Posted on 05/01/2005 2:26:41 PM PDT by RWR8189
DAVID BRODER, THE POLITICAL columnist for the Washington Post, wrote last week that President Bush "has become the victim of overreach." Former vice president Al Gore has said Bush and congressional Republicans have a different problem, their "lust for power." Both are wrong. Bush's biggest problem--indeed the striking feature of his second term--is the Democrats' lust for obstruction.
They have answered Bush's plans for Social Security reform, his judicial nominations, and even his choice of John Bolton to become United Nations ambassador with lockstep opposition. "There is still potential for the ice to break," a White House official says. And President Bush tried at his press conference last week to peel off Democrats or at least force party leaders to negotiate on Social Security. He made a strong case for creating personal investment accounts financed by payroll taxes. But Democrats weren't persuaded. The response of Democratic congressional leaders was a reflexive "no."
After the defeat last fall of Tom Daschle, the obstructionist Senate minority leader, Democrats briefly feared blanket opposition to Bush's initiatives might produce a political backlash. That fear is now gone. Rather than feel any pressure to cooperate with the White House, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill are the ones exerting pressure. They put the squeeze on waverers to hold the line against Bush.
The lone House Democrat to defect on Social Security, Alan Boyd of Florida, has been targeted by Democratic interest groups. The left-wing group MoveOn.org has run ads zinging him. Under pressure from Democratic leaders, a black House member backed away from cosponsoring a Social Security reform bill with a Republican. Last week, minority leader Nancy Pelosi warned five House Democrats not to attend a bipartisan session on Social Security with AARP, the liberal seniors' lobby. Only two, Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Ed Case of Hawaii, ended up going.
Moderate Democrats, however, are beginning to chafe under the pressure. On second-tier bills, many have defected: Seventy-three House Democrats voted to make it more difficult to declare personal bankruptcy. Liberal Democrats then accused them of selling out to special interests, reported Erin Billings in Roll Call. Pelosi criticized Democrats who had petitioned House speaker Denny Hastert to bring the bankruptcy bill to the floor for a vote.
The main reason Democrats have overcome their skittishness about obstructionism is money. Their base now includes many wealthy sympathizers and well-heeled interest groups willing to donate lavishly, but only if Democrats take a hard line against the president. Last winter, when Condoleezza Rice's nomination as secretary of state came before the Senate, Rice was attacked by Democratic senator Barbara Boxer of California for allegedly letting her ambition get in the way of her truthfulness. Just reelected, she was bombarded with flowers from appreciative supporters.
The White House suspected after Bush's reelection that Democrats would obstruct on so-called core issues--Social Security, judges, and others like tax reform that haven't reached Congress yet. "We had indications last fall that Democrats calculated . . . that there's no upside in working with the president, particularly because of the base," a Bush aide says. Despite losing badly in last year's election, the Democratic base is energized, its morale is high, and its fervor for opposing Bush is undiminished.
The White House and congressional Republicans are belatedly compensating for the intensity of Democratic obstruction. The president's prime time press conference, a rare event, was designed chiefly to sell his Social Security program and show his willingness to consider ideas from Democrats. But the only idea offered by Democrats was that he abandon his plans to reform Social Security altogether.
On the Democrats' filibustering of judicial nominations, Republicans had been losing the argument until Vice President Dick Cheney intervened in late April. He insisted that Democrats, not Republicans, were shattering Senate tradition by routinely using the filibuster to block judges. By barring such filibustering, he argued, Republicans would actually be preserving a Senate precedent. Now Senate Republicans are prepared to try to limit the filibuster--the "nuclear option"--so 41 senators would not be able to stop an up-or-down vote on judges.
This would call the Democrats' bluff. They had vowed to halt the work of the Senate if Republicans succeed in banning judicial filibusters. But they've hastily retreated from that position, figuring they, not Republicans, would be blamed for blocking Senate business.
In the short run, obstructionism works. Bush has been stymied on Social Security. The question is whether there will be retribution in the 2006 midterm election. Democrats seem unworried. Sen. Teddy Kennedy claims Democrats still represent "majority opinion" in America. Of course, that's what Daschle thought before he was defeated last year.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
My word. The republicans control the white house, the house, and the senate. If they have a policy they believe benefits the country like social security, then implement it and worry about the 06 elections later. Gutless republicans make me just as mad as democrats.
Ditto...
