SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (152367)6/12/2001 12:07:06 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Michael Barone




A game of ball control

The death of the Bush agenda may be greatly exaggerated

jewishworldreview.com --
IS George W. Bush's agenda dead, as the new Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, says? Not necessarily–for two reasons. The first is that Daschle does not control the Senate. No one controls the Senate. A legislative body that conducts its everyday business under procedures that require unanimous consent, allows every member to speak for an unlimited time, and allows the introduction of an unlimited number of nongermane amendments is incapable of being controlled by anyone. Trent Lott supposedly controlled the Senate until last month. But he had to let John McCain have two weeks of debate on campaign finance, because McCain threatened to tie up all Senate business if he didn't.

As majority leader, Daschle will have the power to set the schedule–usually. He will be able to delay or defer many things Republicans would like to bring forward. But his control will not be total. When Daschle suggested that he would hold up all judicial appointments, Republicans threatened to stall all Senate business if he did, and now it appears many nominations will go through. Daschle will be able to bury a lot of low-visibility items that Republicans want. But he will have a hard time burying high-visibility items about which Republicans have strong feelings.

Bipartisan by design. The second reason is that the Bush agenda was specifically designed not to depend on Republican majorities. Each item has support from a significant number of Democrats. That was true of the tax cut and education bills, now on their way to becoming law. It is true of Medicare reform, defense spending changes, and Social Security reform–the three other major items that Bush is intent on shepherding through Congress in 2001 and 2002. The major backer of Medicare reform is Louisiana Democratic Sen. John Breaux, who also assembled a bipartisan group of senators that provided key support for–and set the number for–the $1.3 trillion tax cut. Many Democrats, especially on the Armed Services Committee, are open to the defense changes Bush is likely to call for. As for Social Security, Bush's commission, which is to report this fall, is cochaired by former Senate Finance Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a man whom Daschle cited a few years ago as the senator he would look to for advice on Social Security.

That's not what Daschle is saying now. But what's really interesting about the forthcoming clashes between Bush and Daschle is that they have sharply different ideas of where public opinion is. On energy, Bush is betting that voters do not want energy price controls and believe that free markets are the best way to secure more energy. Daschle is banking on the idea that voters now, as in the 1970s, want controls. On Social Security, Bush is banking on the proposition that voters, especially young voters, believe that the current Social Security system won't provide dependable retirement incomes after the baby boomers retire. Daschle says baldly, as Democrats did in the 1970s, that Social Security in its present form has always worked and always will. Interestingly, in early 1999, Bill Clinton's assumptions about public opinion were similar to Bush's; he came close to backing Social Security and Medicare reform before he decided to side with Al Gore and the left-wing Democrats who had supported him during impeachment.

They can't both be right. Either public opinion is the same as it was a generation ago, as Daschle believes, or it has changed, as Bush believes. I think Bush is closer to the truth. Many intelligent observers disagree. We shall see who's right in 2002 and 2004.

Bush and Daschle also disagree on the basic mood of the country. Daschle's vitriolic criticism of Bush's policies, though voiced in soft tones, and his determination to obstruct Bush's programs assume that voters will reward a posture of confrontation. Bush's continued calls for bipartisan cooperation, and his assembling of bipartisan coalitions, assume that the public is yearning for an era of consensus. Recent history is on Bush's side. Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, voters have preferred consensus to confrontation and have voted heavily for incumbents and, in open seats, for candidates who promise cooperation. In 1996 that helped Bill Clinton (whose opponent, as you may remember from Democratic ads, was named Dole Gingrich). In 2000, it helped the bipartisan-talking George W. Bush defeat the heavy-sighed attacker Al Gore. One Democratic pollster, asked whether the public would accept the Democrats' attack posture, responded that voters aren't paying much attention to politics and would respond favorably to Democrats' framing of the issues, even though that seems to assume that opinion has stayed frozen since the late 1970s. I am not so sure. As the out party, the Democrats do have a dilemma: It is usually the business of the opposition to oppose, and to oppose one usually must attack, even if voters don't much like attacks. But the attack mode didn't help Bob Dole in 1996 or Al Gore in 2000. And it is not clear that it will help the Democrats in 2002 or 2004.

jewishworldreview.com



To: calgal who wrote (152367)6/12/2001 12:12:51 AM
From: Mr. Whist  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Good post. Arianna Huffington wrote about similar recently. Her column follows.

