A lot of folks would welcome an extra $2.10 an hour.
Posted on 11/11/2006 4:08:13 AM PST by MadIvan
On the morning after the mid-term elections, a humbled President George W Bush called it "a thumping".
But yesterday he described the disastrous result for the Republicans, when Congress turned from Republican red to Democrat blue, as a "great opportunity".
His aides were briefing that he now had the chance to build a domestic policy legacy and use his final two years in the White House to prove that politicians could get things done in Washington.
After a White House coffee meeting yesterday, Mr Bush chuckled as Senator Dick Durbin, part of the new Democratic leadership in the Senate, joked: "I do want to say thanks personally to the president and vice-president for their conciliatory gesture by wearing blue ties today.
"From our side, we think that is a symbolic indication."
Conservative Republicans and wary Democrats fear that Mr Bush might indeed try to steal the Democrats' clothes. "They talked about issues that people care about, and they won," he told the senators.
As a lame-duck president after years of poor relations with Democrats who were bitter about being frozen out of the decision-making process, turning opportunity into legislative reality will be one of the biggest challenges of Mr Bush's political career.
The message from the voters was that they rejected one-party rule in Washington and wanted to see whether divided government could lead to the kind of results Mr Bush was unable to achieve when Republicans were the kings of Capitol Hill.
Having been swept into power on the backs of their condemnation of a "do-nothing Congress", there will be pressure on Democrats to demonstrate that they can do business with Mr Bush. The president will want to leave office with achievements under his belt and use his power of veto sparingly.
"The Democrats should adopt a good government strategy rather than a take-no-prisoners strategy," said Senator Birch Bayh, a Democrat who served in the Senate for 18 years.
He believed that Republicans in Congress would adopt a new approach. "They've gotten the signal that people didn't like what was going on, that the well was poisoned. They're not going to be bomb throwers."
In 1996, President Bill Clinton and a Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives introduced a welfare reform Bill that became a landmark piece of social legislation. Both parties claimed credit for it. Republican presidents have also signed legislation sent to them by Democratic houses of Congress.
To the dismay of conservative Republicans, Mr Bush has already indicated that he agrees with the Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage. But the centrepiece of his last 24 months in office could be a comprehensive overhaul of America's immigration laws.
His desire for tough border security measures combined with opportunities for many of America's 12 million illegal immigrants to become citizens is shared by more Democrats than Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Gardner Peckham, a senior aide to Newt Gingrich, speaker of the House after the Republican takeover of Capitol Hill in 1994, said: "Democrats will have to be very careful not to appear like they're looking backwards and wanting retribution.
"They won't want to look like they're the source of the problem. But they're not going to want the president to look good on any of these issues. The prize is the White House in 2008. Control of Congress is great, but without the White House you can't control the agenda."
Immigration, he suggested, would be "an interesting test" of whether genuine cooperation was possible.
You can be certain that all this will be a sellout (on conservative judges, illegal immigration, etc.) and what will we conservatives get? The Iraq War, which a substantial minority of us did not want and never thought was necessary.
Or show us just how liberal he can be...
That's because they are ignorant of the consequences of raising the minimum wage. Consequences which are easily explained but I've yet to hear a republican speak them. Further, when the minimum wage is raised, democrat constituents are the ones hurt; so, why should a republican fight it?
That was the worst.
I'm confused. I thought the "culture of corruption" swept them in.
The minimum wage is all tied to union contracts. That's what it is all about. M.W. goes up, all the union wages must go up.
And what you wrote is correct, too.
Using this logic, it isn't the President's role to lead on the WOT since it not popular with voters.
;-)
There, that's better. This reversal of red and blue continues to be quite annoying.
"Conservative Republicans and wary Democrats fear that Mr Bush might indeed try to steal the Democrats' clothes. "They talked about issues that people care about, and they won," he told the senators."
Can anyone say "triangulate" a la Bill Clinton circa 1995/1996?
A lot of folks would welcome an extra $2.10 an hour.
IT wasn't corruption, it was Iraq (or so they also say).
Now you are being silly, there is a big difference between running the WOT and a domestic issue such as the minimum and you know ideas start from the ground up so instead of complaing all the time why don't you part and tell and educate your fellow voters the arguements against the minimum wage.
Bush has a veto pen. He needs to start using it instead of accomodating the Dems. Gerald Ford had more cajones than Bush - he vetoed a truckload of bills - and Ford never was elected, let alone twice.
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.
