April 18, 2002, 10:35 a.m.
Sophomore Slump
The president is drifting.
By NR Editors, from the May 6, 2002, issue of National Review
Posted on 04/20/2002 11:05:55 AM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
|
April 18, 2002, 10:35 a.m. By NR Editors, from the May 6, 2002, issue of National Review |
|
ven the few defenders of the administration's Mideast zigzag admit that it looks like an incoherent response to each day's events. And it's not just abroad that the Bush administration appears to be adrift. In recent weeks, the president has handed down two protectionist decisions — on steel and softwood lumber — that hurt American consumers (including American businesses), justifiably angered our allies, and undermined the credibility of his free-trade rhetoric. He has signed a campaign-finance bill that he once (accurately) described as an affront to the Constitution. He has lost a confirmation battle over one of his judicial nominees, Charles Pickering, after engaging in the battle too late.
His first initiative this year was an expansion of AmeriCorps. After early indications that he might fight the bloated farm bill before Congress, Bush has thrown in the towel. After challenging the Senate to open the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve for oil drilling, he refuses to promise Republican senators that he will veto an energy bill without that provision. It would not be surprising if Democratic versions of a prescription-drug bill and a patient's bill of rights passed this year. The president looks prepared to acquiesce in a bill on faith-based charities that fails to protect their freedom to hire in accordance with their consciences, a point on which the administration had previously insisted.
Part of the problem is that Bush is being reactive. His recent missteps have been reactions to campaigns by the media, domestic interest groups, the Arabs, and others. To arrest the drift, he needs to take control of his agenda. He also needs to be willing to issue vetoes. President Bush's father, by this point in his term, had already compiled a string of impressive vetoes. Eventually he even vetoed a campaign-finance bill he thought unconstitutional. But George W. Bush, though more conservative than his father, has vetoed nothing, and it is reducing his leverage on Capitol Hill. Last year, he was able to score a tactical victory on a patient's bill of rights by threatening a veto — over the opposition of some of his top advisers. This year, he will have to veto a bill, not just threaten a veto, to be credible.
President Bush has avoided vetoes for the same reason he has avoided confrontation generally: his desire to "change the tone in Washington." That emphasis has a way of dampening support for Bush's positions by making disputes turn on inside-the-Beltway sins against process. When the administration zings Tom Daschle, it's because he's an "obstructionist" rather than because he's a liberal.
There are, of course, some bright spots. President Bush has taken a strong and principled stand on cloning. He has stepped up the campaign to get his judges confirmed. He is calling for the tax cuts he passed last year to be made permanent. He has resolved to toughen the work requirements that have made welfare reform such a success. He has been bolder than congressional Republicans in calling for a market-driven reform of Social Security. But if he continues to drift, and especially if the war on terrorism appears to be stalled, conservatives may not turn out to vote in the midterm elections in the numbers Bush needs. And he will not make the mark on policy that he wants and deserves to make.
What would be the price of losing? Having the Dems expanding the AmeriCorps abomination instead of W.
Re-read the sentence above. It explains and in fact predicts a low 'conservative' turnout and pro-GOP vote this coming election.
Do you realize what you have revealed about yourself with your post? What's the difference between you and the average run of the mill leftist? Oh, yeah.......they're probably happier.
I agree with you totally! It is only by the grace of God that we survived the 8 corrupt years of x42, and we may not survive another 4 with Hillary, and yet these 2%ers would love it if Bush lost because he isn't as narrow as they are!
IMO, they are willing to sacrifice this wonderful country just because their rigid ideology is not satisfied!
I PITY them!
That's right. Let's only think HAPPY THOUGHTS, Pollyanna!
Over here on planet Earth, we call it "coherent strategy."
These guys are getting to be real boring, aren't they?
Question - wouldn't all of the above make W into a RAT?
Answer - no. The RATS would rather have their own do the above, which explains why W will not get their votes, in spite of his implementing THEIR agenda.
Why don't you run for office and prove it?
He's standing up against the world against terrorism, against the leftists here at home on the environment, taxes, moral issues, abortion, but YOU........YOU are sitting at home tapping the little keys on your computer claiming to be more of a man than he is! HA! What a joke!
Anyway, from your comments I see that not all the Bush cheerleading squad gets it yet.
I did read your post, and I don't agree with it. I get it, and so do the 98% of the Republican party who support the President.
You are in the tiny minority who don't like him because he hasn't done exactly what you want to be done in the exact way you want it to be done. You put your ideology above rationality and common sense. You have no clue as to what the word compromise means. It is not 'selling out' to work toward a goal with patience and perseverence.
People like you were screaming that Ronald Reagan was 'selling out' too, but now claim he was God. George W. Bush is a whole lot smarter, and a whole lot more Conservative than you will ever admit because it would take, in your refined way of speaking, 'cajones' to do so.
The National Review and the Weekly Standard and Rush Limbaugh need to come off their high horses and think about THE ELECTIONS! They can bitch after November. Right now I want as many Republicans (preferably conservatives but I will take what I can get) in Congress so that we can get the agenda passed!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.