Good analysis by Mr. Barnes.
Senators like Boxer and Kennedy do not have to ever worry about being re-elected, but some of the others do. I think the 2006 elections will be an eye opener for many. Here's hoping, anyway.
Judging from the way that Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, and the Cong. Black Caucus treat their fellow dems that might want to actually do the business of their own constituents instead of marching lock-step with the dems, I would think that the democrat party would love Hitler's Germany---
Dang, they are giving orders and punishing their own party members PUBLICLY if they don't agree with everything Pelosi et. al, tell them.
My goodness, if some of these reps. couldn't even go to a meeting with AARP, which has been totally against Bush, then I wonder if they have to get permission to go to the bathroom!!!
I'm beginning to think that all of this obstructionism on the dems part isn't really because they're against the Judges, Bolton, fixing Social Security or even Delay.
I'm beginning to think it's because the dems lost the election. They couldn't cheat enough to get kerry in. So they're out for blood, payback, or they're just trying to block or destroy everything that has anything to do with President Bush's choices or his ideas.
Some interesting possibilities in the Senate too. Maryland has a rare open seat with the possibility of the popular Lieutenent Governor Steele vying for it. Washington will have an open seat with Cantwell not running for reelection and a possible backlash there because of the Democrats corruption in the '04 gubernatorial race, an open seat in Minnesota the Dems must defend, both Nelsons are vulnerable, ie Florida and Nebraska. Wouldn't it be nice if Guiliani ran against Clinton in New York. There will be an open seat in New Jersey the Dems must defend-that will at least cost them more money. The only obviously vulnerable Republican at the moment is Santorum in PA.
I can't imagine that a majority of their constituents see things the way Pelosi et al do, or that they think their obstructionism is a good practice. They appear to be listening to the dems with the money, and the ones who absolutely hate President Bush, for whatever reason. Here's hoping many of 'em are "Daschle'd" in 2006!
"a possible backlash there because of the Democrats corruption in the '04 gubernatorial race..."
Exactly! Many Washingtonians who live on the east, or the more normal red side, are very angry. Hope it translates into action.
Hasn't Guiliani ruled out a run for the senate? Seems I read or heard that somewhere.
It won't cost a Democrat his job, but Republicans have a great shot at a new Senate seat in Minnesota in 2006.
I hope so too and I hope that each Freeper would keep track of the Reps in their states as well as the senators, and let the us know who we need to target for replacement in 2006---
I know a lot of Freepers, myself included, are getting really frustrated at the Republicans, which could lead to less participation next election, but I hope we all just keep asking ourselves if we can live with the alternative.
HILLARY CLINTON OR JOHN KERRY IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
I know I can't!
And we have to make sure that the 2006 elections keep the majority in both houses to help keep Clinton and Kerry from gaining any power in Congress..
I don't think there's been a Shermanesque statement yet. Here's hoping.
Yes it will. The retiring Senator Dayton is a Democrat.
That's a sunk cost. I think he sensed he was swimming against the current. He retired before Kennedy ever announced.
People need to pay attention to primaries, and vote for conservatives at that point. Then you vote a Republican slate. Never give up. It may take several election cycles and then several election cycles after that. Eventually conservative will control the agenda. The six who were elected in '04, Isaacson, Martinez, Burr, DeMint, Thune, Vintner have been great. We have to keep it up. Pennsylvania gave it a valient effort trying to get Toomey in there. You just can't become discouraged.
There is no way I want to ever say the words "President Clinton" (again!) or "President Kerry"! I get angry at the Republicans for being too wishy-washy and such, but will vote for whomever runs against the democrat candidate. I will never NOT vote in a presidential election. As I tell my friends, if they don't vote, they don't get to complain.
Unfortunately in my state, CA, people like Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi are assured re-election no matter what.
Don't forget you only have ll-50 conservatives in the Senate depending on the issue at hand. We need even more. Don't throw in the towel now. We are making progress, slowly...but it is progress.
Vote in every election anyway. I also live in a blue state, but I ALWAYS vote.
I know you are frustrated---so am I, re: the above post.
But, can you honestly tell me that your anger would be better served by staying home to make a statement, and taking a chance that Nancy Pelosi would be Majority leader in the HOuse, Harry Reid, Majority Leader in the Senate, or Hillary or Kerry as President?
Please, just keep that above described picture in your head, and surely you can't truly think staying home is the best answer.....
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.