|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 12/17/2001 5:01:27 AM PST by truthandlife
PRESIDENT BUSH was in a pleading mood. The occasion was his weekly White House breakfast with congressional leaders. His remarks were pointed at Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Please don't load up the defense appropriations bill with billions of extra spending for homeland security, as Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia was proposing. I'll have to veto it, Bush said. He said that three times. These were the strongest words Bush has uttered at any of the breakfasts.
Around that time--late November--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld briefed all 100 senators on the course of the war on terrorism at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol. How can we help you a senator asked. Don't lard the defense bill with Rumsfeld answered. That brought groans from the audience of senators.
Daschle may have been one of those groaning. In any event, he didn't honor Rumsfeld's (and Bush's) request. Bush's insistence that more than enough had already been appropriated was ignored. So was his appeal for the Senate to wait until Tom Ridge puts together a homeland security plan early next year. Byrd, unrestrained, went ahead, devoting two weeks to pushing for more spending. First he wanted $20 billion, then $15 billion, then it was cut to $7.5 billion before returning to $15 billion. In the end, Byrd and Democrats got zero as Senate Republicans blocked the added spending on procedural grounds.
The episode was illuminating about how Daschle functions as wartime majority leader. He takes a minimalist approach. He has lavish praise ("spectacular," "great") for Bush's performance in the war on terrorism and he's strongly backed Bush's war agenda. He delivered quick Senate approval of the counterterrorism bill, "use of force" resolution, $40 billion supplemental appropriation, airline bailout, and aviation security bill. "The president and I have worked as closely together as I've worked with anybody over the last several years," Daschle said on "Meet the Press." "We've done all of those pieces the Bush administration has indicated were important to this country and the agenda in the aftermath of September 11."
Not quite. Daschle feels obligated to work with Bush only on matters directly connected to the war effort. How about on matters Bush says are war-related but many Democrats claim aren't sufficiently related? That's another story. On these--the energy bill, say, or terrorism insurance--Daschle is anything but bipartisan. In fact, he has fiercely opposed Bush and has prevented other Democrats from pursuing bipartisan agreements. And instead of bringing up legislation sought by Bush for a vote before adjourning this week, Daschle substituted the railroad retirement and farm bills. Neither is time sensitive, but both are important to Democratic constituencies.
Since September 11, Daschle has intervened to upset bipartisan cooperation on the energy, terrorism insurance, and economic stimulus bills. Bush says the energy measure, and especially its provision for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), is critical to national security. "The less dependent we are on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home," the president declared. Yet when at least two Democrats--Senators Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana--were prepared to back ANWR drilling, Daschle removed the bill from the energy committee and took personal charge of it. His excuse was that the bill was divisive and would prompt a time-consuming filibuster. Of course the bill is also the bane of the environmental lobby, a Democratic constituency bent on protecting ANWR from oil companies.
On terrorism insurance, a deal had been negotiated by Democrats Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and Republican Phil Gramm of Texas. Daschle annulled their agreement because it barred punitive damages in lawsuits involving acts of terrorism--damages taxpayers might ultimately have to pay. Limits on damages are anathema to trial lawyers, a group that generously funds Democratic candidates.
On the stimulus bill, Daschle kept Democrat Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, from drafting legislation with Republican input. Not surprisingly, the resulting bill left off Bush's top priority for juicing the economy, acceleration of income tax rate reductions slated over the next five years. And despite Bush's willingness to restrict a rate reduction to middle-class taxpayers, Daschle objects to any cut in personal rates at all, in effect blocking a bipartisan economic stimulus.
Daschle has a theory to justify his narrow definition of bipartisanship in wartime. "I think the American people have actually drawn a distinction between the war effort and domestic policy," he said on CNN. No doubt he's correct about this: The public wants extravagant support for Bush on the war, but is unfazed by opposition to Bush on everything else so long as the president isn't attacked by name. Democratic strategists James Carville, Stanley Greenberg, and Robert Shrum said roughly the same thing last month in their analysis of a new national poll. Democrats should back the fight against terrorism, they said, but also lay claim to domestic issues such as the economy, jobs, and health care. Daschle is doing exactly that. He insists, for example, on health insurance for the jobless as part of a stimulus package, thus keeping the health care issue alive.
How should we regard this crass maneuvering by Daschle? It's not that he's unpatriotic or that his actions are indefensible. It's that he's intensely partisan wherever and whenever possible, even in wartime. Daschle's aim is to limit Bush's achievements strictly to matters of war. Credit for success on other issues will be denied Bush. Bipartisan bill signings at the White House will be few and far between. Meanwhile, Democratic pressure groups will be appeased and the stage set for Democratic victory in the 2002 elections. "While George Bush is popular, voter doubts are close to the surface," Carville, Greenberg, and Shrum said. "We should not give voice to these doubts in this period, but we should be prepared to highlight issues that allow those doubts to emerge later." This sounds like Daschle's marching orders, though he says he hasn't read the strategists' analysis.
