who are thinking, "Oh, boy, with Democrats in control of Congress, it's going to be even worse now for issues we care about"? A. I would say two things. The first is that, when you look at what happened in the 109th Congress, it's important to see the achievements. The 109th Congress will be remembered as a historic Congress in one area that is very important to American conservatives. And that is the Supreme Court. It was during the 109th Congress that the nominations of John Roberts to be the chief justice of the United States of America and Sam Alito to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court were confirmed. We see this as a fundamental -- even a foundational -- legacy of the Bush administration. Q. Is it reasonable to expect, though, with liberals in control of the Senate and its Judiciary Committee, that we're going to see nominees like Roberts and Alito again? They'd have zero chance of being confirmed, wouldn't they? A. Well, the president has made very clear that when it comes to Supreme Court justices and to nominees to the circuit and district courts, that he has a very important model in mind. He said very clearly in the 1999 campaign that (Antonin) Scalia and Clarence Thomas were those models, and I think it's clear to say now that there is a really important benchmark of character, integrity, experience and achievement that will be paramount if ever the president were to have another Supreme Court nominee. A. But it's equally important to remember that between 25 and 30 percent of all seated federal judges were nominated by George W. Bush, which is pretty extraordinary. Q. In terms of other legislative priorities, this hasn't been a really smooth year. (Top domestic policy adviser) Claude Allen left … A. But he was replaced by someone of the magnitude of Karl Zinsmeister, a conservative of great importance to the domestic-policy-making role of the White House. Q. The president's been in office now six years. What are some things that he still feels need to be accomplished? A. I think it's fair to say that in the short term there are some things that the president feels need to be done as the Congress finishes its legislative session. And that means the next few weeks are going to be busy ones. The first order of business is for this Congress to complete the work on the federal spending bills for this fiscal year, with very strong fiscal discipline. And without diminishing our capacity to fight the war on terror. That is very important to the president. Another important priority in the war on terror is for the Congress to pass the Terrorist Surveillance Act. Q. There's been a lot of talk for the necessity for bipartisanship now that the Democrats control Congress. Some social conservatives hear that word and worry nothing they care about policy-wise is going to be accomplished -- because the Democrats didn't exactly show themselves committed to bipartisanship when they were in the minority. Is there anything you can say to allay their fears? A. Here's what I would say: The president believes that one of the most important challenges facing the country is the war on terror. And that Iraq is the central front in this war. Our country now has more than 149,000 men and women who are serving bravely in that country. So whatever party we come from, as Americans, we all have a responsibility to ensure that our troops have the support and the resources they need to prevail. The president is open to new ideas in Iraq, as long as they do not involve a plan with a specific date for the withdrawal of the troops. And the president has directed the chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen. Peter Pace, to assess the strategy in Iraq, and the president's going to be open to listening to good suggestions, no matter where they come from. And that is exceedingly important. I think it's also important to remember that in the closing weeks of the campaign, the president talked at length about judges who legislate from the bench; he talked about the reaction to the New Jersey Supreme Court case regarding same-sex marriage or unions; those are issues. So is the issue of our ambassador at the U.N., John Bolton. Q. Most folks, though, say there's absolutely no chance he gets confirmed. A. Well, let me just say, the president has formally called for the confirmation of John Bolton to be the ambassador to the U.N. Now, we realize there are people on the Hill who may strongly disagree, but we're just going to have to see where this goes. Because the president believes strongly that the ambassador has done an excellent job. John Bolton has proven his critics wrong on all the charges that they have leveled against him. And I think, if we were actually to get a vote in the full Senate, he would succeed. Q. When we talked about two years ago this time, when it was a lot happier time for your party, the adjective you used to describe what we could expect in President Bush's second term was "robust." Two-part question: Do you think what we've seen the last two years has been robust, and what adjective would you use for the next two? A. I would answer on point one that this is a war presidency. And I think the president has robustly, and at every turn, made the case that the terrorist threat is the greatest threat to our national security. And when you are president during a war, you have to consistently set out -- tactically and strategically -- the way forward. And I think the president has done that. The second thing is that when we come to a government of two parties, -- clearly, we have to work with the Democrats. They control the leadership of the House and they control the leadership of the Senate. And so, unlike the last six years, it's not just Republican-to-Republican leadership. And we'll find a way to do that, because the president has a history as the governor of Texas of doing that very well. TAKE ACTION: Have a comment you'd like to make to President Bush? Send it via the easy-to-use e-mail form you'll find in our CitizenLink Action Center. If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Take Action" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action Center. Otherwise, click on this link. http://vocusgr.vocus.com/GRSPACE2/dotnet/WebPublish/controller.aspx?SiteName=FOTF&Definition=Home&XSL=Home&SV_Section=Home (Paid for by Focus on the Family Action)