Posted on 04/01/2002 10:25:56 AM PST by xsysmgr
It surprised only the most verdant rookie that the passage of the new campaign-finance law already has failed to control runaway fund raising and has provided both loopholes and excuses for increased solicitations. When the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) had sent an e-mail request to donors asking them to double their contributions to meet fund-raising goals, only the jaws of the booboisie dropped. Nor did the eyes of the sophisticated widen when President George W. Bush took the opportunity personally to draw the attention of contributors to Republican senatorial candidates.
Indeed, shortly after Bush put pen to paper (and flight to a campaign promise to block provisions included in the legislation) the two chief opponents of the bill, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the National Rifle Association filed lawsuits challenging the measure in federal court. Heading the team will be former solicitor general and Clinton nemesis Ken Starr and Floyd Abrams, best known for representing the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case.
As important but garnering less attention is another case heading toward those marbled hallways. At issue is whether labor unions compelling nonunion workers to pay union dues as a condition of employment may use such funds for "organizing costs" unrelated to collective bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided it was permissible, and this week an 11-judge panel agreed. In a March 25 en banc ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that "a union serving as a bargaining unit's exclusive bargaining representative is permitted to charge all employees, including nonmembers, the costs involved in organizing employees."
This unanimous ruling overturned the court's own May 2001 unanimous finding that the NLRB had overstepped its bounds and run afoul of Supreme Court precedent. "We hope the administration, which was very pro right-to-work during the campaign, will match their rhetoric with action. But we plan to go ahead with the appeal regardless," says Dan Cronin, director of legal information for the National Right to Work Foundation.
While Bush raised questions within his conservative base by signing campaign-finance reform into law, the political ramifications are not likely to be great and the Supreme Court is expected to strike down the more onerous provisions restricting free speech. The trickier consequences involve the breaking of his promise. Gambling with the loyalty of your political base by breaking a hard and fast commitment is risky business, as the president's father discovered when he agreed to raise taxes after promising not to do so.
And it is not just campaign-finance reform but also free trade where Bush's word is at issue. On tour in Latin America and on the campaign trail, the president restated his call on "the Senate" (and its Democratic leadership) to pass trade-promotion authority (TPA) and move forward with plans for expanding the free-trade zone throughout the hemisphere. Meanwhile, Europe's bark had escalated to a bite on March 27 when the European Union (EU) announced its intention to take action in the wake of the president's March 5 decision to impose 30 percent tariffs on imported steel.
The president's imposition of a tariff to protect U.S. steelmakers after all he has been saying about free trade was not missed by conservatives and those who attribute the industry's problems to incompetent management rather than foreign dumping. Then came the profiteering. According to the Wall Street Journal the U.S. Steel Corp., largest of the U.S. steelmakers, promptly announced it would be increasing hot- and cold-rolled steel prices, taking advantage of the announced tariff weeks before the measure takes effect. Some U.S. steel companies even have moved to renege on deals made before the tariffs were imposed.
Animosity across the pond at the tariff may be as easily dismissed as the French military, but the real-world consequences of Europe's displeasure could be painful if matters escalate. On March 27, European Commission President Romano Prodi cautioned Bush that the EU would not let "someone else dictate our agenda." Prodi made his comments in announcing the EU's decision to adopt "safeguard measures" on steel in response to the administration's refusal to reconsider tariffs. The EU tariffs of up to 25 percent on 15 types of foreign steel will remain in place for six months while an investigation of the effects of the Bush assault on free trade is conducted.
In its explanation of the retaliatory measures, the commission insisted "that under no circumstances will the EU measures last a day longer than those of the Americans." And on the same day, China followed the lead of South Korea, the EU and Japan in filing formal complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The chief danger for Bush lies in the EU's threat to go after individual U.S. products, including paper, rice, guns, textiles, fruit juices and citrus fruits. The choice of products important to Florida, Michigan and the South was not missed by Europeans who are aware they are key battleground states.
If matters worsen, states heavily reliant on trade — such as Louisiana and Florida — could be hit particularly hard, with only the steelworkers a net electoral plus for Bush. Another sign the administration will have to navigate the trade waters carefully was a March 28 letter sent to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a free-trader and ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. Grassley wrote to address his "serious concern over reports that the administration may weaken important investment protections" in pursuit of further trade negotiations. He urged Zoellick "not to go beyond the careful balance established by the Congress."