For a month now, Republicans have gone after Daschle, charging him with obstructionism. The attacks started with conservative groups and Republicans in Congress. More recently, White House aides Larry Lindsey and Karen Hughes and Vice President Dick Cheney have joined in. Daschle, Cheney told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," "has decided . . . to become more of an obstructionist." Hughes told a group of Gannett reporters that Daschle has created a "void of leadership" in the Senate. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Daschle's most persistent GOP critic in the Senate, says Daschle has single-handedly destroyed the "air of bipartisanship" in Congress.
The attacks appear to have damaged Daschle not at all. On the contrary, they've made his standing among Democrats higher than ever, and it was pretty high to begin with. The public doesn't seem to have taken much notice. A telltale sign is that one of Daschle's chief aides, Anita Dunn, offers anyone who's interested an updated compilation of all Republican charges from the press, TV, or television ads. The most striking is a TV spot accusing Daschle of aiding Saddam Hussein by blocking oil drilling in ANWR. The ad is not entirely frivolous: ANWR would produce the same amount of oil the United States currently imports from Iraq.
The question is why has the anti-Daschle campaign failed so miserably? Daschle, after all, is an obstructionist and none-too-secretive about it. My explanation is twofold. First, there's his appealing manner. He's calm, soft-spoken, and easygoing. If there's a particular style that folks expect in a clever political operator, Daschle hasn't got it. Sure, looks can be deceiving. In Daschle's case, they are.
Second, there's the adoring press corps. You have to look long and hard to find a piece, on TV or in print, that's hostile to Daschle. Nowhere in the media, for example, has anyone raised the competence issue--that is, why doesn't Daschle get legislation passed. A majority leader normally is judged by the standard of what he produces, not by what he impedes. Yet legislation approved in the House with its 5-vote Republican majority piles up in the Senate and the press looks the other way. There's trade promotion authority, the faith-based initiative, a ban on cloning, election reform, and the passel of war-related bills waiting for Senate deliberation, and waiting and waiting and waiting. Just last week the White House was informed faith-based won't be taken up this year, as Daschle had earlier promised the president.
Remember when Trent Lott was majority leader and he tried to slip some small measure helping Mississippi into a bill? The press always landed on him. Daschle managed to get an item in the defense appropriations bill that turns an old gold mine over to the state of South Dakota but assigns any legal liability growing out of the mine's cleanup to the federal government, aka the taxpayers. Daschle had to plead with GOP senator John McCain not to attack the measure as pork. McCain didn't, and the press didn't either.
At the moment, Daschle's problem isn't Republican leaders. They can usually muster enough votes to block any Daschle initiative by filibuster. But that's not particularly meaningful these days since Daschle is busy obstructing, not pushing legislation. His problem is Democratic senator Robert Byrd. Daschle knows that if Byrd is dominating the Senate floor with a new spending scheme, it's not good for Democrats or for Daschle himself. But the majority leader has difficulty controlling Byrd.
Byrd's bid to jack up spending for homeland security turned into a fiasco. Senate Democrats were forced to back Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, if only for self-protection. But there was fallout. Democratic senator Dick Durbin of Illinois tried to amend the defense bill with funds for doubling the number of runways at O'Hare Airport in Chicago. The other Illinois senator, Republican Peter Fitzgerald, was opposed. Fitzgerald took the Senate floor, and kept talking when an impatient Byrd arrived with his final spending amendment. Byrd glared at Fitzgerald. Finally, Republicans informed Daschle the only way Fitzgerald would yield the floor was for Durbin to withdraw his O'Hare amendment. The result was a double defeat: Durbin caved and Byrd lost. And Daschle was unable to avert the embarrassment.
Next year Daschle may have a bigger problem still with a victorious war president. Democrats are counting on Bush's popularity to evaporate after the war just as his father's did post-Gulf War. It may not. Even many Bush voters were slightly dubious of him in 2000, but now everyone has learned more about Bush, virtually all of it favorable. Daschle has kicked most major issues into 2002, expecting Democrats will have more sway. But what if Bush, still popular, decides to use his political capital on domestic issues? Karl Rove, Bush's senior aide, has promised he will. In that event, bipartisanship may appeal to Daschle next year more than he thought it would.
Who cares?
Bush needs a much more dynamic, broader vision on the economic front or he will lose this battle, if it's not already lost.
This maybe the last chance for his Administration to pass a supply-side cut.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Try clicking on this link instead: http://capwiz.com/gunowners/bio/?id=535&submit.x=15&submit.y=14
Is it the biased press coverage for the sheeples?
Unbelievable. I surprised this has not come out earller.
Keep the message simple Dashel must be voted out.
FOCUS PEOPLE.
Yes South Dakota was in the red zone. (voting for Bush)
Doesn't look like there is much Dim country in South Dakota, huh?
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.
