When President Bush laid out his principles on a major policy initiative in the past, he often ended up signing a bill that left out key parts of what he had requested, or that compromised on basic issues.
On Wednesday, Mr. Bush announced his principles for a new immigration policy that would allow the estimated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States to apply for guest-worker status if they can find willing employers.
He also said he wants to increase the level of legal immigration, and would let those in the guest-worker program apply for legal permanent residence.
But on other major initiatives where Mr. Bush had made a grand presentation of principles, he abandoned key parts by the time he signed legislation.
He accepted an education reform bill in 2001 even though it lacked the vouchers he had demanded. He also endorsed the pending energy bill though it lacked provisions to explore for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
In 2002, on campaign finance reform, even as he was signing the bill, he said it might not be constitutional. And last year he signed a $400 billion Medicare overhaul even though conservative critics said it did nothing to enhance the long-term financial stability of the program, as Mr. Bush initially had insisted.
“The No Child Left Behind Act sort of set the template for this — it starts off with the birds and the bees and the fluffy white clouds, and by the time it’s done, you’ve got stuff that makes a French porno director look away,” said Michael McKenna, a Republican strategist.
Phil Kent, executive director of the American Immigration Control Foundation, said that has been a pattern.
“His domestic policy has been terrible because he’s watered down basic conservative Republican principles,” said Mr. Kent, who as president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation was one of those who challenged the campaign finance law in court.
Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said the president in each case worked with Congress “to forge legislation that met his principles and delivered results on behalf of the American people.”
But one Republican lobbyist who asked not to be named said the administration’s record is not encouraging.
“In the administration’s anxiousness to get an education bill, they gave away vouchers. In their anxiousness to get an energy bill, they gave away ANWR. In their anxiousness to get a campaign reform bill, they gave away free speech, unless you happen to be a media organization,” the lobbyist said. “If history is prologue, you would have to imagine there is nothing that will not be negotiated.”
Still, a Senate Republican aide who is monitoring the immigration debate said the president started far enough away from a full amnesty that it leaves him room to negotiate without having to give in and accept amnesty.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, said the politics of immigration differ from such issues as education, campaign finance reform and Medicare.
“For every one of those three proposals, there was a broad-based support for the way to go,” he said. “You don’t have that kind of thing on this issue.”
Because of that, he said, he expects Mr. Bush will not put the sort of effort into passing an immigration bill that he did for education and Medicare reforms.
Mr. Kent said he also doesn’t think broad legislation will pass the House, but sees a political danger for the president already.
“I think a Democratic presidential candidate, even if he’s liberal on a lot of things, I think he could effectively flank and hurt [Mr. Bush] in several key states,” Mr. Kent said, adding that Mr. Bush risks alienating his base.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.