Bush-GOP ferocity alters American politics

The Seattle Times ^ | 5/30/03 | E.J. Dionne

[LdSentinal]

WASHINGTON — President Bush's signature on his big tax cut bill Wednesday marked a watershed in American politics.

The rules of policy-making that have applied since the end of World War II are now irrelevant. A narrow Republican majority will work its partisan will, no matter what. Democrats, at least until 2004, will have the grim satisfaction of being a relatively unified opposition that will suffer just enough defections to fail at the finish line.

Until now, Congress was a forcefully independent branch of government. Presidents as diverse as Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and even Reagan could not count on automatic support from members of their own party in the House and Senate.

Only President Lyndon B. Johnson had the power to see his programs to passage largely unscathed. And he had that power for only two years, 1965 and 1966, when Democrats enjoyed 2-1 majorities in both houses.

[MEG33]

Sounds good to me.

[ladyinred]

This is absolute baloney.

[MEG33]

Wouldn't it be nice to impose discipline brilliantly? Sounds good...like herding cats.

[spectre]

And not one word about the meanest, most partisan, bitter obstructionist turd in politics today - Tom Daschle.

Gee.

Wonder why?

[Wild Irish Rogue]

The eight years of Clinton awoke a sleeping giant and the left still doesn't get it.

[Mark17]

a domestic program based almost entirely on tax cuts for the wealthy

That is getting to be a stale, tired old line.

[RJayneJ]

A tax cut for the wealthy is a tipoff...

Quote of the Day by WaterDragon

[bybybill]

I am deeply disappointed and hurt by all those Republicans that are voting with the President so that he can help my family.

[CyberAnt]

Well ... I guess the dems believe putting party before the country is going to get them re-elected ... anybody want to tell them the truth ...?? ... I didn't think so!

[DeFault User]

This is a shock to congressional Democrats, most of whom came to political maturity under the old arrangements that placed a heavy emphasis on comity and the search for the political center.

The old arrangements--when they got what they wanted.

Political comity? Maybe when Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen were alive.

[MJY1288]

I'm surprised this article didn't come with it's own violinist!

The democrats have now become victims, but when they were in control they were acting on behalf of America.

I have a message for these hand wringing leftist. "Stock up on Kleenex, you're gonna need it"

[piasa]

I love it when liberals become despairingly melodramatic...

I much prefer it to when they are gleefully condescending.

[MJY1288]

Personally, I have been quite amused watching them implode at every level of Government and every level in the media.

It's been a beautiful thing to watch unfold :-)

[DPB101]

the old arrangements. . . placed a heavy emphasis on comity and the search for the political center

Bzzzzttt. Wrong answer E.J. Dionne. Ten years ago, you might have gotten away with that but no longer. Not with the internet. A somewhat chatty but detailed synopsis of action in the House of Representatives during that period of "comity" of which you speak:

CONGRESSIONAL OBSERVER PUBLICATIONS--1993 House Sessions

The "comity" displayed toward the Republican minority was slightly above the level a mangy cur with gas gets--Democrats did allow Republicans inside the building. But that was the extent of it.

[Imal]

I had to look so far to the left to read this article, my eyes hurt!

[Tall_Texan]

Can you spot the one sentence in this entire column that's not either a misrepresentation of the truth or an out-and-out lie?

.

.

(no peeking)

.

.

Missed it? Look again...

.

.

Give up?

.

.

Okay, it's this one:

"Bush promised to change the ways of Washington."

That, he did, but he hasn't changed how Washington works one iota (not that Democrats can tell as they seethe about being out of power). He had to compromise to get a piddling only-half-of-the-small-cut-he-began-asking-for tax cut and needed his own Vice President to get it through the Senate.

But Mr. Dionne calls that a "watershed" moment as Bush put the screws to members of his own party to fall in line (which obviously wasn't enough to turn McCain and Snowe, now was it, E.J.?) while being so onerous to Democrats that they all held together...well, except Miller and Nelson.

In short, the column is complete and utter BS from another liberal who is completely blind to anything positive that goes on in Washington because his side didn't win. At least he didn't compare Bush to Hitler or the Taliban. For liberals, I guess that's considered a sign of maturity.

[Consort]

It looks like Dionne managed to get at least thing wrong in each paragraph.

[Jumper]

"1965 and 1966, when Democrats enjoyed 2-1 majorities in both houses"; my, my, how times have changed. So the Viet Nam Conflict was something the democrats agreed upon.

The shrill voice of the Left, screaming injustice upon the establishment.... Both the liberal media and the democrats have done a masterful job of making the 60's protests look as if it were against evil republican policies. In '68 Nixon won in contest to depose the warmonging democrats, a fact lost on Americans today. In '72 Nixon opened China, coupled with the wheat deal to the Soviet Union (economics at work to negotiage security agreements) and the SALT. Pitival moments in American history. Since Nixon, the democrats have been losing majorities locked in by the New Deal Democrats of the '30s.

The democrat party will continue to lose seats and elections until as such time they offer genuine alternatives to Republican initiatives, e.g., ideas that have merit and can be "paid" by reasonable taxes - something with which this party has no experience and no people capable thereof.

[PoisedWoman]

And because Democrats have such a diverse congressional party, the price they pay for unity is the blunting of differences. That means the party is often forced to deliver fuzzy messages.

FOTFLMAO....Now the spin is that the DemonRats are FORCED to deliver fuzzy messages? By their own diversity?

How about, "The Democrats don't have a message, or a clue for that matter, and are hopelessly bogged down by their preference for feeeeeeling and lack of logical thinking. If they had a brain, they'd be dangerous to themselves and others."