Sophomore Slump The president is drifting.

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.

Thanks for that info about Jesse, Miss Marple. Why am I not surprised?

It's amazing how pundits and talk show hosts who claim to have the best interest of America at heart, seem to be missing the BIG picture, which is to get a House and Senate elected which will support the President and pass his agenda without forcing him to fight for every inch.

The good thing is that the American people aren't paying too much attention to them, because they see a quality in this President that is rare........he can be trusted. I pray that the election in November will yield a Republican majority in both Houses, and render impotent that little weasel, Daschle.

Whatever. Trying to point out Bush's lies to you Bushophiles is about as fruitful as pointing out Clinton's lies to James Carville. The argument that you people use is old. Just because Bush hasn't done exactly what you want, blah blah blah. Bush and the GOP have sold out on virtually every aspect of conservatism, except for paying lip service to some of the red meat issues. Bush opposes abortion...so what? It's still the law of the land. By refusing to hold Bush and the GOP to any standards whatsoever, you are participating in the sellout. So would you support Bush if he were to sign a bill outlawing the possession of handguns, saying that he has some constitutional problems with it, but on balance we would be better off? That's the logic he used with CFR.

You might remember that Bush Sr. had high approval ratings too. The midterm elections are a long ways away, and the next presidential election is even longer...

Who cares anymore. The gov is confiscating 50% of my income. The GOP hasn't and isn't doing anything to change it. I am less free now than I was a year ago, thanks to the provisions of the GOP sponsored and supported "Patriot Act".

You go on ahead and drink the Bush Purple Koolaid, son.

Jesse has never supported Bush. His opinions are irrelevant.

Well, this must be the non sequitur of the year. Using your logic, then, because you and the rest of the Clinton-haters never supported Clinton your opinions are irrelevant too, right?

Enjoy your Kool-aid.

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.