A New Style for a New Mandate: Some constructive criticsm for a second Bush term.

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 9, 2004 | DAVID FRUM

[OESY]

...The ferocious partisan dissension that has broken out at home over the war on terror dangerously subtracts from the nation's war-fighting effectiveness.

• Partisan warfare at home has given credibility and confidence to America's enemies abroad....

• Partisan disunity has damaged America's alliances....

• Hyper-partisanship has weakened America's own war-fighting strength....

It's essential to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them....

At home, ...Democrats will do everything they can to stop [Bush]....

There are, however, some actions that might help President Bush introduce some useful bipartisanship to American foreign policy.

• Listen: For months after 9/11, President Bush met once a week with the majority and minority leaders in both the House and Senate. The meetings ceased in the spring of 2002, after a series of goading remarks by then Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle....

• Learn: On 9/11, the U.S. was plunged into a new era for which it was radically unprepared. Ever since, the U.S. government has been improvising as it goes....

President Bush should be convening national commissions that include respected Democratic lawyers and elected officials -- people like former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger -- to propose a comprehensive set of laws and rules to govern the war on terror at home and overseas.

In the same spirit, the president... would do well to find ways to put Democrats in charge of those individual items....

The Bush administration... is superbly well placed to make use without qualm of Mr. Clinton's great persuasive gifts on the world stage.

• Hire: Mr. Bush is advised... there are a lot of qualified and capable younger Democrats well below cabinet-grade....

Bipartisanship is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end: not mushy centrism, but victory in the conflict that defines our era.

[OESY]

Mr. Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, is the author of "The Right Man," (Random House, 2003), and, most recently, co-author of "An End to Evil" (Random House, 2004).

[OESY]

Methinks Frum misunderstands the problem when he talks of hiring Clinton to improve diplomatic relations or younger Democrats to resolve Patriot Act dissent -- in the absence of demonstrated evidence that their contributions would advance rather than undercut the policies of the Bush administration.

As Frum acknowledges Norm Mineta and William Cohen did little to improve bipartisanship for their presidents, Bush and Clinton, respectively, so it is not a panacea but rather window-dressing. On the other hand, a deeply partisan appointee like Clinton would invite far more problems than he would solve. Think Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke multiplied tenfold.

Let's first analyze the reasons for Democratic obstructionism, both at home and abroad, and implement solutions that are crafted to work. This is not a time for pie-in-the-sky simplistic thinking about the intentions of the Kumbaya set.

[steve dubya]

GWB needs to just quit playing nice and giving in to liberals. It never works. You give them an inch and they take a mile.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

We're fighting a war on two fronts, and it won't do to capitulate on either one of them.

[N. Theknow]

Democrats have shown in the last four years and especially in the last week that they are not worthy of any consideration other than a slap in the face and a chair at the kids table at Thanksgiving.

They can start "asking" to be included in things American when they start putting America first.

[asgardshill]

As Karl Rove noted during this weekend's "Meet The Press", bipartisanship in this form simply doesn't work. Rove related how Bush once met with a senior Democrat leader, asking for his help in passing a piece of legislation which he called "A". The Democrat countered with a request to incorporate "B" into the legislation. The President agreed, and "B" was duly incorporated into the legislation.

The result? Days after the President's meeting, the same Democrat publicly excoriated the Administration in spite of "B" being included in the legislation.

You simply can't work with these people. Identify and lean on 10 RATs in the Senate and 20 in the House who can be browbeat into reliably voting with you, and let the rest go pound sand.

[Carry_Okie]

The Democrats Bush has hired before have done little but work to undermine him. Why, in the name of heaven, should he give the work experience and credibility with which to run against Republicans?