Griping is rising gently as Bush's poll numbers gently slide and congressional contests appear to be heading for a dead heat. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll of 865 registered voters conducted March 22-24 found the nation evenly split, with 46 percent saying they would vote Republican for Congress and an equal number ready to pull the Democrat lever. Only 8 percent of respondents had no opinion or said neither.
The poll reflects the findings of an Ipsos-Reid survey conducted March 14-17 but that bears a dimmer note for Republicans. In January and early February the GOP, which normally trails Democrats in generic voting polls, held a 5-7 percent lead (46 percent) over Democrats. In the latest survey of registered voters, Democrats had pulled ahead with a 42-41 percent advantage. Thirteen percent volunteered a "neither" response.
The slight dip mirrors a decline in Bush's re-election numbers in the March 14-17 Ipsos-Reid poll. The results showed 53 percent "definitely" voting to re-elect Bush (down from a high of 56 percent in January) and 22 percent "definitely" not voting for Bush (up from 15 percent in January).
Preventing outspoken criticism (for now) is the continued support for the war on terrorism and the preoccupation of Americans, conservative and otherwise, with the war. In releasing data from a recent poll, Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, noted that "events of Sept. 11 have affected public opinion more dramatically than any event since World War II." While admitting it is "hard to say what the outlook is for November," Kohut told an audience at the Brookings Institution that he did not see Bush's high approval ratings resulting "in a dramatic change in congressional voting tensions," though "forecasting by historical measures has been on hard times pre-9/11 and, post-9/11, it's even going to be more difficult."
Speaking on the Brookings panel, Washington Post columnist David Broder said he believes Americans are moving "toward a normal political environment where domestic concerns, parochial concerns," are at the top of voter priorities. With defense and homeland security taken off the table, education and prescription drugs move to the top of the list. Or do they? "What is the bill that has spurred the most grass-roots activism? Immigration," said neoconservative Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. The onetime aide to former vice president Dan Quayle contends voters did not change their minds about Mexican immigrants but "were worried that a loosening of immigration in general and an amnesty in general would sweep in potential terrorists."
Underscoring the doggedness of the continuing battle for the Hispanic vote was the Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address. As the president continued his trip through Latin America, Antonio Villaraigosa, speaker emeritus of the California Assembly, used the Democratic radio response to boast about how "Hispanic-friendly" his party is and to attack the president as a panderer. "Republicans are desperately — but unsuccessfully — seeking Hispanic support. The president's trip this weekend to Latin America is part of an orchestrated strategy to curry favor with Latino voters in the United States," said Villaraigosa, as his own party readied itself to cripple the Bush judicial nomination of Miguel Estrada for being too conservative.
Villaraigosa criticized Bush for giving "vague assurances on the issue of immigration" and for not supporting the Democrats' plan to "allow hardworking, tax-paying, law-abiding immigrants to emerge from society's shadows and enter the American mainstream." Speaking of vague, was he talking about "hardworking, tax-paying, law-abiding," but illegal immigrants being given amnesty? And would all immigrants get amnesty, or just those from south of the border? Clearly, immigration will be an issue in the upcoming elections and when Congress returns from its recess, but both parties would do well to remember that politics is a very unpredictable game in the haze and fog of war.
Jennifer G. Hickey is a reporter for Insight magazine.
He can win us back by not reauthorizing the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
The conservative base is tough to please, since most conservatives have strongly-held beliefs which cause that commitment to an ideology. For me, this immigration issue could put me over the edge. It's good that this article brings out the contradiction...how can an illegal alien be referred to as a "law abiding citizen", since his/her being here is a violation of the law?
I think GWB is trying too hard to win over voters that aren't going to vote for him anyway. He should just go with his beliefs and not play cute political games.
Unfortunately, when it comes to amnesty for illegals and open borders I think GWB is going with his beliefs.
More than that, I hope he awakened his base to what else he's done in the last year, particularly his enforcement of School-To-Work. The National Socialist "USA Freedom Korps" would have had conservatives marching in the streets had Clinton proposed it. His work for "Faith-Based Inititiatives" (i.e. "Federalization of Churches") should have conservatives screaming. So, I hope conservatives pay more attention to how he's centralizing the monitoring and manipulation of the American people. And I bet that the Wet-Panty Brigade will show up momentarily to tell us to ignore all this, since he has such dreeeaaamy eyes, and isn't it cute how he spanks Laura's *ss? I mean, Gosh!