******************************************************
Lee Atwater must be spinning in his grave.

Judging by their bungling of the Jeffords Affair, the two most powerful graduates of the Atwater School of Hardball Politics, George W. Bush and Karl Rove (Class of '88) have regrettably and dramatically missed the final -- and most important -- lesson of their teacher's life.

Atwater was only 40 when he renounced the politics of viciousness. Racked with brain cancer, the former happy hatchet man who sliced-and-diced Michael Dukakis, famously vowing to "make Willie Horton his running mate," came to see the error of his ugly ways.

Rove and Bush studied their mentor's life but skipped the last chapter. Atwater's hard-earned insights were lost on them.

"My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood," Atwater wrote. "It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime." Or not.

It took terminal cancer to put Atwater in touch with his humanity. What will it take before Rove learns to bury the hatchet someplace other than right between the eyes of his adversaries?

Jeffords, of course, was worse than an enemy. He was a traitor. And Rove and the rest of the Bush loyalists feel about a traitor the way Cicero did: "He infects the body politic so it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague." The problem is, the Bush definition of a traitor is anyone with an (R) after his name who has the temerity to disagree.

And the vindictiveness is compounded by pettiness. Take it from someone who knows. Ever since I joined the ranks of "recovering Republicans," I've often found myself on the receiving end of this charmless, small-minded fury.

The most amusing example was the time I asked a Bush buddy -- and one of the original "Pioneers" -- to help me land a decent hotel room during last summer's Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. "No problem," he answered graciously. "Anything you want."

Well, as it turns out, not quite anything. A month later, I was still roomless, and he had to come clean. "Austin will no longer let me do anything for you," he told me sheepishly. My first thought was, why would a perpetually horny fictional spy care about my room search? Then I realized that he meant Austin, Texas, not Austin Powers.

Wow, I thought then, and have been thinking ever since, is nothing too trivial for the Bush revenge machine? Are they never once going to consider taking the high road, assuming they could ever find it? Apparently not.

W. and Rove are still following the early teachings of Atwater and not the later lessons that superseded them. "Like a good general," Atwater admitted at the end, "I had treated everyone who wasn't with me as against me."

The repentant Atwater, with his newfound understanding and wisdom, would never have treated Jeffords the way Rove and the White House did. Phone calls not returned, invitations not offered, input conspicuously ignored -- this was all old-school stuff.

So, while Bush had plenty of time to be chatting up Teddy Kennedy on the education bill, he had no time to call Jeffords, who after all was only the chairman of the education committee. Kennedy was invited to the Bush family quarters for hot dogs and a movie; Jeffords was frozen out.

The president -- clearly easily impressed -- has nicknamed Rove the 'Boy Genius,' but it doesn't take a Mensa member to realize that in a 50-50 Senate, the last thing you should be doing is humiliating one of your own.

But Rove's style, first and always, is to go for the jugular. "You don't cross Karl Rove and not expect repercussions," says a former opponent from the Texas days.

Even after the bloodletting of the self-inflicted Jeffords wound, Rove could not resist a cheap insult.

"You have to respect somebody who does something out of principle," Rove said last week, parroting the administration's spin. But with practically his next breath, he gleefully suggested that Jeffords' decision was linked to "committee chairs and deals and bargains and pledges."

Rove is so petty, he can't even stick to his own talking points. How low is he willing to go?

Ask Vermont's National Teacher of the Year, who found her moment of glory being used like a rolled up newspaper wielded by the owner of a disobedient dog -- in this case, a pooch named "Jeffords."

Like a crazed Barbara Woodhouse, Rove is struggling to keep his GOP hounds on a short leash. Now that Jeffords has refused to sit up and beg, the big dog to watch is John McCain, who already has knife wounds up and down his back from his dealings with Rove. Many date from the South Carolina primary and the Rove-fueled whispering campaign that, among other poisonous rumors, raised doubts about McCain's mental stability due to the torture he endured in Vietnam.

Rove, incidentally, has never talked to anybody on McCain's staff. Not once. So the tone of McCain's response to Jeffords' defection was hardly surprising -- and a barely veiled castigation of Rove. "Perhaps those self-appointed enforcers of party loyalty," he said, "will learn to respect honorable differences among us, learn to disagree without resorting to personal threats, and recognize that we are a party large enough to accommodate something short of strict unanimity on the issues of the day."

The dying Atwater would heartily agree. Too bad his star students dropped out before learning this vital parting lesson.