Posted on 11/09/2006 9:24:01 PM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- Now that voters have rejected one-party rule in Washington, can a president of one party and a Congress led by the other play nicely enough to accomplish anything in the next two years?
It's been done in the past.
Still, President Bush and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will have to put aside at least some of their pre-election rancor and suppress any desire to get even.
For his part, Bush tried to move past the bitter tone of the campaign within hours of its end by granting a top demand of the Democrats: the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. And he invited newly empowered Democratic leaders to lunch at the White House — serving Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi her favorite food, chocolate.
For her part, Pelosi stopped calling Bush incompetent and dangerous. Instead, she made a point of deeming the lunch lovely and speaking of "some areas" where bipartisanship was possible.
Yet to be seen is whether the conciliatory gestures and promises to work together can endure long enough for Congress and the president to produce laws addressing big problems and restore trust in the government.
Role models exist. So does the motivation to follow their lead as the two years before the 2008 elections tick away. Providing the opportunity: a slate of stalled legislation on immigration, Iraq and terrorism that voters named as important in exit polls this week.
Bush and Congress might follow the lead of President Eisenhower and the new Democratic majority of 1954, which established the Interstate highway system less than two years later.
They can look to President Nixon, who signed into law major environmental initiatives — the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency — negotiated with Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
They haven't done anything in the previous 2 years why should we start now and give the dems credit?
Now that voters have rejected one-party rule in Washington, can a president of one party and a Congress led by the other play nicely enough to accomplish anything in the next two years?
I HOPE NOT!
Well Laurie, it might not need be inevitable for Bush but it sure as hell needs to be inevitable for those of us who care about this country.
For her part, Pelosi stopped calling Bush incompetent and dangerous. Instead, she made a point of deeming the lunch lovely and speaking of "some areas" where bipartisanship was possible.
Hmm, I think I'd rather have a plate of gridlock myself.
VETO! VETO! VETO!
Xacly.
The media wants Bush and the Dems to get together and push through the liberal agenda. They are for "gridlock" or as they call it "checks and balances" on a conservative one.
Show the dems what its like to get sandbagged and filibustered.
Some Rino? Geez he's the epitome of Rino.
W did better with the opposition controlling the Texas Legislature than he has with Republicans controlling Congress.
WAIT just a cotton picking minute. I heard that America WANTED gridlock. That they didn't want the Congress and President in agreement (conviently forgetting that the Republican Congress opposed his immigration amnesty and one of his Supreme Court nominees).
I didn't hear ANY calls for advancing the Democrats UNSTATED agenda. Where was THEIR Contract ON America?
I pointed that out on another thread. While Governor he was pretty good as scraping off conservative/moderate Democrat support. Without question, on paper the Democrat Party moved to the center. If these folks want to keep their job, they dare not swerve too far left. This could end up being an interesting two years.
The Congress that governs least governs best.
GRIDLOCK is GOOD
GRIDLOCK is your friend.
Especially with the Pelosipussy sitting in the speaker's chair.
Can you imagine the look on her face when Bush gives the State of the Union next January? She's going to have to sit up here next to Cheney and SMILE. Gee ... her face will crack and the hypocrisy in the House will be utterly atrocious.
"Bush and Congress might follow the lead of President Eisenhower and the new Democratic majority of 1954, which established the Interstate highway system less than two years later."
Bush better bury Pelosi under that interstate!
Overhauling immigration policy to bestow legal status on some of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.
Hmmm...note that now it is "bestow legal status", which the very definition of amnesty. No more "earning", no more fines. Amnesty steps out in plain day, casts aside its cover and disguises and GWB rushes to its embrace.
Ditto that! Gridlock is our best hope.
No one has yet picked up on the Torie plan, most favored nation drug pricing scheme. Shocking really. Is that public square really that dysfunctional? Of course.
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.