Then it will cost the Republicans votes.
You're just jealous that the only thing you can get wet is your hound.
Today's announcement that the Palestinians were somehow "not" terrorists was another example of his wishy-washy-ness.
Talk to a half-dozen political analysts, get a half-dozen different results. Donald Lambro's commentary at the above URL has a different perspective on the same moves Bush is making.
Which analysis should we believe?
Bush never said he would not sign a CFR bill. Never! He was very slippery on the issue. Bush never said "NO NEW CFR' and the author damn well knows it.
The truth is the Conservative base as they like to call it is very very small. It is roughly 5 times the number of people that post on FR. It is a far smaller number than the so called Liberal base. The Liberal base goes off for Naders, Green parties and Socialists of various stripes. The Conservative base goes off for every charleton that hits the streets preaching constitutional panacias. They fall in love with people like Larry Klayman, Alan Keyes, and Pat Buchanan. They send them money and can't wait for a new one to come along to extract their money. The base has never elected anyone and they have never defeated anyone, they do have Sucker tatooed in foot high letters on their chest.
No president has ever had much of a impact unless he can get a working control of the Senate or con the senate into giving him what he wants. Reagan got the Democrats to give him his economic plan because they were sure it would fail. When Reaganomics did not fail, he never got anything else through congress. From 1982 to 1988, Reagan got zip. His Budgets were DOA and taxes were increased.
The only presidents to make an impact in the last 100 years were FDR, LBJ, Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy did really well with both parties. He was nearly as leftist as FDR and used Republican loyalty and Democrat support to get leftist bills passed.
FDR used the Depression and WWII to control the Senate. He too used conservative Democrats loyalty to the party to get leftist measures passed. LBJ used the Death of Kennedy and debacle of Goldwater to get what he wanted. LBJ had total control of the Senate. The bills LBJ got passed proved it. He changed this nation in a very large way. Reagan was given his economic policies because the Democrats thought they could beat him when they failed. NO democrat will do that again. They will fight Dubya every way they can .... Far more than the Republicans fought Clinton.
If all Bush tried to do was please the right, he would have no hope of getting control of the senate or changing didley. FDR campaigned on a Balanced Budget and reduced government spending to get elected. But once he had control he changed this nation.
Only the right would scream that "If Dubya tries stuff that might work.. I will support Keyes."Bush could very well make the right wing nuts very happy. He could get relected easily and change nothing. He could be a moral Bill Clinton. Most of the people on this site would love him... just like they loved Goldwater's failure.
But any man that wants to truely change the direction of the nation has to get 60 votes in the Senate. To do that his senate candidates have to get 60 percent of the votes in the senate races. To get that margin to effect control the Republican Senate candidates have to get 10 percent of the voters to the left of the political center.
Fools argue that you can convince the people to the left of center to vote for candidates to the right of center by making the case for conservative causes. They are convinced that if the people on the left just knew the truth they would vote for the right. You can get inversee argument from lots of Democrats. They say if the right just understood what the left was all about, they would never vote for a right wing candidate again. Both sides think they can convince the other. It can not be done.
What can be done is to use a centerist approach to get the 60 votes in the Senate. Then he can use that clout to claim his mandate to enact his adgenda. But he has to have 60 votes. There is ZERO way the right can give him sixty votes. LBJ won in 1964 by painting Goldwater as the pro war candidate and himself as the peace candidate. He got more than 60 votes in the senate. LBJ turned out to be the war President in spades. It is perception.. I said perception I mean it is perception that counts.
If you think this nation was shaped and formed by honest upfront people with principles you are a couple of patty cakes shy of a baker man. Winners all mislead. That is what it takes to win.
I would remind you of famous Lincoln ploy of 1860. The media was all bent out of shape over candidates that made "deals" for votes. They would trade jobs and government contracts after elections for support to get elected.
Lincoln called all the press in to witness a meeting with his staff. Over and over he told his staff, "Do not make any "Deals" in my name." The press reported that Lincoln was truely HONEST ABE who would not let deals be made in his name...
After the press left Lincoln's campaign mamager asked Lincoln how he could expect to win the nomination for him if he could not make any "Deals." Lincoln told his manager, "I didn't say not to make any deals. "I said don't make them in my name."
You think that is Clinton-esque?? NAH that is Lincoln-esqe.
If I recall correctly, you're 18 and a lab rat in a government school. My condolences. Have you read the Constitution lately?
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.